Int. J. Sustainable Manufacturing, Vol. 3, No.

4, 2015 333

Fundamental requirements for sustainability

practices and implementation: an analytical
modelling and empirical investigation

Ibrahim H. Garbie
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
Muscat, Oman
and
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Helwan University,
Helwan, Cairo, Egypt
Email: garbie@squ.edu.om
Abstract: One of the predicaments of sustainability is practising and
implementing the concepts and ideologies of sustainability. The aim of this
study was to find the fundamental requirements of manufacturing firms’
sustainability practices and implementation (SPI) in order that those practices
can be updated and the firms can survive. The four main requirements for
assessing sustainability practices and implementation are awareness, drivers
(motivations), barriers (challenges), and the relevance of sustainability
indicators. Although these practices can be assessed individually, incorporating
them into one logical mathematical model based on qualitative and quantitative
data is ideal. As the major goal of this paper is to model an analysis and
empirical investigation to assess a firm’s level of SPI, a suggested model for
each sustainability practice and an aggregated index will be discussed and
presented. The proposed framework will also be applied in a case study
conducted within a real firm. The results show that assessing SPI in
manufacturing firms is realistic.
Keywords: sustainability practices; manufacturing systems.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Garbie, I.H. (2015)
‘Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation: an
analytical modelling and empirical investigation’, Int. J. Sustainable
Manufacturing, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.333–362.
Biographical notes: Ibrahim Garbie is currently an Associate Professor in
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department at Sultan Qaboos
University (SQU), Oman, and Mechanical Engineering Department at Helwan
University, Egypt. He received his PhD in Industrial Engineering Department
from University of Houston, Texas, USA in 2003, MSc in Manufacturing
Processes and BSc in Mechanical Engineering in Production from Helwan
University, Egypt. He served as a Visiting Professor in many universities. Also,
He participated into several national/international educational development
programs, consultant and research funded projects. His research interests
encompass manufacturing systems design, complexity analysis, lean and agile
systems, reconfiguration and sustainability of manufacturing enterprises. He
has authored more than 50 papers in refereed international journals,
conferences, technical reports and book chapters. He is a senior member of
Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE).

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

334 I.H. Garbie

1 Introduction

An analysis of requirements of manufacturing firms’ sustainability practices and

implementation (SPI) must involve a whole range of practices: awareness of
sustainability; drivers, or motivations, barriers, or challenges, to its implementation, and
the actual implementation of sustainable practices. Manufacturing firms are considered
the backbone and cornerstone of the world’s economy (Garbie, 2014) for enhancing a
population’s quality of life and well-being (Garetti and Taisch, 2012; Agustiady and
Badiru, 2013). However, assessing manufacturing firms’ levels of SPI is still relatively
unexplored.
The first practice that must be in place in order to consider SPI is the development of
sustainability awareness, which represents a critical value for manufacturing firms
(Garbie, 2013, 2014). This value is always measured by the realisation of the utilisation
of knowledge and facts (Chou and Chou, 2012). Sustainability awareness in a workplace
environment (e.g., industry) is different than the awareness that exists in the public realm;
however, increasing employees’ awareness of sustainability within their workplace can
encourage them to implement sustainable principles and practices in their own personal
activities. While industrialists (e.g., practitioners) understand the term sustainability very
well, this term itself proves difficult when used at a shop floor control (SFC) level.
Although government, the public, industry and academia all have increasingly realised
the importance of sustainability, the awareness of such in this paper is measured through
an industry perspective based on the triple bottom line (TBL) model (economic, social,
and environmental).
As the requirement for the development of sustainable practices has become urgent
and is considered the first practice (Bi, 2011), drivers and barriers are considered the
second and third practices. The major drivers or motivations for an industry to move
toward more sustainable practices are numerous and include customers’ requirements; the
use of marketing tools; government regulations; awareness (involvement) of sustainable
practices; limitations of existing process enhancement methodologies; economic benefits
due, for example, to a shortage of natural resources; public value (e.g., social
commitment); environmental priorities; success stories in other organisations
after implementing sustainable practices [e.g., an International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) certificate], and the availability of funds for green projects (Bi,
2011; Kulatunga et al., 2013).
Regarding the barriers to SPI, many challenges also exist such as a lack of awareness
of concepts in programs conducted in terms of the language of sustainability; unclear
objectives; a lack of tax benefits or other rewards from governments; negative attitudes
towards sustainability concepts from employees and customers; a lack of support from a
firm’s employees; a shortage of internal and external funding, for example to encourage
green projects; research and development challenges; inadequate human resources
(skilled and unskilled); high staff turnover rates; time and cost restrictions on
implementing sustainability measures, and uncertainty about and/or lack of sustainability
standards (Giunipero et al., 2010; Kulatunga et al., 2013).
With respect to sustainability indicators, relevance can be considered the fourth
practice necessary for the process of the implementation of sustainability, and the
expansion/contraction of manufacturing firms should be considered not only in terms of
the sustainability of resources and organisation management but also in terms of
intellectual sustainability (Garbie, 2014).
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 335

Although many indicators are mentioned in discussions of sustainability, the status of

the implementation of SPI is not often mentioned (Garbie, 2014). This means that
assessing the relevance of implementing sustainability indicators equates with selecting a
set of indicators for each individual issue/aspect. In this paper, a proposed framework is
used for modelling and assessing the degree to which relevant sustainability dimensions
are implemented in the context of the issues and indicators encountered by manufacturing
firms. An additional purpose of this paper is to illustrate how best to analyse and
investigate SPI in manufacturing firms through the four main practices discussed above:
awareness, drivers, barriers, and indicators’ relevance.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2, literature review
relates to SPI’s concepts, awareness, motivations, barriers, and relevance. Section 3
describes the proposed frameworks for SPI assessment in manufacturing firms. In
Section 4, a case study will be detailed. Section 5 includes a conclusion which details
potential contributions and recommendations for further work.

2 Literature survey

Few studies of the requirements of SPI exist. This section’s literature review presents and
discusses research on SPI; sustainability awareness; motivation in SPI; barriers to
implementing sustainability in manufacturing firms, and the relevance of sustainability
issues and their indicators.

2.1 General concepts of practices and implementation

Epstein et al. (2008) presented studies of companies’ sustainability programs to show that
good environmental practices will increase profits. Mukherjee and Muga (2010)
developed an integrated framework that allows the reorganisation and integration of
existing sustainability practices in the fields of architecture, engineering, and
construction. Martains et al. (2011) used group reporting initiative (GRI) to evaluate the
efficiency of sustainability performance. Borchardt et al. (2012) proposed a method to
assess the degree to which eco-design is implemented in manufacturing companies based
on a multi-criteria decision support method – the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
Garetti and Taisch (2012) presented a fully detailed discussion about sustainable
manufacturing which identified the most important issues regarding sustainable
development. Melo et al. (2012) presented a new methodology for assessing industrial
energy efficiency by identifying the points of energy loss and the most influenced sectors
within the production processes. Leszczynska (2012) used GRI as a point of reference to
analyse the sustainability reports published by international organisations. Lozano (2012)
provided a brief explanation of 16 of the most widely initiatives to embed sustainability
into organisational systems.

2.2 Sustainability awareness

Veleva et al. (2001) and Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001) presented a new methodology for
raising companies’ awareness of sustainability by using core and supplemental indicators.
Glavic and Lukman (2007) presented sustainability definitions and terms for
understanding and communicating information related to sustainable development.
336 I.H. Garbie

Accenture (2010) investigated hundreds of companies worldwide in order to determine

the importance of sustainability in that context. A new course on sustainability was
proposed for engineering schools by Davidson et al. (2010). The science of sustainability
and the manner in which it is presented in printed journals, periodicals, and textbooks
was analysed by Hasna (2010). Liu et al. (2011) reviewed challenges, perspectives, and
recent advances in support of sustainable production operations’ decision-making
through sustainable design, manufacturing and supply chain management. Bi (2011)
broadly discussed the requirements of manufacturing systems by clarifying their
limitations and bottlenecks. The importance of integrating sustainability with
manufacturing was investigated by Rosen and Kishawy (2012) and Rosen (2012). A
method by which awareness of green information technology is presented and through
which the topic is discussed with respect to environmental sustainability was studied by
Chou and Chou (2012).

2.3 Sustainability motivations and challenges

Paramanathan et al. (2004) suggested some of the drivers and barriers for implementing
sustainability such as pressure from government entities, technology-associated issues,
and the power of innovation and employees. Law and Gunasekaran (2012) identified key
factors motivating a number of high-tech manufacturing firms to adopt and implement
sustainability through management (strategy/policy, mindset); internal entities (system,
measures, performance), and external influences (i.e., laws, regulations, social pressure,
competition, market need). Giunipero et al. (2012) focused on the motivation and
challenges that purchasing and supply management personnel encounter in implementing
sustainability. Their results show that top management initiatives and government
regulations are the most motivating factors. Kulatunga et al. (2013) investigated the
motivations and challenges associated with adapting sustainability concepts to overcome
existing issues faced by industrial organisations.

2.4 Sustainability indicators’ relevance

Ron (1998) presented a procedure for sustainability assessment. Azapagic (2004)
developed a methodology for performance assessment using sustainability indicators.
Social sustainability criteria were proposed, including human resources and external
populations (Labuschagne and Brent, 2008). Sustainability of operations in the industry
was proposed and assessed (Labuschagne et al., 2005). Designing sustainability metrics
was introduced, taking into consideration availability factors and time remaining by
Weiser et al. (2008). Stechel et al. (2009) analysed innovation for increasing
competitiveness, lowering costs and increasing revenues in some companies. The value
of sustainability was recognised through studies of business strategy of some companies
related to innovation (Nidumolu et al., 2009). Sustainable production indicators were
evaluated (Tseng et al., 2009, 2013) by using fuzzy logic and the analytical hierarchy
process (AHP). Creating social sustainable value was discussed through philosophical,
ethical, economical, psychological, and technological viewpoints (Ueda et al., 2009). The
issues of designing sustainable networks were suggested to be undertaken in a logistics
system (Lee et al., 2010).
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 337

Relationships within and between several international manufacturing firms were

hypothesised through lean implementation, and management of businesses’
environmental and performance outcomes (Yang et al., 2011; Hong et al., 2012). Caniato
et al. (2012) analysed the sustainability of supply chain environmental issues in the
fashion industry. Jayant (2012) considered environmental and economic issues as the
most significant impacts and developmental cornerstones in sustainable supply chains
through design and development, planning and control, and product remanufacturing and
recovery strategies. Cagno et al. (2012) proposed a methodology to minimise waste for
improving productivity and associated sustainability. Quality of sustainability indicators
were reviewed by Hak et al. (2012). Several categories including workers, local
communities, and society were used to assess the lifecycle of a manufacturing process
(Egbue, 2012). The effect of environmental sustainability initiatives on plant efficiencies
was investigated by Schoenherr and Talluri (2013). Garbie (2013) used requirements of
designing sustainable manufacturing enterprises based on economic perspective.
Additionally, Garbie (2014, 2015a, 2015c) conducted a comprehensive literature survey
regarding sustainability issues and indicators used to model and assess global and
integrating sustainability development in manufacturing firms based on the TBL.

2.5 Research gap

This survey of the literature reveals gaps in the research:

• With respect to assessing levels of practice and implementation, articles focus on

implementing sustainability from an environmental, social, or economic point of
view individually without integrating them into one assessment model based on the
TBL.

• Although there were almost ten articles mentioned on sustainability awareness, there
is no one methodology used to express how to assess awareness.

• Regarding drivers of and barriers to sustainability, few articles discuss the drivers
and barriers of implementing sustainable practices without introducing how to
measure or evaluate them.

• Although several indicators of sustainability have been proposed in various contexts

for diverse purposes (Hak et al., 2012), there is no consensus on a general common
set of scientific criteria for evaluating or assessing sustainability indicators.
Analysis and investigation of sustainability practices and their implementation by
manufacturing firms requires more attention from academicians and industrialists. The
present study considers a complex phenomenon and only considers an investigation of
how to assess sustainable practices and implementation. The main contribution of this
research is to present a framework based on qualitative and quantitative models to assess
the level of implementing relevant practices through an assessment of levels of
sustainability awareness; motivation; challenges, and the quality of sustainability
indicators.
338 I.H. Garbie

3 Research design

This section aims to illustrate the building of logical mathematical models and designing
questionnaires and is divided into five subsections. The first subsection illustrates how to
model and assess SPI. The second subsection shows how sustainability awareness can be
evaluated based on industry experts’ previous work. Explaining how to measure levels of
motivation and challenge in manufacturing firms will be proposed and discussed in
subsection 3. The fourth subsection is used to evaluate the relevance of sustainability
indicators through their dimensions, related issues, and relevant aspects. Finally, the last
subsection shows how the questionnaires are designed and what they address.
As the aim of this paper is to assess SPI through logical mathematical models, four
such models are employed to show these concepts. The first logical model
(subsection 3.1) illustrates how to assess SPI as a function of awareness, drivers, barriers,
and the relevance of indicators. The second logical model (subsection 3.2) measures the
degree of awareness based on a review of designed questionnaires and a fuzzy logic
approach. The third and fourth logic models are also used to evaluate the levels of
motivation and challenge in a manufacturing firm based on a questionnaire and fuzzy
logic (subsection 3.3). Identifying the degree of relevance of sustainability and treatment
through the AHP will be shown in subsection 3.4. Suggested questionnaires are presented
in subsection 3.5.

3.1 Sustainable practices and implementation

As assessment of SPI is based on awareness of sustainability, drivers, or motivators, for
sustainable practices, barriers to adoption, and the relevance of issues/aspects and their
indicators, one mathematical model cannot satisfy all four of these practices. Several
individual assessments for each practice will be proposed and presented, and the
aggregated assessment of all four areas will be conducted as shown in Figure 1 and
illustrated in equations (1) and (2).

Figure 1 Assess SPI

Awareness (A)

Drivers (D)
Sustainability practices and
Barriers (B) implementation (SPI)

Relevance (R)

Regarding SPI level, the expected value is clearly expressed by equation (1) based on the
practices and implementation types (Figure 1). Equation (1) illustrates the function
between SPI and its components, where SPI represents the level or value of assessing the
sustainability practices, A represents the sustainability awareness index, D represents the
level of motivations or drivers, B represents the degree of difficulty regarding barriers,
and R refers to the degree of relevance with respect to implementing the sustainability
indicators.
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 339

⎡ A⎤
⎢D⎥
SPI = f ( A, D, B, R ) = [ wA wD wB wR ] ⎢ ⎥ (1)
⎢B⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣R⎦
Equation (1) can be rewritten with different nomenclature representing the different
sustainability practice types [equation (2)]
SPI = wA ( A) + wD ( D) + wB ( B ) + wR ( R ) (2)

The symbols wA, wD, wB, and wR are the relative weights of awareness, drivers, barriers,
and relevance, respectively. The values of these relative weights are estimated using the
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Garbie et al., 2008a, 2008b; Garbie and Shikdar,
2011a, 2011b).
⎡ wA wA wA ⎤
⎢ 1 wD wB wR ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ wD wD wD ⎥
⎢w 1
wB wR ⎥
=⎢ ⎥
A
ASPI
⎢ B
w wB wB ⎥
⎢w 1
wD wR ⎥
⎢ A ⎥
⎢ wR wR wR ⎥
⎢w 1 ⎥
⎣ A wD wB ⎦

3.2 Sustainability awareness

Assessing manufacturing firms’ levels of sustainability awareness is based on the firms’
employees’ levels of general familiarity with sustainability’s pillars and dimensions as
well as its specific issues/aspects. Figure 2 illustrates both general concepts and specific
sustainability pillars. Figure 2 also shows that there are four different types of awareness
associated with SPI: general, economic, social, and environmental.
Estimating the degree of sustainability awareness in manufacturing firms is still an
ambiguous measurement because the characteristics of sustainability are subjectively
described (Garbie et al., 2008a). In assessing SPI in manufacturing firms, several major
fundamental questions must be asked, including, “How do manufacturing firms assess or
evaluate sustainability awareness?”, “Which sustainability awareness type in the TBL
(general, economic, social, and environmental) constitutes more awareness than others?”,
and “How can manufacturing firms improve their sustainability awareness?”.
Each of the proposed areas of sustainability awareness – general, economic, social,
and environmental – has its own questionnaire that uses the fuzzy logic approach. The
total sustainability awareness is aggregated based on these individual types. A
sustainability awareness analysis, therefore, can be conducted via a survey in which
sustainability awareness is quantified according to a ten-point Likert-style scale in which
the interviewee rates items based on three levels: optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic.
The results of such a survey would give an idea of how manufacturing firms are
struggling or succeeding with sustainability (Garbie et al., 2008a).
340 I.H. Garbie

The fuzzification interface for each awareness type can be used to transform crisp
data into fuzzy data using equation (3) (Garbie et al., 2008a; Garbie and Shikdar, 2011
and Garbie, 2015b).
I i − WV
μ ( Ii ) = (3)
BV − WV
where Ii = the raw value of each attribute or question, (WV < Ii < BV), μ(Ii) = the linear
transformation index value (membership), BV = best value = 10, and WV = worst
value = 0. The expert assigns the BV and WV for a particular attribute. The linear
transformation index value μ(Ii) can be calculated for the raw value of each attribute, Ii.
The measure of the fuzziness (f) of each awareness type (general concept, economic,
social, and environmental) for all statuses (pessimistic, optimistic, and most likely) is
used as in equation (4) (Garbie et al., 2008a; Garbie and Shikdar, 2011; Garbie, 2015b).
1
⎡ nI 2⎤
2

⎢
∑
⎢ ( 2 μ ( I i ) − 1) ⎥
⎥⎦
f ( I ) j = ⎣ i =1 1
(4)
nI 2

where nI = the number of attributes (questions) regarding the industry awareness type,
μ(Ii) = the membership function, and j = the status of the fuzzy member triangle
(pessimistic, optimistic, and most likely). The defuzzification values can be evaluated
using equation (5) (Garbie et al., 2008a; Garbie and Shikdar, 2011; Garbie, 2015b).
pK + 2 mK + oK
AK = (5)
4
where pK = pessimistic, oK = optimistic, and mK = most likely.

Figure 2 Awareness evaluation in manufacturing firms (see online version for colours)

Design of questionnaire

Distribution of questionnaires

Gathering questionnaires for each awareness type

General concepts Economic Social Environmental

of awareness awareness awareness awareness

Fuzzy logic Fuzzy logic Fuzzy logic Fuzzy logic

Defuzzification Defuzzification Defuzzification Defuzzification

Industry Awareness Level (A)

 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 341

The output domain AK is a unique solution and uses all of the information of the output
membership function distribution. The AK is the current value of the industry
sustainability awareness type index. The average industry awareness is estimated by
equation (6).

nK

∑A
K =1
K

A= (6)
nK

3.3 Sustainability drivers and barriers

Assessing sustainability drivers and barriers indexes in manufacturing firms also will be
evaluated through the proposed questionnaires, which were created and designed based
on two variables: motivations (drivers) and challenges (barriers). The motivation level for
implementing sustainability in any industry evolves in a top-down manner, with
motivators filtering from top level management, including presidents, the chief executive
officer (CEO), and general managers. Motivations then fall to middle managers including
production and department heads, and down to lower level section managers, engineers
and technical supervisors. Challenges are also distributed in a top-down manner
throughout the same hierarchy of managers in manufacturing firms.
The proposed estimation approach for identifying a firm’s level of motivation and
barriers in the adoption and implementation of sustainability has its own survey that uses
the fuzzy logic approach, and the motivation and barriers are evaluated individually
(Figure 3). The analysis can be conducted in a survey and the results are quantified by the
importance of each question on a ten-point scale based on three levels: optimistic, most
likely, and pessimistic.

Figure 3 Drivers and barriers in applying sustainability in manufacturing firms (see online
version for colours)

Design of questionnaire (for D and B)

Distribution of questionnaires

Gathering of questionnaires

Collected raw data individually for D and

Fuzzy Logic

Motivation level (D) and Challenges level

342 I.H. Garbie

The fuzzification interface for motivation (D) and barriers (B) is used to transform crisp
data into fuzzy data using equation (7) (Garbie et al., 2008a; Garbie and Shikdar, 2011;
Garbie, 2015b).
Di − WV B − WV
μ ( Di ) = and μ ( Bi ) = i (7)
BV − WV BV − WV
where Di and Bi = the raw value of each attribute or each question (WV < Di and Bi < BV),
μ(Di) and μ(Bi) = the linear transformation index value (membership) for drivers and
barriers, respectively. The BV = 10 and the WV = 0 for motivation, but for challenges,
these values will be switched. The linear transformation index value μ(Di) and μ(Bi) can
be calculated for the raw value of each attribute, Di and Bi, as follows, respectively.
The measure of fuzziness (f) of the drivers and/or barriers (f) for all status
(pessimistic, optimistic and most likely) is used as in equation (8) (Garbie et al., 2008a;
Garbie and Shikdar, 2011; Garbie, 2015b).
1 1
⎡ nD 2⎤
2 ⎡ nB 2⎤
2

⎢
∑
⎢ ( 2 μ ( Di ) − 1) ⎥
⎥⎦ ⎢
∑
⎢ ( 2 μ ( Bi ) − 1) ⎥
⎥⎦
f ( D) j = ⎣ i =1 1
and f ( B ) j = ⎣ i =1 1
(8)
nD 2 nB 2

where nD and nB = the number of attributes (questions) regarding drivers and barriers,
respectively, and j = the status of fuzzy member triangle (pessimistic, optimistic, and
most likely).
The defuzzification values for D and B can be evaluated using equation (9) (Garbie
et al., 2008a; Garbie and Shikdar, 2011; Garbie, 2015b).
pD + 2 mD + oD p + 2 mB + oB
D= and B = B (9)
4 4
where pD = pessimistic, oD = optimistic, and mD = most likely for drivers, and
pB = pessimistic, oB = optimistic, and mB = most likely for barriers. The output domains D
and B are a unique solution and use all the information of the output membership
function distribution. D and B are the current values of motivation and challenges
regarding the adoption and implementation of sustainability.

3.4 Relevance of sustainability indicators

The relevance of SPI means selecting/identifying a set of issues/aspects for every
sustainability pillar/dimension with the associated indicators for each issue/aspect. The
TBL with sustainability dimensions and their issues/aspects as identified by Garbie
(2014) are shown and illustrated in Figure 4, in which sustainability indicators are
specifically grouped into economic, social, and environmental classifications. Indicators
come from the sustainability pillar/dimension directly and alone (e.g., revenues or
earnings from economic sustainability), and indicators come due to interactions between
two dimensions/pillars (e.g., jobs created from interactions between economic and social
sustainability). Indicators arise from integrating the three pillars/dimensions of
sustainability (e.g., the level of well-being and welfare).
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 343

The characteristics of these indicators are also divided into three categories of
objectives based on indicators: short term, long term, and continuous. To be considered
short-term, an objective must emerge within a short period (less than a year until a
month) owing to interactions between two pillars of sustainability (TBL), and results and
outcomes of indicators must appear in a short time as well. To be considered long term,
objectives and indicators’ outcomes must be reported and recorded for at least a year and
reviewed for consistency annually. This means that it must be kept for a long time and
exist to ensure sustainability because these indicators come only from the pillar of
sustainability. Continuous objectives are achieved through the objective of
sustainability/sustainable development by measuring the degree, level, or percentage of
well-being that evolves due to the sustainability pillars.

Figure 4 The TBL of sustainability dimensions with their issues/aspects (see online version
for colours)

For
continuous Sustainable development
objectives (Creating value)…..well being and welfare

Economy
  E1: Globalization issues
E2: Emerging issues Revenues
  E3: Innovation Earnings For long-term
  E4: Reconfiguration Net cash flow objectives
  E5: Competitive strategies Shareholder return
E6: Performance evaluation
 
E7: Organization Management
 
Socio-economy
Jobs created
Skills enhancement For
For Eco-efficiency Local economic impacts short-term
short-term Life cycle analysis Social investments
Product stewardship objectives
objectives Business ethics
Resource efficiency Taxes/royalties

Environment Society
N1: Environmental Management S1: Work management
N2: Use of resources S2: Human rights
N3: Pollution S3: Societal commitment
N4: Dangerousness S4: Customers’ issues
N5: Natural Environment S5: Business practices

Labor standards
Waste minimization Employees
Emissions reduction Diversity
Dangerous prevention Community dialogue
Ecosystem services Socio-environment
Biodiversity Safety and health
Regulatory compliance Global climate change
Local environmental impact
Resource management

For long-term
For long-term objectives
objectives
For short-term
objectives
 344

Table 1
Economy
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7
E11: Supply chain E21: Process E31: Needs E41: Enterprise size E51: Complexity E61: Product cost E71: Strategic
management technology analysis planning
E12: Information E22: Government E32: Market E42: Enterprise E52: Lean production E62: Response (lead E72: Organising
I.H. Garbie

technology regulations opportunity functionality time) work

E13: Energy price E23: Growth of E33: Product E43: Material E53: Agile E63: Enterprise E73: Organisation
populations development handling manufacturing productivity structure
time and cost equipments
E14: Emerging E24: Growth of E34: Development E44: Material E54: Re-manufacturing E64: HR appraisal E74: Leadership role
markets economics capability handling storage
E15: Business E25: Consumption of E35: Regionalised E45: Identification E55: Recycling E65: Resources status E75: Staffing
models resources products system processes
E36: Personalised E46: Plant location E66: Product quality
products
E47: Plant layout
(CMS)

Society
Major issues/aspects with their practical indicators

S1
S11: Employment
S12: Work conditions
S13: Social dialogue
S14: Social security
S15: HR development
S2 S3
S21: Child labour S31: Involvement community
S22: Freedom of association S32: Education
S23: Discrimination S33: Healthcare
S34: Job creation
S35: Societal investment
S36: Culture development
S4 S5
S41: Marketing and information S51: Fight against corruption
S42: Private life protection S52: Fair-trading
S43: Access to essential services S53: Understanding mix
cultures
 Table 1

Environment
N1 N2 N3 N4 N5
N11: Environmental budget N21: Renewable energy N31: Air pollution N41: Dangerous inputs N51: Eco-system services
N12: Environmental N22: Recycled water N32: Water pollution N42: Dangerous output N52: Bio-diversity
certification
N13: Environmental N23: Recyclable wastes N33: Land pollution N43: Dangerous wastes N53: Land use
Compliance
N14: Workers implications N54: Development of rural areas
Major issues/aspects with their practical indicators (continued)
Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 345
346 I.H. Garbie

Based on the characteristics of objective indicators (Figure 4) that are measured for
applicability via their issues/aspects, the practical indicators are selected and presented as
shown in Table 1 (Garbie, 2014). The analytical model that guides a determination of
whether or not to implement SPIs using the AHP will be presented in this section. The
proposed AHP combines the TBL (economical, social, and environmental sustainability)
with the issues/aspects of the proposed indicators. The AHP algorithm divides the
structure of the decision into hierarchical steps and sequences to assign the levels of
importance between sustainability dimensions, issues, and indicators examined through
pair-wise comparisons. The most substantial point of this paper regarding the relevance
of sustainability in manufacturing firms is how different indicators in one issue/aspect
could be compared in a way that deviates from what has been published before (Garbie
2013, 2014). This means the AHP is used to assign the impact of an individual indicator
to the overall assessment of the relevance of sustainability indicators in manufacturing
firms.
The AHP model consists of the following steps (Figure 5; Appendix) and a list of
practical indicators (Table 1).

Step 1 Set the strategic objective of the analysis according to whether it is relevant to
the implementation of sustainability measures.

Step 2 Design the hierarchy of decision making in terms of the most feasible result.

Step 3 Assign the relative weight for every dimension of sustainability and possible
issues and indicators.

Step 4 Estimate the importance of each criterion.

Step 5 Assign and select the rating of a higher alternative.

Figure 5 The AHP structure of the proposed model (see online version for colours)

Overall objective Sustainability indicators relevance (R)

 

Top level E S N

1st middle level

E1 E2 E7 S1 S2 S5 N1 N2 N5

E11 E12 E15 S11 S12 S15 N11 N12 N14

2nd middle level

Operational level Degree or level to Degree or level to be

be implemented NOT implemented
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 347

3.5 Designing questionnaires

For this study, questionnaire templates were created based on research-suggested logical
mathematical models in which qualitative assessments were converted into quantitative
values. Interviews with representatives at manufacturing firms proceeded as follows: an
employee(s) was involved in preparing the questionnaire template pre-interview, and
pilot interviews were subsequently conducted with representatives of the population to be
polled. An analysis and summary of the results were then compiled and corrections were
made to the questionnaire where necessary (Hallstedt et al., 2010). After this piloting
process, quantitative data were collected via the developed questionnaire. By distributing
those questionnaires among many different managerial levels with individuals from
different backgrounds and with various academic qualifications, collecting data in this
manner will reveal the difference in the levels of adoption and implementation of
sustainability.

3.5.1 Designing questionnaires for sustainability awareness

For sustainability awareness, there are four perspectives: one for the general concept of
sustainability and one for each dimension of the TBL. The piloted questionnaire
templates were mainly used to guide the managerial pilot population in determining their
current perceptions of general concepts, and economical, social, and environmental
concerns. To transform the proposed logical mathematical approach into a valid
measurement tool, the four questionnaire templates were designed and constructed
specifically for employees in the manufacturing industry. By distributing those developed
questionnaires among people from different backgrounds and with various academic
qualifications, differing levels of awareness will be revealed, and the levels of awareness
of sustainability as a concept in general, and also in the TBL dimensions will be revealed.
The first part of the survey contains specific questions to measure manufacturing
industry employees’ levels of awareness of general sustainability. The questionnaire asks
whether people understand the concept of sustainability, and to describe their level of
confidence regarding sustainability, what they have heard about sustainability, and
whether they have taken any training courses or participated in projects related to
sustainability. It also includes questions that measure the perceived importance of
sustainability.
The second part of the questionnaire contains questions related to economic
sustainability, perceptions of global economic change and manufacturing firms’
improvements on profit making, and happiness with their successes and place in the
market. The questionnaire also measures whether people have a plan to sustain their
success. It is important also to measure how much people believe sustainable
development will increase profit.
The third part of the survey contains important questions regarding awareness in the
social dimension. It asks how comfortable and secure people feel in their communities,
and how much guidance and benefits they receive from their companies. It also measures
companies’ fairness and encouragement of diversity through an assessment of
opportunities given to employees, and whether or not employees feel free to express their
beliefs and opinions. The last part of the questionnaire contains questions about
awareness in the environmental dimension. These questions measure whether companies
have strategies to protect the environment through green alternatives and reducing their
348 I.H. Garbie

firms’ scrap material production rates. The questionnaire also measures employees’
awareness of climate change and their happiness with the environment in which they live.

3.5.2 Designing questionnaires for sustainability drivers and barriers

There are two questionnaires for measuring employees’ levels of motivation and
challenge. In evaluating employees’ levels of motivation in implementing sustainability,
the questionnaire mainly focused on customers’ preferences for sustainability and the
potential for sustainability to be used as a marketing tool. Additionally, questions focused
on government regulations related to sustainability; awareness of sustainable practices in
those in top management positions; the limitations of existing process enhancement
methodologies; the economic benefits of sustainable practices (e.g., in relation to a
shortage of natural resources); public values as they relate to sustainable practices
(e.g., social commitment); environmental priorities; success stories in other organisations
after implementing sustainable practices, and the availability of funds for green projects.
The second questionnaire will be used to assess a firm’s level of challenges in relation
to implementing sustainable practices and will refer to the lack of awareness of concepts
in local programs (e.g., a lack of awareness of the language of sustainability), unclear
sustainability objectives, a lack of consensus on sustainability goals, a lack of tax benefits
or other rewards from the government that might encourage sustainability, a shortage of
internal and external funds, research and development challenges, inadequate personnel,
and high staff turnover rates.

3.5.3 Designing questionnaires for determining the relevance of sustainability

indicators
Designing a questionnaire for estimating the relevance of sustainability indicators is
based on the availability of metrics and determining to what degree performance units of
the indicators reflect SPI. With respect to economic sustainability, there are almost 39
suggested indicators identified to evaluate the degree of relevance (Table 1), For
example, globalisation issues (E1) has five performance indicators (E11–E15). Each
indicator is used to measure the availability of the performance unit of an indicator. For
example, E11 is used to measure the availability of reducing the number of stops caused
by suppliers as a percentage (%). Regarding social sustainability, there are 19 indicators
suggested to evaluate its relevance. Also for environmental sustainability, 14 indicators
are recommended to assess the relevance of SPI (Table 1) (Garbie, 2014).

4 Industry application

To conduct and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, Company X

illustrates the proposed techniques and concepts in action. Company X commenced
commercial production in January 2003 and since then has been growing rapidly. A
professionally managed company with a multinational work force, it is manned by
competent technical and management professionals. The company has a capacity to
produce 100,000 metric tons of high yield strength deformed (HYSD) bars per annum.
The company produces 8–25 mm diameter HYSD bars that conform to the following
specifications: steel billets of a specified chemical composition are heated in a reheating
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 349

furnace to 1050ºC and then rolled in a series of rolling stands to the required sizes. The
hot finished bars are then subjected to an online heat treatment to get HYSD bars with
excellent elongation and bendability. These bars are then cut to 12-metre lengths,
bundled, and shipped to customers. At this Company X, the quality control department
ensures that the billets received are of prime quality. Samples of finished products are
taken online at regular intervals and subjected to tensile tests on a fully computerised
tensile testing machine which also provides mill test certificates.

4.1 Measuring industry awareness

Estimating awareness with respect to the manufacturing industry will be assessed with
values of awareness ranging from 0 to 1. After distributing the survey questionnaire
through Company X’s almost 30 employees at different levels of the company, it was
found that the average degree of awareness with respect to general, economic, social, and
environmental sustainability is 0.50, 0.56, 0.48, and 0.47, respectively (Figure 6). These
values seem mediocre. The data show that, in Company X, awareness of economic
sustainability is the highest among all types of awareness. This means that economic
sustainability is well known, as almost 50% of all employees know about it. However,
social and environmental sustainability awareness is the lowest among the measured
dimensions of the TBL. The average level of industry awareness (A) for Company X is
0.50, which is again a mediocre value. This indicates also a deficiency of social and
environmental sustainability regarding the effect of specific awareness on total industry
awareness.

Figure 6 Company X sustainability awareness (see online version for colours)

0.56
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48 Awareness 

0.46
0.44
0.42
General Social

4.2 Measuring motivations and challenges

With respect to evaluating the levels of motivations (drivers) and challenges (barriers) for
SPI, the survey for drivers and the other for barriers were conducted separately. After
distributing both questionnaires through Company X’s 30 employees in different
positions, it was found that the level of motivations and challenges are 0.64 and 0.50,
respectively (Figure 7). These values seem mediocre, but the level of motivations is
higher than the level of challenges. This means that there is a willingness to follow and
implement SPI, but almost half of possible challenges to sustainability are present. A lack
of awareness of concepts related to sustainability; a lack of sufficient staff; high staff
350 I.H. Garbie

turnover rates, and insufficient skilled personnel represent the hindrances in

implementing sustainability.

Figure 7 Company X motivations and challenges (see online version for colours)

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 Drivers and Barriers
0.2
0.1
0
Motivation Challenge

4.3 Measuring the degree of relevance of sustainability indicators

Assessing the level or degree of relevance of sustainability indicators requires starting
from the major sustainability dimensions/pillars and working through their aspects/issues.
This can be done by using the AHP at the different levels of hierarchy starting at the top
level (major sustainability pillars), first middle level (aspects/issues within each pillar),
second middle level (indicators within each aspect/issue), and finally dropping to the
operational level which is responsible for measuring the relevance for each indicator
(Figure 5). Therefore, estimating the indicators’ relevance will proceed from top to
bottom (Figure 5) until an operational level is reached which is based on the pilot
questionnaire to identify each indicator individually. The relative weights of pillars of
sustainability and related issues/aspects are used as presented by Garbie (2014), but for
the sustainability indicators, the target of this paper, the pilot questionnaire survey results
will be used to estimate the degree of relevance and the relative weights between
indicators will follow the same procedures of AHP as reflected in Appendix.
First, estimating the relative weights between sustainability dimensions in the TBL
model is evaluated using the AHP as shown in the following matrix. The relative weights
are estimated for the top level as 0.3020, 0.3657, and 0.3223 for economy (E), society
(S), and environment (N), respectively (Garbie, 2014).
E ⎡ 1 3 / 4 1⎤
AE − S − N = S ⎢⎢ 4 / 3 1 1⎥⎥
N ⎢⎣ 1 1 1⎥⎦

Second, estimating the relative weights between main aspects/issues in each

sustainability pillar will be proposed as the following matrices: economic, social, and
environmental. The following matrix is used to estimate the issues/aspects of economic
sustainability as represented by E1 through E7. The relative weights are estimated for
economic sustainability issues as 0.2658, 0.08, 0.198, 0.1778, 0.093, 0.08, and 0.10 for
globalisation issues (E1), emerging issues (E2), innovation (E3), reconfiguration (E4),
competitive strategies (E5), performance evaluation (E6), and organisation management
(E7), respectively
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 351

E1 ⎡ 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 ⎤
⎢
E 2 ⎢1 / 2 1 1/ 2 1/ 2 3 / 4 3 / 4 1 / 2 ⎥⎥
E 3 ⎢1 / 3 2 1 1 3 3 3 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
AE1....E 7 = E 4 ⎢1 / 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 ⎥
E 5 ⎢1 / 2 4 / 3 1/ 3 1/ 2 1 1 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
E 6 ⎢1 / 3 4 / 3 1/ 3 1/ 3 1 1 1 ⎥
E 7 ⎢⎣1 / 2 2 1/ 3 1/ 2 1 1 1 ⎥⎦

With respect to issues of social sustainability, represented by S1–S5, the relative weights
are estimated for societal sustainability issues as 0.2144, 0.3043, 0.2330, 0.1046, and
0.1437 for work management (S1), human rights (S2), social commitments (S3),
customer issues (S4), and business practices (S5), respectively. Also, the relative weights
are estimated for environmental sustainability issues N1–N5 as 0.2955, 0.2052, 0.1684,
0.1877, and 0.1432 for environmental management (N1), use of resources (N2), pollution
(N3), dangerousness (N4), and natural environment (N5), respectively.

S1 ⎡ 1 1 1 2 1⎤
S2⎢ 1⎢ 1 2 3 2 ⎥⎥
AS1....S 5 ⎢
= S3 1 1 / 2 1 3 2⎥
⎢ ⎥
S 4 ⎢1 / 2 1 / 3 1 / 3 1 1⎥
S 5 ⎢⎣ 1 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 1 ⎥⎦

N1 ⎡ 1 2 2 2 1 ⎤
⎢
N 2 ⎢1 / 2 1 2 1 3 / 2 ⎥⎥
AN 1....N 5 = N 3 ⎢1 / 2 1 / 2 1 1 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
N 4 ⎢1 / 2 1 1 1 2 ⎥
N 5 ⎢⎣ 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 ⎥⎦

Third, estimating the relative weights between indicators regarding every issue/aspect
represents the huge task of estimating relative weights, especially in each aspect/issue as
compared with other indicators. Regarding sustainability indicators, Table 1 includes the
proposed indicators for each aspect/issue of economic dimension: E1 (E11–E15), E2
(E21–E25), E3 (E31–E36), and E7 (E71–E75); the proposed indicators for each
aspect/issue of the social dimension: S1 (S11–S15); S2 (S21–S23), S3 (S31–S36), and S5
(S51–S53) and the proposed indicators for each aspect/issue of the environmental
dimension: N1 (N11–N14), N2 (N21–N23), N3 (N31–N36), and N5 (N51–N54). Table 2
illustrates the relative weights between economic sustainability indicators, Table 3 shows
the relative weights between social sustainability indicators, and Table 4 illustrates the
relative weights between environmental sustainability indicators.
352 I.H. Garbie

Table 2 Relative weights of economic sustainability indicators

Aspect Indicator Relative weights

E1 E11: Supply chain management 0.2028
E12: Information technology 0.1629
E13: Energy price 0.1525
E14: Emerging markets 0.2741
E15: Business models 0.2077
E2 E21: Process technology 0.1907
E22: Government regulations 0.1187
E23: Growth of populations 0.2102
E24: Growth of economics 0.2920
E25: Consumption of resources 0.1885
E3 E31: Needs 0.2811
E32: Market opportunity 0.2013
E34: Product development time and cost 0.0980
E35: Development capability 0.1037
E36: Regionalised products 0.1523
E37: Personalised products 0.1523
E4 E41: Enterprise size 0.1193
E42: Enterprise functionality 0.1461
E43: Material handling equipments 0.1205
E44: Material handling storage 0.1246
E45: Identification system 0.1207
E46: Plant location 0.2279
E47: Plant layout (CMS) 0.1409
E5 E51: Complexity analysis 0.3004
E52: Lean production 0.1275
E53: Agile manufacturing 0.1485
E54: Remanufacturing 0.1811
E55: Recycling processes 0.2425
E6 E61: Product cost 0.1790
E62: Response (lead time) 0.1564
E63: Enterprise productivity 0.1662
E64: HR appraisal 0.1662
E65: Resources status 0.1662
E66: Product quality 0.1662
E7 E71: Strategic planning 0.2000
E72: Organising work 0.2000
E73: Organisation structure 0.2000
E74: Leadership role 0.2000
E75: Staffing 0.2000
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 353

Table 3 Relative weights of social sustainability indicators

Aspect Indicator Relative weights

S1 S11 Employment 0.2513
S12 Work conditions 0.2380
S13 Social dialogue 0.1337
S14 Social security 0.2513
S15 HR development 0.1257
S2 S21 Child labour 0.5811
S22 Freedom of association 0.1483
S23 Discrimination 0.2706
S3 S31 Involvement community 0.1397
S32 Education 0.2116
S33 Healthcare 0.1464
S34 Job creation 0.2633
S35 Societal investment 0.1309
S36 Culture development 0.1081
S4 S41 Marketing and information 0.3278
S42 Private life protection 0.4111
S43 Access to essential services 0.2611
S5 S51 Fight against corruption 0.4000
S52 Fair-trading 0.4000
S53 Understanding mix cultures 0.2000

Table 4 Relative weights of environmental sustainability indicators

Aspect Indicator (j) Relative weights

N1 N11 Environmental budget 0.2308
N12 Environmental certification 0.2308
N13 Environmental compliance 0.2308
N14 Workers implications 0.3077
N2 N21 Renewable energy 0.5485
N22 Recycled water 0.2106
N23 Recyclable wastes 0.2409
N3 N31 Air pollution 0.5889
N32 Water pollution 0.2519
N33 Land pollution 0.1593
N4 N41 Dangerous inputs 0.3333
N42 Dangerous output 0.3333
N43 Dangerous wastes 0.3333
N5 N51 Eco-system services 0.4000
N52 Bio-diversity 0.3369
N53 Land use 0.0978
N54 Development of rural areas 0.1648
354 I.H. Garbie

After estimating the relative weights of all levels in the AHP structure of the proposed
model (Figure 5), the degree or level of implementing indicators will be estimated
individually based on the availability or capability to implement them. Each indicator has
its own performance measure (unit) helping to estimate its availability after interviewing
experts and stakeholders. Tables 5 to 7 are used to register the degree of relevance or
level of implementing or adopting each indicator as a percentage up to 100% as a
benchmark for economic, social, and environmental indicators, respectively.
Estimating the level of relevance of indicators is carried out by first calculating each
pillar/dimension individually and aggregating for all after that. Economic sustainability
indicators relevance (RE) for example, is estimated as follows:

⎧ ⎡0.80 × 0.2028 + 0.90 × 0.1629 + 0.90 ⎤ ⎫

⎪0.2658 × ⎢ ⎥⎪
⎪ ⎣×0.1525 + 0.60 × 0.2741 + 0.60 × 0.2077 ⎦ ⎪
⎪⎪ ⎡ 0.80 × 0.1907 + 0.95 × 0.1187 ⎤ ⎪⎪
RE = ⎨+0.08 × ⎢ ⎥ ⎬ × 0.3020 = 0.21
⎪ ⎣ +0.70 × 0.2102 + 0.80 × 0.1885⎦ ⎪
⎪ ⎡ 0.7 × 0.20 + 0.7 × 0.20 + 0.7 ⎤ ⎪
⎪+........... + 0.10 × ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎣×0.20 + 0.7 × 0.20 + 0.7 × 0.2 ⎦ ⎪⎭

Similarly, for social and environmental indicators’ relevance, RS and RN, respectively,

⎧ ⎡0.20 × 0.2513 + 0.95 × 0.2380 + 0.60 ⎤⎫

⎪0.2144 × ⎢ ⎥⎪
⎪ ⎣×0.1337 + 0.60 × 0.2513 + 0.70 × 0.1257 ⎦ ⎪
⎪⎪ ⎡ 0.95 × 0.5811 + 0.80 ⎤ ⎪⎪
RS = ⎨+0.3043 × ⎢ ⎥ ⎬ × 0.3657 = 0.25
⎪ ⎣×0.1483 + 0.70 × 0.2706 ⎦ ⎪
⎪ ⎡ 0.9 × 0.40 ⎤ ⎪
⎪+........... + 0.1437 × ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
⎩⎪ ⎣ +0.9 × 0.20 ⎦ ⎭⎪

⎧ ⎡0.75 × 0.2308 + 0.80 × 0.2308 ⎤ ⎫

⎪0.2955 × ⎢ ⎥⎪
⎪ ⎣ +0.75 × 0.2308 + 0.90 × 0.3077 ⎦ ⎪
⎪⎪ ⎡ 0.10 × 0.5485 + 0.10 ⎤ ⎪⎪
RN = ⎨+0.2052 × ⎢ ⎥ ⎬ × 0.3323 = 0.19
⎪ ⎣×0.2106 + 0.10 × 0.2409 ⎦ ⎪
⎪ ⎡ 0.9 × 0.4004 ⎤ ⎪
⎪+........... + 0.1432 × ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎣ +0.9 × 0.3369 ⎦ ⎪⎭

Then, the degree of sustainability indicators relevance (R) to implement and practice
sustainability equals 0.21 + 0.25 + 0.19 = 0.65 = 65%. These values show that social
sustainability indicators are more likely to be implemented than economic and
environmental indicators, although the difference between all dimensions’ relevance is
not significant. This means there is little balance between sustainability indicators.
The level of SPI is estimated as follows by assuming equal relative weights between
the SPI types as presented in equation (2):
SPI = 0.25(0.50) + 0.25(0.64) + 0.25(0.50) + 0.25(0.65) = 0.5725 = 57.25%.
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 355

Table 5 Economic indicators relevance

Indicator Relevance performance (units) 0–100%

E11 Availability (%) of reducing number of stops caused by suppliers 80
E12 Availability (%) of using internet and e-commerce 90
E13 Availability (%) of controlling energy prices 90
E14 Availability (%) of finding markets around the world 60
E15 Availability (%) of attractive new customers 60
E21 Availability (%) of using new technology 80
E22 Availability (%) of following the regulations 95
E23 Availability (%) of dealing with the increased populations 70
E24 Availability (%) of increasing profitability N/A
E25 Availability (%) of maximising utilisation of resources 80
E31 Availability (%) to satisfaction needs 80
E32 Availability (%) for opportunity markets 80
E33 Availability (%) of firms to develop shortly time and minimise cost 75
E34 Availability (%) of a firm to be capable to implement the new products 70
E35 Availability (%) to find new regions 60
E36 Availability (%) to introduce new products with respect to existing ones 80
E41 Availability (%) of sufficient resources (e.g., machines) 85
E42 Availability (%) of sufficient different operations (flexibility range) 80
E43 Availability (%) of sufficient material handling equipments 80
E44 Availability (%) of sufficient space of storage (cubic metres) 70
E45 Availability (%) of sufficient new identification systems 60
E46 Availability (%) of sufficient locations of the plant around the world 50
E47 Availability (%) of forming/creating focused cells 70
E51 Availability (%) of optimising complexity in the plant 80
E52 Availability (%) of applying lean principles, thinking and technique 80
E53 Availability (%) of using agility concepts 75
E54 Availability (%) of applied remanufacturing strategy 20
E55 Availability (%) of using recycling processes in the firms 30
E61 Availability (%) to minimise product cost 70
E62 Availability (%) to minimise manufacturing lead time 70
E63 Availability (%) to increase productivity 70
E64 Availability (%) to improve manual labour utilisation 80
E65 Availability (%) to enhance equipment efficiency 85
E66 Availability (%) to reduce customer complaints 80
E71 Degree of clarity of strategic planning 70
E72 Availability (%) of following the number of subordinates per supervisor 70
E73 Availability (%) of following the standard organisational structure 70
E74 Degree or percentage (%) of leadership 70
E75 Availability (%) to access to skilled personnel 70
356 I.H. Garbie

Table 6 Social indicators relevance

Indicator Relevance performance (Units) 0–100%

S11 Possibility (%) of hiring new employees 20
S12 Availability (%) of reducing the number of accidents due to working 95
condition
S13 Availability (%) of talking between stakeholders 60
S14 Availability (%) of social security 60
S15 Availability (%) of training employee 70
S21 Availability (%) of prevent/ eliminate hiring children 95
S22 Availability (%) of creating labour/union association 80
S23 Availability (%) of prevent/eliminate discrimination 70
S31 Availability (%) of involvement in local community 75
S32 Availability (%) to get an average education level for employees 50
S33 Availability (%) of health service level provided 70
S34 Availability (%) of creating new jobs for local community 50
S35 Availability (%) of annual budget to investment in society N/A
S36 Availability (%) of technology and culture regarding society N/A
S41 Availability (%) of customers to getting marketing and information 85
S42 Availability (%) of customers to protect their private lives 95
S43 Availability (%) of customers to essential services 85
S51 Availability (%) of fighting against corruption N/A
S52 Availability (%) of fair trading 90
S53 Availability (%) of understanding foreign (mix) cultures 90

Table 7 Environmental indicators relevance

Indicator Relevance performance (units) 0–100%

N11 Availability (%) to assign monetary for EHS compliance 75
N12 Availability (%) to follow the compliance ISO14001 80
N13 Availability (%) of environmental impact assessment 75
N14 Availability (%) to prevent environmental accidents 90
N21 Availability (%) of using renewable energy/total energy 10
N22 Availability (%) of using recycled water/total water consumption 10
N23 Availability (%) of using recycled wastes/total wastes 10
N31 Availability (%) to minimise Kg of gasses (e.g., carbon dioxide emission 95
in air)
N32 Availability (%) to minimise Kg of particles 95
N33 Availability (%) to minimise Kg and/or cubic metres of particles are 95
needed to land-filled
N41 Availability (%) to minimise Kg and/or cubic metres of dangerous 95
materials
N42 Availability (%) to minimise Kg and/or cubic metres of dangerous 95
materials
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 357

Table 7 Environmental indicators relevance (continued)

Indicator Relevance performance (units) 0–100%

N43 Availability (%) to minimise Kg and/or cubic metres of dangerous wastes 95
N51 Availability (%) to minimise the level of carbon dioxide in the atmospheric 90
N52 Availability (%) to minimise of health of ecosystems 90
N53 Availability (%) to minimise squared metres of land used for the plant N/A
N54 Availability (%) of annual budget to investment regarding rural areas N/A

Table 8 Values of the SPI types

SPI Practices types Value of each type Percentage of each practice type (%)
0.5725 A 0.1250 21.80
D 0.1600 27.90
B 0.1250 21.80
R 0.1625 28.50

This means that the level of SPI in Company X equals 57.25% among the four
sustainability practices: awareness, motivation, barriers, and relevance. It seems that the
level of awareness of sustainability indicators represents the highest value followed by
the level of motivations. Degrees of industry awareness and challenges are equal in value
and less than relevance and motivation levels (Table 8).

5 Conclusions, contribution, and recommendations for further work

In this paper, a comprehensive analytical model and empirical investigation is suggested

to assess the level of SPI in manufacturing industries through the four main proposed
requirements practices: sustainability awareness, motivations for sustainability,
challenges to sustainability, and relevance of sustainability indicators. Analytical
(qualitative and quantitative) models to measure the degree of each infrastructure
individually and aggregate initial theoretical and empirical data are investigated.
Although the designed questionnaire was used and might not be enough to give a
complete investigative picture, they give an indication of how manufacturing firms are
struggling toward implementing sustainability. This study’s subject matter is considered a
complex phenomenon and only should be considered for assessing SPI. Evidence from
industry was conducted through the proposed four practices and validated through
empirical investigations. The level of SPI was estimated as a mediocre value (57.25%),
with the relevance of sustainability indicators representing the highest value among all
sustainability practices, although proposing equity in relative weights between them.
The main contribution of this paper is to analyse and investigate the requirements of
sustainability practice types in manufacturing firms through the four main proposed
practices. This paper also illustrates how it is possible to model and assess sustainability
practices, and the proposed approach has become very useful as an assessment tool. The
author is looking to apply the proposed approach with its associated questionnaires
among numerous industrial companies to identify the index of sustainability practices and
358 I.H. Garbie

to show the most common awareness types, drivers, and barriers, and the feasibility of
sustainability indicators.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable and useful
feedback comments that contributed to an improvement in the paper.

References
Accenture and United Nations Global Compact (2010) A New Era of Sustainability, UN Global
Compact-Accenture CEO Study, New York, NY, USA.
Agustiady, T. and Badiru, A.B. (2013) Sustainability –Utilizing Lean Six Sigma Techniques, p.18,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Azapagic, A. (2004) ‘Developing a framework for sustainable development indictors for the mining
and minerals industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12, pp.639–662.
Bi, Z. (2011) ‘Revisiting system paradigms from the viewpoint of manufacturing sustainability’,
Sustainability, Vol. 3, pp.1323–1340.
Borchardt, M., Sellitto, M.A., Pereira, G.M. and Gomes, L.P. (2012) ‘Ecodesign case studies
furniture companies using the analytic hierarchy process’, International Journal of Industrial
Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practices, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp.330–340.
Cagno, E., Micheli, G.J.L. and Trucco, P. (2012) ‘Eco-efficiency for sustainable manufacturing: an
extended environmental costing method’, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23,
Nos. 2/3, pp.134–144.
Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L. and Moretto, A. (2012) ‘Environmental sustainability in fashion
supply chains: an exploratory case based research’, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp.659–670.
Chou, D.C. and Chou, A.Y. (2012) ‘Awareness of Green IT and its value model’, Computer
Standards and Interfaces, Vol. 34, pp.447–451.
Davidson, C.I., Hendrickson, C.T., Matthews, H.S., Bridges, M.W., Allen, D.T., Murphy, C.F.,
Allenby, B.R., Crittenden, J.C. and Austin, S. (2010) ‘Preparing future engineers for
challenges of the 21st century: sustainable engineering’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.698–701.
Egbue, O. (2012) ‘Assessment of social impacts of lithium for electric vehicle batteries’,
Proceedings of the 2012 on Ind. and Systems Eng. Re. Conf., 18–22 May, Orlando, Florida,
USA.
Epstein, M., Elkington, J. and Leonard, H. (2008) Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in
Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental and Economic, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Oakland, CA, USA.
Garbie, I.H. (2013) ‘DFSME: design for sustainable manufacturing enterprises (an economic
viewpoint)’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.479–503.
Garbie, I.H. (2014) ‘An analytical technique to model and assess sustainable development index in
manufacturing enterprise’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52, No. 16,
pp.4876–4915.
Garbie, I.H. (2015a) ‘Integrating sustainability assessments in the manufacturing enterprises’,
International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.343–368.
Garbie, I.H. (2015b) ‘Sustainability awareness in industrial organizations’, Procedia CIRP,
Vol. 26, pp.64–69.
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 359

Garbie, I.H. (2015c) ‘Sustainability optimization in manufacturing enterprises’, Procedia CIRP,

Vol. 26, pp.504–509.
Garbie, I.H. and Shikdar, A. (2011a) ‘Analysis and estimation of complexity level in industrial
firms’, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2,
pp.175–197.
Garbie, I.H. and Shikdar, A. (2011b) ‘Complexity analysis of industrial organizations based on a
perspective of systems engineering analysis’, The Journal of Engineering Research (TJER),
Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.1–9.
Garbie, I.H., Parsaei, H.R. and Leep, H.R. (2008a) ‘A novel approach for measuring agility in
manufacturing firms’, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. 32,
No. 2, pp.95–103.
Garbie, I.H., Parsaei, H.R. and Leep, H.R. (2008b) ‘Measurement of needed reconfiguration level
for manufacturing firms’, International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 3,
Nos. 1/2, pp.78–92.
Garetti, M. and Taisch, M. (2012) ‘Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges’,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23, Nos. 2–3, pp.83–104.
Giunipero, L., Hooker, R.E. and Denslow, D. (2012) ‘Purchasing and supply management
sustainability: drivers and barriers’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 18,
pp.258–269.
Glavic, P. and Lukman, R. (2007) ‘Review of sustainability terms and their definitions’, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, pp.1875–1885.
Hak, T., Kovanda, J. and Weinettel, J. (2012) ‘A method to assess the relevance of sustainability
indicators: application to the indicator set of the Czech Republic’s sustainable development
strategy’, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 17, pp.46–57.
Hallstedt, S., Ny, H., Robert, K-H. and Broman, G. (2010) ‘An approach to assessing sustainability
integration in strategic decision systems for product development’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18, pp.703–712.
Hasna, A.M. (2010) ‘Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach’,
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.258–276.
Hong, P., Roh, J.J. and Rawski, G. (2012) ‘Benchmarking sustainability practices: evidence from
manufacturing firms’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 19, Nos. 4/5,
pp.634–648.
Jayant, A. (2012) ‘Reverse logistics: perspectives, empirical studies and research directions’,
International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practices, Vol. 19,
No. 10, pp.369–388.
Kulatunga, A.K., Jayatilaka, P.R. and Jayawickrama, M. (2013) ‘Drivers and barriers to implement
sustainable manufacturing concepts in Sri Lankan manufacturing sector’, Proceedings of the
11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, 23–25 September, pp.177–182,
Berlin, German.
Labuschagne, C. and Brent, A.C. (2008) ‘An industry perspective of the completeness and
relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology management in the
manufacturing sector’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, pp.253–262.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C. and Erck, R.P. (2005) ‘Assessing the sustainability performances of
industries’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp.373–385.
Law, K.M.Y. and Gunasekaran, A. (2012) ‘Sustainability development in high-tech manufacturing
firms in Hong Kong: motivators and readiness’, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 137, pp.116–125.
Lee, D-H., Dong, M. and Bian, W. (2010) ‘The design of sustainable logistics network under
uncertainty’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 128, No. 1, pp.159–166.
Leszczynska, A. (2012) ‘Towards shareholders’ value: an analysis of sustainability reports’,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112, No. 6, pp.911–928.
360 I.H. Garbie

Liu, S., Leat, M. and Smith, M.H. (2011) ‘State-of-the-art sustainability analysis methodologies for
efficient decision support in green production operations’, International Journal of
Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.236–250.
Lozano, R. (2012) ‘Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis
of voluntary corporate initiatives’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 25, pp.14–26.
Martains, R.A., Araujo, J.B. and Ometto, A.R. (2011) ‘Investigation on use sustainability
performance measures by Brazilian manufacturing companies’, Proceedings of the 2011
Industrial Engineering Research Conference, 21–25 May, pp.1121–1129, Institute of
Industrial Engineers, Reno, NV, USA.
Melo, M., Bueno, L. and Compello, S. (2012) ‘Industry energy efficiency analysis in northeast
brazil: proposal of methodology and case studies’, International Journal of Industrial
Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practices, Vol. 19, No. 11, pp.428–443.
Mukherjee, A. and Muga, H. (2010) ‘An integrative framework for sustainable practices and its
adoption in the AEC industry: a case study’, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 27, pp.197–214.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami, M.R. (2009) ‘Why sustainability is now the key
driver of innovation’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87, No. 9, pp.57–64.
Paramanathan, S., Farrukh, C., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2004) ‘Implementing industrial
sustainability: the research issues in technology management’, R&D Management, Vol. 35,
No. 5, pp.527–537.
Ron, A.J.D. (1998) ‘Sustainable production: the ultimate result of a continuous improvement’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vols. 56–57, pp.99–110.
Rosen, M.A. (2012) ‘Engineering sustainability: a technical approach to sustainability’,
Sustainability, Vol. 4, pp.2270–2292.
Rosen, M.A. and Kishawy, H.A. (2012) ‘Sustainable manufacturing and design: concepts, practices
and needs’, Sustainability, Vol. 4, pp.154–174.
Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytical Hierarchical Process, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Schoenherr, T. and Talluri, S. (2013) ‘Environmental sustainability initiatives: a comparative
analysis of plant efficiencies in Europe and US’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp.353–365.
Stechel, E., Wood-Black, F., Garant, R.J. and Abraham, M.A. (2009) ‘Overcoming non technical
barriers to the implementation of sustainable solutions in industry’, Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 12, pp.4221–4226.
Tseng, M-L, Divinagracia, L. and Divinagracia, R. (2009) ‘Evaluating firm’s sustainable
production indicators in uncertainty’, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57,
pp.1393–1403.
Tseng, M-L., Chiu, A.S.F., Tan, R.R. and Manalang, A.B.S. (2013) ‘Sustainable consumption and
production for Asia: sustainability through green design and practice’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 40, pp.1–5.
Ueda, K., Takenaka, T., Vancza, J. and Monostori, L. (2009) ‘Value creation and decision-making
in sustainable society’, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp.681–700.
Veleva, V. and Ellenbecker, M. (2001) ‘Indicators of sustainable production: framework and
methodology’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp.519–549.
Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T. and Grumbley, C. (2001) ‘Indictors of sustainable production’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.447–452.
Weiser, C.R., Vijayaraghavan, A. and Dornfeld, D. (2008) ‘Metrics for sustainable manufacturing’,
Proceedings of the 2008 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference
(MSEC2008), 7–10 October, pp.1–9, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Winston, W.L. (2003) Operations Research-Applications and Algorithms, 4th ed., Brooks/Cole,
Belmont, CA.
 Fundamental requirements for sustainability practices and implementation 361

Yang, M.G., Hong, P. and Modi, S.B. (2011) ‘Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129, pp.251–261.

Appendix

As the AHP is used to estimate the relative weight of objectives, the following
methodology will be used to explain how it can be used. This procedure is used by
Garbie et al. (2008b). Suppose there are n objectives. Let wi = the weight given to
objective i. In order to describe how the AHP determines the wi’s, suppose the decision
maker is perfectly consistent. Then, the pair wise comparison matrix should be of the
following form (Saaty, 1980):
⎡ w1 w1 w1 ⎤
⎢w .
w2 wn ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢w2 w2 w2 ⎥
.
A = ⎢ w1 w2 wn ⎥ (10)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . . . ⎥
⎢w wn wn ⎥⎥
⎢ n .
⎢⎣ w1 w2 wn ⎥⎦

For example, suppose that w1 = 2 and w2 = 1. Then objective 1 is twice as important as

objective 2, so
w1
a12 = =2
w2
Now suppose that a consistent decision maker has a pair wise comparison matrix A of the
form (10). How can we recover the vector w = [ w1 w2 .... wn ] from A? Consider the
system of n objectives
A wT = Δ wT (11)

where ∆ an unknown is number and wT is an unknown n-dimensional column vector.

Checking for consistency:
The following four-step procedures are used to check for the consistency in the decision
maker’s comparisons. (From now on, w denotes our estimate of the decision maker’s
weights.)
T
Step 1 Compute A w

Step 2 Compute
i =n
1 ith entry in AwT
n ∑i =1
ith entry in wT
(12)

Step 3 Compute the consistency index (CI) as follows:

362 I.H. Garbie

( Step 2 result ) − n
CI = (13)
n −1
Step 4 Compare CI to the random index (RI) for the appropriate value of n, as shown in
Table 1 (Winston, 2003).
Table 2 Values of the random index (RI)

n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.51
Source: Winston (2003)
If CI is sufficiently small, the decision maker’s comparisons are probably consistent
enough to give useful estimates of the weights for his or her objective function. If
CI < 10, the degree of consistency is satisfactory, but if CI > 0.10, serious
RI RI
inconsistencies may exist, and the AHP may not yield meaningful results.