International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Lean and green combine to impact environmental

and operational performance

R. Anthony Inman & Kenneth W. Green

To cite this article: R. Anthony Inman & Kenneth W. Green (2018): Lean and green combine to
impact environmental and operational performance, International Journal of Production Research,
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1447705

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1447705

Published online: 12 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
International Journal of Production Research, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1447705

Lean and green combine to impact environmental and operational performance

R. Anthony Inmana* and Kenneth W. Greenb
a
College of Business, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA; bDepartment of Management, Marketing, and Management
Information Systems, College of Business, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR, USA
(Received 29 June 2017; accepted 23 February 2018)

We assess the antecedent link between lean and green practices and assess the combined impact of lean and green prac-
tices on both environmental and operational performance. A lean and green practices performance model is proposed that
incorporates lean and green practices as antecedents to both environmental and operational performance. Structural equa-
tion modelling was used to analyse data collected from a sample of 182 manufacturing managers in U.S. plants. We
found that lean manufacturing practices are positively associated with environmental performance and operational perfor-
mance and that green supply chain management practices are positively associated with environmental performance and
environmental performance is positively associated with operational performance. No support was found for the idea that
green supply chain management practices are positively associated with operational performance. While lean practices
were found to directly affect environmental performance, the indirect effect of lean practices on environmental perfor-
mance through green practices is stronger, indicating complementarity.
Keywords: advanced manufacturing processes; environmentally friendly manufacturing; lean manufacturing; green
manufacturing; structural equation modelling; sustainable manufacturing; complementarity

1. Introduction
Manufacturing organisations have begun to adopt environmentally sustainable practices in response to increasing
demand from customers for eco-friendly products and services (Green, Toms, and Clark 2015). The positive association
between environmental sustainability strategy and environmental and organisational performance is well established in
the literature (Green et al. 2012). Yet, an extensive literature review suggests that lean and green practices may not
always be compatible (Mollenkopf et al. 2010).
Considering that customers demand environmental sustainability and that environmental sustainability leads to
improved organisational performance, it is now important to identify necessary antecedents to the successful implemen-
tation of environmental sustainability practices. Since lean manufacturing practices aim to eliminate all forms of waste
(Pavnaskar, Gershenson, and Jambekar 2013) and green supply chain management practices aim to specifically eliminate
environmental wastes (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008; Green et al. 2012), it is logical to argue that having lean practices in
place will support the successful implementation of green supply chain management practices. We propose that firms
that have successfully implemented lean practices are better able to successfully implement the more environmentally
focused green practices.
It is our purpose to fill a gap in the literature identified by Hallam and Contreras (2016) by providing an empirical
integrated operating model of the firm relating lean and green. We assess the antecedent link between lean and green
practices and assess the combined impact of lean and green practices on both environmental and operational perfor-
mance. A lean and green practices performance model is proposed that incorporates lean and green practices as antece-
dents to both environmental and operational performance. To facilitate assessment of the model, data collected from a
sample of 182 manufacturing managers working in U.S. manufacturing plants are analysed using a structural equation
modelling methodology.
The literature associated with lean and green practices and the impact of those practices on environmental and opera-
tional performance is briefly summarised in the justification of the study with more detail appearing later with the sup-
port for the model and hypotheses. Subsequent sections include a description of the methodology employed to answer
the research question, a presentation and interpretation of the statistical results related to assessment or the validity and

*Corresponding author. Email: inman@latech.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

reliability of the measurement scales employed and the assessment of the structural model. Finally, conclusions are
developed and discussed.

2. Theoretical background
Complementarity Theory (Milgrom and Roberts 1990; Bergmiller and McCright 2009; Narasimhan, Swink, and Viswa-
nathan 2010) serves as the theoretical underpinning of this study. Lean manufacturing practices and green supply chain
management practices are organisational competencies or resources that result in competitive advantage when adopted
by manufacturing firms. Lean practices and green practices are not easily implemented, requiring strategic focus, culture
modification and significant investment. Lean practices and green practices are complementary in that the implementa-
tion of one set of practices supports the implementation of the other set of practices and this combination of practices
leads to a levels of improved environmental and operational performance that could not be achieved through the imple-
mentation of either set of practices alone.
Fundamentally, lean manufacturing practices related to suppliers, customers, setup times, pull systems, preventive
maintenance, employee involvement, statistical process control and continuous flow are designed to eliminate all forms
of waste throughout the supply chain (Shah and Ward 2007). The green supply chain management practices specified
by Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2008) are specifically designed to eliminate environmental wastes. We argue that lean practices
and green practices combine to form a resource advantage for adopting firms. Firms with such combined capabilities
gain advantage over competitors based on the general ability to eliminate all forms of waste and the specific ability to
eliminate environmental wastes. These abilities allow firms to provide customers with eco-friendly products and services
that are produced through environmentally sustainable processes at relatively low costs.
We further argue that lean manufacturing practices and green supply chain management practices are complementary
in that waste elimination capabilities emanating from lean practices will enhance a firm’s ability to successfully imple-
ment green supply chain management practices giving it the additional capability to reduce and/or eliminate environ-
mental wastes associated with its production processes and its products and services. Lean practices and green practices
are complementary and synergistic in their impact on environmental and operational performance. This synergy is
reflected in the positive impact of implementation of lean practices on the results of mutually or subsequently imple-
mented green practices. More lean leads to more green or vice versa.

3. Justification of the study

There are many research papers that simultaneously address the issues of ‘lean’ and ‘green’. A number of different
approaches have been utilised to examine the relationship between the two. These approaches include survey research
(Klassen 2000; Rothenberg, Pil, and Maxwell 2001; Zhu and Sarkis 2004; Green et al. 2012; Hajmohammad et al.
2013; Prasad, Khanduja, and Sharma 2016), use of secondary data (King and Lenox 2001; Bergmiller and McCright
2009; Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011; Hong, Roh, and Rawski 2012), literature reviews (Fliedner and Majeske 2010; Mol-
lenkopf et al. 2010; Dües, Tan, and Lim 2013; Hallam and Contreras 2016), interviews (Klassen 2000; Rothenberg, Pil,
and Maxwell 2001; Biggs 2009; Campos and Vazquez-Brust 2016), simulation (Diaz-Elsayed et al. 2013; Ugarte,
Golden, and Dooley 2016), case studies (Klassen 2000; Larson and Greenwood 2004; Biggs 2009; Miller, Pawloski,
and Standridge 2010; Azevedo et al. 2012; Galeazzo, Furlan, and Vinelli 2014; Piercy and Rich 2015; Campos and
Vazquez-Brust 2016; Garza-Reyes et al. 2016), value stream mapping (Vinodh, Arvind, and Somanaathan 2011;
Garza-Reyes et al. 2016) and conceptual frameworks or models (Simpson and Power 2005; Carvalho, Duarte, and Cruz-
Machado 2011; Pampanelli, Found, and Bernardes 2014; Alves and Alves 2015). Data utilised in these studies come
from a variety of countries namely the U.S. (Miller, Pawloski, and Standridge 2010; Green et al. 2012), Canada (Hajmo-
hammad et al. 2013), Japan (Rothenberg, Pil, and Maxwell 2001), China (Zhu and Sarkis 2004), India (Prasad, Khan-
duja, and Sharma 2016), Brazil (Pampanelli, Found, and Bernardes 2014 and Campos and Vazquez-Brust 2016),
Mexico (Garza-Reyes et al. 2016), the United Kingdom (Piercy and Rich 2015) and Portugal (Azevedo et al. 2012), rep-
resenting multiple industries, for example, automotive (Rothenberg, Pil, and Maxwell 2001; Azevedo et al. 2012; Pam-
panelli, Found, and Bernardes 2014), furniture (Klassen 2000; Miller, Pawloski, and Standridge 2010), intermodal
transport (Colicchia, Creazza, and Dallari 2017) and foundry (Prasad, Khanduja, and Sharma 2016).
There is also some variety in order of implementation deemed appropriate by lean/green researchers. Some research-
ers feel that lean drives green (Larson and Greenwood 2004; Fliedner and Majeske 2010; Dües, Tan, and Lim 2013;
Pampanelli, Found, and Bernardes 2014), some that green drives lean (Bergmiller and McCright 2009), some that feel
either can go first (Galeazzo, Furlan, and Vinelli 2014; Piercy and Rich 2015) and some who feel that both should be
 International Journal of Production Research 3

implemented concurrently (Klassen 2000; King and Lenox 2001; Miller, Pawloski, and Standridge 2010; Azevedo et al.
2012; Ng, Low, and Song 2015; Garza-Reyes et al. 2016).
Despite Hajmohammad et al.’s (2013) observation that ‘very few studies (if any) have simultaneously addressed
environmental management practices, operation/supply chain systems, and environmental performance’, Hallam and
Contreras (2016) managed to review 60 articles representing ‘the most relevant peer-reviewed journal publications cov-
ering the integration of Lean and Green management’ and noted that most were case studies or conceptual papers with
only ten being surveys. They feel that there is little evidence of combined lean and green implementation but the pur-
ported synergy between the two is evident in the postulate of some articles. Specifically, they note that an integrated
model of the firm relating lean and green is lacking. Along the same lines, Jabbour et al. (2016) note that the literature
has yet to reach a definitive consensus on the necessity to integrate green issues in operations for firms to achieve better
performance. Thus, the implication is that research on lean/green issues is still under-examined (Piercy and Rich 2015),
especially research utilising survey data.
With the exception of one journal article (Green et al. 2012) and one dissertation (Lee 2013) no research was found
examining the relationship between environmental performance and operational performance. While much of this work
replicates previous published work (the relationship between lean practices and green practices, lean practices and envi-
ronmental performance, green practices and environmental performance and green practices and operational perfor-
mance), we find it necessary to revisit these areas to arrive at the unexplored relationship between environmental
performance and operational performance, thereby providing a more integrated empirical model.

4. Literature review
4.1 Lean practices
Lean manufacturing has seen wide use and a broad scope of interests over the last 40 years. Emiliani (2006) notes that
it has been an important route for improving business performance since the late 1970’s although the term ‘lean’ was
first used in scholarly research by Krafcik (1988). Interest in the topic became widespread with the publication of The
Machine That Changed the World (Womack, Jones and Roos 1990) in 1990. Jasti and Kodali (2015) note that 546
research articles in 24 operations research journals were published from 1988 to 2011 so the literature on lean is very
deep and does not bear repeating here. Jasti and Kodali (2015), Gupta and Jain (2013) and Stone (2012) provide com-
prehensive reviews of the literature regarding lean manufacturing.
Over the years lean manufacturing has gone through an evolution of refinement of its principles and practices to a
lean business system (Marodin and Saurin 2013). Its main purpose is to produce products without any kind of waste,
with waste defined as anything that adds cost from overproduction, waiting, poor quality or unnecessary processing,
transportation or inventory, but adds no value. The practices of Just-in-Time, Total Quality Management, Total Preven-
tive Maintenance and Human Resource Management ‘bundled’ together make up lean production (Shah and Ward
2003).

4.2 Green practices

Green manufacturing (environmentally conscious manufacturing) is an element of Green Supply Chain Management,
along with green product development, green design, green procurement, green process planning and green transporta-
tion (Luthra, Garg, and Haleem 2014) and is a key aspect of achieving sustainability which results in improvement in
the ‘triple bottom line’ of economic, social and environmental responsibility. Green manufacturers adopt processes, prac-
tices and techniques that consume less energy and material, reduce potentially harmful wastes through reuse and recy-
cling and prevent pollution at the source. For the green manufacturer, these processes, practices and techniques can
result in lower costs, increased productivity and an enhanced image with consumers and the community. Comprehensive
literature reviews on the subject are provided by Sambrani and Pol (2016), Sarkis, Zhu, and Lai (2011) and Srivastava
(2007).

4.3 Lean and green

Hajmohammad et al. (2013) identify lean management as providing capabilities that ease the implementation of environ-
mental practices. Green et al. (2012) recommend assessing lean manufacturing as an antecedent to the implementation
of green supply chain management practices. They argue that efforts to eliminate wastes through programmes such as
JIT (a primary component of lean manufacturing) support efforts to eliminate environmentally damaging wastes through
4 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

the implementation of green manufacturing practices. Drohomeretski, Gouvea, and Pinheiro (2014) provide anecdotal
evidence that the primary motivation for the implementation of green supply chain management practices in the Brazil-
ian Auto Industry is an emphasis on cost reduction through programmes such as lean manufacturing. Companies adopt-
ing lean manufacturing practices are also likely to implement green supply chain management practices. Sarkis (2012)
argues that both lean and green initiatives focus on the elimination of wastes throughout the supply chain. Utilising a
conceptual framework (Simpson and Power 2005; Pampanelli, Found, and Bernardes 2014) case study (Azevedo et al.
2012), secondary data (Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011) and literature review (Mollenkopf et al. 2010) a positive relation-
ship has been shown to exist between lean practices and green practices. By analysing survey data from a sample of
Canadian manufacturing plants, Hajmohammad et al. (2013) found the level of lean management activities to be posi-
tively associated with the extent of environmental practices.

4.4 Lean and environmental performance

Research in this area is somewhat scarce as Negrao, Godinho Filho, and Marodin (2017) conducted an extensive litera-
ture review on lean practices and found only one article relating lean practices to environmental performance. However,
through case studies (Larson and Greenwood 2004; Biggs 2009; Azevedo et al. 2012) and analysis of secondary data
(Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011; Hong, Roh, and Rawski 2012) support was found for lean supply chain management
practices resulting in improved green performance. King and Lenox (2001) found that adoption of lean management
practices in the form of ISO 9001 standards and lower maximum inventory levels lead to reductions in waste generation
and emissions. However, Hajmohammad et al. (2013), via survey of Canadian firms, found that a positive association
between level of lean management activities and environmental performance was not supported. Similarly, Zhu and Sar-
kis (2004), via survey of Chinese firms, found that the relationship between green practices and environmental perfor-
mance was not higher in firms with quality management practices and was actually weaker in firms with more JIT
adoption. Hallam and Contreras (2016) via literature review, note that ‘while both approaches share waste reduction as
an objective, Green and Lean management philosophies may also work against each other’, possibly by more green-
house gases emitted by JIT delivery processes. Others note that lean manufacturing alone does not significantly impact
environmental performance (Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011) and alone, will never be enough to address all environmental
issues (Dües, Tan, and Lim 2013).

4.5 Green supply chain management practices and environmental performance

Green supply chain management practices are specifically designed to positively impact environmental performance.
Azevedo et al. (2012) and Yang, Hong, and Modi (2011) found support for this from a case study and secondary data,
respectively. Analysis of survey data from Brazil (Jabbour et al. 2016), China (Zhu and Sarkis 2004; Lai and Wong
2012), Canada (Hajmohammad et al. 2013) Korea (Lee 2013) and the U.S. (Green et al. 2012) found a significant posi-
tive relationship between green supply chain practices and environmental performance.

4.6 Green supply chain management practices and operational performance

Although Green et al. (2012) did not assess the direct link between green supply chain management practices and opera-
tional performance within the context of their structural model, they report significant positive correlations between mul-
tiple practices (internal environmental management, green information systems, green purchasing, cooperation with
customers, eco-design and investment recovery) and operational performance. Through analysis of secondary data,
Yang, Hong, and Modi (2011) found support for a positive association between green supply chain practices and opera-
tional performance as did Klassen and McLaughlin (1996) through an event study. Jabbour et al. (2016) surveyed
Brazilian operations/production managers from industrial and manufacturing firms and found green practices to be posi-
tively related to operational performance. Yu et al. (2014) surveyed automobile manufacturers in China, and found that
three components of green supply chain management are positively and significantly related to multiple forms of opera-
tional performance (operating flexibility, delivery, product quality and production cost). Analysis of survey data from
Indian firms (Mitra and Datta 2014) revealed environmentally sustainable product design and logistics to be positively
related to competitiveness (which included operational performance criteria). Based on a survey of Korean manufactur-
ing firms, Lee (2013) reported a significant link from green supply chain management practices to operational perfor-
mance. Positive associations were also found by Lai and Wong (2012) who surveyed senior executives of Chinese
exporters and Lee, Kim, and Choi (2012) who surveyed operations/supply chain managers of Korean electronics firms.
 International Journal of Production Research 5

Finally, a meta-analysis by Golicic and Smith (2013) confirmed that environmental supply chain practices positively
influenced operational-based measures of performance.

4.7 Environmental performance and operational performance

Research on the impact of environmental performance on operational performance is considerably scarcer in the litera-
ture than our other postulates and as such is a much more important contribution to the body of knowledge on the sub-
ject. Green et al. (2012), utilising data from U.S. firms, conducted a structural analysis that included the assessment of
the impact of environmental performance on operational performance yielding a positive result. Closely related, Lee
(2013) reported a significant link from environmental performance to operational performance based on analysis of sur-
vey data from Korean manufacturing firms.

5. Hypotheses
In addition to results of conceptual work (Simpson and Power 2005; Pampanelli, Found, and Bernardes 2014), a case
study (Azevedo et al. 2012), use of secondary data (Yang, Hong, and Modi 2011) and literature review (Mollenkopf
et al. 2010) and a Canadian survey (Hajmohammad et al. 2013), we propose to expand the body of knowledge by utilis-
ing survey data from U.S. manufacturing firms. We propose that:

H1: Lean manufacturing practices are positively associated with green supply chain management practices.

Further survey research, specifically utilising firms from a different country (U.S.), could supplement past findings and
help to clarify conflicting findings in research regarding lean practices and environmental performance. Since lean manu-
facturing incorporates systems, processes and practices that support the elimination of all forms of waste and existence
of these systems, processes and practices should enhance and support an organisation’s ability to implement green prac-
tices that are specifically designed to eliminate environmental wastes, we propose that:

H2: Lean manufacturing practices are positively associated with environmental performance.

In support of findings from scarce survey-based studies regarding the relationship between green supply chain manage-
ment practices and environmental performance (Zhu and Sarkis 2004; Hajmohammad et al. 2013; Lai and Wong 2012;
Lee 2013; Jabbour et al. 2016) and even scarcer survey-research utilising data from U.S. firms (Green et al. 2012), we
theorise that green supply chain management practices are antecedent to environmental performance:

H3: Green supply chain management practices are positively associated with environmental performance.

The association between lean manufacturing practices and performance has been widely researched as evidenced by an
exhaustive literature review of the subject by Negrao, Godinho Filho, and Marodin (2017). They found 41 articles that
suggested a positive effect of lean practices in at least one operational, financial and/or environmental performance met-
ric and only three studies that indicated some lean practices had a negative effect on operational or financial perfor-
mance. Even though it has been highly researched previously, we include this relationship in our study as it is
embedded in the theorised model. Therefore:

H4: Lean manufacturing practices are positively associated with operational performance.

Even though there are previous studies regarding the relationship between green supply chain practices and operational
performance (see Literature Review), this work includes the same in order to provide a more complete integrated model.
Therefore, in replication of previous studies, but uniquely using data from U.S. firms, we propose that:

H5: Green supply chain management practices are positively associated with operational performance.

Using complementarity theory we argue that, together, lean manufacturing practices and green supply chain management
practices will synergistically produce superior results. Only Green et al. (2012) and Lee (2013) have researched the
impact of environmental performance on operational performance. Green et al. (2012) found a positive impact of envi-
ronmental performance on operational performance while Lee (2013) reported finding a significant link from environ-
6 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

mental performance to operational performance. Taken together, logic and these results support the claim that environ-
mental performance is positively associated with operational performance. Hence:

H6: Environmental performance is positively associated with operational performance.

6. Theorised model
The theoretical model is displayed in Figure 1. The model incorporates four constructs and six hypotheses. The con-
structs definitions as they are applied in this study are presented in Table 1. All hypothesised relationships are positive.
The model is designed to facilitate assessment of the combined impact of lean manufacturing practices and green supply
chain management practices on environmental sustainability.

7. Methodology
This study uses a well-established survey methodology (Inman et al. 2011; Green et al. 2012) in which the data collec-
tion is managed by a third-party data collection service. A structural equation modelling (SEM) methodology is fol-
lowed to analyse the assembled data-set, test the individual hypotheses within the model and to assess the fit of the
theorised model to the data. Partial Least Squares SEM is used to specifically test each of the hypotheses within the
model as recommended by Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder, and van Oppen (2009) and in a manner consistent that found
in the existing literature (Clark, Toms, and Green 2014; Green et al. 2017). Akter, Wamba, and Dewan (2017) recom-
mend using PLS/SEM for assessing complex structural models to facilitate completeness and capture reality. SmartPLS
2.0 software (Ringle, Wende, and Will 2005) is used to conduct the PLS analysis. Co-variance-based SEM (Lisrel 8.8)
is used to assess the fit of the overall model. The use of co-variance-based SEM to assess overall model fit is also well
established in the literature (Inman et al. 2011; Green et al. 2012). This combination of SEM methods is based on
descriptions of the appropriate uses of PLS and co-variance-based SEM (PLS for hypothesis testing and co-variance
based for model testing) by Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011). Using both PLS and co-variance-based approaches sup-
ports the appropriate testing of individual hypotheses within the context of a structural model and also the appropriate
assessment of the overall fit of the structural model. It is also interesting to compare the results of the alternative SEM
methods.

7.1 Data collection

Data were collected from a sample of 182 manufacturing managers working for U.S. manufacturing plants through an
online data collection service. One thousand one hundred and forty-six managers were originally contacted and data
were ultimately collected from the 182 manufacturing managers for an effective response rate of 15.9%. Sample demo-
graphics are displayed in Table 2.

LEAN

H4: (+)
H2: (+)

H1: (+) ENVPERF H6: (+) OPERPERF

H3: (+)
H5: (+)

GSCMP

Figure 1. Theoretical Model with Hypotheses.

Notes: LEAN – Lean Manufacturing Practices; GSCMP – Green Supply Chain Management Practices; ENVPERF – Environmental
Performance; OPERPERF – Operational Performance.
 International Journal of Production Research 7

Table 1. Construct definitions.

Construct Definition

Green Supply Chain A management improvement programme comprised of internal environmental management, green
Management Practices purchasing, cooperation with customers, eco-design and investment recovery practices designed to
integrate and coordinate the environmental sustainability efforts of all supply chain partners for the
purpose of eliminating all forms of environmental waste from supply chain processes (Zhu, Sarkis,
and Lai 2008; Green et al. 2012)
Lean Manufacturing Practices A management improvement programme comprised of lean practices with suppliers and customers
that emphasise setup time reduction, pull systems, continuous flow, statistical process control,
preventive maintenance and employee involvement designed to eliminate all forms of waste from
all supply chain processes (Shah and Ward 2003, 2007)
Environmental Performance Environmental performance relates the ability of manufacturing plants to reduce air emissions,
effluent waste and solid wastes and the ability to decrease consumption of hazardous and toxic
materials (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)
Operational Performance Operational performance relates to the manufacturing plant’s capabilities to more efficiently
produce and deliver products to customers (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)

Table 2. Sample demographics summary.

Title Number

Owner 7
Vice-President 38
Plant Manager 10
Operations Manager 56
Purchasing Manager 17
Logistics Manager 13
Maintenance Manager 3
Sales Manager 4
Engineering Manager 8
Industrial Waste Manager 2
Inventory Manager 1
Quality Manager 7
Research and Development Manager 1
Other Manager 15
Total 182

Industry Category
Food Manufacturing 14
Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing 3
Textile Mills 6
Apparel Manufacturing 1
Wood Product Manufacturing 3
Paper Manufacturing 1
Printing and Related Support Activities 6
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 2
Chemical Manufacturing 16
Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing 6
Non-metallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 2
Primary Metal Manufacturing 7
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 18
Machinery Manufacturing 18
Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 7
Electrical Equipment, Appliance and Component Manufacturing 9
Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 11
Miscellaneous Manufacturing 52
Total 182
Mean Years in Current Position 11.53
Mean Number of Plant Employees 964.07
8 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

7.2 Measurement scales

The lean manufacturing practices construct is a second-order construct with dimensions of lean manufacturing practices
related to suppliers, customers, setup times, pull systems, preventive maintenance, employee involvement, statistical pro-
cess control and continuous flow as originally specified by Shah and Ward (2007). The green supply chain management
practices construct is a second-order construct with dimensions of internal environmental management, green purchas-
ing, cooperation with customers, eco-design and investment recovery as originally specified by Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai
(2008). The environmental performance and operational performance scales were also originally developed by Zhu, Sar-
kis, and Lai (2008). All measurement scales are displayed in Appendix 1.

7.3 Non-response bias assessment

To assess non-response bias, responses for the study variables from first-wave responders (54%) were compared with
responses from second-wave responders (46%). A lack of significant differences between responses from the early and
late responders supports a claim that non-response bias has a minimal impact in the data-set (Armstrong and Overton
1977).

7.4 Common method bias assessment

The data collection for this study included measurement scales that are not included in this study. The smallest correla-
tion among all of the variables in the larger data-set is 0.36 as compared with the smallest correlation among the vari-
able relationships specified in the structural model of 0.50 The significant difference at the 0.01 level between these two
correlations supports the claim that common method bias does not negatively impact the data-set (Lindell and Brandt
2000; Lindell and Whitney 2001; Malhotra, Patil, and Kim 2007).

7.5 Measurement scale validity and reliability

All measurement scales were established and assessed in previous research (Shah and Ward 2007; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai
2008) and are therefore considered to exhibit sufficient content reliability. All standardised factor loadings for the first-
order constructs are greater than 0.70 supporting a claim of sufficient convergent validity (Chiang, Kocabasoglu-Hillmer,
and Suresh 2012). Square root of the average variance extracted values for first-order constructs greater than correlations
with other first-order constructs signify sufficient discriminant validity (Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder, and van Oppen
2009). This is the case with one exception. The square root of the average variance extracted for the lean-with-suppliers
first-order construct is less than the correlations with lean with customers, lean employee involvement and lean-statistical
process control. Since this exception is between first-order constructs that make up lean production, discriminant validity
is considered sufficient. Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted values all exceed the
respective recommended minimums of 0.70, 0.70 and 0.50 (Garver and Mentzer 1999) supporting a claim of sufficient
reliability. Reliability scores, correlations among first-order constructs and square root of average variance extracted val-
ues are displayed in Table 3.
The measurement scales are considered sufficiently valid and reliable. Non-response bias and common method bias
do not negatively impact the data-set. Structural equation modelling results, and hypotheses test results are presented in
the following section. The subsequent section includes results from both PLS/SEM and co-variance-based/SEM. It is
necessary to both assess the hypotheses embedded in the structural model and to assess the fit of the overall model for
theory testing purposes. PLS/SEM is best suited for hypothesis testing and co-variance-based/SEM is best suited for
model fit and theory testing (Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009; Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011).

8. Results
8.1 PLS/SEM results
A PLS/SEM statistical analysis methodology is employed because of the use of second-order constructs in the model
and because our primary objective is to test the hypotheses in the model. PLS results are displayed in Figure 2 and sup-
port for the hypotheses is summarised in Table 4. Hypotheses 1 through 4 (LEAN → GSCMP, LEAN → ENVPERF,
GSCMP → ENVPERF, LEAN → OPERPERF) and 6 (ENVPERF → OPERPERF) are supported. Hypothesis 5
(GSCMP → OPERPERF) is not supported.
 International Journal of Production Research 9

Table 3. Reliability scores and correlations among first-order latent constructs.

Variables CA CR AV CC ED GP IE IR LC LE LF LM LP LS LT LW EP OP

CC 0.94 0.96 0.86 0.93

ED 0.93 0.96 0.88 0.85 0.94
GP 0.95 0.96 0.80 0.84 0.75 0.89
IE 0.96 0.97 0.80 0.72 0.66 0.74 0.89
IR 0.86 0.91 0.78 0.66 0.70 0.67 0.67 0.88
LC 0.94 0.95 0.80 0.60 0.52 0.51 0.61 0.57 0.89
LE 0.93 0.95 0.82 0.65 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.62 0.68 0.91
LF 0.92 0.94 0.80 0.62 0.52 0.64 0.63 0.58 0.72 0.69 0.89
LM 0.90 0.93 0.76 0.61 0.52 0.57 0.65 0.56 0.65 0.76 0.67 0.87
LP 0.90 0.93 0.77 0.62 0.53 0.65 0.64 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.77 0.60 0.87
LS 0.94 0.95 0.80 0.61 0.55 0.68 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.71 0.73 0.70 0.75 0.89
LT 0.87 0.92 0.79 0.64 0.65 0.61 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.70 0.75 0.68 0.71 0.71 0.89
LW 0.94 0.94 0.59 0.70 0.64 0.73 0.67 0.71 0.79 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.77 0.72 0.76
EP 0.94 0.95 0.76 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.64 0.60 0.50 0.59 0.51 0.60 0.52 0.51 0.55 0.58 0.87
OP 0.92 0.94 0.71 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.49 0.52 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.56 0.55 0.50 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.84

Notes: CA – Cronbach’s Alpha; CC – Cooperation with Customers; CR – Composite Reliability; ED – Eco-design; AV – Average
Variance Extracted; GP – Green Purchasing; EP – Environmental Performance; IE – Internal Environmental Management; OP – Oper-
ational Performance; IR – Investment Recovery; LS – Lean Statistical Process Control; LC – Lean with Customers; LP – Lean Pull
Production; LF – Lean Continuous Flow; LT – Lean Setup; LE – Lean Employee Involvement; LM – Lean Preventive Maintenance;
LW – Lean with Suppliers.
Square root of average variance extracted in bold on diagonal.

Table 4. Structural model PLS results.

Model Link Std. coefficients Support

LEAN → GSCMP +0.81** H1: supported

LEAN → ENVPERF +0.24 * H2: supported
GSCMP → ENVPERF +0.48** H3: supported
LEAN → OPERPERF +0.44** H4: supported
GSCMP → OPERPERF −0.06ns H5: not supported
ENVPERF → OPERPERF +0.45** H6: supported

Notes: LEAN – Lean manufacturing; GSCMP – Green supply chain management practices; ENVPERF – Environmental performance;
OPERPERF – Operational performance.
**sig. at 0.01 level.
*sig. at 0.05 level.
ns
non-significant.

LEAN

+0.44**
+0.24* R2 = .47 R2 = .53
+0.81** ENVPERF +0.45** OPERPERF

+0.48**
-0.06 ns

GSCMP
R2 = .66

Figure 2. PLS SEM results.

Notes: LEAN – Lean Manufacturing Practices; GSCMP – Green Supply Chain Management Practices; ENVPERF – Environmental
Performance; OPERPERF – Operational Performance; **sig. at 0.01 level; *sig. at 0.05 level; nsnon-significant.
10 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

LEAN

+0.39**
+0.22 ns R2 = .55 R2 = .61
+0.82** ENVPERF +0.49** OPERPERF

+0.55**
-0.03 ns

GSCMP
R2 = .67

Figure 3. Covariance-based SEM Results.

Notes: Relative Chi-Square = 0.33; Chi Square P-value = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.00; NFI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.03; GFI = 0.96; LEAN –
Lean Manufacturing Practices; GSCMP – Green Supply Chain Management Practices; ENVPERF – Environmental Performance;
OPERPERF – Operational Performance; **sig. at 0.01 level; *sig. at 0.05 level; nsnon-significant.

Table 5. Comparison of study findings.

Hypothesis Supported Not supported This study

Positive relationship between Pampanelli, Found, and Bernardes Supported

Lean Supply Chain (2014); Hajmohammad et al. (2013);
Practices and Green Supply Azevedo et al. (2012); Yang, Hong,
Chain Practices and Modi (2011); Mollenkopf et al.
(2010); Simpson and Power (2005)
Positive relationship between Azevedo et al. (2012); Hong, Roh, Hajmohammad et al. Supported*
Lean Supply Chain and Rawski (2012); Yang, Hong, and (2013); Zhu and Sarkis
Management practices and Modi (2011); Biggs (2009); Larson (2004)
Environmental Performance and Greenwood (2004)
Positive relationship between Jabbour et al. (2016); Hajmohammad Supported
Green Supply Chain et al. (2013); Lai and Wong (2012);
Management Practices and Lee (2013); Azevedo et al. (2012);
Environmental Performance Green et al. (2012); Yang, Hong, and
Modi (2011); Zhu and Sarkis (2004)
Positive relationship between Negrao, Godinho Filho, and Marodin Bortolotti, Boscari, Supported
Lean Manufacturing (2017) (extensive lit review) and Romano (2013);
Practices and Operational Chen and Tan (2013);
Performance Kadipasaoglu, Peixoto,
and Khumawala.
(1999)
Positive relationship between Jabbour et al. (2016); Chavez et al. Direct impact not supported, impact
Green Supply Chain (2015); Mitra and Datta (2014); of GSCMP on Operational
Management Practices and Golicic and Smith (2013) (extensive Performance is indirect through
Operational Performance lit review); Lee (2013); Lai and Wong Environmental Performance
(2012); Lee, Kim, and Choi (2012);
Yang, Hong, and Modi (2011);
Klassen and McLaughlin (1996)
Positive relationship between Lee (2013); Green et al. (2012) Supported**
Environmental Performance
and Operational
Performance

*Although lean practices directly affected environmental performance, the indirect effect of lean on environmental performance was
stronger, i.e. lean and green are complementary.
**Indicates an indirect association between green practices and operational performance through environmental performance. See Sec-
tion 9.1.
 International Journal of Production Research 11

Lean manufacturing practices combine with green supply chain management practices to positively impact both
environmental performance and operational performance. Forty-seven per cent of the variation in environmental perfor-
mance is explained by the variation in lean practices and green practices combined. The successful implementation of
lean practices supports implementation of green practices. The association is positive and very strong. The strong posi-
tive association is expected since green practices have formed as a subset of lean practices. Lean practices are aimed at
eliminating all forms of waste throughout the supply chain, while green practices are focused on the elimination of envi-
ronmental wastes as a specific category of wastes. Although the PLS results indicate that lean practices directly affect
environmental performance, the indirect effect of lean practices on environmental performance through green practices
is stronger which indicates complementarity. The direct effect is +0.24 (sig. at the 0.05 level), while the indirect effect
is +0.39 (+0.81 times +0.48; sig. at the 0.01 level).
Fifty-three per cent of the variation in operational performance is explained by the combined impact of lean prac-
tices, green practices and environmental performance. Lean practices both directly and indirectly impact operational per-
formance. The direct effect (+0.44) is positive, moderately strong and significant at the 0.01 level. The indirect effect
(+0.11 = +0.24 times +0.45) of lean practices through environmental performance is positive, weak and significant at
the 0.05 level. Importantly, the PLS/SEM results indicate that the effect of green practices on operational performance is
indirect through environmental performance, rather than direct. The indirect effect of +0.22 (+0.48 times +0.45) is posi-
tive and significant at the 0.01 level.

8.2 Co-variance-based/SEM results

Although we believe that the use of PLS/SEM statistical analysis is appropriate, we also understand that there is some
conflict in the literature as to which SEM methodology, PLS/SEM or co-variance-based/SEM, is best for model testing.
While we believe that PLS/SEM is more appropriate for this study, we also present the co-variance-based/SEM results
from Lisrel 8.8 for comparison in Figure 3.
Please note that a comparison of the PLS/SEM results with the co-variance-based/SEM results reveals only one minor
difference. The standardised coefficient for the lean practices to environmental performance link is +0.24 (sig. at the 0.05
level) based on the PLS/SEM results compared to the standardised coefficient of +0.22 (non-significant) based on the co-
variance-based/SEM results. Otherwise, all standardised coefficients are similar with comparable significance levels
between the two methods. It should be noted that the model fits the data relatively well based on the values of these co-
variance-based/SEM fit indices: chi-square of 0.33, RMSEA = 0.00; NFI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.03; and GFI = 0.96.

9. Conclusions
9.1 Discussion of findings
We argue that lean manufacturing practices are positively associated with green supply chain management practices.
Consistent with past research we found support for the proposals that lean manufacturing practices are positively
associated with green supply chain management practices, lean manufacturing practices are positively associated with
environmental performance, green supply chain management practices are positively associated with environmental per-
formance, lean manufacturing practices are positively associated with operational performance. Noteworthy is the find-
ing that, although the PLS results indicate that lean practices directly affect environmental performance, the indirect
effect of lean practices on environmental performance through green practices was stronger supporting our claim that
lean practices and green practices are complementary. The primary contribution of this study, is the finding that no sup-
port was found for the idea that green supply chain management practices are positively associated with operational per-
formance. This is in contrast to past research (see Table 5) utilising survey data from Brazil (Jabbour et al. 2016), China
(Lai and Wong 2012; Yu et al. 2014), India (Mitra and Datta 2014) and Korea (Lee 2013). However, environmental per-
formance is found to be positively associated with operational performance, indicating an indirect association between
green practices and operational performance through environmental performance. In other words, improvement in opera-
tional performance does not come directly from implementation of green practices but rather from improving environ-
mental performance as a result of implementation of green practices. At first glance, this is circular logic, but, it
suggests that firms merely adding green practices to lean practices without an improvement in environmental perfor-
mance may not be receiving the full benefit of the complementarity between lean and green practices. Despite the com-
patibility of the two sets of practices, firms can still fail to strategically capitalise on the environmental benefits that are
a by-product of lean processes (Larson and Greenwood 2004). For example, Boeing had significant difficulty applying
lean to environmental processes (Larson and Greenwood 2004). Green practices implementation can result in some firms
12 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

outperforming others as a result of their ability to leverage their resources and possibly possession of a unique set of
resources (Shi et al. 2012) as is consistent with the resource-based view (RBV).
The literature indicates that lean transformations appear to be more successful when aligned throughout the enter-
prise (Stone 2012). ‘Side-by-side’ green and lean practices may fail to realise the competitive advantage of the comple-
mentarity provided by fully integrated systems by concentrating ‘on what is the same about sustainable supply chain
management with much less emphasis on what, if anything, might be truly unique’. (Pagell and Wu 2009) Carter and
Rogers (2008) state that ‘… organisations that become sustainable enterprises do not simply overlay sustainability initia-
tives with corporate strategies’. Measures of environmental performance should be included in any integrated model of
lean practices and green practices to ensure that improvements in operational performance are realised as an indirect
product of green practices (through environmental performance) rather than from some other strategic initiative, e.g.
lean. The same holds true for negative results arising from integrating lean and green practices. Failure to classify lean
properly can make it difficult to identify sustainability benefits leading to the identification of incorrect negative associa-
tions (Piercy and Rich 2015) whereas direct measurement of environmental performance could preclude this.
Lean practices and green practices are organisational competencies that combine to reduce product and service costs
through the elimination of wastes and enhance environmental sustainability by supporting the production of eco-friendly
products demanded by customers. The results of our study support the case for the implementation of both lean prac-
tices and green practices. While the implementation of lean practices without green practices will result in significantly
improved operational performance, the impact of lean practices on environmental performance is slight. Combining lean
practices and green practices significantly improves environmental performance while also boosting operational perfor-
mance incrementally, notably consistent with complementarity theory.
Manufacturing managers striving to improve both the economic sustainability and environmental sustainability of
their firms should follow the implementation of lean manufacturing practices with the implementation of green supply
chain practices. Lean and green combine (1) to improve operational performance through the elimination of wastes
thereby reducing costs and enhancing economic sustainability, (2) to improve environmental performance through the
elimination of environmental wastes in particular thereby, enhancing the environmental sustainability of the firm, thereby,
providing the firm with possibly unique resources (resource heterogeneity) that are not readily or easily obtainable (im-
perfectly mobile) as is consistent with synergies related to complementarity theory and (3) to improve operational perfor-
mance from complementarity or the synergy produced by the full integration of lean practices and green practices.

9.2 Limitations of the study

This study focuses on the impact of lean and green practices within the context of the manufacturing sector within the
U.S. limiting the degree to which the results and conclusions can be generalised. There is a minor difference between
the PLS/SEM and co-variance-based/SEM related to the significance of the standardised coefficient for the lean practices
to environmental performance link. The standardised coefficients are both positive (+0.24 versus + 0.22). The larger
coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level in the PLS/SEM results while the smaller coefficient is non-significant in the
co-variance-based/SEM results.

9.3 Future research

To generalise the results outside the manufacturing sector, it is important to replicate this study with samples from the ser-
vices sector. Also, future research could utilise a more complex model such as that recommended by Hallam and Contreras
(2016). We recommend a more comprehensive structural model that incorporates additional antecedents to environmental
performance such as supply chain management strategy and information sharing through enterprise resource planning sys-
tems. As a result of this study, it is advisable to include measures of environmental performance between green practices
and operational performance on any research model investigating the integration of lean and green practices.
Jasti and Kodali (2015) emphasise the need to build theory regarding lean, so, it would be helpful if future research
were built on different theories. The research on lean practices and the research on green practices include numerous
studies built on various theories (RBV, NRBV, stakeholder theory, institution theory, resource advantage theory, etc.) but
much of the work done regarding the integration of lean and green omits any discussion of theory or offers a theory
section that is mostly literature review. Also, researchers tend to restrict their work to tangible benefits (Anand and
Kodali 2008) and elimination of a few lean wastes (Anand and Kodali 2008), so future research could focus on
intangible benefits of lean and green integration and a more complete set of wastes. Finally, investigation of contingency
factors affecting the performance of the integration of lean and green practices is needed (Schmidt, Foerstl, and Schal-
tenbrand 2017).
 International Journal of Production Research 13

9.4 Implications for practitioners

Manufacturing managers working to improve the environmental sustainability of their firms should implement lean man-
ufacturing practices in combination with green supply chain management practices. The sets of practices combine to
improve both environmental performance and operational performance. Managers can expect reductions in costs associ-
ated with waste elimination generally and enhanced environmental sustainability associated with the elimination of envi-
ronmental wastes specifically and as such should not overlook the importance of measuring environmental performance.
While lean practices may result is some improvement in environmental performance when implemented in isolation,
combining lean practices with green practices provides significant improvement in environmental performance.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Akter, S., S. F. Wamba, and S. Dewan. 2017. “Why PLS-SEM is Suitable for Complex Modeling? An Empirical Illustration in Big
Data Analytics Quality.” Production Planning and Control 28 (11–12): 1011–1021.
Alves, J. R. X., and J. M. Alves. 2015. “Production Management Model Integrating the Principles of Lean Manufacturing and Sus-
tainability Supported by the Cultural Transformation of a Company.” International Journal of Production Research 53 (17):
5320–5333.
Anand, G., and R. Kodali. 2008. “Selection of Lean Manufacturing Systems Using the PROMETHEE.” Journal of Modelling in Man-
agement 3 (1): 40–70.
Armstrong, J. S., T. S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3): 396–402.
Azevedo, S. G., H. Carvalho, S. Duarte, V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. “Influence of Green and Lean Upstream Supply Chain Management
Practices on Business Sustainability.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59 (4): 753–765.
Bergmiller, G. G., and P. R. McCright. 2009. “Are Lean and Green Programs Synergistic?” Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engi-
neering Research Conference, Miami, FL, 1155–1160.
Biggs, C. 2009. “Exploration of the Integration of Lean and Environmental Improvement.” Dissertation. Cranfield University. https://
dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/4566/Claire_Biggs_Thesis_2009.pdf?sequence=1
Bortolotti, T. P., S. Boscari, and P. Romano. 2013. “Assessing the Impact of Just-in-time on on Operational Performance at Varying
Degrees of Repetitiveness.” International Journal of Production Economics 160 (4): 1117–1130.
Campos, L. S., and D. A. Vazquez-Brust. 2016. “Lean and Green Synergies in Supply Chain Management.” Supply Chain Manage-
ment: An International Journal 21 (5): 627–641.
Carter, C. R., and D. S. Rogers. 2008. “A Framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Moving toward New Theory.” Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38 (5): 360–387.
Carvalho, H., S. Duarte, and V. Cruz-Machado. 2011. “Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green: Divergencies and Synergies.” International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2 (2): 151–179.
Chavez, R., W. Yu, M. Jacobs, B. Fynes, and F. Wiengarten. 2015. “Internal Lean Practices and Performance: The Role of Technolog-
ical Turbulence.” International Journal of Production Economics 160: 157–171.
Chen, Z., and H. Tan. 2013. “The Impact of Organization Ownership Structure on JIT implementation and Production Operations Per-
formance.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 33 (9): 1202–1229.
Chiang, C., C. Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, and N. Suresh. 2012. “An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Strategic Sourcing and Flexi-
bility on Firm’s Supply Chain Agility.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 32 (1): 49–78.
Clark, J., L. C. Toms, and K. W. Green Jr. 2014. “Market-oriented Sustainability: Moderating Impact of Stakeholder Involvement.”
Industrial Management and Data Systems 114 (1): 21–36.
Colicchia, C., A. Creazza, and F. Dallari. 2017. “Lean and Green Supply Chain Management through Intermodal Transport: Insights
from the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry.” Production Planning & Control 28 (4): 321–334.
Diaz-Elsayed, N., A. Jondral, S. Greinacher, D. Dornfeld, and G. Lanza. 2013. “Assessment of Lean and Green Strategies by Simula-
tion of Manufacturing Systems in Discrete Production Environments.” CIRP Annals 62: 475–478.
Drohomeretski, E., D. C. Gouvea, and D. L. Pinheiro. 2014. “Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Manufacturing Technol-
ogy Management 25 (8): 1105–1134.
Dües, C. M., K. H. Tan, and M. Lim. 2013. “Green as the New Lean: How to Use Lean Practices as a Catalyst to Greening Your
Supply Chain.” Journal or Cleaner Production 40: 93–100.
Emiliani, M. L. 2006. “Origins of Lean Management in America.” Journal of Management History 12 (2): 167–184.
Fliedner, G., and K. Majeske. 2010. “Sustainability: The New Lean Frontier.” Production and Inventory Management Journal 46 (1):
66–13.
Galeazzo, A., A. Furlan, and A. Vinelli. 2014. “Lean and Green in Action: Interdependencies and Performance Of Pollution Preven-
tion Projects.” Journal of Cleaner Production 85: 191–200.
14 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

Garver, M. S., and J. T. Mentzer. 1999. “Logistics Research Methods: Employing Structural Equation Modeling to Test for Construct
Validity.” Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1): 33–57.
Garza-Reyes, J. A., B. Villarreal, K. Vikas, and M. Ruiz. 2016. “Lean and Green in the Transport and Logistics Sector – A Case
Study of Simultaneous Deployment.” Production Planning & Control 27 (15): 1221–1232.
Golicic, S. L., and C. D. Smith. 2013. “A Meta-analysis of Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and
Firm Performance.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 49 (2): 78–95.
Green Jr., K. W., P. J. Zelbst, J. Meacham, and V. Bhadauria. 2012. “Green Supply Chain Management Practices: Impact on Perfor-
mance.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17 (3): 290–305.
Green Jr., K. W., L. C. Toms, and J. Clark. 2015. “Impact of Market Orientation on Environmental Sustainability Strategy.” Manage-
ment Research Review 38 (2): 217–238.
Green Jr., K. W., P. J. Zelbst, V. E. Sower, and J. C. Bellah. 2017. “Impact of Radio Frequency Identification Technology on Environ-
mental Sustainability.” Journal of Computer Information Systems 57 (3): 269–277.
Gupta, S., and S.K. Jain. 2013. “A Literature Review of Lean Manufacturing,” International Journal of Management Science and
Engineering Management 8(4), 241–249.
Hair, J. F., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2011. “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.” The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
19 (2): 139–152.
Hajmohammad, S., S. Vachon, R. Klassen, and I. Gavronski. 2013. “Reprint of Lean Management and Supply Management: Their
Role in Green Practices and Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 56: 86–93.
Hallam, C., and C. Contreras. 2016. “Integrating Lean and Green Management.” Management Decision 54 (9): 2157–2187.
Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009. “The Use of Partial Least Squares Modeling in International Marketing.” In
New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20), edited by R. R. Sinkovics, and P.
N. Ghauri, 277–319. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hong, P., J. J. Roh, and G. Rawski. 2012. “Benchmarking Sustainability Practices: Evidence from Manufacturing Firms.” Benchmark-
ing: An International Journal 19 (4–5): 634–648.
Inman, R. A., R. S. Sale, K. W.. Green Jr., and D. Whitten. 2011. “Agile Manufacturing: Relation to JIT, Operational Performance
and Firm Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 29 (4): 343–355.
Jabbour, C. J. C., A. B. L. D. Jabbour, K. Govindan, T. P. Freitas, D. V. Soubihia, D. Kannan, and H. Latan. 2016. “Barriers to the
Adoption of Green Operational Practices at Brazilian Companies: Effects on Green and Operational Performance.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 54 (10): 3042–3058.
Jasti, N. V. K., and R. Kodali. 2015. “Lean Production: Literature Review and Trends.” International Journal of Production Research
53 (3): 867–885.
Kadipasaoglu, S. N., J. L. Peixoto, and B. M. Khumawala. 1999. “Global Manufacturing Practices: An Empirical Evaluation.” Indus-
trial Management and Data Systems 99 (3): 101–108.
King, A. A., and M. J. Lenox. 2001. “Lean and Green? An Empirical Examination of the Relationships between Lean Production
and Environmental Performance.” Production and Operations Management 10 (3): 244–256.
Klassen, R. D. 2000. “Just-in-Time Manufacturing and Pollution Prevention Generate Mutual Benefits in the Furniture Industry.”
Interfaces 30 (3): 95–106.
Klassen, R. D., and C. P. McLaughlin. 1996. “The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance.” Management
Science 42 (8): 1199–1214.
Krafcik, J. F. 1988. “Triumph of the Lean Production System.” Sloan Management Review 30 (1): 41–52.
Lai, K., and C. W. Y. Wong. 2012. “Green Logistics Management and Performance: Some Empirical Evidence from Chinese Manu-
facturing Exporters.” Omega 40: 267–282.
Larson, T., and R. Greenwood. 2004. “Perfect Complements: Synergies between Lean Production and Eco-sustainability Initiatives.”
Environmental Quality Management 13 (4): 27–36.
Lee, D. H. 2013. The Role of Triple – A in Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Organizational Performance (Order No.
3558860). Available from ProQuest Central. (1352757940). http://search.proquest.com/docview/1352757940?accountid=40255.
Lee, S. M., S. T. Kim, and D. Choi. 2012. “Green Supply Chain Management and Organizational Performance.” Industrial Manage-
ment & Data Systems 112 (8): 1148–1180.
Lindell, M. K., and C. J. Brandt. 2000. “Climate Quality and Climate Consensus as Mediators of the Relationship Between Organiza-
tional Antecedents and Outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3): 331–348.
Lindell, M. K., and D. J. Whitney. 2001. “Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-sectional Research Designs.” Journal
of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 114–121.
Luthra, S., D. Garg, and A. Haleem. 2014. “Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Advances in Management Research 11
(1): 20–46.
Malhotra, N. K., A. Patil, and S. S. Kim. 2007. “Bias Breakdown.” Marketing Research 19 (1): 24–29.
Marodin, G. A., and T. A. Saurin. 2013. “Implementing Lean Production Systems: Research Areas and Opportunities for Future Stud-
ies.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (22): 6663–6680.
Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1990. “The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization.” American
Economic Review 80 (3): 511–528.
 International Journal of Production Research 15

Miller, G., J. Pawloski, and C. Standridge. 2010. “A Case of Lean, Sustainable Manufacturing.” Journal of Industrial Engineering
and Management 3 (1): 11–32.
Mitra, S., and P. P. Datta. 2014. “Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Their Impact on Performance: An
Exploratory Study of Indian Manufacturing Firms.” International Journal of Production Research 52 (7): 2085–2107.
Mollenkopf, D., H. Stolze, W. L. Tate, and M. Ueltschy. 2010. “Green, Lean, and Global Supply Chains.” International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40 (1/2): 14–41.
Narasimhan, R., M. Swink, and S. Viswanathan. 2010. “On Decisions for Integration Implementation: An Examination of Complemen-
tarities Between Product–Process Technology Integration and Supply Chain Integration.” Decision Sciences 41 (2): 355–372.
Negrao, L. L. L., M. Godinho Filho, and G. Marodin. 2017. “Lean Practices and Their Effect on Performance: A Literature Review.”
Production Planning & Control 28 (1): 33–56.
Ng, R., J. S. C. Low, and B. Song. 2015. “Integrating and Implementing Lean and Green Practices Based on Proposition of Carbon-
value Efficiency Metric.” Journal of Cleaner Production 95: 242–255.
Pagell, M., and Z. Wu. 2009. “Building a More Complete Theory of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Using Case Studies of
10 Exemplars.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 45 (2): 37–56.
Pampanelli, A. B., P. Found, and A. M. Bernardes. 2014. “A Lean & Green Model for a Production Cell.” Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction 85: 19–30.
Pavnaskar, S., J. Gershenson, and A. Jambekar. 2013. “Classification Scheme for Lean Manufacturing Tools.” International Journal
of Production Research 41 (13): 3075–3090.
Piercy, N., and N. Rich. 2015. “The Relationship Between Lean Operations and Sustainable Operations.” International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 35 (2): 282–315.
Prasad, S., D. Khanduja, and S. K. Sharma. 2016. “An Empirical Study on Applicability of Lean and Green Practices in the Foundry
Industry.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 27 (3): 408–426.
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0.M3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. http://www.smartpls.com.
Rothenberg, S., F. K. Pil, and J. Maxwell. 2001. “Lean, Green and the Quest for Superior Environmental Performance.” Production
and Operations Management 10 (3): 228–243.
Sambrani, V. N., and N. Pol. 2016. “Green Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review.” IUP Journal of Supply Chain Manage-
ment 13 (4): 7–16.
Sarkis, J. 2012. “A Boundaries and Flows Perspective of Green Supply Chain Management.” Supply Chain Management: An Interna-
tional Journal 17 (2): 202–216.
Sarkis, J., Q. Zhu, and K. Lai. 2011. “An Organizational Theoretic Review of Green Supply Chain Management Literature.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 130 (1): 1–15.
Schmidt, C. G., K. Foerstl, and B. Schaltenbrand. 2017. “The Supply Chain Position Paradox: Green Practices and Firm Perfor-
mance.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 53 (1): 3–25.
Shah, R., and P. Ward. 2003. “Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice Bundles, and Performance.” Journal of Operations Management
21: 129–149.
Shah, R., and P. Ward. 2007. “Defining and Developing Measures of Lean Production.” Journal of Operations Management 25: 785–805.
Shi, V. G., S. L. Koh, J. Baldwin, and F. Cucchiella. 2012. “Natural Resource Based Green Supply Chain Management.” Supply
Chain Management 17 (1): 54–67.
Simpson, D. F., and D. J. Power. 2005. “Use the Supply Relationship to Develop Lean and Green Suppliers.” Supply Chain Manage-
ment: An International Journal 10 (1): 60–68.
Srivastava, S. K. 2007. “Green Supply-chain Management: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review.” International Journal of Manage-
ment Reviews 9 (1): 53–80.
Stone, K. B. 2012. “Four Decades of Lean: A Systematic Literature Review.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3 (2): 112–132.
Ugarte, G. M., J. S. Golden, and K. J. Dooley. 2016. “Lean versus Green: The Impact of Lean Logistics on Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions in Consumer Goods Supply Chains.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 22 (2): 98–109.
Vinodh, S., K. R. Arvind, and M. Somanaathan. 2011. “Tools and Techniques for Enabling Sustainability through Lean Initiatives.”
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 13 (3): 469–479.
Wetzels, M., G. Odekerken-Schröder, and C. van Oppen. 2009. “Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical Construct
Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration.” MIS Quarterly 33 (1): 177–195.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, and D. Roos. 1990. The Machine that Changed the World. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Yang, M. G., Paul Hong, and S. B. Modi. 2011. “Impact of Lean Manufacturing and Environmental Management on Business Perfor-
mance: An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms.” International Journal of Production Economics 129: 251–261.
Yu, W., R. Chavez, M. Feng, and F. Wiengarten. 2014. “Integrated Green Supply Chain Management and Operational Performance.”
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19 (5/6): 683–696.
Zhu, Q. and J. Sarkis. 2004. “Relationships between Operational Practices and Performance among Early Adopters of Green Supply
Chain Management Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises.” Journal of Operations Management 22, 265–289.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. Lai. 2008. “Confirmation of a Measurement Model for Green Supply Chain Management Practices Imple-
mentation.” International Journal of Production Economics 111 (2): 261–273.
16 R.A. Inman and K.W. Green

Appendix 1. Measurement scales

Lean Practices Related to Suppliers (Shah and Ward 2007)

Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. We frequently are in close contact with our suppliers
2. We give our suppliers feedback on quality and delivery performance
3. We strive to establish long-term relationships with our suppliers
4. Suppliers are directly involved in the new product development process
5. Our key suppliers deliver to our plant on a JIT basis
6. We have a formal supplier certification programme
7. Our suppliers are contractually committed to annual cost reductions
8. Our key suppliers are located in close proximity to our plant
9. We have corporate-level communication on important issues with key suppliers
10. We take active steps to reduce the number of suppliers in each category
11. Our key suppliers manage our inventory
12. We evaluate suppliers on the basis of total cost and not on per unit price
Lean Practices Related to Customers (Shah and Ward 2007)
Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. We frequently are in close contact with our customers
2. Our customers give us feedback on quality and delivery performance
3. Our customers are actively involved in current and future product offerings
4. Our customers are directly involved in current and future product offerings
5. Our customers frequently share current and future demand information with our marketing department
Lean Practices Related to Pull Practices (Shah and Ward 2007)
Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. Production is ‘pulled’ by the shipment of finished goods
2. Production at stations is ‘pulled’ by the current demand at the next station
3. We use a ‘pull’ production system
4. We use Kanban squares or containers of signals for production control
Lean Practices Related to Continuous Flow (Shah and Ward 2007)
Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. Products are classified into groups with similar processing requirements
2. Products are classified into groups with similar routing requirements
3. Equipment is grouped to produce a continuous flow of families of products
4. Families of products determine our factory layout
Lean Practices Related to Setup (Shah and Ward 2007)
Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. Our employees practice setups to reduce the time required
2. We are working to lower setup times in our plant
3. We have low setup times of equipment in our plant
Lean Practices Related to Statistical Process Control (Shah and Ward 2007)
Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. Large number of equipment / processes on shop floor are currently under SPC
2. Extensive use of statistical techniques to reduce process variance
3. Charts showing defect rates are used as tools on the shop floor
4. We use fishbone type diagrams to identify causes of quality problems
5. We conduct product capability studies before product launch
Lean Practices Related to Employee Involvement (Shah and Ward 2007)
Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. Shop floor employees are key to problem solving teams
2. Shop floor employees drive suggestion programmes
3. Shop floor employees lead product/process improvement efforts
4. Shop floor employees undergo cross functional training
Lean Practices Related to Preventive Maintenance (Shah and Ward 2007)
Please indicate the extent of implementation of each of the following practices in your plant. (1 = no implementation; 2 = little
implementation; 3 = some implementation; 4 = extensive implementation; 5 = complete implementation)
1. We dedicate a portion of every day to planned equipment maintenance related activities
2. We maintain all of our equipment regularly
3. We maintain excellent records of all equipment maintenance related activities
4. We post equipment maintenance records on shop floor for active sharing with employees

(Continued)
 International Journal of Production Research 17

Appendix1. (Continued )

Internal Environmental Management (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)

Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant is implementing each of the following. (five-point scale: 1 = not
considering it; 2 = planning to consider it; 3 = considering it currently; 4 = initiating implementation; 5 = implementing
successfully)
1. Commitment of GSCM from senior managers
2. Support for GSCM from mid-level managers
3. Cross-functional cooperation for environmental improvements
4. Total quality environmental management
5. Environmental compliance and auditing programmes
6. ISO 14,001 certification
7. Environmental Management Systems
Green Purchasing (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant is implementing each of the following. (five-point scale: 1 = not
considering it; 2 = planning to consider it; 3 = considering it currently; 4 = initiating implementation; 5 = implementing
successfully)
1. Eco labelling of products
2. Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives
3. Environmental audit of suppliers’ internal management
4. Suppliers’ ISO 14,000 certification
5. Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice evaluation
6. Providing design specification to suppliers that include environmental requirements for purchased item
Cooperation with Customers (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant is implementing each of the following. (five-point scale: 1 = not
considering it; 2 = planning to consider it; 3 = considering it currently; 4 = initiating implementation; 5 = implementing
successfully)
1. Cooperation with customers for eco design
2. Cooperation with customers for cleaner production
3. Cooperation with customers for green packaging
4. Cooperation with customers for using less energy during product transportation
Eco-design (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant is implementing each of the following. (five-point scale: 1 = not
considering it; 2 = planning to consider it; 3 = considering it currently; 4 = initiating implementation; 5 = implementing
successfully)
1. Design of products for reduced consumption of material/energy
2. Design of products for reuse, recycle, recovery of material and/or component parts
3. Design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous products and/or their manufacturing process
Investment recovery (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant is implementing each of the following during the past year. (five-
point scale: 1 = not considering it; 2 = planning to consider it; 3 = considering it currently; 4 = initiating implementation;
5 = implementing successfully)
1. Investment recovery (sale) of excess inventories/materials
2. Sale of scrap and used materials
3. Sale of excess capital equipment
Environmental Performance (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant has achieved each of the following during the past year. (five-
point scale: 1 = not at all; 2 = a little bit; 3 = to some degree; 4 = relatively significant; 5 = significant)
1. Reduction of air emissions
2. Reduction of effluent waste
3. Reduction of solid wastes
4. Decrease in consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials
5. Decrease in frequency for environmental accidents
6. Improvement in an enterprise’s environmental situation
Operational Performance (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008)
Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant has achieved each of the following during the past year. (five-
point scale: 1 = not at all; 2 = a little bit; 3 = to some degree; 4 = relatively significant; 5 = significant)
1. Increase in the amount of goods delivered on time
2. Decrease in inventory levels
3. Decrease in scrap rate
4. Increase in product quality
5. Increase in product line
6. Improved capacity utilisation