Energy xxx (2017) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production

M. Florentina Abreu, Anabela C. Alves*, Francisco Moreira
~es, Portugal
Centro ALGORITMI, Department of Production and Systems, University of Minho, Guimara

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

Article history: Lean-Green is a concept that associates value aggregation and efficiency in operational and environ-
Received 15 October 2016 mental terms. This concept arises as a corollary effect of companies’ challenges for rethinking their goals
Received in revised form and strategies in order to add more value while contributing to social equity and prevent environmental
8 February 2017
burdens. The eco-efficiency concept translates the idea of “creating more with less”, in order to reduce
Accepted 2 April 2017
ecological impacts and resource intensity. Lean is a strategy that encompasses a wide variety of man-
Available online xxx
agement practices, in an integrated system, to streamline business processes, minimize waste and
improve financial performance. When Lean and Green are associated in the so called Lean-Green link,
Keywords:
Lean production
many of those savings also result in environmental benefits. This paper reports the ongoing effort to
Lean-Green provide models for the Lean-Green integration. A comparative analysis of the few models identified is
Eco-efficiency provided, and the most frequently used KPI acknowledged. Findings show the existence of a limited
Sustainability number of Lean-Green models, published from 2012, denoting a narrow breadth of dissemination. The
fundamental goal of Lean-Green models was mostly found to be related to improve the systems pro-
ductivity while reducing the environmental impacts. Integrate Lean-Green initiatives constitute a valu-
able approach to sustain and endure a greener industrial activity.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, for a company to remain competitive and thrive on
the long run, it has to focus on an enduring quest for providing
value for its customers. This is achieved by doing timely deliveries
of products and services, at the right price, that are truly beneficial
and do not embody environmental burdens. Some fundamental
pre-conditions to achieve that are the use of effective strategies and
operations, enabled by energy and other resources savings ratio-
nale, adequate technology, human capabilities and an effective
organizational setting.
Lean Production is recognized for its persistent goal of banishing
waste from the industrial shop floors and service providers. Lean
organizational model is rooted on the Toyota Production System,
from the Toyota Motor Company, which, under highly restrained
circumstances, was able to provide an approach that enabled the
company to remain competitive and even thrive on the automobile
highly competitive marketplace [1]. Some innovative thinking
pushed forward the provision of solutions, which returned more
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: florentinaabreu@netcabo.pt (M.F. Abreu), anabela@dps.
uminho.pt (A.C. Alves), fmoreira@dps.uminho.pt (F. Moreira).
value in more effective ways, i.e. by using less human effort, time
and inventories, less energy, fewer resources and less residues.
Present day challenges, however, require not only highly produc-
tive and responsive production systems, but also eco-efficient ones,
i.e. systems that provide more value with lower environmental
impacts. Both concepts are concerned on minimizing all sorts of
waste, on all its shapes and appearances, including the most hard to
deal with, i.e. the invisible ones. This must be achieved without
raising the production costs, with no hidden external environ-
mental consequences in the short and on the long run, so that
sustainability is genuinely pursued and truly accomplished [2].
Uncovering the synergetic relationship among the Lean and Eco-
efficiency approaches, normally, called Lean-Green [3], is there-
fore an imperious endeavour.
The literature is rich in publications on Lean, sustainability and
eco-efficiency, but still there is a research gap on the literature on
the Lean-Green synergy, as highlighted by Alves et al. [4]. In this
publication the authors conducted a systematic literature review
on 83 papers, over the 2001e2015 time-frame, whose main results
revealed that the Lean-Green link was not explicitly recognized by
most papers. Overall, only a small percentage (7%) of them reports a
relation among Lean, eco-efficiency and sustainability. Others
similar researches could be found but addressing others concerns,
not explicitly the Lean-Green link [5,6] or considering other related

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
2 M.F. Abreu et al. / Energy xxx (2017) 1e8
techniques [7] [8] [9]. The corollary effect of the above is that few
researchers study this link and develop suitable models. Even a
special volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production devoted to
examining the interrelationships among lean, green, and sustain-
ability, encompassed only nine papers, from the 43 identified to
contain models, frameworks and methodologies [10]. It is common
to find companies concerned with wastes reduction without taking
into consideration all the benefits that a Lean-Green approach
could bring. For example, when a company is interested in reducing
transports, considered by Ohno [11] one of the seven wastes, it
reduces energy consumption, that is an environmental waste [12].
All production wastes are causes of weak environmental perfor-
mance [13], thereby reducing these wastes puts the companies in
the eco-efficient pathway, but it seems that, most of the time, they
are unaware of that. This motivates the authors to research this
issue.
Attending to the above mentioned motivation, this paper in-
tends to present and compare different models for the Lean-Green
integration. This comparison allows estimating the levels of
acceptance of the Lean-Green concept, to identify the most used
performance indicators, to identify the level of applicability to real
contexts and reveal its benefits. The study is based on a systematic
literature review that the authors previously conducted, that was
published in Alves et al. [4]. For the purpose of the current paper
the authors selected and analysed the papers that presented
models and/or frameworks. This selection returned 27 models that
were analysed in detail aiming at identifying the ones that could be
considered a Lean-Green model.
The paper is structured in five sections. After a brief introduc-
tion, section two provides the study background, namely the con-
cepts of Lean, Eco-efficiency and Lean-Green. Section 3 explains the
research methodology, and the fourth one presents the results,
accrued from the analysis and classification of the 27 models,
comparison of five models selected and highlighting the main
findings, in terms of the most used performance indicators, benefits
and applicability of the models. In the last section some conclusions
are drawn.
2. Background
This section presents some concepts on the Lean Production
methodology, the Eco-efficiency concept, and the Lean-Green
model which integrates them both.
2.1. Lean production
Lean production is a shop floor-related management method-
ology, stirred on the works of Taiichi Ohno, Shigeo Shingo, and
other Toyota Motor Company officials, that devised and perfected
the Toyota Production System (TPS) in the post Second World War
period [14] [11], which, in itself, imposed a number of particularly
demanding challenges on the Japanese economy. The Lean meth-
odology became a successful approach, and even a reference, for
shop floor improvement, and has been spreading globally and
across many sectors of economic activity thereafter. The TPS tried to
perform well in what mass production excelled, i.e. the smallest use
of resources to actually make things, while enabling for greater
production flexibility along with quality assurance and timely de-
liveries [1]. The success of the TPS was studied and its features
described in a number of MIT based research work, that dissemi-
nated the concept and became the groundwork for many more
publications [15].
Toyota engineers designed the TPS so that fewer and fewer re-
sources would be required for delivering the right products at the
right time at the shortest timeframes possible, by eliminating all
Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
types of wastes, therefore requiring less human effort, fewer in-
ventories and facilities space. Ohno [11] considered wastes all of
activities that do not add value to the products and classified them
in seven categories: 1) overproduction; 2) over processing; 3)
transportation; 4) defects; 5) motion; 6) inventory and 7) waiting.
An extra waste, i.e. untapped human potential, was later on iden-
tified [16].
According to Womack and Jones [17] Lean holds five principles:
1) Value; 2) Value Stream; 3) Flow; 4) Pull production and 5) Pur-
suit of Perfection. These principles are cyclical, and the later gives
the mote for a new cycle of continuous improvement, also known
as kaizen. This is enabled by people seriously committed with Lean
and always unsatisfied with the status-quo. They become thinkers
[18]. However, even the best results achieved by Lean companies all
over the world have not convinced the most skeptical. For instance,
Cowger [19] wonders in a short paper in the Mechanical Engi-
neering Magazine: “What’s taking so long?”, meaning that is taking
ages for manufacturers to implement Lean (namely SME enter-
prises), while attributing this lack of sense of urgency, and even
skepticism, to confusing definitions of Lean, too much information
and lack of human resources, time and money to adopt Lean ini-
tiatives. Nevertheless, it seems only a matter of time for a larger
adoption of Lean, with so many studies and reports pointing out the
benefits of Lean and advocating that Lean implementation is a
major enabler for moving manufacturing operations from overseas
and remain competitive [20].
2.2. Eco-efficiency
The Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD)
defined eco-efficiency as: “The delivery of competitively priced
goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of
life, while progressively reducing ecological impact and resource
intensity throughout the life cycle, to a level at least in line with the
Earth’s estimated carrying capacity.” [21]. This concept was intro-
duced by Stephan Schmidheiny and the BCSD in the 1990s and was
intended to foster a new kind of development, the sustainable
development, which wants to contribute truly to a better world,
including to human and nature well-being. The Eco-efficiency
concept, along with other similar and dissimilar ones, represent
an active set of assets that can be used to deal with the most fierce
consequences of a number of pressing challenges of contemporary
societies, namely the depravation of ecosystems and of the atmo-
sphere, and of the respective provision of fundamental services
(e.g. freshwater, fertile soil, adequate climate for human settings,
etc.).
The eco-efficiency concept is grounded on the safeguarding of
nature by providing conservation on its resources, namely with
[22]: a) reduction on materials intensity b) reduction on energy
intensity; c) reduction on the quantity and level of toxicity of
substances; d) promotion of closed cycles and use of meaningful
end-of-life strategies; e) promotion of renewables, abundant and
local resources; f) improvement of the durability of the products; g)
intensifying the use of services.
Providing more value with less impact requires innovation ef-
forts, both at the product and production processes, and a distinct
perspective on the assessment of products’ environmental perfor-
mance. Since, the worst impacts of products may dwell on any stage
of the full lifecycle, a system strategy is highly advised to avoid
unintended armful relocations among lifecycle stages, and simul-
taneously, to identify gains opportunities, which would be hard to
devise otherwise. A continuous improvement process may be used
to achieve successive marginal gains, along with more substantial
gains, normally achieved by way of radical innovation, which may
include as well, green logistics and alternative ownership models,
 M.F. Abreu et al. / Energy xxx (2017) 1e8
among others.
2.3. Lean-Green model
A common terminology akin to the Eco-Efficiency concept and
efforts, include Green (Production), Cleaner Production, Industrial
Ecology, Cradle-to-Grave; Cradle-to-Cradle, Design for the Envi-
ronment, among others, which may be focused on specific aspects
(e.g. design stage) or hold wider perspectives (e.g. full life cycles).
The Green Cleaner Production Programme (CP) was launch in 1989
by the UNEP/UNIDO (UN Environment Programme and UN Indus-
trial Development Organization, respectively), aiming “the
continuous application of an integrated preventive environmental
strategy applied to processes, products and services to reduce risks
to humans and the environment” [23]. The UNEP and the WBCSD
recognize the important contributions of Cleaner Production and of
the Eco-Efficiency to promote and reinforce the sustainability trend
[24]. The term Green (Production) widely encapsulates the intents
and rationale beyond the above presented concepts.
The Lean-Green link, i.e. the link between Lean Manufacturing
and Green (Production) was investigated and its nature studied
from the 1990s onwards [3,25e27]. Although Lean was not
particularly thoughtful, and developed, to tackle sustainability is-
sues [28,29], some authors have unveiled that their principles and
practices brought about a number of benefits that could be put
under the umbrella of Green [30e32], while some reservations
remained on the environmental implications of enabling shorter
inventories by providing more frequent trips for JIT deliveries.
The Lean approach, specifically designed to convey the products
the consumers want, at the right pace and price, could uninten-
tionally cope with the Green constraints? Could it eventually be
reengineered to mesh with the Green DNA? Some authors consider
that since Lean puts an emphasis on adding value to its operations,
grounded on a culture of successive removal of all forms of waste, it
fits well with the ancestral principle that within nature nothing is
lost, all is transformed, that is, the concept of waste does not exist.
Therefore, a Lean-Green approach may provide just the right
framework for delivering cleaner and valuable products with the
right processes.
Many organizations are akin with the need to integrate syner-
gistically Lean-Green concepts. For example, U.S. EPA has been
doing a lot of work to relate Lean with the environment. Among the
many toolkits designed by them, is the “The Lean and Environment
Toolkit” [33] where they define the environmental waste, i.e., an
unnecessary or excess use of resources or a substance released to
the air, water, or land that could harm human health or the envi-
ronment, and demonstrate that Lean tools can be applied to reduce
environmental wastes. Environmental wastes can occur when
companies use resources to provide products or services to cus-
tomers, and/or when customers use and dispose products. Some
initiatives to reduce them are in progress, examples from textile
and Clothing could be seen in Maia et al. [34]. Surprisingly, reports
like “Vision 2050 - The New agenda for business” [35], completely
omit Lean.
3. Research methodology
A systematic literature review on the Lean-Green link was
previously conducted by Alves et al. [4] whose purpose was to
study the relationship between the Lean and the Sustainability
concepts. The main research question was “Does research on Sus-
tainability, in the field of Production and Operations Management,
exhibits a link to that of Lean and/or Eco-efficiency concepts?”. This
provided the current state of research relating this subject and
identified a positive correlation among the concepts, requiring
Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
3
further reinforcements. The new contributions of the present paper
are: 1) expand the literature review; 2) highlight the different
models for the Lean-Green integration; and 3) compare and analyse
them, by showing its relevant features. The main research ques-
tions considered in this study are:
- What models/frameworks exist for Lean-Green integration?
- What are the accepted designations for such models/
frameworks?
- What kind of models and indicators are used?
- What are the reported benefits of such models/frameworks?
- Are the models/frameworks being applied? E.g. to case studies?
The literature review was conducted considering search strings
in the following electronic databases: ISI Web of Knowledge, Sco-
pus, Elsevier (Science Direct), Wiley Online Library (Wiley), Taylor
& Francis, Springer and Emerald Insight, over the 2001e2015
timeframe period, within the field of Production and Operations
Management. In this period, 83 papers satisfied the search condi-
tions and were subsequently analysed.
A new search in 2016, following the same strings returned two
more papers. From the 85 papers selected, only 27 of which pre-
sented models or frameworks that were subject to further study.
Five of them were found to specifically deliver Lean-Green models.
4. Results
For the purpose of analysis and synthesis of the models found on
the selected papers, an excel table was built to identify and sum-
marize the relevant features of the models. A filter was used on this
excel table to select only the papers that included the word “model”
or “framework”, on the field “type of the paper”, classified by the
authors as: literature review, case study, theoretical model, math-
ematical, simulation, framework, methodology, among others. The
application of this filter returned 27 papers, which were subse-
quently analysed in order to eliminate any other distinct ap-
proaches or frameworks.
4.1. Analysis and classification of the models
It was difficult to distinguish what the authors of the reviewed
papers were proposing, i.e. if a model to integrate Lean and Green,
or just a model to assess the quantification of consumptions or eco-
efficiency improvements. Sometimes, they are just put under the
same umbrella of models, frameworks and methodologies [10].
Nevertheless, attending to the concept of Lean-Green, explained in
section 2.3, several models, among the ones reviewed, did not seem
to qualify (in our opinion) to embed the Lean-Green concept,
because they seemed to have been considered in isolation, i.e. not
in a unified approach. Additionally, they seemed more simulation
or mathematical oriented models, as explained below.
Model based-simulation are provided by five papers: Paju et al.
[36], Diaz-Elsayed et al. [37], Greinacher et al. [38], Kruse et al. [39]
and Sproedt et al. [40]. Paju [36] uses a methodology based on
Value Stream mapping (VSM), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and
Discrete Event Simulation (DES) to model the current and future
state process maps based on a set of sustainability manufacturing
parameters including energy, materials among others. Diaz-Elsayed
[37] describes an assessment methodology of lean and green
strategies by simulating manufacturing systems. Kruse et al. [39]
presented a simulation-based framework to quantify the energy
consumption and costs allocated to each cause in the
manufacturing system. Also, Greinacher et al. [38] developed a
specific product simulation based assessment approach, for lean
and green assessment of manufacturing systems in discrete
4 M.F. Abreu et al. / Energy xxx (2017) 1e8
production environments. Additionally, there are authors that
presented a mixed model such as the model of Sproedt et al. [40]
that also developed a simulation-based model that supports a
decision-making system. This model is more focused on the eco-
efficiency concept and intends to assess eco-efficiency improve-
ments in production systems. This includes, among other modules,
a resource editor that features an interface to the Ecoinvent Life
Cycle Inventory (LCI) database, through which every defined
container- or sub-resource can be directly linked to the corre-
sponding elementary flows or unit processes within the database.
Maths-based models, mainly decision-making approaches, are
discussed in two papers: Wong & Wong [41] and Gupta et al. [42].
The first developed a management system that they called “lean-
ecosphere” by using interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and
analytical network process (ANP). The second one is also based in a
similar technique, the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to
compare and assess different sustainable manufacturing practices,
including in lean practices and green supply chain, among others.
The others models found in the remaining papers, 20, were
classified as just theoretical and theoretical & mathematical.
Fourteen pertain to the first category ([43e56]), and the remaining
six pertain to the second one [57e62]. To give more detailed ex-
amples of what authors are proposing, the framework proposed by
Verrier et al. [53] called “… a framework for Lean and Green
management”, which includes Lean indicators, Green performance
indicators and Green intentions indicators, is a benchmarking re-
pository. The authors used it to benchmark the Lean and Green
practices of a consortium of companies in order to target the best in
class and the associated best practices. From the second category,
the example is the work from Bre chet & Ly [58]. They proposed a
theoretical mathematical model to evaluate the effects of techno-
logical greening on value creation, pollution level, and eco-
efficiency. The authors alert for what they called “The many traps
of green technology promotion” because, sometimes a technolog-
ical greening may raise conflicting effects (e.g., reduces the pollu-
tion but also reduces the profits) that are not systematically
detected by the eco-efficiency indicator. This could serve as an
evidence of a deep need for an integrated Lean-Green model.
After this analysis, only five papers were considered to present
Lean-Green related models. The five models were compared
relating its features, which included key performance indicators
(KPI) and key performance and environmental indicators (KPEI),
reported benefits, and eventual application to real cases, etc. The
following sections present the analysis made and the identified
models.
4.2. Identification and comparison of the Lean-Green related
models
From the 27 papers selected, five models were identified. These
models are presented in Table A.1, which highlights the reference
and year of the publication, model type, performance indicators,
main benefits and its eventual application to a case study. The
comparisons among the models are expanded in the following
sections.
The five models presented in Table A.1 relate to Lean-Green (L-
G) models. Only two models are coined Lean-Green, namely the
ones put forward by Pampanelli et al. [51] and Verrier et al. [56].
The remaining three are not directly labelled Lean-Green models.
The one from Alves & Alves [55] was not applied to a real case
situation.
The paper from Pampanelli et al. [51] was explicitly coined “Lean
& Green Model” and was applied to a production cell. This paper
adopts a Kaizen approach to improve mass and energy flows in
manufacturing environments, which already possess the necessary
Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
deployment level to apply Lean Thinking, i.e. the manufacturing
operations have to be stable, and Lean has to be well settled within
the plant. The paper presents a Lean-Green approach which pro-
motes the environment and the reduction of wastes within the
shopfloor.
Verrier et al. [56] developed a Lean and Green House, identifying
best-practices that should be implemented to manage a company’s
Lean and Green performance, either at the organizational or at the
operational levels. These practices and tools are linked to each
other and are based on the studied correlations between Lean and
Green wastes. This House has foundations on three pillars: Lean,
human force and Green. The Green wastes should be minimized
through the elimination of the corresponding Lean wastes, and the
later, in turn, through the application of the appropriate Lean tools.
The authors also present a Lean and Green maturity model, based
on the five stages Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI),
for improving and assessing the deployment maturity of a project
or an organization.
The model of Azevedo et al. [45], extends the concept of Supply
Chain Management (SCM). The authors developed a theoretical
framework to support the study of relationships between green and
lean upstream SCM practices and sustainable development within
businesses. In spite of not tagging it a Lean-Green model, they
presented a model that integrates Lean and Green practices. These
practices can be used to reduce the global warming and carbon
footprint and, at the same time, to remain competitive in the
marketplace.
Aguado et al. [47] developed a model for efficient and sustain-
able improvement in a lean production system through processes
of environmental innovation and defined the adequate tools for
implementing this model. They also wanted to demonstrate that
the environmental innovation and transformation of a production
system into a lean system brings economic, environmental and
social benefits. They started by developing a pull methodology
(based on customer needs, as Lean principles demands) that re-
marks on the common aspects of a sustainable and efficient
approach and then developed a model that explores the synergies
between a sustainable production approach and an efficient
approach. This model seems extremely practical and aligned with
lean initiatives.
Alves & Alves [55] designated their model “Integrated System of
Management (ISMA)” and described it as a production manage-
ment model integrating the principles of lean manufacturing and
sustainability supported by the cultural transformation of a com-
pany. They developed a methodology to implement the model
using five stages, starting with the diagnosis stage and ending on
the share of the knowledge and continuous improvement. To
achieve this, the authors appeal to the engagement of employees at
all levels.
These five models reported gains through initiatives that reduce
both the wastes and the use of natural resources and, at the same
time, reported improvements in productivity.
4.2.1. Most used performance indicators
The models presented on Table A.1 share some common per-
formance indicators. These are detailed on Table A.2. This table
highlights the reference number and year of the publication along
with the corresponding performance indicators identified in each
one of the models. These indicators were revealed during the
description of each model, as found on the respective reference
sources, such as operational indicators, e.g. related with time (e.g.
lead times) or economic, e.g. related with costs (i.e. operational
cost, inventory cost, and environmental cost). Others, also consid-
ered social indicators, e.g. corruption risk, supplier screening, and
local suppliers; and environmental (business wastage, green image,
 M.F. Abreu et al. / Energy xxx (2017) 1e8 5

Table A.1
Models identified and their characterization.

Authors L-G Type of model KPI & KPIE Benefits Application to real
Year Model case?

Azevedo et al. [45] No Theoretical Economic; environmental; This study provides an understanding on green and lean Case study in a
2012 framework and social. upstream SCM practices potential benefits, namely, Portuguese Automaker
developing processes that promote cost and waste
minimization, at same time reducing environmental
impacts and assuring protection of social aspects.
Aguado et al. [47] No Pull methodology and EI99 and other variables Standardization and balancing of processes and job Case study in a metal
2013 model such as productivity, procedures, development of versatile and qualified workers, tube forming company
quality and cost. enhanced customer loyalty. Reduction in: delivery times;
space required; inventories; costs of noncompliance;
wastes. Enhanced flexibility, efficiency, sustainable
management and social responsibility.
Pampanelli et al. Yes Lean & Green Model Energy; water; metallic and Reduction on energy, water, chemicals and other materials. Automotive manufact.
[51] contaminated waste; oils Reduction on hazardous and greasy wastes. Reduction on operations in Brazil
2014 and chemicals; effluents. the average costs of energy and mass flows within a cell.
Less water related emissions and less use of resources.
Reduction on metals and cleaning cloths.
Alves & Alves [55] No Integrated System of Electricity and water Waste reduction and increased productivity. Reduction on e
2015 Management (ISMA) consumption; waste; the natural resources and industrial waste. Increased social
number of accidents at responsibility. Development of employees’ potential,
work and others aiming at changing attitudes, values, behaviors and
outcomes.
Verrier et al. [56] Yes Lean and Green House Lean wastes; The joint elimination of manufacturing and environmental Case study in Toyota
2016 and maturity model Green wastes; wastes (Onnaing, France and
(theoretical) Toyota-shy, Japan)

Table A.2
Performance Indicators identified.

Authors KPI & KPIE description

Year

Azevedo et al. [45]  Economic: operational cost, environmental cost, inventory cost;
2012  Environmental: business wastage, green image, CO2 emissions;
 Social: corruption risk, supplier screening, local supplier.
Aguado et al. [47]  Environmental impact (by the Eco-indicator 99 - EI99) (mPt/unit);
2013  Global warming (Kg CO2 equivalent);
 Cost (V/unit);
 Productivity (unit/worker);
 Cycle time (s);
 The fossil Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) (MJ surplus/unit).
Pampanelli et al. [51] Measure the mass-energy flows for the cell:
2014  Energy (measured in MWh/month);
 Water (measured in m3/month);
 Metallic and contaminated waste and other waste (measured in ton/month);
 Oils and chemicals (measured in m3/month);
 Effluents (measured in m3/month).
Alves & Alves [55] Interaction between lean manufacturing and sustainability measured by:
2015  Electricity consumption per unit of output (kW/unit e Kilowatt per unit);
 Water consumption per unit produced (l/unit e litres per unit);
 Waste generated in the industrial process per unit produced (kg/unit e kg per unit);
 Number of accidents at work per hour worked; among others.
Interaction between lean manufacturing and organizational culture measured by:
 Number of improvement suggestions per employee;
 Number of training hours per employee;
 Internal surveys of employee satisfaction;
 Internal surveys on the organization’s maturity regarding the concepts of lean manufacturing.
Interaction between organizational culture and sustainability measured by:
 Number of social action projects promoted by the company;
 Number of employees involved in volunteering;
 Number of people impacted by social actions promoted by the company.
4 indicators are determined in the proposed project:
 Lead time of the process;
 Generation of waste per unit produced;
 Organizational culture;
 Social responsibility.
Verrier et al [56].  Defects;
2016  Unnecessary motion;
 Space used on the shop-floor;
 Energy needed per vehicle produced;
 Industrial water self-sufficiency;
 Amount of rubbish generated;
 COV emissions from the painting process.

Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
6 M.F. Abreu et al. / Energy xxx (2017) 1e8
and CO2 emissions) performance measures [45]. According to
Azevedo et al. [45] the main goal is to increase resource efficiency,
the percentage of recycled materials, reused and remanufactured,
while maintaining a reduction on the lead time, on the inventory
levels, scrap, energy consumption and on the quantity of solid and
liquid waste.
Aguado et al. [47] considered the environmental impact as
measured by the so called Eco-indicator 99 or simply EI99 [63], that
it is a method for weighting the results of life cycle assessment,
considering the environmental burden of the product in a “Cradle-
to-grave” perspective and measuring the impacts on ecosystems
and on human health and use of resources, which can be used to
analyse the product’s life cycle (the raw materials, production,
distribution, use and recycling) by considering all of the environ-
mental aspects, hence beginning the innovation process.
Aguado et al. [47] also used the fossil Cumulative Energy De-
mand (CED) to ratify the quality of results. The CED is based on the
relationship between the use of fossil fuels and several environ-
mental impacts. The environmental impact was characterized by
categories, including the global warming potential (kg CO2 equiv-
alent) contribution and the consumption of energy (MJ) resources,
among others. These results were translated into a standardized
and comparable unit, defined as the millipoint (mPt), i.e., as the
weighting of the three impacts categories have different units,
there is a need to use a normalization step, in order to make these
damage categories dimensionless and able to be compared. These
authors used other variables such as productivity, quality and cost
to validate the progress and so, for each process the following data
was collected: space, number of workers, working hours, number of
shifts, breaks, stops, cycle time, process time, production, batch
size, scrap, rework, good pieces, ideal cycle time, preparation time
and scheduled time.
Pampanelli et al. [51] used the improvement performance
metrics: 1) energy: the use of meters for collecting all energy
consumed in a specific period of time (e.g. month). Energy bills are
used to determine the cost; 2) water: use of meters for collecting all
water consumed in a specific period of time. Water bills are used to
determine the cost; 3) metallic and contaminated waste and other
waste: that represents all types of waste produced by a cell in a
specific period of time. Waste bills are used to determine the cost;
4) oils and chemicals: a company materials system is used to access
all chemicals used by a cell in a specific period of time. Bills are used
to determine the cost; and, 5) effluents: use of meters for collecting
the effluents generated in a specific period of time. Bills are used to
determine the cost.
Alves & Alves [55], used specific indicators for categorizing lean
and sustainability performances, such as the consumption of
electricity and water per output unit, waste generated in the in-
dustrial process per unit produced and the number of accidents at
work per hour worked. Beyond these environmental indicators,
and for the interaction between lean manufacturing and organi-
zational culture, they used the following specific performance in-
dicators: number of improvement suggestions and number of
training hours per employee, internal surveys of employee satis-
faction and on the organization’s maturity regarding the concepts
of lean manufacturing. For the interaction between organizational
culture and sustainability, the authors [55] used the indicators:
number of social action projects promoted by the company, num-
ber of employees involved in volunteering and the number of
people impacted by social actions promoted by the company. Other
indicators are also referred for production system and culture:
1) Lead time of the process: comprises the time between the input
of a product into the first processing step and the output of the
finished product at the last step.
Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
2) Organizational culture: expressed in percentage (%), this is the
result of the simple average of three sub-indicators, which are
obtained by means of internal and external research: (i) internal
knowledge of the ISMA; (ii) internal customer satisfaction; and
(iii) external customer satisfaction. These surveys are conducted
periodically by means of specific questionnaires and tabulated
from 0 to 100% for each one of the questions.
3) Social responsibility: this concerns the number of people from
the surrounding community who are affected by social actions
initiated by the company.
The approach found in Alves & Alves [55] promotes the reduc-
tion on inventory, improvement of production costs and of product
quality, shorter production cycles, faster delivery to end users and
improvement of worker safety.
Verrier et al. [56] considered the Lean and Green wastes to seek
and eradicate wastes from the production processes, and explicitly
linking Lean and Green wastes. The authors identified the Green
wastes that are hidden behind the corresponding Lean wastes in a
causal link diagram. The Lean wastes considered were the ones
reported on section 2.1. The Green wastes considered were: (i)
rubbish; (ii) excessive resource usage; (iii) excessive power usage;
(iv) direct emissions into the air, soil or water; and (v) poor health
and safety. The most important Green waste identified was that of
excessive power usage, because it is potentially affected by every
Lean waste, followed by the excessive use of resources. The authors
reinforce the important role of people and social preoccupations,
namely by emphasizing that poor health and safety might directly
lead to lost people potential.
4.2.2. Benefits
Aguado et al. [47] wanted to demonstrate that the environ-
mental innovation and transformation of a production system into
a lean system can improve costs, income, social responsibility and
sustainability. Pampanelli et al. [51] achieved with their model an
increase on the manufacturing process resource productivity by
optimizing the performance of the supporting flows (i.e., material
and energy consumption and waste generation) and a reduction of
the environmental impact of the manufacturing process by
reducing all the environmental waste generated by the production.
Alves & Alves [55] model intended to achieve productivity gains
and improvements on customer satisfaction, as well as the devel-
opment of the ability to provide quick responses to market changes
in a globalised economy.
Verrier et al. [56] identified four tools that have positive effects
on all the Lean and the Green wastes and, at the same time, enhance
the employees’ involvement: Gemba Walk, Lean and Green Value
Stream Mapping, Key Performance Indicators and Visual Manage-
ment. The authors consider the respect for the workforce as a pillar
that must be associated to the Lean and Green efficiency.
4.2.3. Applicability to a real case
From the five models identified, which were previously
described, only Alves & Alves [55] did not include a case study on
their proposal, although suggesting just that as future work. The
other models include case studies, mainly to test and validate the
proposed models. For instance, Azevedo et al. [45] tested six
research prepositions in the case study. The data for the case study
was collected aiming at developing a deeper understanding on how
lean and green upstream SCM practices were deployed in the
automotive industry. Aguado et al. [47] used the case study to apply
the pull methodology, and, for every main process in the case study,
assessed a number of aspects: organization; customer satisfaction;
information management; maintenance; production; external
relationship; culture; efficiency; and sustainability, in a scale of
 M.F. Abreu et al. / Energy xxx (2017) 1e8
low; medium and high accomplishment. The case studies pre-
sented in Pampanelli et al. [51] served two purposes: 1) Pilot
testing; and, 2) Roll-out. The model was applied to several different
manufacturing cells of one manufacturing business. The authors
integrated the model with a pre-existing lean structure to validate
its potential. Verrier et al. [56] highlighted the practices from two
Toyota manufacturing companies.
5. Concluding remarks
This paper reports on five Lean-Green integration models. Three
of them, were not specifically coined Lean-Green, but indeed
integrate Lean principles and tools, along with environmental
concepts. The designation Lean-Green model was explicitly
referred in two papers. The level of acceptance of this designation
seems low, accordingly. This seems to corroborate previous find-
ings from the same authors, which in an 83 paper literature review,
found out that only 30% recognized a Lean-Green link [4]. Even so,
Lean-Green models seem to be emerging, although not explicitly
coined with one such designation.
The models studied include some common performance in-
dicators, namely operational, economic and environmental. Some
models include uncommon performance indicators, such as the
ones measuring organizational culture or social responsibility. In all
models, the ultimate goal was to improve productivity, by reducing
wastes and environmental impacts. Two of the models’ proposals,
emphasized the need for a deeper involvement of the employees
and the need for their empowerment and development to their
fullest potential, aiming at changing attitudes, values, behaviors
and outcomes.
Some models and methodologies reviewed are not available for
prompt use, or require additional concepts and knowledge. This is
not feasible for most companies, and particularly not suitable for
SMEs, which do not possess expertise, nor resources, to commit to
its implementation. So, models should be simple and built in close
proximity to companies. Also, campaigns and/or workshops to
disseminate these models must be organized. At least, three of the
models discussed, namely the ones reported in Refs. [40,51,56],
were developed in partnership with companies or in consortia,
integrated in national research projects, respectively, France and
Swiss, and in international action research projects.
A final remark to highlight that this kind of models are emerging
because there is a recognition of the synergetic relationship be-
tween Lean and Green initiatives. This demands an integrated
approach, not isolated ones. Companies do not have time, nor re-
sources, to allocate to each new independent initiative that
emerges. To conclude, it seems that Lean-Green integration is in the
beginning, since the models are just emerging and a number of
authors are working and putting them forward.
As a future work, the authors of this paper intend to develop one
such Lean-Green model and this paper is a contribution for the
construction of the base knowledge to do that.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by COMPETE: POCI-01-0145-
FEDER-007043 and FCT e Fundaça ~o para a Cie
^ncia e Tecnologia
within the Project Scope: UID/CEC/00319/2013.
References
[1] Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D. The machine that changed the world: the story
of lean production. New York: Rawson Associates; 1990.
[2] WBCSD. Eco-efficiency: creating more value with less impact. 2000. p. 32.
[3] Pojasek RB. Framing your lean-to-green effort. Environ Qual Manag 2008;18:
85e93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20198.
Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
7
[4] Alves A, Moreira F, Abreu F, Colombo C. Sustainability, lean and eco-efficiency
symbiosis. Triple helix interact. Sustain. Compet. (Innovation, technol. Knowl.
Manag.. Springer International Publishing; 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-29677-7.
[5] Martínez-Jurado PJ, Moyano-Fuentes J. Lean management, supply chain
management and sustainability: a literature review. J Clean Prod 2014;85:
134e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.042.
[6] Garza-Reyes JA. Lean and green e a systematic review of the state of the art
literature. J Clean Prod 2015;102:18e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.04.064.
[7] Cherrafi A, Elfezazi S, Chiarini A, Mokhlis A, Benhida K. The integration of lean
manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future
research directions for developing a specific model. J Clean Prod 2016;139:
828e46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101.
[8] Fercoq A, Lamouri S, Carbone V. Lean/Green integration focused on waste
reduction techniques. J Clean Prod 2016;137:567e78. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.107.
[9] Duarte S, Cruz-Machado V. Modelling lean and green: a review from business
models. Int J Lean Six Sigma 2013;4:228e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-
05-2013-0030.
[10] Dhingra R, Kress R, Upreti G. Does lean mean green? J Clean Prod 2014;85:
1e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.032.
[11] Ohno T. Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. 1978.
[12] US-EPA. The lean and environment toolkit. 2007.
[13] Moreira F, Alves AC, Sousa RM. Towards eco-efficient lean production sys-
tems, vol. 322. AICT; 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14341-0_12.
[14] Monden Y. Toyota production system - an integrated approach to just-in-
time. first ed. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Institute of In-
dustrial Engineers; 1983.
[15] Samuel D, Found P, Williams JS. How did the publication of the book the
Machine that Changed the World change management thinking? Explor 25
Years Lean Lit 2015;35(10):1386e407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02683940010305270.
[16] Liker JK. The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the World’s
greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill Education; 2004.
[17] Womack JP, Jones DT, Lean Thinking. New York: Siman & Schuster; 1996.
[18] Alves AC, Dinis-Carvalho J, Sousa RM. Lean production as promoter of thinkers
to achieve companies’ agility. Learn Organ 2012;19:219e37. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/09696471211219930.
[19] Cowger G. Half measures gets less than half results. Mech Eng Mag ASME
2016;138(131):130e5.
[20] Donofrio MN, Whitefoot KS. Making value for America: embracing the future
of manufacturing, technology, and work. In: Foundational best practices for
making value for America. National Academy of Engineering; 2015.
[21] BCSD. Getting eco-efficient: how can business contibute to sustainable
development?. In: Report of the BCSD first Antwerp eco-efficiency workshop.
Geneva: Business Council for Sustainable Development; 1993.
[22] Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS. Environmental life cycle assessment
of goods and services: an input-output approach, resources for the future.
2006.
[23] UNEP. Cleaner Production: a training resource package. first ed. 1996. http//
www.uneptie.org/shared/publications/pdf/WEBx0029xPA-CPtraining.pdf
(Accessed 20 February 2010).
[24] WBCSD/UNEP. Cleaner production and eco-efficiency: complementary ap-
proaches to sustainable development. WBSCD and UNEP edition; 1998.
[25] Maxwell J, Rothenberg S, Schenck B. Does lean mean green: the implications
of lean production for environmental management. 1993.
[26] Maxwell J, Briscoe F, Schenk B, Rothenberg S. Case study. Can lean production
practices increase environmental performance?, vol. 8. Honda of America
Manufacturing, Inc.; 1998. p. 53e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
tqem.3310080107.
[27] Larson T, Greenwood R. Perfect complements: synergies between lean pro-
duction and eco-sustainability initiatives. Environ Qual Manag 2004;13:
27e36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20013.
[28] EPA US. Lean manufacturing and the environment: research on advanced
manufacturing systems and the environment and recommendations for
leveraging better environmental performance. 2003.
[29] Moreira F, Alves AC, Sousa RM. Towards eco-efficient lean production sys-
tems. IFIP Adv Inf Commun Technol 2010;322:100e8. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-14341-0_12.
[30] Klassen RD. Just-in-Time manufacturing and pollution prevention generate
mutual benefits in the furniture industry. Interfaces 2000;30(3):95e106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.30.3.95.11655.
[31] Rothenberg S, Pil FK, Maxwell J. Lean, green, and the quest for superior
environmental performance. Prod Oper Manag 2001;10:228e43. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00372.x.
[32] Found PA. Lean and low environmental impact manufacturing. Prod Oper
Manag 2009. POMS 20th Annual Conference Orlando, FL, U.S.A. 1-4 May 2009.
[33] U.S.-EPA. The lean and environment toolkit. United States Environmental
Protection Agency; 2007. available from: http://www.epa.gov/lean/
environment/toolkits/environment/resources/LeanEnviroToolkit.pdf.
[34] Maia L, Alves AC, Lea ~o C. Sustainable work environment with lean production
in textile and clothing industry. Int J Eng Manag 2013;4:183e90.
[35] WBCSD. Vision 2050-The New agenda for business. WBCSD; 2010. http://
www.wbcsd.org/web/vision2050.htm.
8 M.F. Abreu et al. / Energy xxx (2017) 1e8
[36] Paju M, Heilala J, Hentula M, Heikkila€ A, Johansson B, Leong S, et al. Frame-
work and indicators for a sustainable manufacturing mapping methodology.
Proc - Winter Simul Conf 2010:3411e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
WSC.2010.5679031.
[37] Diaz-Elsayed N, Jondral A, Greinacher S, Dornfeld D, Lanza G. Assessment of
lean and green strategies by simulation of manufacturing systems in discrete
production environments. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 2013;62:475e8. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.066.
[38] Greinacher S, Moser E, Hermann H, Lanza G. Simulation based assessment of
lean and green strategies in manufacturing systems 2015;29:86e91. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.053.
[39] Kruse A, Butzer S, Drews T, Steinhilper R. A simulation-based framework for
improving the ecological and economic transparency in multi-variant pro-
duction. Procedia CIRP 2015;26:179e84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.procir.2014.07.101.
[40] Sproedt A, Plehn J, Scho€nsleben P, Herrmann C. A simulation-based decision
support for eco-efficiency improvements in production systems. J Clean Prod
2015;105:389e405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.082.
[41] Wong WP, Wong KY. Synergizing an ecosphere of lean for sustainable oper-
ations. J Clean Prod 2014;85:51e66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.05.093.
[42] Gupta S, Dangayach GS, Singh AK, Rao PN. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
model for evaluating sustainable manufacturing practices in indian electrical
panel industries. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 2015;189:208e16. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.216.
[43] Schaltegger S, Synnestvedt T. The link between “green” and economic success:
environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental
and economic performance. J Environ Manag 2002;65:339e46. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0555.
[44] Bleischwitz R. Cognitive and institutional perspectives of eco-efficiency. Ecol
Econ 2003;46:453e67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00186-1.
[45] Azevedo SG, Carvalho H, Duarte S, Cruz-Machado V. Influence of green and
lean upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability.
Ieee Trans Eng Manag 2012;59:753e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
tem.2012.2189108.
[46] Koskela M, Vehmas J. Defining eco-efficiency: a case study on the Finnish
forest industry. Bus Strateg Environ 2012;21:546e66. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/bse.741.
[47] Aguado S, Alvarez R, Domingo R. Model of efficient and sustainable im-
provements in a lean production system through processes of environmental
innovationvol. 47. J Clean Prod Elsevier; 2013. p. 141e8. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.048.
[48] Hajmohammad S, Vachon S, Klassen RD, Gavronski I. Lean management and
supply management: their role in green practices and performance. J Clean
Prod 2013;39:312e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.028.
[49] Bolis I, Morioka SN, Sznelwar LI. When sustainable development risks losing
its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review
and a conceptual model. J Clean Prod 2014;83:7e20. http://dx.doi.org/
Please cite this article in press as: Abreu MF, et al., Lean-Green models for eco-efficient and sustainable production, Energy (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.016
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.041.
[50] Kurdve M, Zackrisson M, Wiktorsson M, Harlin U. Lean and green integration
into production system models - experiences from Swedish industry. J Clean
Prod 2014;85:180e90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.013.
[51] Pampanelli AB, Found P, Bernardes AM. A lean & green model for a production
cell. J Clean Prod 2014;85:19e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.06.014.
[52] Rebelo M, Santos G, Silva R. Conception of a flexible integrator and lean model
for integrated management systems. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 2014;25:
683e701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.835616.
[53] Verrier B, Rose B, Caillaud E, Remita H. Combining organizational performance
with sustainable development issues: the Lean and Green project bench-
marking repository. J Clean Prod 2014;85:83e93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.12.023.
[54] Piercy N, Rich N. The relationship between lean operations and sustainable
operations. Int J Oper Prod Manag 2015;35:282e315. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/ijopm-03-2014-0143.
[55] Alves JRX, Alves JM. Production management model integrating the principles
of lean manufacturing and sustainability supported by the cultural trans-
formation of a company. Int J Prod Res 2015;53:5320e33. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00207543.2015.1033032.
[56] Verrier B, Rose B, Caillaud E. Lean and green strategy: the lean and green
house and maturity deployment model. J Clean Prod 2016;116:150e6. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.022.
[57] Yang MG, Hong P, Modi SB. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing
firms. Int J Prod Econ 2011;129:251e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijpe.2010.10.017.
[58] Bre chet T, Ly S. The many traps of green technology promotion. Environ Econ
Policy Stud 2013;15:73e91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10018-012-0035-5.
[59] Kasava NK, Yusof NM, Khademi A, Saman MZM. Sustainable domain value
Stream mapping (SdVSM) framework application in aircraft maintenance: a
case study. Procedia CIRP 2015;26:418e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.procir.2014.07.075.
[60] Kim DB, Shin S-J, Shao G, Brodsky A. A decision-guidance framework for
sustainability performance analysis of manufacturing processes. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2015;78:1455e71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-
6711-9.
[61] Vimal KEK, Vinodh S, Muralidharan R. An approach for evaluation of process
sustainability using multi-grade fuzzy method. Int J Sustain Eng 2015;8:
40e54.
[62] Vimal KEK, Vinodh S, Raja A. Modelling, assessment and deployment of
strategies for ensuring sustainable shielded metal arc welding process e a
case study. J Clean Prod 2015;93:364e77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.01.049.
[63] Goedkoop M, Spriensma R. The eco-indicator 99-a damage oriented method
for life cycle assessment. Amsterdam: Methodology Report; 2000.