See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338572421

Green implementation of Lean Six Sigma projects in the manufacturing sector

Article  in  International Journal of Lean Six Sigma · January 2020

DOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2018-0138

CITATIONS READS

24 991

1 author:

Alireza Shokri
Northumbria University
27 PUBLICATIONS   455 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digital Spare Parts Supply Chain: An Integrated Solution of Spare Parts Inventory Management and Predictive Maintenance View project

Global Entrepreneurial Talent Management 3 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alireza Shokri on 01 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-4166.htm

Green
Green implementation of Lean implementation
Six Sigma projects in the of Lean Six
Sigma
manufacturing sector
Alireza Shokri and Gendao Li
Department of Business and Management, Faculty of Business and Law,
Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Received 4 December 2018
Revised 28 June 2019
Accepted 13 January 2020

Abstract
Purpose – Historically, Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation has demonstrated a great deal of
enhancement to process efficiency, profitability and customer satisfaction. The emerging market pressure for
developing better quality, cheaper and greener products invokes a change of view in LSS economical
effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to identify under which condition the final output of LSS projects
with traditional strategic benefits are more environmentally friendly.
Design/methodology/approach – To investigate the choice of different types of LSS projects, the
environmental impact under different conditions and the comparison of those conditions, the author
developed an analytical mathematical model and analysed four different propositions.
Findings – The final price and production volume were recommended as mediating factors to leverage an
LSS project to achieve a greener, customised and finance-oriented outputs.
Research limitations/implications – This research contributes to existing LSS research and
knowledge development via promoting the different perspectives of LSS and environmental sustainability
integration.
Practical implications – This study further enables managers to identify the cut-off point in relation to
the production volume and finished prices to leverage the expected financial outputs and environmental
impact of the LSS project. This would potentially promote a green LSS project in both implementation and
output, alongside its traditional values.
Originality/value – This study uses a modelling approach to identify the conditions under which the
actual methodology of the LSS project could be green via less energy consumption with consideration of
expected LSS values and outcomes.
Keywords Lean Six Sigma, Energy consumption, Green manufacturing,
Environmental sustainability, Mathematical modelling
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The immense competition in global manufacturing and continuous emerging demand from
consumers for better quality and cheaper products and services have been the major factor
in competitive manufacturing. For this reason, more and more companies search for
management methodologies that allow them to improve their products and services,
enhance their processes, decrease costs and improve profitability and customer satisfaction
(Tenera and Pinto, 2014; Jou et al., 2010). Various quality improvement initiatives have been
deployed in manufacturing organisations in a global scale within the past few decades,
which enhances organisational performance and meets ever-growing customer needs.
However, Habidin et al. (2016) reports that over 70 per cent of these organisations failed due International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
to a lack of a continuous strategic and holistic control system. Meanwhile, the ever-growing © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-4166
customer needs require the use of effective improvement tools for optimisation and better DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2018-0138
IJLSS decision making (Sharma and Sharma, 2014). This demand inevitably increases the use of
natural resources and energy, which are considered as major sustainability threats.
The existing environmental changes and deficiency of energy resources are also two
crucial challenges that the manufacturing sector faces (Shrivastava and Shrivastava, 2017;
Mansouri et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2016). As reported by Mansouri et al. (2016), significant
energy use by manufacturers contributes to over 36 per cent of global CO2 emission, which
have obliged the manufacturing sector to be proactively engaged with the reduction of their
environmental impact. Increasingly, stakeholders including consumers have been asking
manufacturers to be more environmentally responsible with respect to their products and
processes (Luo et al., 2016; Rusinko, 2007). To respond to growing environmental
regulations and more customer demand for greener products, the “Green paradigm” has
been considered as important as traditional domains such as profitability, quality, efficiency
and customer satisfaction. Therefore, the organisation’s performance is measured based on
the perspectives of both customer and environment (Garza-Reyes et al., 2017). Difficulties in
planning, measuring and deploying sustainability and their crucial role in manufacturing
decision making also necessitates the systematic integration of sustainability with business
excellence models (Rocha-Lona et al., 2015). The notion of sustainability and reducing
environmental impacts in manufacturing processes is no longer an option, but a business
imperative for gaining a competitive advantage.
Both scholars and business managers have extensively noted Lean Six Sigma (LSS),
which is an integrated, systematic and structured business excellence methodology in the
manufacturing sector, and its benefits have been documented (Habidin et al., 2016; Khawar
et al., 2016). However, for more strategic benefits, manufacturing organisations need to
consider the synergies and conflicts of these two crucial competitive advantage initiatives.
Green LSS was proposed to have strategic importance in manufacturing towards efficiency,
optimisation and achieving sustainability (Kumar et al., 2016). Despite a great deal of
successful integration between LSS and sustainability, barriers are bound to be encountered
(Yadav et al., 2018; Cherrafi et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2016; Dues et al., 2013; Garza-Reyes
et al., 2014). This conflict is due to the LSS objectives of meeting customer desire and
demand for quality and durability, which may use non-sustainable practices and material
(Cherrafi et al., 2016). How to align the objectives of LSS and sustainability in manufacturing
so that the manufacturer does not need to put extra investment to achieve sustainability is
an untapped problem (Cherrafi et al., 2016). This research aims to fill this gap by developing
a structured model to identify the conditions under which a LSS practice with less energy
use in manufacturing processes. This paper contributes to the literature in the following
ways:

a hybrid framework was developed for LSS implementation for the green
manufacturer with less energy use;

an analytical model was developed to analyse the manufacturer’s decisions under
different LSS projects;

managerial insights have been derived from the analysis of the models, we
particularly identified the condition under which the final output of LSS projects
with traditional strategic benefits is greener.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. The literature review in Section 2 mainly
concentrates on “Green Manufacturing (GM)” and LSS with their drivers, benefits and
challenges. Section 3 develops the conceptual model on LSS implementation for the green
manufacturer. Section 4 proposes the mathematical model, which will demonstrate the
linkage of LSS projects to the market performance. This will formulate the decision making Green
problem to identify under which conditions LSS is green. The analysis is conducted in implementation
Section 5 and insights are derived. Section 6 concludes the paper.
of Lean Six
2. Literature review
Sigma
This research is related to two strands of literature: one is green manufacturing and the
other is LSS in the manufacturing sector.

2.1 Green manufacturing

According to Garg et al. (2015), the manufacturing sector has been accounted for almost one-
half of the world’s total energy use that has been doubled over the past 60 years.
Manufacturers are under tremendous pressure to be competitive through more productivity,
increased awareness of environmental responsibilities and meeting growing consumer
demand for greener products. Green manufacturing (GM) is the prominent notion of
sustainable manufacturing, which is recognised with concepts such as energy conservation,
greener materials and products, waste reduction, emission control and planet protection.
Despite challenges over defining GM, it encompasses all factors associated with
environmental concerns in manufacturing by continuously integrating eco-friendly
industrial processes and products (Chuang and Yang, 2014). Beske et al. (2014) stress the
essence of sustainable supply chain management and dynamic capabilities for
manufacturers via economic, social and environmental sustainability to meet ever-growing
and multi-dimensional customer demands. Shrivastava and Shrivastava (2017) defined GM
as a method for manufacturing that minimises waste and pollution for all industries. They
introduced the GM as a modern concept focusing on green energy, products and processes.
In a separate study, Chuang and Yang (2014) recommended the proportion of non-toxic
materials, compliance with eco-ordinances, the proportion of biodegradable materials,
environmental pollution per product and extent of process pollution as key success factors
of the GM.
The growing regulatory policies manifested in organisational vision and missions that
have created unprecedented challenges for manufacturers, especially in relation to meeting
consumer demand for greener products (Hitchcock, 2012) and the implied costs (Paulraj and
De Jong, 2011). The existing conflict of global sourcing and green purchasing has given this
challenge a global label to form a green supply chain with combined economic and
ecological advantages (Xie and Breen, 2012; Kumar et al., 2011). The current research
findings revealed that many manufacturers attempt to disclose their environmental
performance to obtain a better market response from prices and emissions – sensitive
demand (Luo et al., 2016). Through their systematic analysis, Sueyoshi and Goto (2010)
previously proved a mutual influence between operational and environmental performance
in dynamic interaction to gain financial benefits for larger manufacturers. Eco-efficiency
strategies of manufacturing gained considerable attention via meeting both environmental
and economic demands by manufacturers and their customers. For instance, Wang et al.
(2013) investigated the optimal material flow allocation and network design to reduce
carbon emissions and increase product value in the manufacturing sector.
Mansouri et al. (2016) have proposed energy consumption in manufacturing as a
multifaceted issue related to a conflict between machining parameters and operational
scheduling, such as machine set up a time at the service level. The majority of scholars who
work on research in GM focused on the product and process levels, which highlight the
waste reduction strategy (Farias et al., 2019; Dei, 2011). Notwithstanding, Lu et al. (2015)
signified another side of the GM with an alarming conflict between some common
IJLSS manufacturing strategies and greenness. They argued that vendor inventory management
(VIM), as an integrated manufacturing strategy to meet customer demand, would hinder a
GM by promoting more carbon footprint. Luo et al. (2016) defined low carbon manufacturing
as the manufacturing process that produces low carbon emission intensity through the
efficient and effective use of energy and resources during the process to meet regulatory
policies. According to Hong et al. (2016), in a study about green production planning, a
credible emission control strategy to make a good balance between emissions and costs to
comply with new policies was recommended as an essential component of business success.
Waste reduction is recognised as another important practice in GM that entails a great
deal of synergy with lean manufacturing. Manufacturers are thought to be one of the biggest
producers of waste. Transparency of demand information, quality management and process
control have been among major propositions to control environmental waste in
manufacturing, according to Mena et al. (2014). This relates to enhancing demand visibility
to meet supply and minimising the special causes of defects in the process that will result in
excessive waste. The elimination of waste as a predominant strategy for manufacturers at
all levels has made the greenness compatible with lean manufacturing in many aspects
(Farias et al., 2019; Garza-Reyes et al., 2017). Cost reduction as the result of waste
minimisation predominantly is the major benefit as the result of the synergy between lean
and GM.
Despite the clear financial benefits of the GM, its real impact on organisational
competitive outcomes is somewhat inconclusive (Rusinko, 2007). With an extensive
empirical investigation, it was reported by Digalwar et al. (2013) that companies are facing
challenges to assess the performance of green manufacturing. In a significant disclosure, Dei
(2011) identified a requirement for a more holistic system model to assess GM metrics in
planning, design, production and control levels to minimise the confusion arisen from failing
to describe greenness in a multi-dimensional strategic perspective of manufacturing.
Shrivastava and Shrivastava (2017) also emphasised a complete and holistic approach to the
green product design with the aid of green processes. Rajala et al. (2016) revealed that
incorporated GM in business strategy alongside profound managerial and leadership
commitment is required to create a re-configured business ecosystem and a re-invented
business model. They believe that this will mandate a greener mindset and roadmap for
radical proactive alterations in relevant manufacturing activities. Despite the
recommendation of 12 performance measurement of green manufacturing by Digalwar et al.
(2013) via the factor analysis, they failed to consider the project management and project life
cycle assessment of environmental impact.

2.2 Lean Six Sigma in the manufacturing sector

Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is a business excellence tool with a significant focus on reducing the
opportunity for variation and waste. LSS was defined by Snee (2010) as “a business strategy
and methodology that increases process performance resulting in enhanced customer
satisfaction and bottom line result”. LSS has evolved through the combination of Lean and
Six Sigma both being recognised as leading Total Quality Management (TQM) tools for
performance improvement in organisations with a proper infrastructure that are built on
leadership and change of culture (Shamsuzzamana et al., 2018; Vijaya Sunder et al., 2016;
Shokri et al., 2016; Habidin et al., 2016; Dora and Gellynck, 2015; Assarlind et al., 2013; Wang
and Chen, 2012; Choi et al., 2012; Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Atmaca and Girenes, 2013). It is
recognised as one of the most effective and disciplined top-down business transformation
initiatives for improving quality and reducing waste in both the manufacturing and service
sectors (Gijo et al., 2018; Antony et al., 2016; Knapp, 2015; Isa and Usmen, 2015; Bhat et al., Green
2014; Algasem et al., 2014; Biranvand and Khasseh, 2013). implementation
LSS is formed with the balanced integration of Six Sigma as a systematic and rigorous
tool to uncover and reduce defect and variation in breakthrough projects and Lean
of Lean Six
Management, with continuous incremental reduction of waste, environmental and economic Sigma
sustainability, increasing the speed of the operation and delivering the value (Muganyi et al.,
2019; Gijo et al., 2018; Thortorella et al., 2018; De Freitas and Gomes Costa, 2017; Marques
and Matthe, 2017; Thomas et al., 2016; Bamford et al., 2015; Piercy and Rich, 2015; Choi et al.,
2012; Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Manville et al., 2012). At an operational level within the
manufacturing sector, the LSS model aims to clarify the process of identifying opportunities,
as well as reduce variability and improve the quality of the manufacturing process
(Muganyi et al., 2019; Holmes et al., 2015). By using the LSS five-phased systematic
methodology of define, measure, analysis, improve, control (DMAIC), integrated with five
general phases of project management (initiation, planning, execution, control and closing),
manufacturers can tackle their own specific problems (Walter and Paladini, 2019;
Sreedharan and Sunder, 2018; Marques and Matthe, 2017; Tenera and Pinto, 2014; Gupta
et al., 2012). One of the most crucial steps of the LSS project is to identify the customer
demand or voice of the customer and translate it to a prioritised critical to quality (CTQ)
metric (Tenera and Pinto, 2014; Lighter, 2014) that serves as the outcome variable. Despite
longitudinal research with acknowledgement of the synergy between Lean and Six Sigma as
combined initiatives to establish quality (Singh and Rathi, 2019; Habidin et al., 2016), there is
a conflicting view to argue Lean and Six Sigma as two non-compatible management
initiatives (Pepper and Spedding, 2010). The previous unsuccessful experience of
implementing LSS in manufacturing criticised it as being slow, bureaucratic and exclusive
(Geier, 2011).
Any LSS project success depends on many organisational and leadership aspects as
essential ingredients. Formal mechanisms of management involvement, cultural
transformation, appropriate project selection, project review, goal setting, training,
understanding the methodology and tools, product/process design and improvement and
linking LSS to business strategy and customers have been recommended as major critical
success factors (CSFs) of LSS implementation (Walter and Paladini, 2019; Tlapa et al., 2016;
Khawar et al., 2016; Aldowaisan et al., 2015; Abu Bakar et al., 2015; Antony, 2014; Sabry,
2014). Geier (2011) introduced CSFs of LSS in a cultural perspective for manufacturers. He
emphasised on a team reinvigoration with employee’s ownership and simpler flexible use of
LSS to guarantee success.
Manufacturers have been obliged to incorporate quality and business excellence tools
such as LSS in their strategic and operational levels to meet competitiveness via increased
customer satisfaction, financial enhancement, improved product quality and reduced cost.
Higher influence of product quality on the customer for new product development (NPD)
and innovation has justified an application of traditional design for LSS in the
manufacturing sector (Muganyi et al., 2019; and Alvarez, 2015). In fact, design for Six Sigma
(DFSS) was introduced as a proactive tool to develop newly designed or re-designed
products and services to meet customer demand. DFSS is defined as a systematic
management technique that optimises products, services and procedure design through a
common define-measure-analysis-design-verify methodology (Thakore et al., 2014; Jou et al.,
2010).
Using statistical and reliable data and analysis tools and techniques within systematic
roadmaps, LSS implementation in manufacturing facilitates breakthrough results with enhanced
quality of products and services (Gijo et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2016; Sharma
IJLSS and Sharma, 2014). Adina-Petruta and Roxana (2014) presented key strategic benefits of LSS as
sustainable improvement with high productivity level and accelerated results, while many
scholars have presented operational benefits of LSS as reduced process variability, improved
product quality, waste and defect reduction (Singh and Rathi, 2019; Thomas et al., 2016; Tlapa
et al., 2016; Chaneski, 2016; Dragulanescu and Popescu, 2015). Despite extensive evidence for
benefits of LSS, many scholars have identified key barriers for its implementation in the
manufacturing sector such as resistance to change, expenses, lack of resources, poor project
selection, the wrong perception of LSS as a set of tools and techniques, inefficient use of
techniques and resources, misalignment between project goals and manufacturing strategy,
ineffective project management and poor communication (Singh and Rathi, 2019; Yadav et al.,
2018; Albliwi et al., 2014; Ismail et al., 2014).
Although scholars have presented major strategic and operational benefits of LSS, a few
studies have investigated what leads to LSS project performance (Arumugam et al., 2016). It
has also been inconclusive among scholars to what metrics need to be reviewed. While many
researchers analysed the LSS behavioural impact in relation to project deliverables such as
goal setting, project success rate and knowledge creation, other mediators also need
consideration (Arumugam et al., 2016). For instance, the understanding of inter-relationship
between these technical factors and social and environmental factors need to be
contemplated in the future LSS projects. Therefore, we decided to investigate the
environmental impact of LSS projects against a traditional LSS approach to promote GM.

2.3 Lean six sigma implementation for a green manufacturer

There has recently been a growing number of research and LSS projects in relation to the
benefits of LSS to make manufacturers greener (Kaswan and Rathi, 2019; Sreedharan and
Sunder, 2018; Garza-Reyes et al., 2017; Worley and Doolen, 2015; Banawi and Bilec, 2014). In
one of the most recent studies, the more sustainable LSS frameworks for the manufacturers
have been recommended as a future agenda (Singh and Rathi, 2019). In another recent study
and through their green LSS enablers framework, Kaswan and Rathi (2019) revealed that
organizational readiness for Green LSS together with competence for green product and
process have been found as the most prominent driving enablers of Green LSS. Despite a
clear synergy between lean and green initiatives, product and process design and
manufacturing strategies may result in a disconnection between these two initiatives
(Hartini and Ciptomulyono, 2015). This would promote integrating these initiatives with Six
Sigma to create a hybrid framework that covers the process, product and plant under one
roof. Sagnak and Kazancoglu (2016) revealed that Six Sigma integration towards lean and
green practices will facilitate a more rigorous and scientific approach to variation and waste
reduction. However, this mainly represents the traditional LSS that is predominantly only a
quality-oriented CTQ. Thomas et al. (2016) have previously substantiated this argument
that traditional LSS aims for quality and business enhancement in the outcome. There is an
ever-growing demand by policymakers and end consumers for greener and better quality
products and processes with significant reduced energy consumption (Kumar et al., 2016;
Shrivastava and Shrivastava, 2017; Luo et al., 2016; Mansouri et al., 2016; Garg et al., 2015;
and Rusinko, 2007). Despite greater number of research studies on the impact of LSS on
greener manufacturing in the point of view of product, design and even supply chain
(Kaswan and Rathi, 2019; Sreedharan and Sunder, 2018; Chugani et al., 2017; Garza-Reyes
et al., 2017; Worley and Doolen, 2015), there is not enough focus on conflicting factors in the
point of view of energy consumption in actual LSS project life cycle. This obliges
researchers and managers in the manufacturing sector to enforce more consideration into
the environmental impact of the actual LSS projects. This means, in addition to the benefits
of LSS for green manufacturing, the barriers or conflicts to make the LSS project and Green
methodology greener, also need attention. implementation
The systematic roadmap of DMAIC for continuous problem solving and enhancement
with different stages and extensive use of resources may create an environmental conflict as
of Lean Six
sustainability detrimental impact (Sreedharan and Sunder, 2018; Marques and Matthe, 2017; Sigma
Kumar et al., 2016; and Dragulanescu and Popescu, 2015). This is predominantly associated
with energy consumption to meet the highest level of quality and customer demand as key
LSS goals. In its best scenario, LSS increases the energy used to meet the stretched and
challenging goals (Arumugam et al., 2016). Energy consumption has always been a key
environmental challenge in manufacturing (Mansouri et al., 2016; Garg et al., 2015). Hence, to
produce greener products with greener processes, any agent of the LSS methodology that
contributes to increased energy users such as the “define” and “improve” stages needs to be
re-examined. The greater use of resources (e.g. water, electricity and material) and
machinery for continuous data collection and various trial and error applications for
optimum improvement solution in both “define” and “improve” stages made these two
stages more energy consuming (Sreedharan and Sunder, 2018; Chugani et al., 2017). The
possibility of using environmentally harmful or unsustainable material as part of solutions
for better performance would also add to the environmental impact (Cherrafi et al., 2016).
This encourages more careful planning, goal setting, tool utilisation and improvement
practices. For example, Khawar et al. (2016) in their LSS action research for steel
manufacturing recommended a higher level of temperature to reduce the rejection and scrap
rate, and therefore, waste reduction and improved optimisation after the systematic and
rigorous “design of experiment” part of LSS. However, there is a conflict between less
energy use and CO2 emissions by applying a higher temperature in principle.
Tenera and Pinto (2014) introduced LSS project execution and closing phases as two
major sources of project inefficiency that would potentially have the environmental impact
associated with excessive resources and energy used. In their more detailed and focussed
research about barriers in green LSS product development process, Kumar et al. (2016)
revealed various conflicting elements of this integration. We present those conflicting
elements with significant environmental and energy impacts. They include poor utilisation
of infrastructure, poor visual control and management, using non-green material and
operations in “Improve” stage, non-green material handling and logistics, inappropriate
identification of goals and DMAIC strategies for greener manufacturing, excessive energy
use in the “improve” stage, lack of funding, lack of suppliers willing to provide greener
material and consultation and lack of top management commitment to reduce
environmental impact of LSS methodology. Therefore, it was decided to investigate under
which condition CTQ metric is green with less energy used in LSS projects. Figure 1 depicts
the hybrid framework that was developed by us to indicate two different routes of

Figure 1.
Hybrid framework of
green and traditional
LSS approaches to
manufacturing
processes
IJLSS “traditional LSS” with only quality-oriented CTQ outcome and “green LSS”, with quality
and green-oriented CTQ. The latter reflects the energy use as one of the key environmental
impact indicators alongside traditional quality and profitability metrics.
In congruence with the analysis revealed by Kumar et al. (2016), Cherrafi et al. (2016)
have acknowledged the need for more a holistic, hybrid and integrated model to facilitate
understanding, and investigate the negative and conflicting effect of LSS implementation to
environmental sustainability as a clear research and managerial gap. The next section of
this paper is dedicated to introducing a mathematical model to propose the conditions that
LSS projects could have a less negative environmental impact.

3. Mathematical model development

The proposed problem under the LSS project selection framework was studied (Kalashnikov
et al., 2017). By investigating the choice of different types of LSS projects, we study the
environmental impact and identify the conditions. Specifically, we assume that a
manufacturer produces one product with unit cost cm. The manufacturer makes a decision
on the price. Consumers are heterogeneous in the valuation of the product. Assuming that
the valuation u is uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, that is, u  U(0,1). The market
size is normalised to 1. Under this setting, the demand is Q = 1  p, where p is the unit price
for the product. This demand framework is commonly used in the literature (Atasu et al.,
2008). The unit environmental impact of the product is E0, which includes all possible
environmental impact, for example, production, transportation, etc (King and Lenox, 2001).
We use subscript i, i = 1,2,3 to denote the different projects. The detailed notations are
defined in Notations:

SymbolMeaning
u = Consumer’s valuation of the product, u  U(0,1);
p = Unit price of the product;
Q = The sales quantity of the product;
E0 = Unit environmental impact of the product;
a = Coefficient for customer valuation in customer-oriented project;
cM = Unit production cost;
b = Cost reduction coefficient in process-oriented project;
g = Environmental impact reduction coefficient in environment-oriented project;
d = The proportion of green consumers;
« = Coefficient for green consumer valuation; and
Pi = Profit under project i.

The manufacturer wants to implement a LSS project with a budget, which can only be used
in one LSS project: quality improvement, revenue-enhancing, cost-saving or environment.
Improvement of the first three types were proposed by Hariharan (2013). Because the quality
improvement and revenue-enhancing projects are customer-oriented, we combine the two as
a customer-oriented project. For the cost-saving projects, due to their process improvement
nature, we rename it as process-oriented projects. Besides the two broad categories, we add
another environment-oriented project to include the environmental initiatives using LSS.
Therefore, the three types of LSS projects, which have different impacts on different aspects
are investigated:
 (1) Customer-oriented project – that is LSS projects aim to improve customer Green
satisfaction, which can increase the valuation of the product with a coefficient a  1. implementation
(2) Process-oriented project – This type of project has no direct impact on the of Lean Six
consumer, but on the unit cost. By implementing the project, the unit cost will be Sigma
reduced to b cM, where 0 < b < 1.
(3) Environment-oriented project – This type of project has no direct impact on the
consumer and process, but rather reduces the unit environmental impact. By
implementing such a project, the unit environmental impact will be reduced to
g E0, where 0 < g < 1. However, the green image of this project will increase the
valuation of the product from green consumers who account for d , 0 < d < 1 of
the total market and the valuation increase is «  1 (Atasu et al., 2008).

The above modelling setup has been thoroughly checked by the researchers and field
experts. The modelling assumptions are all widely used in the literature. Therefore, the face
validity and internal validity can be guaranteed (Ramos et al., 2015). The following results
will be derived based on the above modelling framework.
The objective of the manufacturer is to maximise the total profit.
(1) Benchmark model:

The manufacturer’s problem is:

maxp1 P1 ¼ ðp1  cm ÞQ1 (1)

According to the first-order condition (FOC) (equating the first-order derivative to

zero and solve the equation), we can easily get:

2
1 þ cm * 1  cm 1  cm
p1 ¼
*
; Q1 ¼ ; P1 ¼
*
:
2 2 2
(2) Customer-oriented project:

Under this case, the demand is: Q2 ¼ 1  pa2

The manufacturer’s problem is:
maxp2 P2 ¼ ðp2  cm ÞQ2 (2)

According to the first-order condition (FOC), we can easily get:

a þ cm * a  cm ð a  cm Þ 2
p*2 ¼ ; Q2 ¼ ; P*2 ¼ :
2 2a 4a

(3) Process-oriented project:

Under this case, the demand stays the same.

The manufacturer’s problem is:
maxp3 P3 ¼ ðp3  b cm ÞQ3 (3)
IJLSS The first-order condition yields the following results:

2
1 þ b cm * 1  b cm 1  b cm
p*3 ¼ ; Q3 ¼ ; P*3 ¼ ;
2 2 2

(4) Environment-oriented project:

Under this case, a fraction d of consumers is willing to pay a premium for the product.
The demand becomes:



p d
Q¼d 1 ð Þ
þ 1  d ð1  pÞ ¼ 1  1  d þ p
« «

The manufacturer’s problem is:


 
d
maxp4 P4 ¼ ðp4  cm ÞQ4 ¼ ðp4  cm Þ 1  1  d þ p4 (4)
«

According to FOC, we have:

   
1 þ cm 1  d þ d« 1  cm 1  d þ d«
p*4 ¼   ; Q *
4 ¼ ;
2 1  d þ d« 2
  2
1  cm 1  d þ d«
P*4 ¼   :
4 1  d þ d«

4. Analysis
From the optimal profits under different projects, it can be seen that the company profits
under LSS projects are all greater than that without LSS projects. Here, of course, we do not
consider the cost of LSS projects. This makes sense if the company has already done several
LSS projects, so that the training costs are neglectable.

4.1 The environmental impact of Lean six sigma projects

Now, we look at the environmental impact of the different LSS projects.

P1. (a) The product quantity under LSS projects is bigger than that without LSS
projects and so is the profit.
P1. (b) The environmental impact of customer-oriented and process-oriented projects is
always greater than that without LSS projects.
« ð1  cm Þ
P1. (c) For an environmental-oriented project, when d # ð1gð«g Þ 1Þcm
, the total
environmental impact is lower than that without LSS projects, otherwise, it is bad
for the environment.
The first result is not surprise. They have been well-documented that LSS projects have Green
benefits for profitability (Adina-Petruta and Roxana, 2014). The environmental impact of implementation
LSS projects is not well discussed in traditional LSS literature. The second result shows that
due to the sales volume implications of process improvement and service improvement,
of Lean Six
traditional LSS projects may be bad for the environment. The third result is quite Sigma
interesting; although the purpose of the project is to reduce the energy consumption, the
result may turn out the opposite. It means only if the proportion of green consumers is small
enough; the environment-oriented LSS project is good for the environment. This is because if
the green consumer size is large, this kind of project will stimulate more green consumers to
buy the product that causes overconsumption, which, in turn, increases energy consumption
that is bad for the environment. This is the LSS version of Jevons’ paradox – technological
efficiency gains actually increased the overall consumption of coal, iron and other resources,
rather than “saving them” (Alcott, 2005). Similarly, in environment-oriented LSS, although
the purpose of the project is to improve the energy efficiency of the product, the total
consumption may increase. This “rebound effect” may hurt the environment.

4.2 Comparison of different Lean six sigma projects

In this section, the different LSS projects are compared. Because of the different parameters
in different LSS projects, we cannot compare them directly. Alternatively, we let the total
profits equal and see the optimal product quantity and the corresponding environmental
impact.
(1) Customer-oriented project vs process-oriented project:

Initially, the customer-oriented project and process-oriented project are looked at. We
have the following finding:

P2. Under the condition of P*2 ¼ P*3 , we have Q*3 > Q*2 , p*3 < p*2 .
From P2, it can be seen that to produce the same profit, the process-oriented project
tends to produce more products. This makes sense because, for process
improvement projects, the aim is to reduce cost, which, in turn, sells products at
lower prices resulting in a higher sales volume. Because of this, to make the same
profit, process improvement project needs to sell more products, which, in turn,
causes more impact on the environment. Due to the inability of a process-oriented
project to increase the consumers’ willingness to pay, the company can only use low
prices to attract customers. This is corresponding to the everyday-low-price
strategy. Process improvement is the key to compete in the market from the internal
process improvement perspective. However, for this type of project, higher sales
quantity is important to be profitable, which may not be good from the environment
perspective.
(2) Customer-oriented project vs environment-oriented project:

Using a similar analysis process, we have the following result:

P3. Under the condition of P*2 ¼ P*4 , we have Q*2 ¼ Q*4 , p*2 ¼ p*4 .
P3 shows that to achieve the same profit, the customer-oriented project has the same
product quantity with an environment-oriented project. However, regarding the
environment, because the product quantities are the same, the environment-oriented
project could achieve a lower environmental impact. This result makes sense
IJLSS because both LSS projects are focusing on the customer side. Although the two
types of project are different, they have a similar impact on customer demand.
Therefore, using the same quantity, both projects can achieve the same profit.
However, because the customer-oriented project does not impact the unit
environment of the product, the customer-oriented project may produce more harm
to the environment compared to the environment-oriented project.
(3) Process-oriented project vs environment-oriented project:

Using a similar process, the process-oriented project and environment-oriented

project are compared, and we have the following finding as summarised in P4:

P4. Under the condition of P*3 ¼ P*4 , we have Q*3 > Q*4 , p*3 < p*4 .
P4 means that to achieve the same profit, the process-oriented project needs to
produce more products than the environment-oriented project. Meanwhile, because
the process-oriented project has a higher unit environmental impact than the
environment-oriented project, the total environmental impact under the process-
oriented project is higher than that under the environment-oriented project.
Putting the above results together, it can be seen that to achieve the same profit, the
process-oriented project needs to produce the highest number of products, while the
customer-oriented project and environment-oriented project produce the same
quantity, which is lower than the process-oriented project. Meanwhile, regarding the
environmental impact, although the environment-oriented project seems the most
favourable option, the rebound effect may offset the environmental benefit of the
LSS project. That means an environmental friendly image could be beneficial in
terms of both profit and environmental impact under certain conditions. The proof
of each proposition is presented as Appendix.

5. Conclusion and managerial implications

We acknowledged that the new era of LSS implementation in manufacturing would promote
the essence of greener implementation of LSS in addition to more traditional approaches of
LSS such as process enhancement, waste reduction, profitability and customer satisfaction.
This creates a re-configured business ecosystem and re-invented business model to mandate
a greener mindset and roadmap for radical proactive alterations in relevant manufacturing
activities. Therefore, it was intended to identify the condition under which the final output of
LSS projects with traditional strategic benefits are also environmental friendly. Having
developed an analytical model to analyse the decisions under different LSS projects, we
identified that despite greater efficiency in output, process-oriented LSS projects would not
necessarily be green due to potential unit cost reduction and increased volume of product
and sales as output. It was also concluded that the production volume and final price for end
consumers are recognised as mediating factors to balance the expected result of LSS
application and environmental impact of the project. This means that managers need to
identify the cut-off point in relation to the production volume and finished prices to leverage
the expected financial outputs and environmental impact of the LSS project. In other words,
the leveraged volume of finished improved product and finished consumer price should be
added to the LSS key success factors to transform more traditional LSS projects to green
projects in manufacturing firms.
This analysis is predominantly reliant on an analytical model and encourages scholars
and practitioners to conduct some empirical studies in different formats including a case
study as future studies. This is to clarify the practical implications of the suggestions Green
provided by our analysis and consider the implementation phase of LSS projects to implementation
transform them into a more hybrid approach of greener LSS projects with more efficient,
of Lean Six
customised and finance-oriented results. Of course, like any other paper, this paper is not
without limitations. First, the current model is highly abstracted to characterise the decision Sigma
in LSS. However, in practice, the decisions and parameters are complex, and incorporating
more decisions in the model needs further research. Second, the insights derived from our
models could be tested using empirical data and case studies. This study has a significant
contribution towards future LSS research and professional development particularly in
relation to the hybrid approach of sustainable LSS implementation. Alongside current
emerging research development in a more hybrid approach of green, lean and six sigma
implementation in manufacturing, we recommend consideration of the pricing, volume and
energy consumption as indicators as part of added “Sustain” stage to the DMAIC
methodology. This can be articulated further through empirical and case study analysis.

References
Abu Bakar, F., Subari, K. and Mohd Daril, M.A. (2015), “Critical success factors of Lean Six Sigma
development: a current review”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 339-348.
Adina-Petruta, P. and Roxana, S. (2014), “Integrating Six Sigma with quality management systems for
the development and continuous improvement of higher education institutions”, Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 143, pp. 643-648.
Albliwi, S., Antony, J., Lim, S.A. and Van der Wiele, T. (2014), “Critical failure factors of Lean Six
Sigma: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 1012-1030.
Alcott, B. (2005), “Jevons’ paradox”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 9-21.
Aldowaisan, T., Nourelfath, M. and Hassan, J. (2015), “Six Sigma performance for non-normal
processes”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 247 No. 3, pp. 968-977.
Algasem, F., Yang, Q.P. and Au, J. (2014), “Application of Lean Six Sigma principles to food distribution
SMEs”, American Academic and Scholarly Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 251-258.
Alvarez, J.C. (2015), “Lean design for Six Sigma, an integrated approach to achieving product reliability
and low-cost manufacturing”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 895-905.
Antony, J. (2014), “Readiness factors for Lean six Sigma journey in higher education sector”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 257-264.
Antony, J., Setijono, D. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2016), “Lean Six Sigma and innovation – an exploratory
study among UK organisations”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 27
Nos 1/2, pp. 124-140.
Arumugam, V., Antony, J. and Linderman, K. (2016), “The influence of challenging goals and
structured method on Six Sigma project performance: a mediated moderation analysis”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 254 No. 1, pp. 202-213.
Assarlind, M., Gremyr, I. and Backman, K. (2013), “Multi-faceted views on a Lean Six Sigma
application”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 387-402.
Atasu, A., Sarvary, M. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2008), “Remanufacturing as a marketing strategy”,
Management Science, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 1731-1746.
Atmaca, E. and Girenes, S. (2013), “Lean Six Sigma methodology and application”, Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 2107-2127.
IJLSS Bamford, D., Forrester, P., Dehe, B. and Leese, R.G. (2015), “Partial and interactive Lean
implementation: two case studies”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 702-727.
Banawi, A. and Bilec, M.M. (2014), “A framework to improve construction processes: integrating Lean, Green
and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-55.
Beske, P., Land, A. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain management practices and
dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 152, pp. 131-143.
Bhat, S., Gijo, E.V. and Jnanesh, N.A. (2014), “Application of Lean Six Sigma methodology in the
registration process of a hospital”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 613-643.
Biranvand, A. and Khasseh, A.A. (2013), “Evaluating the service quality in the regional information
Centre for science and technology using the Six Sigma methodology”, Library Management,
Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 56-67.
Chaneski, W.S. (2016), “Lean and Six Sigma: synergy at work”, Modern Machine Shop, Vol. 88 No. 11,
pp. 42-44.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A. and Benhida, K. (2016), “The integration of lean
manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future research directions
for developing a specific model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 139, pp. 826-846.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K. and Mokhlis, A. (2017), “A
framework for the integration of green and lean six sigma for superior sustainability
performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 15, pp. 4481-4515.
Choi, B., Kim, J., Leem, B., Lee, C.Y. and Hong, H.K. (2012), “Empirical analysis of the relationship
between Six Sigma management activities and corporate competitiveness”, International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 528-550.
Chuang, S. and Yang, C. (2014), “Key success factors when implementing a green-manufacturing
system”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 923-937.
Chugani, N., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Rocha-Lona, L. and Upadhyay, A. (2017), “Investigating the
green impact of lean, six sigma and lean six sigma, a systematic literature review”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
De Freitas, J.G. and Gomes Costa, H. (2017), “Impacts of Lean Six Sigma over organisational
sustainability”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 89-108.
Dei, A.M. (2011), “A system model for GM”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 14, pp. 1553-1559.
Digalwar, A.K., Tagalpallerwar, A.R. and Sunnapwar, K. (2013), “Green manufacturing performance
measurement: an empirical investigation from Indian manufacturing industries”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 59-75.
Dora, M. and Gellynck, X. (2015), “Lean Six Sigma implementation in a food processing SME: a case
study”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1151-1159.
Dragulanescu, I. and Popescu, D. (2015), “Quality and competitiveness: a Lean Six Sigma approach”,
New Trends in Sustainable Business and Consumption, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1167-1182.
Dues, C.M., Tan, K.H. and Lim, M. (2013), “Green as the new lean: how to use lean practices as a catalyst
to greening your supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 40, pp. 93-100.
Farias, L.M.S., Santos, L.C., Gohr, C.F., De Oliveira, L.C. and Da Silva Amorim, M.H. (2019), “Criteria
and practices for lean and green performance assessment: systematic review and conceptual
framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 218, pp. 746-762.
Garg, A., Lam, J.S.L. and Gao, L. (2015), “Energy conservation in manufacturing operations: modelling
the milling process by a new complexity-based evolutionary approach”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 108, pp. 34-45.
Garza-Reyes, J., Kumar, V., Chen, F.F. and Wang, Y. (2017), “Seeing green: achieving environmental Green
sustainability through Lean and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 2-6.
implementation
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Jacques, G.W., Lim, M.K., Kumar, V. and Rocha-Lona, L. (2014), “Lean and green-
of Lean Six
synergies, difference, limitations, and need for Six Sigma”, IFIP WG 5.7, International Sigma
Conference, September 20-24, APMS, Ajaccio.
Geier, J. (2011), “Embedding Lean Six Sigma into everyday use ensures sustainable culture change at
xerox”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 17-26.
Gijo, E.V., Palod, R. and Antony, J. (2018), “Lean Six Sigma approach in an Indian auto ancillary
conglomerate: a case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 761-772.
Gupta, V., Acharya, P. and Patwardhan, M. (2012), “Monitoring goals through lean six sigma insures
competitiveness”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61
No. 2, pp. 194-203.
Habidin, N.F., Salleh, M.S., Latip, N.A.M., Azman, M.N.A. and Fuzi, N.M. (2016), “Lean Six Sigma
performance tool for automotive suppliers”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 215-235.
Hariharan, A. (2013), “Three types of lean six sigma projects – a look at the strategies and tools that
work for each”, Quality Digest, available at: www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-
column/three-types-lean-six-sigma-projects.html
Hartini, S. and Ciptomulyono, U. (2015), “The relationship between lean and sustainable manufacturing
on performance: literature review”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 4, pp. 38-45.
Hilton, R.J. and Sohal, A. (2012), “A conceptual model for the successful deployment of Lean Six Sigma”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
Hitchcock, T. (2012), “Low carbon and green supply chains: the legal drivers and commercial
pressures2”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 98-101.
Holmes, M.C., Jenicke, L.O. and Hempel, J.L. (2015), “A framework for Six Sigma project selection in
higher educational institutions, using a weighted scorecard approach”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 30-46.
Hong, Z., Chu, C. and Yu, Y. (2016), “Dual-mode production planning for manufacturing with emission
constraints”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 96-106.
Isa, M.F.M. and Usmen, M. (2015), “Improving university facilities services using Lean Six Sigma: a
case study”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 70-84.
Ismail, A., Ghani, J.A., Ab Rahman, M.N., Md Deros, B. and Che Haron, C.H. (2014), “Application of
Lean Six Sigma tools for cycle time reduction in manufacturing: case study in biopharmaceutical
industry”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 1449-1463.
Jou, Y.T., Chen, C.H., Hwang, C.H., Lin, W.T. and Huang, S.J. (2010), “A study on the improvement of
new product development procedure performance – an application of design for Six Sigma in a
semi-conductor equipment manufacturer”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48
No. 19, pp. 5573-5591.
Kalashnikov, V., Benita, F., Lopez-Ramos, F. and Hernández-Luna, A. (2017), “Bi-objective project
portfolio in Lean Six Sigma”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 186,
pp. 81-88.
Kaswan, M.S. and Rathi, R. (2019), “Analysis and modelling the enablers of Green Lean Six Sigma
implementation using interpretive structural modelling”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 231,
pp. 1138-1191.
Khawar, N., Misbah, U., Adnan, T., Shahid, M., Rehman, A., Rashid, N. and Iftikhar, H. (2016),
“Optimisation of steel bar manufacturing process using Six Sigma”, Chinese Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 332-341.
IJLSS King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001), “Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship
between lean production and environmental performance”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-256.
Knapp, S. (2015), “Lean Six Sigma implementation and organisational culture”, International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 855-863.
Kumar, S., Hong, Q.S. and Haggerty, L.N. (2011), “A global supplier selection process for food
packaging”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 241-260.
Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kumar, N. and Haleem, A. (2016), “Barriers in Green Lean Six
Sigma product development process: an ISM approach”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 604-620.
Lighter, D.E. (2014), “The application of Lean Six Sigma to provide high-quality reliable pediatric care”,
International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-10.
Lu, X., Shang, J., Wu, S., Hegde, G.G., Vargas, L. and Zhao, D. (2015), “Impacts of supplier hubris on inventory
decisions and green”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 245 No. 1, pp. 121-132.
Luo, Z., Chen, X. and Wang, X. (2016), “The role of co-opetition in low carbon manufacturing”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 253 No. 2, pp. 392-403.
Mansouri, S.A., Aktas, E. and Besikci, U. (2016), “Green scheduling of a two-machine flow shop: trade-
off between makespan and energy consumption”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 248 No. 3, pp. 772-788.
Manville, G., Greatbanks, R., Krishnasamy, R. and Parker, D.W. (2012), “Critical success factors for
Lean Six Sigma programmes: a view from Middle management”, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Marques, P.A.A. and Matthe, R. (2017), “Six Sigma DMAIC project to improve the performance of an
aluminium die casting operation in Portugal”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 307-330.
Mena, C., Terry, L.A., Williams, A. and Ellram, L. (2014), “Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks:
Cases in the UK food sector”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 152, pp. 144-158.
Muganyi, P., Madanhire, I. and Mbohwa, C. (2019), “Business survival and market performance
through Lean Six Sigma in the chemical manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 566-600.
Paulraj, A. and De Jong, P. (2011), “The effect of ISO 14001 certification announcements on stock
performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 765-788.
Pepper, M.P.J. and Spedding, T.A. (2010), “The evolution of Lean Six Sigma”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Piercy, N. and Rich, N. (2015), “The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 282-315.
Rajala, R., Westerlund, M. and Lampikoski, T. (2016), “Environmental sustainability in industrial
manufacturing: re-examining the greening of interface’s business model”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 115, pp. 52-61.
Ramos, M.C.P., Barton, P., Jowett, S. and Sutton, A.J. (2015), “A systematic review of research guidelines
in decision-analytic modelling”, Value in Health, Vol. 18, pp. 512-529.
Rocha-Lona, L., Garza-Reyes, J. and Kumar, V. (2015), “Corporate sustainability and business
excellence”, Proceeding of the 2015 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management, March 3-5, 2015, Dubai.
Rusinko, C.A. (2007), “GM: an evaluation of environmentally sustainable manufacturing practices and
their impact on competitive outcomes”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 54
No. 3, pp. 445-454.
Sabry, A. (2014), “Factors critical to the success of Six Sigma quality programme and their influence on Green
performance indicators in some Lebanese hospitals”, Arab Economic and Business Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 93-114.
implementation
Sagnak, M. and Kazancoglu, Y. (2016), “Integration of green lean approach with Six Sigma: an
of Lean Six
application for flue gas emission”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 127, pp. 112-118. Sigma
Shamsuzzamana, M., Alzeraifa, M., Alsyoufa, I. and Boon Chong Khooa, M. (2018), “Using Lean Six
Sigma to improve mobile order fulfilment process in a telecom service sector”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 301-314.
Sharma, R.K. and Sharma, R.G. (2014), “Integrating Six Sigma culture and TPM framework to improve
manufacturing performance in SMEs”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 745-765.
Shokri, A., Waring, T. and Nabhani, F. (2016), “Investigating the readiness of people in manufacturing
SMEs to embark on Lean Six Sigma projects: an empirical study in the German manufacturing
sector”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 8,
pp. 850-878.
Shrivastava, S. and Shrivastava, R.L. (2017), “A systematic literature review on GM concepts in cement
industries”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 68-90.
Singh, M. and Rathi, R. (2019), “A structured review of Lean Sigma in various industrial sectors”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 622-664.
Snee, R. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Sreedharan, R. and Sunder, V.M. (2018), “A novel approach to lean six sigma project management: a
conceptual framework and empirical application”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29
No. 11, pp. 895-907.
Sueyoshi, T. and Goto, M. (2010), “Measurement of a linkage among environmental, operational and
financial performance in Japanese manufacturing firms: a use of data envelope analysis with
strong complementary slackness condition”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 207
No. 3, pp. 1742-1753.
Tenera, A. and Pinto, L.C. (2014), “A Lean Six Sigma (LSS), project management improvement model”,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 912-920.
Thakore, R., Dave, R., Parsana, T. and Solanki, A. (2014), “A review: Six Sigma implementation practice in
manufacturing industries”, Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 63-69.
Thomas, A.J., Francis, M., Fisher, R. and Byard, P. (2016), “Implementing Lean Six Sigma to overcome
the production challenges in an aerospace company”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27
Nos 7/8, pp. 591-603.
Thortorella, G.L., Fettermann, D., Frank, A. and Marodin, G. (2018), “Lean manufacturing
implementation: leadership styles and contextual variables2”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1205-1227.
Tlapa, D., Limon, J., Garcia-Alcaraz, J., Baez, Y. and Sanchez, C. (2016), “Six Sigma enables in Mexican
manufacturing companies: a proposed model”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 116 No. 5, pp. 926-956.
Vijaya Sunder, M., Ganesh, L.S. and Marathe, R.R. (2016), “A morphological analysis of research
literature on Lean Six Sigma for services”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 149-182.
Walter, O.M.F.C. and Paladini, E.P. (2019), “Lean Six Sigma in Brazil: a literature review”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 435-472.
Wang, F.K. and Chen, K. (2012), “Application of Lean Six Sigma to a panel equipment manufacturer”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 23 Nos 3/4, pp. 417-429.
IJLSS Wang, Y., Zhu, X. and Lu, T. (2013), “Eco-efficient based logistics network design in hybrid
manufacturing/remanufacturing system under low-carbon restriction”, Ltlgb 2012, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 681-689.
Worley, J.M. and Doolen, T.L. (2015), “Organisational structure, employee problem solving and lean
implementation”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 39-58.
Xie, Y. and Breen, L. (2012), “Greening community pharmaceutical supply chain in UK: a cross boundary
approach”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 40-53.
Yadav, G., Seth, D. and Desai, T.N. (2018), “Application of hybrid framework to facilitate lean six sigma
implementation: a manufacturing company case experience”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 185-201.
Zhang, A., Luo, W., Shi, Y., Chia, S.T. and Sim, H.X. (2016), “Lean and Six Sigma in logistics: a pilot survey
in Singapore”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 11,
pp. 1625-1643.

Further reading
Seedhara, R., Sandhya, G. and Raju, R. (2018), “Development of a Green lean Six Sigma model for public
sectors”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 238-255.

Appendix

Proof of proposition 1

This result can be easily achieved by comparing the optimal quantity under different
scenarios.

Because the unit environmental impact of customer-oriented and process-oriented projects
does not change with the different projects and the total environmental impact depends on
the product quantity, therefore, this result can be derived directly from (a).

For the environment-oriented project, the unit environment impact reduces and the total
environmental impact is Q*4 g E0 . We have the following:

Q*4 g E0  Q*1 E0 ¼ Q*4 g  Q*1 E0

Let the above formula be greater than 0, and solve the inequality we have:

ð1  g Þ« ð1  cm Þ
d# :
g ð«  1Þcm

Proof of proposition 2
Proof: Equating the profits under the customer-oriented project and process-oriented
project, P*2 ¼ P*3 , we can get the relationship between the parameters. In this case, we look at b as a
pffiffi
a 6 ða  cm Þ
function of a. Solving the equation with respect to b , we have b ¼ pffiffi . Because 0 < b < 1,
acm
pffiffi
 þ
so we have b * ¼ pffiffiacm m . Now, we substitute b * in the optimal product quantity Q*3 and minus the
a a c

product quantity Q*2 , we have:

  pffiffiffi
1 þ a ða  cm Þ Green
Q*3  Q*2 ¼ > 0:
2a implementation
Therefore, Q*3 > Q*2 . of Lean Six
Because P*2 ¼ P*3 , and Q*3 > Q*2 we have p*2  cm > p*3  b cm . That is p*2 > p*3 þ cm ð1  b Þ. Sigma
Therefore, p*3 < p*2 .

Proof of proposition 3
ð  a þ c2m Þ«
Proof. Solving P*2 ¼ P*4 with respect to d , we have d 1 ¼ ðað 1 þ1þa«Þ«Þ , d 2 ¼ ð  1 þ « Þc2m
. Because 0 < d < 1.
d 2 should be eliminated. We have d * ¼ ða1þ aÞ« * * * a  cm
ð1þ« Þ. Substitute d in Q4 we have Q4 ¼ 2a =Q2 . It is
*

straightforward that if Q4 ¼ Q2 , we have p2 ¼ p4 .

* * * *

Proof of proposition 4
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð« þ ðd ð  1 þ « Þ  « Þcm Þ2
1 ðd ð  1 þ « Þ  « Þ«
Proof. Solving P*3 ¼ P*4 with respect to b, we have b1 ¼ cm ,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð« þ ðd ð  1 þ « Þ  « Þcm Þ2 ð« þ ðd ð  1 þ « Þ  « Þcm Þ2
1þ ðd ð  1 þ « Þ  « Þ«
1 ðd ð  1 þ « Þ  « Þ«
b2 ¼ cm . Because 0 < b < 1, we only keep b 1, and b * ¼ cm .
Substitute b * in Q*3 , we have:

«  ð«  d ð«  1ÞÞcm
Q*3 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi :
2 ð«  d ð«  1ÞÞ«

 
1  cm 1  d þ d« «  ð«  d ð«  1ÞÞcm
Q*4 ¼ ¼ :
2 2«
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð«  d ð«  1ÞÞ«
Because « ¼ ð«  d «ð«  1ÞÞ < 1, we have ð«  d ð«  1ÞÞ« < « , which means Q*3 > Q*4 .
Using the same analysis as P2, we can show that p*3 < p*4 .

Corresponding author
Alireza Shokrican be contacted at: alireza.shokri@northumbria.ac.uk

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

View publication stats