Waste Flow Mapping to improve sustainability of waste management: a case study approach Martin Kurdve1,4,5, Sasha Shahbazi1, Marcus Wendin2, Cecilia Bengtsson3, Magnus Wiktorsson1 1Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Eskilstuna, Sweden 2Miljögiraff, Environmental Consultants, Gothenburg, Sweden 3Volvo Group, Gothenburg Sweden 4Martin Kurdve, management consultant, Vejbystrand, Sweden 5Swerea IVF, Production Development, Mölndal, Sweden Correspond to: [email protected]
Highlights in 5 bullets: • • • • •
Presents a large case study identifying potentials of waste management Industrial waste management often involves several actors and organizations Uses a method that integrates lean thinking and environmental management Large potentials are found in cost and environment at the sites Visualisation, ease of use and integration of current practice are keys
1. Work places
1 1 1
6. Information and Data handling
7. Improvement Work
Operations Management 2. Internal Handling
3. Collection Point
4. External Transport 5. Final Treatment
Combustion & Energy recovery Recycling
ABSTRACT Innovative, resource efficient solutions and effective waste management systems capture value in business and contribute to sustainability. However, due to scattered waste management responsibilities in vehicle industry and the orientation of Operation Management and lean tools, which mostly focus on lead-time and labour-time improvements, the requirement of a collaborative method to include material waste efficiency in operational development is identified. The main purpose of this research is to study how operations management and environmental management can be integrated on an operational level and include the waste management supply chain. Based on a literature review of environmental and operational improvement tools and principles, the gaps and needs in current practice were detailed. A large case study of implementing a waste flow mapping (WFM) method on a set of manufacturing sites revealed potentials in terms of material losses and inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste. Finally, the integrated WFM method was analysed with respect to the gaps and needs identified in the existing body of tools for operational and environmental improvement. The method combines Lean manufacturing tools like Value Stream Mapping with Cleaner Production’s and Material Flow Cost Accounting’s strategies. The empirical data showed that the WFM method is adequate for current state analysis of waste material efficiency potentials, especially when multiple organisations are involved. However, further development and specific methods are needed for e g logistics inefficiencies, root cause analysis, implementation guideline for best practice and system for performance monitoring of actors.
Keywords: material efficiency, waste flow mapping, waste management services, manufacturing industry, environmental system analysis
1 Introduction 1.1 Background Within manufacturing, there are several production steps where sustainability (UN, 1987) has been in growing focus in term of lower use of resources including energy, chemicals and water, and lower generation of waste and emissions to air/water. With increasing demands on material and upcoming shortages of resources, material efficiency is becoming increasingly important for manufacturing companies’ operational strategies (Allwood et al., 2011). To meet the challenges of sustainability, environmental management standards like ISO 14001 have supported companies focusing on environmental performance improvements, especially regarding material waste (Zackrisson et al., 2000); in addition have various sustainable management norms, visions and directions been introduced by different authors such as Natural Capitalism, Ecological Step, Factor 10, etc. However, World Economic Forum (2012) still identifies innovative resource-efficient solutions and business models as the most strategic option to capture value in industry.
Lean manufacturing is today established as the paradigm within industrial management in the automotive industry. It focuses on elimination of work losses, particularly any human activity which absorbs resources but creates no value. The principles and tools of lean manufacturing have proven fruitful in engaging all employees in improvement activities. Still, few structured practical tools have been developed for both production managers and environmental engineers (Torres and Gati, 2009). For instance, Value Stream Mapping (VSM) is a common tool in lean manufacturing used by production engineers, while energy and material surveys are used in environmental management by environmental engineers (Bergmiller and McCright, 2009). As a consequence, to minimise the environmental impact from production, earlier studies (EPA, 2003; Florida, 1996; Herrmann et al., 2008; King and Lenox, 2001) have identified lean and green as a preferred approach for realising environmental opportunities. The overall aim for lean and green approaches is to include environmental principles into the lean principles and then derive appropriate tools for the challenges. In integrating environmental and lean approaches, it is not only essential to analyse the input-output flow of energy and materials, but also to visualise the current state and the improvement potentials to involve all people (Bergmiller and McCright, 2009; Höckerdal, 2012).
This paper focuses on the waste management part of operations management. The importance of the end-of-life phase from an environmental point of view has been shown in several studies (Lundkvist et al., 2004; Zackrisson et al., 2000) and the economic potential of improving material efficiency by climbing the waste hierarchy has been demonstrated by e.g. (Tang and Yeoh, 2008). Even effective and environmentally aware companies have opportunities to improve waste management (Halme et al., 2007), mostly due to the facts that waste management often involves several actors and personnel from different organisations, making it difficult to manage. A specific character of waste management improvement tools is thus, to support waste management service supplier development. A major driver of environmental improvements in supply chains are the demands set from customer to supplier (Nawrocka et al., 2009), which are dependent on information sharing, mutual understanding/ agreement and trust (Simpson and Power, 2005).
1.2 Scope and research questions Based on the background of lacking tools for combined operations and environmental improvement, the complexity in waste management improvement, as well as the scarcity of larger case studies on lean and green improvement implementations, a case based study on sustainability improvement and realization of waste management values was designed. This study focuses on analysis of the material waste management supply chain, especially on the
interface between the waste management and the production management, since this interface is crucial for the rest of the waste management process.
The objective of the study was to enhance the knowledge on how operations management and environmental management can be integrated on an operational level, focusing the waste management supply chain. In order to fulfil this objective, the following research questions were identified: 1. What are the characteristics and gaps in existing operational improvement and environmental improvement tools and principles? 2. What potential in terms of material losses and inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste can an integrated waste flow mapping method reveal, while implemented in a broader empirical study? 3. How can the integrated waste flow mapping method answer to the gaps and needs identified in (1) from analysing the existing body of tools for operational and environmental improvement?
In order to answer these questions, the remainder of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the frame of reference describing existing tools and principles for operational improvement and environmental improvement, concluding in the identified gaps and criteria in an integrated lean and green improvement method. Section 3 introduces the material and methods for the empirical data collection and analysis. Section 4 presents in brief the applied integrated waste flow mapping method, applied on the set of manufacturing sites. The method was intended to find economically competitive environmental improvements on team, site and multi-site level, through best practice examples, and to define suitable performance indicators to secure implementation and continuous improvements. Section 5 presents the direct quantitative results from the broad case study where the method was applied to indicate potential in terms of material losses and inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste. Finally, section 6 discusses the qualitative methodological character of applying a method integrating operational and environmental improvement on this large set of manufacturing sites. This methodological analysis and discussion is done for detailing potential and still existing gaps in the method, in contrast to the requirements put up in section 2.
2 Frame of reference: Tools and principles employed for lean manufacturing and environmental analysis
Since 1990s, operation management research and practice has had a strong focus on lean manufacturing (Jayaram et al., 2010; Rother, 2010). The focus has shifted from utilisation of equipment and labour to reducing lead-time and non-value adding work (Modig and Ahlstrom, 2012). Since then it has been debated whether lean is also green (Dües et al., 2013) and in many respects the benefits of lean production for cleaner production has been pinpointed (Bergmiller and McCright, 2009), especially in reducing non-value adding processes and energy. However, there is still a large untapped potentials in increasing energy and material efficiency and reduce losses in wasted material (Allwood et al., 2011; World Economic Forum2012).
There exists a multitude of methods and tools used for environmental management purposes (Lindahl, 2005) such as Cleaner production approaches (Lebersorger, 2008) and Material Flow Cost Accounting (Allen et al., 2009; Jasch, 2003), although these are not prescribed in ISO14000 standards. And thus different companies use different tools. Regarding lean production, the principles and tools are more uniform, but different interpretations on how to use them for environmental challenges exist (Zokaei et al., 2013). This section briefly introduces existing principles and tools used for operation management (lean manufacturing) and environmental analysis in an operational improvement context. This section concludes by detailing the requirements to put on an integrated method for operational and environmental improvement focusing the material waste management supply chain.
2.1 General lean principles and tools. Continuous reduction of losses or “lean waste” Lean production focuses on reducing “Muda”, which is interpreted as “losses”, “waste”, “waste of time” (rather than material waste) (Hillenbrand, 2002) or “non-value adding activities”(Zokaei et al., 2013). A key issue in lean philosophy is to involve all staff in continuous improvement, where a number of tools and techniques are used. Successful Continuous Improvements (CI) demands mutual trust between people involved in operations and that people are empowered to implement improvements (Berglund et al., 2011; Moxen and Strachan, 1998) This trust will be dependent on an transparent information, which becomes even more important when several organisational entities are involved (Kurdve, 2010; Stoughton and Votta, 2003).
Two fundamental principles of lean manufacturing are visualisation and go and see – or ‘go to gemba’ (Liker, 2003; Netland, 2012). In order to be able to involve everyone and make people develop their work in a common direction, it is important to be easy to understand what to do, how to do it and why it should be done. These fundamentals have been leading lights in the development of lean tools and techniques (Höckerdal, 2012).
Other lean principles like Just In Time and Jidoka deals with efficient material flows with short lead-times (Modig and Ahlstrom, 2012; Rother, 2010) and minimising waste of time (Muda). Value Stream Map (VSM) is a tool used to find operational inefficiencies in a process (Rother and Shook, 2003). A VSM can be drawn for the whole supply chain, a process or a single subprocess. When analysing a single operation cell, the VSM analysis will be similar to a Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) and inefficiencies may be visualised in “spaghetti charts” of real movements and comparing them to the SOP. The VSM can also be used in a non-detailed way, to analyse processes and sub-processes to visualise improvement potentials.
The conventional VSM can be further extended through environmental or resource losses (EPA, 2011 ). An environmental VSM (E-VSM) can be used to map material use in different processes. In E-VSM, environmental issues of a process such as energy consumption, waste and excess material, along with the activities, time and information in the process including lead times and inventory are diagnosed and mapped. Materials being processed in manufacturing constitute a great part of final products’ expenditures, and E-VSM analysis aim at both economic and environmental improvements. Utilising E-VSM proved to be an effective way for management in order to functionally deal with problems for production materials (Torres and Gati, 2009). 2.2 Improvement and analysis tools focusing the material handling processes.
Material handling expenditures influence the total operation costs (Fillmore, 1981). It is important to include material handling such as collection, storage, transportation, container handling, sorting, local treatment and waste generation (Hogland and Stenis, 2000) in the analysis of effective waste management. Material Handling Analysis (MHA) (Muther et al., 1994) is one visual tool for analysing and optimising internal and external logistics which in the simplest form is very similar to a spaghetti chart analysis. MHA for waste management considers how waste handling is performed, for instance loading and sorting. It also investigates tools, labour, activities, costs and mechanical plants (Shen et al., 2004). Waste material handling should embrace characterisation of wastes i.e. physical, chemical, biological and toxicological characterisation as well as categorisation in order to identify possible risks and establish a suitable material handling system(Hogland and Stenis, 2000). In a further developed material handling analysis, the Reverse logistics concept can be introduced (Dowlatshahi, 2000). 2.3 Input/output based analysis methods for environmental improvement
Environmental management uses an input-output approach in analysing the environmental aspects of operations (Zackrisson et al., 2000) and there exists a number of tools to study the input-output balance. Two examples are Green System Boundary Analysis with input in form of raw material, energy and water and output in form of waste or product (gas, liquid or solid) (Zokaei et al., 2013) and Input-Output Flow Assessment where facilities’ environmental performance are indexed based on calculation of inputs (processed material, components, incoming transports, electricity grids, water and auxiliary material) and outputs (emissions to water, solid waste, air emission and final product or co-product (Brondi et al., 2012). Structured approaches to change business toward cleaner production such as Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) connects the physical flows with expenditures for environmental losses (Jasch, 2003; Schaltenegger et al., 2008) and Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) put focus on the loss of good product connected to each material waste (Onishi et al., 2008). Similarly, other researchers map the general flow of material and energy as an input-output approach for different system levels and recovery management systems (Hogland and Stenis, 2000; Smith and Ball, 2012). It has been noted that the material flow preferably should include also pollution and noise (Shen et al., 2004). As an answer to the demand of visualisation, the Green Performance Map (Bellgran et al., 2012) with categories in accordance with MFCA (Kokubu et al., 2009) and EMA has been introduced. 2.4 Methods focusing waste management and material sorting
In this study the legal EU definition of waste: “any substance or object […] which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard” (EU, 2006) is applied regarding material waste, which means all non-productive output (NPO) including solid and fluid waste. The optimal case is that the disposal of this NPO material should be avoided completely. However, some parts of the NPO may still be regarded as necessary (i.e. some type of packaging may be unavoidable at the time being). In this case, the way of improving the material efficiency is that the material value in the NPO material is recovered as high grade as possible, e.g. in reuse, material recycling or as energy recovery.
This principle for increasing material and overall operational efficiency has been formulated in the waste hierarchy, illustrated in Figure 1 (Faniran and Caban, 1993; Kurdve et al., 2011a; Smith and Ball, 2012). In the waste hierarchy, it is generally assumed that from an environmental and business (Hillenbrand, 2002) point of view; reduction of material use is better than reuse of components which in turn is better than material recycling which is better than energy recovery treatment, deposition of waste in landfill and just spreading it out in the environment, which also is in line with the EU waste hierarchy (EU, 2006). The most desirable option is, of course, to prevent the waste in the first place. The hierarchy is valid in most cases with exception for some special cases as when the recycling and transport process requires more material and energy than what is exploited by using virgin material (Kurdve, 2008a). Prevention
Reduction Reuse Material recycling Energy recovery Landfill
Figure 1. The waste hierarchy (Kurdve et al., 2011a modified from Faniran & Caban, 1993) The importance of simple tools for visualizing the geographical location has been identified (Hillenbrand, 2002; Shen et al., 2004; Tóth, 2003). One such tool for working with environmental aspects is Eco-mapping described by INEM (Engel, 2002). Eco-mapping contains several types of environmental aspects but can be applied for analysing waste generation and material waste handling activities. It is widely used in a variety of applications to identify and visualise the geographical points where the different waste management operations occur (Shen et al., 2004; Zorpas, 2010).
In order to analyse the content and composition of waste material, waste sorting is an important tool for assessment and system analysis of industrial waste management (Hogland and Stenis, 2000; Shen et al., 2004). It aims to categorize the waste material in order to find opportunities for better materials management (Allen et al., 2009). It is recommended (for example, in construction) to sort out the (construction) wastes into different categories, such as materials, packaging materials, wood, concrete, asphalt, garbage and sanitary waste, scrap metal products, rubber, plastic and glass, etc. (Spivey, 1974). In addition, according to (Shen et al., 2004) waste classification is one of three main approaches in managing the (construction) waste. For each waste fraction, quality criteria are set and during the composition analysis, deviations from those criteria are identified; firstly deviations regarding non-wanted materials in this fraction and secondly materials that could have been discarded as another waste fraction with higher material quality (and usually lower cost or higher payment). 2.5 Gaps in using current methods for waste management improvement
Based on this brief literature overview of tools and methods for operational and environmental analysis to be used in a waste management improvement context, a number of gaps can be formulated on using these methods for waste management improvement:
In order to combine tools and techniques into effective and useful methods, the users of the method and the context in which it will be used has to be considered (Lindahl, 2005). This means the criteria, which will make sure that the method is used as intended, has to be in place. In general the method should: support collaboration, promote easy learning, be time efficient and support systematic work procedures (Norell, 1992). Collaboration, cooperation and sharing information and resources increase mutual understanding of responsibilities and contribute in learning organization. Collaboration has a positive effect on interdepartmental relations and aid firm performance improvement (Alexander et al., 2000). Current environment focused methods are in most cases complex methods requiring expert knowledge on environment management.
For environmental work in the automotive industry in Sweden, previous studies have shown that methods benefit from being based on lean principles, harmonize with ISO 14001, support proactivity, deliver a structured work practice and enable performance measurement (Höckerdal, 2012). In the development of other green lean tools it has been clear that ‘visualisation’ and ‘comprehensibility are important characteristics (Kurdve et al., 2011b; Kurdve et al., 2011a) and in a pre-study of the Waste Flow Mapping-development, ‘systematic’, ‘hands-on’, and ‘quick’ were also identified as critical features (Kurdve et al., 2011c). The integration of lean improvement methods and environmental analysis methods is, as many authors point out, rarely done. Due to involvement of many actors in the waste management, the supplier-customer relation has to be analysed. Experience from chemical management services and other product service systems (PSS)(Kurdve, 2008b; Mont, 2004; Tukker and Tischner, 2006) shows that to align
initiatives and get efficient use of material and services: the products/material, the services involved, the financial incentives and the responsibility allocation has to be considered. Further the process knowledge and mutual trust between actors may influence performance. The current methods for operational improvement or environmental management are rarely considering the complex supply chain character of waste management.
Concluding, by analysing the general gaps in current methods on operational improvement and environmental management, applicable on waste management, the following critical improvement areas are defined: • A method characterised by improvement and empowering should emphasise collaboration, mutual understanding, easy learning and be hands-on. • A method integrating environmental management into an improvement system should be based on lean principles of visualisation and root cause analysis as well as harmonize with ISO 14001. • A method applicable on waste management needs to consider the extended supply chain, the reversed flow of goods, services involved and responsibility allocation. 3 Materials and method
Apart from identifying gaps in current methods presented in section 2, the research questions concerned “what potential in terms of material losses and inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste can an integrated waste flow mapping method reveal, and how can this method answer to the identified methodological gaps and needs”.
In order to address these questions, an integrated waste flow mapping (WFM) method was used in a multi-site case study. The case study studied the wasted material flows, costs, material efficiency and operational efficiency in the waste management system at 16 production sites. The method was designed to enable an efficient mapping and analysis with limited resources and time on site.
The study was performed partly as an action research where the researchers participated with the general purpose of improving the organisation’s practice. Three of the authors participated as project leader, active consultant and process owner respectively. The aim, as in all action research has been to solve a practical problem as well as to contribute to science (Coghlan and Brannick, 2005), in this case, to improve the waste management practice and material management in operations as well as to increase the operative knowledge and experience from method implementation in general. 3.1 Case studies
The research was based on studies from two companies. After a pre-study at Concentric AB (formerly Haldex) assembly plant in Sweden performed in 2010 a larger multi-site case study was performed in 2010 and 2011 on all 16 Swedish sites of the Volvo Group, a leading manufacturer of trucks, buses, construction equipment and drive systems for marine and industrial applications and one of Sweden’s largest employers. The multi-site mapping project focused on waste management and procurement of waste management services, where most sites had to be mapped in maximum two days. The approach requires knowledge of material and waste standards. The specific characteristics of the site level analysis included overall analysis of the waste fractions volumes and costs on sub-segments of waste fractions. Performance measurements were included in order to compare the results with best practice of the waste management sub-processes like internal handling and ownership of operations, together with the potentials to improve sorting and
minimise costs. The site analysis was finally used for the multi-site level by finding best practice performance that could be used to find potential quick wins. The multi-site analysis also resulted in recommendations for the continuous improvement work and development of waste management services; this however extends outside the scope of this paper. Regarding prevention of waste generation, it was concluded that this is a complex issue involving even more actors like suppliers of incoming material and purchasers and adds parameters as logistic, quality and flexibility. 3.2 Data collection
The data collection was performed on two levels, to meet the research questions. On a first level, quantitative data on the observed system’s performance, characteristics and behaviour was collected as a part of the waste flow mapping method. On a second level, qualitative methodological data was collected on the method’s functionality, characteristics and usability.
For collecting the quantitative data, the production and waste management activities was in the cases analysed as systems (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2008) with inputs, processes and outputs. Taking a system viewpoint of waste management, involving collection, transportation and storage operations, is an effective way to gain efficiency and effectiveness (Seadon, 2010). The multi-site information on total number of containers, volumes, weights and types of waste fractions at each site along with procurement effort on equipment and services was collected, and used as input for operational development regarding the waste management. The analysis on each manufacturing site also considered the interactions between system elements such as equipment, management, contractor companies, humans, environmental emissions and wastes, operation/process efficiency and the economics/social impacts.
The information collection method included on-site visits, walkthroughs, interviews, layouts and photographs, reviewing the current state of companies’ environmental and operational compliance and environmental reports. Moreover, statistical data logs from existing suppliers, additional environmental and economic data from each site and order system as well as data concerning external services, volumes, costs/revenue, transportation mode and final treatment were centrally collected as well. Through site visits and documents review it was possible to collect sufficient information to comprehend the current state and characterization of the companies’ waste management activities. The statistical data concerned the volumes and costs of treatment of waste fractions and costs of external services, while environmental and economic data from each site was used to validate and complement the supplier data. Finally, on-site visits, interviews, layouts and photographs was used not only to verify the above data on site, but also to map and understand the internal handling in order to estimate internal mantime and costs as well as to get an inventory of owned resources. 4 The employed analysis and improvement method: Waste Flow Mapping The Waste Flow Mapping (WFM) method was synthesised to be used by both waste management researchers and practitioners. The method relies on proven tools and methods to analyse the current state and find improvement potentials with regards to material losses and inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste. This section presents the WFM framework by the three main WFM phases, followed by a concluded procedure on how to perform the mapping in practice. 4.1 Phase 1: Map waste generation and fractions
The waste management process was studied with a Value Stream Mapping approach in a nondetailed way. The waste management system was divided into sub-processes in the value stream
of the waste material, where the material value chain was followed together with the information flow. Before the on-site analysis, preparations by checking data on volumes, costs/revenue, external services, transportation mode and final treatment were collected centrally from Environmental Management System (EMS) and waste management reports.
This study focuses on material input and waste output. The material output of a manufacturing process is divided in Productive Output (PO) regarded as value adding and Non Productive Output (NPO) such as material residuals or material waste that is non-value adding, as illustrated in Figure 2. The input to these processes can be divided into value adding production material that constitutes the product, and process material, everything else needed for the manufacturing process. Energy
Emmisions to air (& noise)
Value adding material
Non Productive Output
Emmissions to water/ ground
Figure 2. Green Performance Map with material focus (modified from Bellgran et al, 2012). The waste management process is divided into five sub-processes within the material flow and two sub-processes within the information and knowledge flow as in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Waste management with seven generic sub-processes
Data was collected on each sub-process regarding resources, inventories, handling and movements. Sub-process (1) at the internal collection point was mapped using eco-mapping or tables and layouts (see Figure 4) including data on number and type of bins, fractions, man-time for maintaining bins and signs, cost of ownership/rent, as well as inefficiencies in the main operation due to waste handling. In sub-process (2) the handling of material from operations to the external waste handling contractor was mapped by data on man-time and movement costs. In sub-process (3) the layouts of containers and equipment for separation, sorting and storage were mapped including maintenance and cost of ownership/rent. Sub-process (4) was mapped by type and cost of external transportation off-site for each material segment. Sub-process (5) at the disposal/final treatment operations was analysed by type of disposal or recycling code, cost and location. Full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data on final treatment was not available. For subprocesses (6) and (7), data on information management was collected by interviews and data records, as well as documenting the improvement process by interviews and process efficiency data. Moreover, the efficiency of the information system and improvement work were estimated based on the overall efficiency of the process itself.
Figure 4. Example on an eco-map of waste generation points 4.2 Phase 2: Horizontal performance analysis - material efficiency for each segment The most efficient way to achieve material efficiency is to reduce the amount of spill and hence avoid unnecessary use of raw material. Still when material ends up as waste, the environmental impact is generally reduced if final treatment is higher on the waste hierarchy. The five step waste hierarchy approach, Figure 1, (Faniran and Caban, 1993; Kurdve, 2008a) was used in order to grade different types of disposal and recovery operations for material waste. Hence, the approach will include also moving the Non-Productive Output material (as shown in Figure 2) or material waste to higher stages in the waste hierarchy.
The operations studied in the case studies generated over 150 distinguishable waste fractions. In order to understand the material flows and set relevant KPIs for improvements, the study separated the waste types into five main segments: • Metals • Combustible material • Inert materials • Fluid waste • Other hazardous waste The number of segments chosen depends on the industrial operations and the different materials used.
For each studied segment of waste, except Other hazardous waste, one or several of the fractions could be considered as a “mixed” fraction (with less value and quality than a “pure” or “sorted” fraction in the same segment). In general there is a higher cost of the mixed waste fractions compared to the pure ones that often regain a larger portion of the original material value. The value differences correspond to the cost of separating or sorting valuable material from the mix. For hazardous waste, legal compliance demands separate flows for certain fractions, with heavy fines for non-compliance. The study resulted in a number of performance and monitoring indicators used to control the waste management process. The main one, material efficiency, can be calculated with the following formula as a valid approximation (Kurdve, 2008a). However the water content in fluids may cause problems.
Material efficiency (%) = product weight/ incoming material weight ~= product weight /(waste weight + product weight) (Kurdve, 2008a)
To control and facilitate operations management, the research has concluded a need for measurements and monitoring of the actual waste and services included in the waste management process. First, there are legal and EMS standard requirements for monitoring of total volumes of hazardous and non-hazardous waste as well as the total (external) cost for handling of these. Secondly, the plants usually index these per produced unit (P) by calculating the weight of hazardous and non-hazardous material per produced unit (ton/#), as well as total waste cost per produced unit (SEK/#).
However, the study revealed that although the overall above measurements are important, performance should also be monitored for each segment separately as shown in Table 1 in order to detail the full potential of improvements. In addition to the weight and cost per produced unit, the average cost (or revenue) per ton for sorted and for mixed waste as well as the sorting degree in each of the segments should be monitored. Table 1 Proposed additional segment performance measurement Proposed segment indexes Sorting degree Weight per produced unit Average segment treatment cost
Calculation W (sorted)/ W (segment total) W (segment total)/P C (segment total)/ W (segment total)
Unit (%) (ton/#) (SEK/ton)
4.3 Phase 3: Vertical analysis of the waste management process-efficiency in each sub-process When trying to make the overall operation as lean as possible, the focus is on minimising the use and handling of Non-value adding (NVA) and NPO material. In practical improvement work, these different inefficiencies are addressed simultaneously. First, the overall efficiency is
analysed, then the sub-process efficiency. In order to evaluate the services supplied internally or externally to each sub-process, certain performance measures for each of the services were used, as illustrated in Table 2. These should reflect the effectiveness and quality of the supplied service. However the sub-process measurements are subordinated the overall performance measures to avoid sub-optimisation. One example is that if only one large bin is used for all types of waste, the efficiency measure for bins are good but the costs of final treatment and sorting, as well as internal transportation, will give a non-optimal result. Further, development of each subprocess’ performance measurements is recommended. Table 2 Sub process performance measurements Bins
Service #(bins)/ efficiency W(waste in bins) Cost C (bins)/ efficiency W(waste in bins) Overall C (bins)/ Effectiveness P
Internal Handling Man-h / W C (man-h)/ W C (man-h)/ P
#(containers) / W(waste in containers) C (equipment)/ W(waste in equipment) C (equipment)/ P
#(trucks)/ W(recycled)/W(sum) (sum) W(waste transported) & W (incinerated)/ W (sum) C(transports)/ C(treatment)/ W(waste transported) W (sum) C(trucks)/ C(treatment)/ W(waste transported) P
For plants operating the waste management with their own staff, the service efficiency and overall effectiveness were the most useful measurement. When the service was provided from a supplier, the cost efficiency was the most relevant measure for the supplier delivery.
4.4 Concluding the Waste Flow Mapping (WFM) method
The WFM method can be concluded in a seven step procedure, presented in Figure 5:
Figure 5. The waste flow mapping (WFM) method concluded in seven steps.
5. Identified potential in waste management by applying the WFM Applying the Waste Flow Mapping method to the large set of manufacturing sites resulted in numerous outcomes concerning waste management improvement areas on general and casespecific areas. This section points out an excerpt of the generic waste management findings in order to answer the research question on ‘what potential within material losses and inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste can an integrated waste flow mapping method reveal, while implemented in a broader empirical study?’. 5.1 Waste flows The multi-site case study resulted in a vast amount of detailed data and photos on the waste management within the case company and the waste service supply chain. Figure 6 shows the overall picture of the amount of waste in the five segments presented as weight-%. Inert material is of less importance in this case and metals could have been further divided into two or more sub categories in order to refine the results. Fluids; 14% Other Haz; 3% Inert; 1% Combustible ; 10%
Figure 6. Waste volumes in different segments 5.2 Overall waste management performance The performance measurements of the different plants with regards to the sorting degree and cost or revenue for the waste fraction for each segment, as described in Table 1, was used to find potential improvements for each segment in the overall waste management process. At plants with historical data on sorting degree and average price, the improvement work could be evaluated. Figure 7 shows the minimum, maximum and average sorting degree for nonhazardous waste (only plants with more than 10 ton/year included). It shows clearly that some plants have a large improvement potential e.g. on metal sorting degree where the output quality of scrap metal can be raised if mixed metal is collected as separate metal fractions.
100% 80% 60% weighted average
Inert (not foundry material)
Figure 7. Sorting degrees for non-hazardous waste The cost of each incoming material was not generally available. This means there has not been any way to calculate the material loss cost in the waste management. However, to illustrate how big the cost is, the study concluded three examples, as in Figures 8, 9 and 10. For fluids the calculations become somewhat more complex due to water content. 500%
In many plants steel is sent away as mixed scrap metal. In the best practice plant most of the steel is (plant average is 96% sorted) sent away in each specific steel category. This gives over the double (120% increased) income compared to non sorting as mixed scrap metal. However it is important to remember that the raw material cost is 350% higher and thus the main saving is in avoidance of wasting material.
Potential gain from wasting less
400% 350% 300% 250%
Potential gain from sorting more
200% 150% 100% 50% 0% incoming steelsheet
mixed scrap metal
sorted metal f ractions
Figure 8. Potential for increased revenue and decrease costs by sorting metal scrap
In one of the assembly plants the practice is to sort all plastic waste separately instead of sending it as combustible waste. This results in that instead of a cost for combustible waste the plant can get an income depending on the type of plastic ranging from 02200 SEK/ton. However an even bigger gain is that some of the plastic foam is reused in the KD kitting area as packaging material. This reduces the need for purchasing of new plastic foam.
Potential gain f rom wasting less
800% 600% 400%
Potential gain f rom sorting more
200% 0% -200% Incoming plastic
mixed material f or combustion
Figure 9. Potential for increased revenue and decrease costs by sorting plastics
One of the most costly types of waste within Volvo is wasted process fluids. They are often collected as a sludge mixture of oil and water emulsion. If the oil part can be separated it can generate a small income (50-100 SEK/ton) and also reduce the cost with 20-35% for the remaining process water. However if we can stop the oil from leaking into the process fluid the saving is more than 160% for reduced purchasing of lubricants.
Potential gain f rom wasting less
40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60%
Potential gain f rom sorting more
-80% -100% -120% Value process f luid
value of waste oil
cost of mixed sludge
Figure 10. Potential in process fluids There are several examples of where material recycling can be seen as a step closer to reduction of unnecessary wasting of the material and saving money. For example, at one plant the chemical supplier operate the process fluids and takes care of the waste fluid management in a business model aimed at reducing volumes and costs of chemicals and waste (Kurdve 2010). 5.3 Sub process analysis
The costs in the five main sub-processes were analysed, especially the costs of sub-processes and equipment supplied by external suppliers. It showed that the majority of costs are generated in final treatment processes and transports. With regards to external supplier costs, the treatment process was almost half the cost and transports were a third. Including internal costs shows that also internal handling result in large costs. The main saving potentials are in lowering these costs. Furthermore, the cost of buying or renting bins and maintaining these are very low in comparison with other costs. Since savings in final treatment often depend on the initial sorting of the waste these results indicate that savings may be achieved by making better solutions for sorting in bins at the workplace. Aggregated data from the waste management process in the case study is shown in Figure 11. Workplace Bins/Signs
Different solutions for internal handling ~9000 bins ~10% rented ~9t/bin&year
~400 containers (90% rented) ~200ton/cont&year ~30 compactors (50% rented) ~40 presses (20% rented).
~14 000 collections/ mainly truck transports ~6t/collection stop
~15% landfill ~20% combustion ~65% material recycling
Figure 11. Overall waste management process data for the five main sub-processes
Potential waste management process improvements on plant level were found in all five subprocesses: • underused bins • lack of bins for some waste fractions • lack of and poor quality of signs and instructions • inefficiencies in handling and internal logistics • poor quality of information management • container and equipment inefficiency • inefficiencies and unnecessary costs of external transports • inefficiencies in choice of final treatment
For all of these, best practice examples were found that could be used as good examples and goal-setters for other sites.
The improvement process was analysed from a qualitative point of view. In general the improvement work would have benefited from getting a better information support with performance data on production department level. Several inefficiencies could be related to loss of information and/or delay of information indicating insufficient interface between waste management and operation management. Although proper LCA data was not always available, the economical potentials were found to coincide with environmental improvement potential. For example, the potentials of shortening transports showed both economic and environmental potential benefits and the potential of sending metals as higher quality grade gave in general economic as well as environmental potential improvements. 5.4 Best practice comparisons
The multi-site mapping enabled identification of best practices for the different segments and for different sub processes. Other plants can be compared with the best practice plants in order to demonstrate achievable results for that segment.
Since the majority of costs (or loss of value) were connected to the final step of the waste management process, the treatment cost was used to find best practice management. By analysing each plant with regards to sorting degree and average treatment cost for each segment, best practice was identified.
One example of best practice comparison in the case study was a cost comparison of two sites, A and B, similar in size and waste structure but wastes were managed in different ways. Site B had worked with focused improvement around waste handling on operator level and had invested in smaller bins for sorted material at each workplace as well as team level revisions of performance. The results from the waste mapping showed that the better sorting degree had led to significantly lower cost for combustible waste. Site B sorted 10% more of the combustible waste into paper and plastic and a couple of extra metal fractions led to a higher income for metals. The extra investment in bins and internal logistics still did not cost more than the gain, thanks to that also the sub-processes had been optimized when the process had changed. The site A could benefit from the experiences on site B and find suitable targets for their waste management process. 5.5 Concluding the potential in waste management by applying the WFM
A general analysis of the overall results show that major cost reductions can be made on changes in handling and treating hazardous waste from process fluids, however this often involves investment in equipment. Improved sorting and quality management of scrap metals had a large
potential to increase income. Recycling of combustible waste (mainly from packaging material) is a way of turning costs into income by very simple means. 6 Discussion and conclusion
Based on the literature review, characteristics and gaps in existing operational improvement and environmental improvement tools and principles were identified (chapter 2). In addition, potential material inefficiencies in waste management were determined by using an integrated waste flow mapping method in a case study with a broad set of empirical data (chapter 4 and 5). In this section the answer of integrated waste flow mapping method to the gaps in the existing body of tools for operational and environmental improvement is discussed. 6.1 Sustainable manufacturing strategies
In order to analyse the criteria and requirements of current methods, an effort were made to cover as much strategic and operational factors as possible from reverse logistics systems (Dowlatshahi, 2000). Besides, sustainable concepts including Cleaner production, Eco-efficiency and Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) and Environmental Management Accounting (EMS) were taken into consideration to comprise different aspects. The included tools and principles address analysis of materials, movements, related costs, information, reports and methods (Fillmore, 1981), which is also in line with chosen system approach for this study (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2008).
By the brief presentation of principles and tools in section 2, it is clear that the scope of waste management and material efficiency is wide. A variety of tools and methods have been created in academia and industry, often overlapping in goals and suggestions (Lilja, 2009). Although all related concepts aim for sustainability, the difference between concepts are evident (Abdul Rashid et al., 2008). For example, Cleaner production and Eco-efficiency do not focus on generated waste (Gravitis, 2007; Gumbo et al., 2003) and Resource efficiency and Material efficiency do not focus on toxicity and hazardousness of wasted material (Abdul Rashid et al., 2008). Eco-efficiency is based on economic efficiencies which in turn, has environmental advantages, and as a result it can cause “rebound effect” (Gravitis, 2007). The zero waste principle and closed-loop address waste prevention, but have limitations towards managing the generated waste (Curran and Williams, 2012). In resource efficiency and eco-efficiency, reducing the usage of material and resources is considered, but not each fraction’s impact (Rashid and Evans, 2010). Reverse logistics can satisfy several economic incentives with identifying deficiencies in manufacturing operations, however, it is usually time-consuming and requires high level of management (Dowlatshahi, 2000). Likewise, sustainability concepts such as MFCA and EMA solely lack support of key lean features such as visualisation, employees’ involvement, collaboration and understanding. They are mainly based on calculation, quantitative approach and accounting (Higashida et al., 2013), whereas an easy, effective and applicable approach should rely on both the EMA/MFCA-concepts and lean principles and tools. Moreover, EMA and MFCA have conflicts with conventional management mind-set, production improvement activities and production system (Kokubu and Kitada, 2012). Using EMA and MFCA also requires severe calculations (Katsuhiko, 2007) which may be challenging to implement among employees, and might cause disputation between environmental and economic objectives.
As a result, it is clear that a combination of several sustainable approaches is needed to address material efficiency and waste management efficiency in manufacturing. The WFM approach incorporates both proactive and reactive measures, although the main focus can be argued to be reactive on quality of recycling. WFM appears to be useful for implementation on company level due to data availability, practicability, technical feasibility and communication. Although supporting identification of opportunities in the high end of the waste hierarchy, other approaches are needed to support re-design and material substitution.
6.2 Lean and green characteristics The majority of manufacturing companies in Sweden are familiar with lean principles and have to some extent created their production systems based on Toyota Production System and elimination of seven Muda (Kurdve et al., 2012; Netland, 2012). Since lean focuses on waste of time rather than waste of material, material efficiency and waste management are often neglected. However, applied lean approach on residual material flows and waste management has been previously proven fruitful in healthcare and construction (Fredriksson and Höglund, 2012; Lindskog and Larsson, 2012).
Minimising non-value adding activities and material use at the source therefore, are fundaments in the presented WFM method. Integration of lean and waste management activities by focusing on visualisation, systematic problem solving and communication not only improve collaboration and interdepartmental relations, but also cover scattered waste management responsibilities.
One complexity in waste management is the multitude of stakeholders and multiple steps in the waste handling process. This implies the importance of synchronising actors’ targets, responsibilities and performance measures. However, from the pre-study it was concluded that it is complicated to include component suppliers, and these prevention opportunities are more efficiently treated in separate projects (Kurdve et al., 2011c). The WFM may help direct efforts, but then Eco-design of packaging and other supplied material is also needed. Besides, introduction of new business models like product service systems may be a step forward to align actors incentives (Kurdve, 2008b; Mont, 2004).
The WFM approach has proved to support analysis and continuous improvement work for the waste management process. It was perceived to be time-efficient, easy and understandable for the practitioners. However, there are certain issues that had to be omitted or simplified. For example the identification of logistics inefficiencies were not performed in detail, and although inefficiencies were found, the time for root cause analysis was lacking. ‘5Why’ has been suggested as a simple way to find most of the root causes (Lindskog and Larsson, 2012). In general the value of the potential improvements found in the cases were worth more than ten times the cost of time spent on mapping, which is in line with other operational management initiatives. 6. 3 Conclusions and future studies
Efficient waste management is based upon understanding materials’ value and costs of inefficiencies. The experience from implementing Waste Flow Mapping depicted it as an appropriate framework to analyse the waste management process, reveal value loss and identify sustainable improvement potentials. Categorising different waste fractions into segments and analyse segments individually are necessary to identify best practice for the different segments. Applying this approach on a multiple-site case study pointed out the importance of avoiding mixing quality grades of the same material.
However, guides for implementation of best practice with clear and relevant goals for all actors, was not fully met by the method. Due to the fact that actors have different drivers (e.g. economic, environmental, use of resources, efficiency) for different levels in the organization, a service concept could be a lean approach to handle waste management. Additionally, integrating waste and operation management requires follow up performance on a regular basis. Hence developing a tool or system that can facilitate updating and monitoring of performance for each actor is suggested for further improvements.
In general, a lack of on-site preparation made it time-consuming to do eco-mapping comprehensively. Further development and possibly technical aid for the visual tool communication on operations and team level would be helpful. References
Abdul Rashid, S.H., Evans, S., Longhurst, P., 2008. A comparison of four sustainable manufacturing strategies. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 1, 214-229. Alexander, E.E., Patricia, J.D., Scott, B.K., 2000. The relationship between marketing/logistics interdepartmental integration and performance in US manufacturing firms: an empirical study. Journal of Business Logistics 21. Allen, F.W., Halloran, P.A., Leith, A.H., Lindsay, M.C., 2009. Using Material Flow Analysis for Sustainable Materials Management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13, 662-665. Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G., Worrell, E., 2011. Material efficiency: A white paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55, 362-381. Arbnor, I., Bjerke, B., 2008. Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge. SAGE Publications. Bellgran, M., Höckerdal, K., Kurdve, M., Wiktorsson, M., 2012. Green Performance Map 1ed. Mälardalen University Press, Eskilstuna, Sweden. Berglund, R., Karling, M., Mellby, C., 2011. Det Värdefulla engagemanget. Swerea IVF, Mölndal. Bergmiller, G.G., McCright, P.R., 2009. Parallel Models for Lean and Green Operations, The 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference. Institute of Industrial Engineers, Miami, Florida. Brondi, C., Fornasiero, R., Vale, M., Vidali, L., Brugnoli, F., 2012. Modular framework for reliable LCA-based indicators supporting supplier selection within complex supply chains, APMS 2012, International Conference, Advances in Production Management Systems. APMS, Rhodes, Greece. Coghlan, D., Brannick, T., 2005. Doing Action Research in your Own Organization, 2nd ed. Sage, London. Curran, T., Williams, I.D., 2012. A zero waste vision for industrial networks in Europe. Journal of Hazardous Materials 207–208, 3-7. Dowlatshahi, S., 2000. Developing a theory of reverse logistics. Interfaces 30, 143-155. Dües, C.M., Tan, K.H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new Lean: how to use Lean practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 93-100. Engel, H.-W., 2002. Eco Mapping - A visual, simple and practical tool to analyse and manage the environmental performance of small companies and craft industries. , in: Network, E. (Ed.). INEM, Brussels. EPA, 2003. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Lean manufacturing and the Environment: Research on advanced manufacturing systems and the environment and recommendations for leveraging better environmental performance". EPA, 2011 The Lean and Chemicals Toolkit - Chapter 3 Lean Manufacturing and the Environment. US Environmental Protection Agency. EU, 2006. Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 5 April on waste European Parliament, Brussels. Faniran, O.O., Caban, G., 1993. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 5, 182-188. Fillmore, W.E., 1981. Material Handling Analysis Is Approached from Traditional Points of View. Industrial Engineering 13, 52. Florida, R.L., 1996. Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing. California Management Review. Fredriksson, G., Höglund, E., 2012. Minska byggavfallet, en metod för att förebygga avfall vid byggande (Reduce construction waste, a method for preventing waste during construction). Tyréns AB, Skanska, Nya karolinska Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. Gravitis, J., 2007. Zero techniques and systems – ZETS strength and weakness. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 1190-1197.
Gumbo, B., Mlilo, S., Broome, J., Lumbroso, D., 2003. Industrial water demand management and cleaner production potential: a case of three industries in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 28, 797-804. Halme, M., Anttonen, M., Kuisma, M., Kontoniemi, N., Heino, E., 2007. Business models for material efficiency services: Conceptualization and application. Ecological Economics 63, 126137. Herrmann, C., Thiede, S., Stehr, J., Bergmann, L., 2008. An environmental perspective on Lean Production, in: Mitsuishi, M., Ueda, K., Kimura, F. (Eds.), Manufacturing Systems and Technologies for the New Frontier. Springer London, pp. 83-88. Higashida, A., Kokubu, K., Shinohara, A., 2013. Introducing Material Flow Cost Accounting and Creating Visibility – Analyzing MFCA in practice based on a longitudinal case study. Seventh Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference Kobe 26-28 Hillenbrand, S., 2002. What Is Practical Waste Management? Environmental Quality Management 11, 91-93. Hogland, W., Stenis, J., 2000. Assessment and system analysis of industrial waste management. Waste Management 20, 537-543. Höckerdal, K., 2012. Enhancing the process of environmental improvementin manufacturing industry, School of innovation, design and engineering. Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden, p. 101. Jasch, C., 2003. The use of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) for identifying environmental costs. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 667-676. Jayaram, J., Das, A., Nicolae, M., 2010. Looking beyond the obvious: Unraveling the Toyota production system International Journal of Production Economics, 280-291. Katsuhiko, K., 2007. Guide for Material Flow Cost Accounting. Environmental Industries Office, Environmental Policy Division, Industrial Science and Technology Policy and Environment Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., 2001. Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Production and Operations Management 10, 244-256. Kokubu, K., Campos, M.K.S., Furukawa, Y., Tachikawa, H., 2009. Material flow cost accounting with ISO 14051, ISO INSIDER ISO Management Systems,, www.iso.org/ims. Kokubu, K., Kitada, H., 2012. Material flow cost accounting and conventional management thinking: introducing a new environmental management accounting tool into companies. IPA Conference Kobe University. Kurdve, M., 2008a. Applying industrial waste management in practice reassessing the economics of the waste hierarchy, WASTEnomics - turning waste liabilities into assets. Kurdve, M., 2008b. Chemical Management Services: Safeguarding Environmental Outcome., in: Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C. (Eds.), Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) as a Support for Cleaner Production. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 209-229. Kurdve, M., 2010. Chemical Management Services from a Product Service System perspective, The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics Lund University, Lund. Kurdve, M., Romvall, K., Bellgran, M., Torstensson, E., 2011a. A systematic approach for identifying lean and green improvements related to packaging material in assembly in: J-E., S. (Ed.), SPS 11 Lund. Kurdve, M., Romvall, K., Bellgran, M., Torstensson, E., 2011b. A systematic approach for identifying lean and green improvements related to packaging material in assembly, Swedish Production Symposium 2011. Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Lund, Sweden. Kurdve, M., Romvall, K., Bellgran, M., Torstensson, E., 2011c. A systematic approach for identifying lean and green improvements related to packaging material in assembly in: J-E., S. (Ed.), SPS 11, Lund.
Kurdve, M., Zackrisson, M., Wiktorsson, M., Harlin, U., 2012. Lean and Green integration into production system models – Experiences from Swedish industry, Swedish Production Symposium, SPS12. Swedish Production Symposium, SPS12, Linköping, Sweden. Lebersorger, S., 2008. Achieving zero waste through waste prevention, Wastenomics - turning waste liabilities into assets. BOKU - University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Science, Vienna, Austria Liker, J., 2003. The Toyota Way : 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer. Mcgraw-hill. Lilja, R., 2009. From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 129-136. Lindahl, M., 2005. Engineering Designers’ Requirements on Design for Environment Methods and Tools, Department of Machine Design, Integrated Product Development. KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Lindskog, Å., Larsson, M., 2012. Från produktvalsprocessen till avfall - Metod och verktyg för att förebygga avfal (From the product selection process for waste to methodology and tools to prevent waste), Tyréns AB, Stockholms läns landsting, Skanska Healthcare Region Skånes EUprojekt CLIRE, Kristianstad, Sweden. Lundkvist, U., Andersson, B., Axsäter, M., Forsberg, P., Heikkilä, K., Jonson, U., Larsson, Y., Liljenroth, U., Sjöberg, C., Strömberg, K., wendin, M., 2004. Design for recycling in the transport sector: future scenarios and challenges, in: technology, C.U.o., University, G. (Eds.), CPM Report. Dept. of physical resource theory, Göteborg. Modig, N., Ahlstrom, P., 2012. This is Lean: Resolving the Efficiency Paradox. Rheologica Publishing; First Edition edition. Mont, O., 2004. Product service systems: Pancea or myth?, the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics. Lund University, Lund. Moxen, J., Strachan, P.A., 1998. Managing green teams - theory and practice. Greenleaf Publishing. Muther, R., Jungthirapanich, Haney, 1994. Simplified Systematic Handling Analysis, 3 ed, Marietta, Georgia, US. Nawrocka, D., Brorson, T.r., Lindhqvist, T., 2009. ISO 14001 in environmental supply chain practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1435-1443. Netland, T., 2012. Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific production systems: onebestway or own-best-way? International Journal of Production Research 1-14. Norell, M., 1992. Stödmetoder och samverkan i produktutveckling (Supporting Methods and collaboration in product development). Onishi, Y., Kokubu, K., Nakajima, M., 2008. Implementing Material Flow Cost Accounting in a Pharmaceutical Company, in: Schaltenegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C. (Eds.), Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production. Springer Science, Berlin, pp. 395-409. Rashid, S.H.A., Evans, S., 2010. Material Efficiency: The factors influencing UK manufacturing companies in choosing type of strategies, The 11th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference (APIEMS 2010) Melaka, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur. Rother, M., 2010. Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness and Superior Results. McGrawHill. Rother, M., Shook, J., 2003. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and Eliminate Muda. The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, p. 102. Schaltenegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C., 2008. Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) as a support for Cleaner Production, in: Schaltenegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C. (Eds.), Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production. Springer Science, Berlin, pp. 3-26. Seadon, J.K., 2010. Sustainable waste management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 1639-1651. Shen, L., Tam, V., Tam, C., Drew, D., 2004. Mapping Approach for Examining Waste Management on Construction Sites. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 130, 472-481.
Simpson, D.F., Power, D.J., 2005. Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supply Chain Management: An Int. J. 10, 60-68. Smith, L., Ball, P., 2012. Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through modelling material, energy and waste flows. International Journal of Production Economics 140, 227-238. Spivey, D.A., 1974. Construction Solid Waste. Journal of the Construction Division Vol. 100, No. 4, pp. 501-506. Stoughton, M., Votta, T., 2003. Implementing service-based chemical procurement: lessons and results. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 839-849. Tang, K., Yeoh, J., 2008. WASTEnomics - turning waste liabilities into assets. Middlesex University Press, London. Torres, A.S., Gati, A.M., 2009. Environmental Value Stream Mapping (EVSM) as sustainability management tool, Management of Engineering & Technology, 2009. PICMET 2009. Portland International Conference on, pp. 1689-1698. Tóth, G., 2003. Evaluation of Environmental Performance of Companies. Society and Economy 25, 383-402. Tukker, A., Tischner, U., 2006. New Business for Old Europe: product-service development competitiveness and sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK. UN, 1987. Our Common Future, in: Development, W.C.o.E.a. (Ed.), The Brundtland report. United Nations. World-Economic-Forum, 2012. More with less: scaling sustainable consumption and resource efficiency. World Economic Forum. Zackrisson, M., Enroth, M., Widing, A., 2000. Environmental management systems – paper tiger or powerful tool, in: Group, I.E.-e. (Ed.), Industrial research in collaboration. IVF, Stockholm. Zokaei, K., Lovins, H., Wood, A., Hines, P., 2013. Creating a lean and green business system : techniques for improving profits and sustinability. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Zorpas, A., 2010. Environmental management systems as sustainable tools in the way of life for the SMEs and VSMEs. Bioresource Technology 101, 1544-1557.