Mälardalen University Post-Print

Reference to this paper should be made as follows:

Kurdve, M., Shahbazi, S., Wendin, M., Bengtsson, C. and Wiktorsson, M. (2015) ‘Waste flow mapping to improve sustainability of waste management: a case study approach’, Journal of Cleaner Production. 98. pp.304-315. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.076Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Waste flow mapping to improve sustainability of waste management:a case study approach

Martin Kurdve a, d, e, *, Sasha Shahbazi a, Marcus Wendin b, Cecilia Bengtsson c,Magnus Wiktorsson a

a M€alardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Eskilstuna, Swedenb Milj€ogiraff, Environmental Consultants, Gothenburg, Swedenc Volvo Group, Gothenburg, Swedend Martin Kurdve, Vejbystrand, Swedene Swerea IVF, Production Development, M€olndal, Sweden

Keywords:Material efficiencyWaste flow mappingWaste management servicesManufacturing industryEnvironmental system analysis

* Corresponding author. M€alardalen University, SchEngineering, Eskilstuna, Sweden.

E-mail addresses: martinkurdve@yahoo.se, martin.k

a b s t r a c t

Innovative, resource-efficient solutions and effective waste management systems capture value inbusiness and contribute to sustainability. However, due to scattered waste management responsibilitiesin the vehicle industry and the orientation of operations management and lean tools, which mostly focuson lead-time and labour-time improvements, the requirement of a collaborative method to includematerial waste efficiency in operational development is identified. The main purpose of this research isto study how operations management and environmental management can be integrated on an oper-ational level and include the waste management supply chain. Based on a literature review of envi-ronmental and operational improvement tools and principles, the gaps and needs in current practicewere identified. A large case study implementing a waste flow mapping (WFM) method on a set ofmanufacturing sites revealed potentials in terms of reducing material losses and inefficiencies in thehandling of materials and waste. Finally, the integrated WFM method was analysed with respect to thegaps and needs identified in the existing body of tools for operational and environmental improvement.The method combines lean manufacturing tools, such as value stream mapping with cleaner productionand material flow cost accounting strategies. The empirical data showed that the WFM method isadequate for current state analysis of waste material efficiency potentials, especially when multipleorganisations are involved. However, further development and specific methods are needed such as, forexample, logistics inefficiencies, root cause analysis, implementation guidelines for best practice andsystems for performance monitoring of actors.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

In manufacturing there are several production steps wheresustainability (UN, 1987) has increasingly come into focus in termsof less use of resources including energy, chemicals and water, andlower generation of waste and emissions to air and water. Withincreasing demands on material and upcoming shortages of re-sources, material efficiency is becoming increasingly important for

ool of Innovation, Design and

urdve@swerea.se (M. Kurdve).

the operational strategies of manufacturing companies (Allwoodet al., 2011). To meet the challenges of sustainability, environ-mental management standards such as ISO 14001 have supportedcompanies focussing on environmental performance improvements,especially regarding material waste (Zackrisson et al., 2000); inaddition, various sustainable management norms, visions and di-rections such as natural capitalism, ecological step, and Factor 10have been introduced by various authors. The World EconomicForum (2012) still identifies innovative resource-efficient solu-tions and business models as the most strategic option to capturevalue in industry.

Today lean manufacturing is the paradigm in industrial man-agement in the automotive industry. It focuses on elimination ofwork losses, particularly any human activity that absorbs resourcesbut creates no value. The principles and tools of leanmanufacturing

have proven fruitful in engaging all employees in improvementactivities. Still, only few structured practical tools have beendeveloped for both production managers and environmentalengineers (Torres and Gati, 2009). For instance, value streammapping (VSM) is a common tool in lean manufacturing used byproduction engineers, while energy andmaterial surveys are usedin environmental management by environmental engineers(Bergmiller and McCright, 2009). As a consequence, to minimisethe environmental impact from production, earlier studies (EPA,2003; Florida, 1996; Herrmann et al., 2008; King and Lenox,2001) have identified lean and green as a preferred approach torealising environmental opportunities. The overall aim of leanand green approaches is to include environmental principles inthe lean principles and then derive appropriate tools for thechallenges. In integrating environmental and lean approaches, itis not only essential to analyse the inputeoutput flow of energyand materials but also to visualise the current state and theimprovement potentials to involve all people (Bergmiller andMcCright, 2009; H€ockerdal, 2012).

This paper focuses on the waste management part of operationsmanagement. The importance of the end-of-life phase from anenvironmental point of view has been shown in several studies(Lundqvist et al., 2004; Zackrisson et al., 2000), and the economicpotential of improving material efficiency by climbing the wastehierarchy has been demonstrated (e.g., Tang and Yeoh, 2008). Eveneffective and environmentally aware companies have opportunitiesto improvewastemanagement (Halme et al., 2007), mostly becausewaste management often involves several actors and staff fromvarious organisations, making it difficult to manage. A specificcharacter of waste management improvement tools is thus tosupport waste management service supplier development. A majordriver of environmental improvements in supply chains is the de-mands imposed by customers on suppliers (Nawrocka et al., 2009),which are dependent on information sharing, mutual under-standing and agreement and trust (Simpson and Power, 2005).

1.2. Scope and research questions

Based on the lack of tools for combined operations and envi-ronmental improvement, the complexity in waste managementimprovement and the scarcity of larger case studies on lean andgreen improvement implementations, a case-based study on sus-tainability improvement and realisation of waste managementvalues was designed. This study focuses on an analysis of the ma-terial waste management supply chain, especially on the interfacebetweenwaste management and production management becausethis interface is crucial to the rest of the waste managementprocess.

The objective of the studywas to enhance the knowledge of howoperations management and environmental management can beintegrated on an operational level, focussing on the waste manage-ment supply chain. To fulfil this objective, the following researchquestions were identified:

1. What are the characteristics and gaps in existing operationalimprovement and environmental improvement tools andprinciples?

2. What potential in terms of material losses and inefficiencies inthe handling of materials and waste can an integrated wasteflow mapping method reveal while implemented in a broaderempirical study?

3. How can the integrated waste flow mapping method answer tothe gaps and needs identified in (1) by analysing theexisting body of tools for operational and environmentalimprovement?

To answer these questions, the remainder of the paper isorganised as follows: Section 2 presents the frame of referencedescribing existing tools and principles for operational improve-ment and environmental improvement, concluding with theidentified gaps and criteria of an integrated lean and greenimprovement method. Section 3 introduces the material andmethods for the empirical data collection and analysis. Section 4briefly presents the integrated waste flow mapping methodapplied to the set of manufacturing sites. The method was intendedto find economically competitive environmental improvements onthe team, site and multi-site levels through best practice examplesand to define suitable performance indicators to secure imple-mentation and continuous improvements. Section 5 presents thedirect quantitative results from the broad case study where themethodwas applied to indicate potential in terms ofmaterial lossesand inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste. Finally,Section 6 discusses the qualitative methodological character ofapplying a method integrating operational and environmentalimprovement on this large set of manufacturing sites. This meth-odological analysis and discussion identifies potentials and existinggaps in the method, in contrast to the requirements in Section 2.

2. Frame of reference: tools and principles employed for leanmanufacturing and environmental analysis

Since the 1990s, operations management research and practicehas had a strong focus on lean manufacturing (Jayaram et al., 2010;Rother, 2010). The focus has shifted from utilisation of equipmentand labour to reducing lead time and non-value-adding work(Modig and Åhlstr€om, 2012). Since then it has been debatedwhether lean is also green (Dües et al., 2013), and in many respectsthe benefits of lean production for cleaner production have beenemphasised (Bergmiller and McCright, 2009), especially inreducing non-value-adding processes and energy. However, thereis still a large untapped potential in increasing energy and materialefficiency and reducing losses in wasted material (Allwood et al.,2011; World Economic Forum, 2012).

There exists a multitude of methods and tools for environmentalmanagement purposes (Lindahl, 2005) such as cleaner productionapproaches (Lebersorger, 2008) and material flow cost accounting(Allen et al., 2009; Jasch, 2003), although these are not prescribedin the ISO 14000 standards and thus different companies usedifferent tools. Regarding lean production, the principles and toolsare more uniform, but different interpretations of how to use themfor environmental challenges exist (Zokaei et al., 2013). This sectionbriefly introduces existing principles and tools used for operationsmanagement (lean manufacturing) and environmental analysis inan operational improvement context. The section concludes byspecifying the requirements placed on an integrated method foroperational and environmental improvement focussing on thematerial waste management supply chain.

2.1. General lean principles and tools. Continuous reduction oflosses or “lean waste”

Lean production focuses on reducing “Muda”, which is inter-preted as “losses”, “waste”, “waste of time” (rather than materialwaste) (Hillenbrand, 2002) or “non-value-adding activities”(Zokaei et al., 2013). A key issue in lean philosophy is involving allstaff in continuous improvement, where a number of tools andtechniques are used. Successful continuous improvement (CI) de-mands that mutual trust exists between the people involved inoperations and that people are empowered to implement im-provements (Berglund et al., 2011; Moxen and Strachan, 1998). Thistrust will depend on transparent information, which becomes even

Fig. 1. The waste hierarchy (Kurdve et al., 2011, modified from Faniran and Caban,1993).

more important when several organisational entities are involved(Kurdve, 2010; Stoughton and Votta, 2003).

Two fundamental principles of lean manufacturing are visual-isation and go and see e or ‘go to gemba’ (Liker, 2003; Netland,2012). To involve everyone and have people develop their workin a common direction, it is important to understand what to do,how to do it and why it should be done. These fundamentals havebeen leading lights in the development of lean tools and techniques(H€ockerdal, 2012).

Other lean principles, such as Just in time and Jidoka, addressefficient material flows with short lead times (Modig and Åhlstr€om,2012; Rother, 2010) and minimal waste of time (Muda). Valuestreammap (VSM) is a tool used to find operational inefficiencies ina process (Rother and Shook, 2003). A VSM can be drawn for theentire supply chain, a process or a single subprocess. When ana-lysing a single operation cell, the VSM analysis will be similar to astandard operation procedure (SOP), and inefficiencies may bevisualised in “spaghetti charts” of real movements and comparedwith the SOP. The VSM can also be used in a non-detailed way toanalyse processes and subprocesses to visualise improvementpotentials.

The conventional VSM can be further extended through envi-ronmental or resource losses (EPA, 2007). An environmental VSM(E-VSM) can be used to map material use in different processes. InE-VSM, environmental issues of a process such as energy con-sumption, waste and excess material, along with the activities,time and information in the process including lead times and in-ventory, are diagnosed and mapped. Materials being processed inmanufacturing constitute a large part of final product expenditures,and an E-VSM analysis aims at both economic and environmentalimprovements. Utilising E-VSM proved to be an effective way formanagement to functionally address problems of production ma-terials (Torres and Gati, 2009).

2.2. Improvement and analysis tools focussing on material handlingprocesses

Material handling expenditures influence total operation costs(Fillmore,1981). It is important to includematerial handling such ascollection, storage, transportation, container handling, sorting,local treatment andwaste generation (Hogland and Stenis, 2000) inthe analysis of effective waste management. Material handlinganalysis (MHA) (Muther et al., 1994) is one visual tool for analysingand optimising internal and external logistics that in its simplestform is very similar to a spaghetti chart analysis. MHA for wastemanagement considers how waste handling is performed, forinstance loading and sorting. It also investigates tools, labour, ac-tivities, costs and mechanical plants (Shen et al., 2004). Wastematerial handling should embrace characterisation of wastes, i.e.,physical, chemical, biological and toxicological characterisation, aswell as categorisation to identify possible risks and establish asuitable material handling system (Hogland and Stenis, 2000). In afurther developed material handling analysis, the reverse logisticsconcept can be introduced (Dowlatshahi, 2000).

2.3. Input/output-based analysis methods for environmentalimprovement

Environmental management uses an inputeoutput approach foranalysing the environmental aspects of operations (Zackrisson et al.,2000), and a number of tools exist to study the inputeoutput balance.Two examples are the green system boundary analysis withinput in the form of raw material, energy and water and output inthe form of waste or product (gas, liquid or solid) (Zokaei et al.,2013) and the inputeoutput flow assessment, where facility

environmental performance is indexed based on the calculation ofinputs (processed material, components, incoming transports,electricity grids, water and auxiliary material) and outputs (emis-sions to water, solid waste, air emission and final product or co-product) (Brondi et al., 2012). Structured approaches to movebusinesses towards cleaner production such as environmentalmanagement accounting (EMA), which connects the physicalflows with expenditures for environmental losses (Jasch, 2003;Schaltenegger et al., 2008), and material flow cost accounting(MFCA), which focuses on the loss of good product connected witheach material waste (Onishi et al., 2008). Similarly, other re-searchers have mapped the general flow of material and energy asan inputeoutput approach for different system levels and recoverymanagement systems (Hogland and Stenis, 2000; Smith and Ball,2012). It has been noted that the material flow should preferablyinclude also pollution and noise (Shen et al., 2004). As an answer tothe demand of visualisation, the green performance map (Bellgranet al., 2012), with categories in accordance with MFCA (Kokubuet al., 2009) and EMA, has been introduced.

2.4. Methods focussing on waste management and material sorting

In this study, the legal EU definition of waste (“any substance orobject [ … ] which the holder discards or intends or is required todiscard” (EU, 2006), is applied regarding material waste, whichmeans all non-productive output (NPO) including solid and fluidwaste. The optimal case is that the disposal of this NPO materialshould be avoided completely. However, some parts of the NPOmay still be regarded as necessary (i.e., some packaging may beunavoidable at the time). In this case, material efficiency isimproved by ensuring that the material value in the recovered NPOmaterial is of as high a grade as possible, e.g., in reuse, materialrecycling or energy recovery.

This principle for increasing material and overall operationalefficiency has been formulated in the waste hierarchy illustrated inFig. 1 (Faniran and Caban, 1993; Kurdve et al., 2011; Smith and Ball,2012). In the waste hierarchy, it is generally assumed that, from anenvironmental and business (Hillenbrand, 2002) point of view,reduction of material use is better than reuse of components, whichin turn is better thanmaterial recycling, which is better than energyrecovery treatment, deposition of waste in landfill or spreading itout in the environment, which is also in line with the EU wastehierarchy (EU, 2006). The most desirable option is, of course, toprevent waste in the first place. The hierarchy is valid in most caseswith the exception of some special cases such as when the recyclingand transport process requiresmorematerial and energy thanwhatis exploited by using virgin material (Kurdve, 2008a).

The importance of simple tools for visualising geographicallocation has been identified (Hillenbrand, 2002; Shen et al., 2004;T�oth, 2003). One such tool for working with environmental as-pects is eco-mapping described by The International Network for

Environmental Management (INEM) (Engel, 2002). Eco-mappingcomprises several types of environmental aspects but can analysewaste generation and material waste handling activities. It iswidely used in a variety of applications to identify and visualise thegeographical points where different wastemanagement operationsare conducted (Shen et al., 2004; Zorpas, 2010).

To analyse the content and composition of wastematerial, wastesorting is an important tool for assessment and system analysis ofindustrial waste management (Hogland and Stenis, 2000; Shenet al., 2004). It aims to categorise waste material to find opportu-nities for better materials management (Allen et al., 2009). It isrecommended (for example, in construction) to sort the (con-struction) wastes into different categories, such as materials,packaging materials, wood, concrete, asphalt, garbage and sanitarywaste, scrapmetal products, rubber, plastic and glass (Spivey,1974).In addition, according to Shen et al. (2004), waste classification isone of three main approaches in managing (construction) waste.

For each waste fraction, quality criteria are set and during thecomposition analysis, deviations from those criteria are identified,first deviations regarding non-wanted materials in the fraction andthen materials that could have been discarded as another wastefraction with higher material quality (and usually lower cost orhigher payment).

2.5. Gaps in using current methods for waste managementimprovement

Based on this brief literature overview of tools and methods foroperational and environmental analysis used in waste manage-ment, a number of gaps can be formulated regarding using thesemethods for waste management improvement.

To combine tools and techniques into effective and usefulmethods, the users of the method and the context in which it willbe used has to be considered (Lindahl, 2005). This means that thecriteria that will determine if the method is used as intended haveto be in place. In general, the method should support collaboration,promote easy learning, be time efficient and support systematicwork procedures (Norell Bergendahl, 1992). Collaboration, coop-eration and sharing of information and resources increase mutualunderstanding of responsibilities and contribute to a learningorganisation. Collaboration has a positive effect on interdepart-mental relations and aids performance improvement (Ellingeret al., 2000). Current environmentally focused methods are inmost cases complex methods requiring expert knowledge of envi-ronment management.

For environmental work in the automotive industry in Sweden,previous studies have shown that methods benefit from beingbased on lean principles, harmonising with ISO 14001, supportingproactivity, delivering a structured work practice and enablingperformance measurements (H€ockerdal, 2012). In the developmentof other green lean tools, it has been clear that ‘visualisation’ and‘comprehensibility’ are important characteristics (Romvall et al.,2011), and in a pre-study of the waste flow mapping develop-ment, ‘systematic’, ‘hands-on’, and ‘quick’ were also identified ascritical features (Kurdve et al., 2011). The integration of leanimprovement methods and environmental analysis methods is, asmany authors note, rarely achieved.

Due to the involvement of many actors in waste management,the supplierecustomer relationship has to be analysed. Experiencefrom chemical management services and other product servicesystems (PSS)(Kurdve, 2008b; Mont, 2004; Tukker and Tischner,2006) shows that to align initiatives and obtain efficient use ofmaterial and services, the products or material, the services involved,the financial incentives and the allocation of responsibility mustbe considered. Further, the process knowledge and mutual trust

between the actors may influence performance. The currentmethods of operational improvement or environmental manage-ment rarely consider the complex supply chain character of wastemanagement.

In conclusion, by analysing the general gaps in current methodsof operational improvement and environmental managementapplicable to waste management, the following critical improve-ment areas have been defined:

� A method characterised by improvement and empowermentshould emphasise collaboration, mutual understanding, easylearning and application.

� A method integrating environmental management into animprovement system should be based on lean principles ofvisualisation and root cause analysis and be harmonised withISO 14001.

� A method applicable to waste management needs to considerthe extended supply chain, the reversed flow of goods andservices involved and the allocation of responsibility.

3. Materials and method

Apart from identifying gaps in the current methods presented inSection 2, the research questions concerned what potential interms of material losses and inefficiencies in the handling of ma-terials and waste an integrated waste flow mapping method canreveal and how this method can answer the identified methodo-logical gaps and needs.

To address these questions, an integrated waste flow mapping(WFM) method was used in a multi-site case study. The case studyexamined the wasted material flows, costs, material efficiency andoperational efficiency in the waste management system at 16production sites. The method was designed to enable efficientmapping and analysis with limited resources and time on site.

The study was performed partly as action research in which theresearchers participated with the general purpose of improving theorganisation's practice. Three of the authors participated, serving asproject leader, active consultant and process owner. The aim, as inall action research, has been to solve a practical problem as well asto contribute to science (Coghlan and Brannick, 2005), in this caseto improve waste management practice and material managementin operations as well as to increase operative knowledge andexperience from method implementation in general.

3.1. Case studies

The research was based on studies from two companies. After apre-study at the Concentric AB (formerly Haldex) assembly plant inSweden performed in 2010, a larger multi-site case study wasperformed in 2010 and 2011 on all 16 Swedish sites of the VolvoGroup, a leading manufacturer of trucks, buses, constructionequipment and drive systems for marine and industrial applica-tions and one of Sweden's largest employers. The multi-site map-ping project focused on waste management and procurement ofwaste management services, where most sites had to be mapped ina maximum of two days.

The approach requires knowledge of material and waste stan-dards. The specific characteristics of the site level analysis includedoverall analysis of the waste fraction volumes and the costs of sub-segments of waste fractions. Performance measurements wereincluded to compare the results with best practices of the wastemanagement subprocesses, such as internal handling and owner-ship of operations, together with the potential to improve sortingand minimise costs. The site analysis was finally used on the multi-site level by finding best practice performance that could be used

Fig. 2. Green performance map with a focus on material (modified from Bellgran et al.,2012).

for potential quick wins. The multi-site analysis also resulted inrecommendations for the continuous improvement and develop-ment of waste management services; this, however, extends outsidethe scope of this paper. Regarding prevention of waste generation, itwas concluded that this is a complex issue involving even more ac-tors, such as suppliers of incomingmaterial and purchasers, and addsparameters such as logistics, quality and flexibility.

3.2. Data collection

The data collection was performed on two levels to answer theresearch questions. On a first level, quantitative data on theobserved system's performance, characteristics and behaviourwere collected as part of the waste flow mapping method. On asecond level, qualitative methodological data were collected on themethod's functionality, characteristics and usability.

For collecting the quantitative data, the production and wastemanagement activities in the cases were analysed as systems(Arbnor and Bjerke, 2008) with inputs, processes and outputs.Taking a system view of waste management, involving collection,transportation and storage operations, is an effective way to gainefficiency and effectiveness (Seadon, 2010). The multi-site infor-mation on the total number of containers, volumes, weights andtypes of waste fractions at each site along with the procurementeffort for equipment and services was collected and used as inputfor operational development regarding the waste management. Theanalysis on each manufacturing site also considered the interactionsbetween systemelements such as equipment,management, contractorcompanies, humans, environmental emissions and wastes, operation/process efficiency and the economic/social impacts.

The information collection method included on-site visits,walkthroughs, interviews, layouts and photographs, environmentalreports and reviews of the current state of environmental andoperational compliance. Further, statistical data logs from existingsuppliers, additional environmental and economic data from eachsite and order system as well as data concerning external services,volumes, costs/revenue, transportation mode and final treatmentwere centrally collected. Through site visits and document reviews,it was possible to collect sufficient information to comprehend thecurrent state and characterisation of the companies' waste man-agement activities. The statistical data concerned the volumes andcosts of treatment of waste fractions and costs of external services,while environmental and economic data from each site were usedto validate and complement the supplier data. Finally, on-site visits,interviews, layouts and photographs were used not only to verifythe above data but also to map and understand the internalhandling to estimate internal man time and costs as well as toobtain an inventory of owned resources.

4. The analysis and improvement method employed: wasteflow mapping

The waste flow mapping (WFM) method was synthesised to beused by both wastemanagement researchers and practitioners. Themethod relies on proven tools and methods to analyse the currentstate and find improvement potentials with regard to materiallosses and inefficiencies in the handling of materials and waste.This section presents the framework of the three main WFM pha-ses, followed by a procedure on how to perform the mapping inpractice.

4.1. Phase 1: mapping of waste generation and fractions

The waste management process was studied with a value streammapping approach in a non-detailed way. The waste management

system was divided into subprocesses in the value stream of thewaste material, where the material value chain was followedtogether with the information flow. Before the on-site analysis, dataon volumes, costs/revenue, external services, transportation modeand final treatment were collected centrally from the environmentalmanagement system (EMS) and waste management reports.

This study focuses on material input and waste output. Thematerial output of a manufacturing process is divided into pro-ductive output (PO), regarded as value adding, and non-productiveoutput (NPO), such as material residuals or material waste that isnon-value-adding, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The input to these pro-cesses can be divided into value-adding production material thatconstitutes the product, and process material, which is everythingelse needed for the manufacturing process.

The waste management process is divided into five sub-processes in the material flow and two subprocesses in the infor-mation and knowledge flow as shown in Fig. 3.

Data were collected on each subprocess regarding resources,inventories, handling and movements. Subprocess (1) at the in-ternal collection point was mapped using eco-mapping or tablesand layouts (see Fig. 4), including data on the number and type ofbins, fractions, man time for maintaining bins and signs, cost ofownership/rent and inefficiencies in the main operation due towaste handling. In subprocess (2), the handling of material fromoperations to the external waste-handling contractor was mappedby data on man time and movement costs. In subprocess (3), thelayouts of containers and equipment for separation, sorting andstorage were mapped, including maintenance and cost of owner-ship/rent. Subprocess (4) was mapped by the type and cost ofexternal transportation off-site for each material segment. Sub-process (5) at the disposal/final treatment operations was analysedby type of disposal or recycling code, cost and location. The full lifecycle assessment (LCA) data on the final treatment were notavailable. For subprocesses (6) and (7), data on information man-agement were collected by interviews and data records, and theimprovement process was documented by interviews and processefficiency data. Further, the efficiency of the information systemand improvement work was estimated based on the overall effi-ciency of the process itself.

4.2. Phase 2: horizontal performance analysis e material efficiencyfor each segment

Themost efficient way to achievematerial efficiency is to reducethe amount of spill and hence avoid the unnecessary use of raw

Fig. 3. Waste management with seven generic subprocesses.

material. Still, when material ends up as waste, the environmentalimpact is generally reduced if the final treatment is higher up in thewaste hierarchy. The five-step waste hierarchy approach, Fig. 1,(Faniran and Caban, 1993; Kurdve, 2008a) was used to gradedifferent types of disposal and recovery operations for material

Fig. 4. Example of an eco-map

waste. Hence the approach will also include moving the non-productive output material (as shown in Fig. 2) or material wasteto higher stages in the waste hierarchy.

The operations examined in the case studies generated over 150distinguishable waste fractions. To understand the material flowsand set relevant KPIs for improvements, the study separated thewaste types into five main segments:

� Metals� Combustible material� Inert material� Fluid waste� Other hazardous waste

The number of segments chosen depends on the industrial op-erations and the different materials used.

For each studied segment of waste, except Other hazardouswaste, one or several of the fractions could be considered as a“mixed” fraction (with less value and quality than a “pure” or“sorted” fraction in the same segment). In general, there is a highercost associated with the mixed waste fractions compared to thepure ones that often regain a larger portion of the original materialvalue. The value differences correspond to the cost of separating orsorting valuable material from the mix. For hazardous waste, legalcompliance requires separate flows for certain fractions, with heavyfines for non-compliance.

The study resulted in a number of performance and monitoringindicators used to control the waste management process. Themain one, material efficiency, can be calculated with the followingformula as a valid approximation (Kurdve, 2008a). However, thewater content in fluids may cause problems.

of waste generation points.

Table 2Sub process performance measurements.

Bins Internalhandling

Collectionpoints

Externaltransportation

Final treatment

Serviceefficiency

#(bins)/W(waste

in bins)

Man h/W

#(containers)/W(waste in

containers)

#(trucks)/W(waste

transported)

W(recycled)/W(sum)

(sum) & W(incinerated)/W (sum)

Costefficiency

C (bins)/W(waste

in bins)

C (man-h)/W

C (equipment)/W(waste in

equipment)

C(transports)/W(waste

transported)

C(treatment)/W (sum)

Overall effectivenessC (bins)/P C (man-

h)/PC (equipment)/P C(trucks)/

W(waste

transported)

C(treatment)/P

Material efficiency ð%Þ ¼ product weight=incoming

material weighte

¼ product weight=ðwaste weightþproduct weightÞ ðKurdve;2008aÞ

To control and facilitate operations management, this researchhas concluded a need for measurements and monitoring of theactual waste and services included in the waste managementprocess. First, there are legal and EMS standard requirements formonitoring of total volumes of hazardous and non-hazardouswaste as well as the total (external) cost for handling of these.Second, the plants usually index these per produced unit (P) bycalculating the weight of hazardous and non-hazardous materialper produced unit (ton/#), as well as the total waste cost per pro-duced unit (SEK/#).

However, the study revealed that although the overall abovemeasurements are important, performance should also be moni-tored for each segment separately as shown in Table 1 to specify thefull potential of improvements. In addition to the weight and costper produced unit, the average cost (or revenue) per ton for sortedand for mixed waste as well as the sorting rate in each of the seg-ments should be monitored.

4.3. Phase 3: vertical analysis of the waste management processefficiency in each subprocess

When trying to make the overall operation as lean as possible,the focus is on minimising the use and handling of non-valueadding (NVA) and non-productive output (NPO) material. Inpractical improvement work, these different inefficiencies areaddressed simultaneously. First, the overall efficiency is ana-lysed, then the subprocess efficiency. To evaluate the servicessupplied internally or externally to each subprocess, certainperformance measures for each of the services were used, asillustrated in Table 2. These should reflect the effectiveness andquality of the service supplied. However, the subprocess mea-surements are subordinated to the overall performance mea-sures to avoid suboptimisation. One example is that if only onelarge bin is used for all types of waste, the efficiency measure forbins is good but the costs of final treatment and sorting, as well asinternal transportation, will give a non-optimal result. Further,development of each subprocess performance measurement isrecommended.

For plants operating the waste management with their ownstaff, the service efficiency and overall effectiveness were the mostuseful measurements. When the service was provided by a sup-plier, the cost efficiency was the most relevant measure for thesupplier delivery.

4.4. Implementing the waste flow mapping (WFM) method

The WFM method can be implemented in a seven-step proce-dure, presented in Fig. 5:

Table 1Proposed additional segment performance measurement.

Proposed segment indices Calculation Unit

Sorting rate W (sorted)/W (segment total) (%)Weight per produced unit W (segment total)/P (ton/#)Average segment treatment cost C (segment total)/W (segment total) (SEK/ton)

5. Identified potential in waste management by applying theWFM

Applying the waste flow mapping method to a large set ofmanufacturing sites resulted in numerous outcomes concerningwaste management improvement in general and case-specific im-provements. This section notes an excerpt from the generic wastemanagement findings to answer the research question ‘What po-tential in terms of material losses and inefficiencies in the handling ofmaterials and waste can an integrated waste flow mapping methodreveal, while implemented in a broader empirical study?’.

5.1. Waste flows

The multi-site case study resulted in a vast amount of detaileddata and photos on the waste management in the case companyand the waste service supply chain. Fig. 6 shows the overall pictureof the amount of waste in the five segments presented as per-centage by weight. Inert material is of less importance in this case,and metals could have been further divided into two or moresubcategories to refine the results.

5.2. Overall waste management performance

The performance measurements of the different plants, withregard to the sorting rate and cost or revenue of the waste fractionfor each segment as described in Table 1, were used to find potentialimprovements for each segment in the overall waste managementprocess. Because the plants had historical data for sorting rate andaverage price, the improvement work could be evaluated. Fig. 7shows the minimum, maximum and average sorting rate for non-hazardous waste (only plants with more than 10 tons/yearincluded). It shows clearly that some plants have a great

Fig. 5. The waste flow mapping (WFM) method implemented in seven steps.

Fig. 6. Waste volumes in different segments.

improvement potential, for example regarding metal sorting ratewhere the output quality of scrap metal can be increased if mixedmetal is collected as separate metal fractions.

The cost of each incoming material was not generally available.This means that the material loss cost in the waste managementcould not accurately be calculated. However, to illustrate how largethe cost is, the study included three examples, shown in Figs. 8e10.For fluids, the calculations become somewhat more complex due towater content.

There are several examples wherematerial recycling is observedas a step closer to the reduction of unnecessary waste of the ma-terial, thereby saving money. For example, at one plant, thechemical supplier operates the process fluids and handles thewaste fluid management in a business model aimed at reducingvolumes and costs of chemicals and waste (Kurdve, 2010).

5.3. Subprocess analysis

The costs in the five main subprocesses were analysed, espe-cially the costs of subprocesses and equipment supplied by externalsuppliers. It appeared that themajority of costs are generated in thefinal treatment processes and transport. With regard to externalsupplier costs, the treatment process was almost half the cost andtransport was a third. Including internal costs shows that internalhandling also results in large costs. The main saving potentials arein reducing these costs. Furthermore, the cost of buying or rentingbins and maintaining these is very low in comparison with other

Fig. 7. Sorting rate for non-hazardous waste.

costs. Because savings in final treatment often depend on the initialsorting of the waste, these results indicate that savings may beachieved by working out better solutions for sorting in bins at theworkplace. Aggregated data from the waste management processin the case study are shown in Fig. 11.

Potential waste management process improvements at theplant level were found in all five subprocesses:

� underused bins� lack of bins for some waste fractions� lack of and poor quality of signs and instructions� inefficiencies in handling and internal logistics� poor quality of information management� container and equipment inefficiency� inefficiencies and unnecessary costs of external transports� inefficiencies in choice of final treatment

For all of these, best practice examples were found that could beused as examples and goals for other sites.

The improvement process was analysed from a qualitative pointof view. In general, the improvement work would have benefitedfrom better information support with performance data on theproduction department level. Several inefficiencies could be relatedto loss and/or delay of information, indicating an inadequateinterface between waste management and operations manage-ment. Although proper LCA data were not always available, theeconomic potentials were found to coincide with environmentalimprovement potentials. For example, shortening transports showedboth economic and environmental potential benefits, and the po-tential of sending metals as higher quality grade gave in generaleconomic as well as environmental potential improvements.

5.4. Best practice comparisons

The multi-site mapping enabled identification of best practicesfor different segments and for different subprocesses. Other plantscan be compared with the best practice plants to demonstrateachievable results for that segment.

Because the majority of costs (or loss of value) were connectedto the final step of the waste management process, the treatmentcost was used to find the best management practice. By analysingeach plant with regard to sorting rate and average treatment costfor each segment, best practice was identified.

One example of best practice comparison in the case studywas acost comparison of two sites, A and B, similar in size and wastestructure but with wastes managed in different ways. Site B hadworked with focused improvement around waste handling on theoperator level and had invested in smaller bins for sorted materialat each workplace as well as team-level revisions of performance.The results from the waste mapping showed that the better sortingrate had led to significantly lower cost for combustible waste. Site Bsorted ten per cent more of the combustible waste into paper andplastic, and a couple of extra metal fractions led to higher incomefor metals. The extra investment in bins and internal logistics didnot cost more than the gain because the subprocesses had beenoptimised when the process changed. Site A could benefit from theexperiences of site B and find suitable targets for their wastemanagement process.

5.5. Exploiting the potential in waste management by applyingWFM

A general analysis of the overall results shows that major costreductions can come from changes in the handling and treatmentof hazardous waste from process fluids. However, this often

Fig. 8. Potential for increased revenue and reduced costs by sorting metal scrap.

Fig. 9. Potential for increased revenue and reduced costs by sorting plastics.

involves investment in equipment. Improved sorting and qualitymanagement of scrap metals had a great potential to increase in-come. Recycling of combustible waste (mainly from packagingmaterial) is a way of turning costs into income by very simplemeans.

6. Discussion and conclusion

Based on the literature review, characteristics and gaps inexisting operational improvement and environmental improve-ment tools and principles were identified (Section 2). In addition,

Fig. 10. Potential in

potential material inefficiencies in waste management weredetermined by using an integrated waste flow mapping method ina case study with a broad set of empirical data (Sections 4 and 5). Inthis section, the integrated waste flow mapping method as a so-lution to the problem of the gaps in the existing body of tools foroperational and environmental improvement is discussed.

6.1. Sustainable manufacturing strategies

To analyse the criteria and requirements of current methods, aneffort was made to cover as many strategic and operational factors

process fluids.

Fig. 11. Overall waste management process data for the five main subprocesses.

as possible from reverse logistics systems (Dowlatshahi, 2000).Further, sustainable concepts, including cleaner production, eco-ef-ficiency, material flow cost accounting (MFCA) and environmentalmanagement accounting (EMA), were taken into consideration tocover different aspects. The tools and principles included address theanalysis of materials, movements, related costs, information, reportsand methods (Fillmore, 1981), which are also in line with the chosensystem approach for this study (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2008).

From the brief presentation of principles and tools in Section 2,it is clear that the scope of waste management and material effi-ciency is wide. A variety of tools and methods have been created inacademia and industry, often overlapping in goals and suggestions(Lilja, 2009). Although all related concepts aim for sustainability,the differences between concepts are evident (Abdul Rashid et al.,2008). For example, cleaner production and eco-efficiency do notfocus on generated waste (Gravitis, 2007; Gumbo et al., 2003), andresource efficiency and material efficiency do not focus on toxicityand hazardousness of wasted material (Abdul Rashid et al., 2008).Eco-efficiency is based on economic efficiencies, which in turn haveenvironmental advantages, and as a result it can cause a “reboundeffect” (Gravitis, 2007). The zero waste and closed-loop principlesaddress waste prevention but have limitations in managinggenerated waste (Curran and Williams, 2012). In resource efficiencyand eco-efficiency, reducing the usage of material and resources isconsidered but not the impact of each fraction (Rashid and Evans,2010). Reverse logistics can satisfy several economic incentives byidentifying deficiencies in manufacturing operations, but it isusually time-consuming and requires a high level of management(Dowlatshahi, 2000). Likewise, sustainability concepts such asMFCA and EMA solely lack support of key lean features such asvisualisation, employee involvement, collaboration and under-standing. They are mainly based on calculation, quantitativeapproach and accounting (Higashida et al., 2013), whereas an easy,effective and applicable approach should rely on both the EMA/MFCA concepts and lean principles and tools. Moreover, EMA andMFCA have conflicts with conventional management mind-set,production improvement activities and production systems(Kokubu and Kitada, 2012). Using EMA and MFCA also requirescomplex calculations (Kokubu and JMA Consultants, 2007), whichmay be challenging to implement among employees and mightcause a conflict between environmental and economic objectives.

As a result, it is clear that a combination of several sustainableapproaches is needed to address material efficiency and wastemanagement efficiency in manufacturing. The WFM approach in-corporates both proactive and reactive measures, although themain focus can be argued to be reactive on the quality of recycling.The WFM appears to be useful for implementation at the company

level due to data availability, practicability, technical feasibility andcommunication. Although it supports the identification of oppor-tunities at the high end of the waste hierarchy, other approachesare needed to support redesign and material substitution.

6.2. Lean and green characteristics

The majority of manufacturing companies in Sweden arefamiliar with lean principles and have to some extent created theirproduction systems based on the Toyota Production System and theelimination of the seven ‘muda’ (Netland, 2012; Kurdve et al., 2012).Because a lean approach focuses on waste of time rather than onwaste of material, material efficiency and waste management areoften neglected. However, an applied lean approach on residualmaterial flows and waste management has previously provenfruitful in healthcare and construction (Fredriksson and H€oglund,2012; Lindskog and Larsson, 2012).

Minimising non-value-adding activities and material use at thesource is fundamental to the WFM method presented. Integrationof lean and waste management activities by focussing on visual-isation, systematic problem solving and communication not onlyimproves collaboration and interdepartmental relations but alsocovers scattered waste management responsibilities.

One complexity in waste management is the multitude ofstakeholders and the numerous steps in the waste handlingprocess. This implies the importance of synchronising targets,responsibilities and performancemeasures. However, from the pre-study it was concluded that it is complicated to include componentsuppliers, and these prevention opportunities are more efficientlytreated in separate projects (Kurdve et al., 2011). The WFM mayhelp direct efforts, but then eco-design of packaging and othersupplied materials is also needed. Further, introduction of newbusiness models such as product service systems may be a stepforward to align actor incentives (Kurdve, 2008b; Mont, 2004).

The WFM approach has proven to support analysis andcontinuous improvement work for the waste management process.It was perceived to be time-efficient, easy and understandable forthe practitioners. However, there were certain issues that had to beomitted or simplified. For example, the identification of logisticsinefficiencies was not made in detail, and although inefficiencieswere found, the time for root cause analysis was lacking. ‘5 Whys’has been suggested as a simple method for finding most of the rootcauses (Lindskog and Larsson, 2012).

In general, the value of the potential improvements found in thecases was worth more than ten times the cost of time spent onmapping, which is in line with other operational managementinitiatives.

6.3. Conclusions and future studies

Efficient wastemanagement is based on understandingmaterialvalue and costs of inefficiencies. Implementing waste flowmappingproved to be functional as a framework for analysing the wastemanagement process, revealing value loss and identifying sus-tainable improvement potentials. Categorising different wastefractions into segments and analysing segments individually arenecessary steps to identify best practices for the different segments.Applying this approach to a multiple-site case study highlightedthe importance of avoiding mixing quality grades of the samematerial.

However, guides for the implementation of best practices withclear and relevant goals for all actors were not fully provided by themethod. Because actors have different drivers (e.g., economy,environment, resource efficiency) for different levels in the orga-nisation, a service concept could be a lean approach to handlingwaste management. Additionally, integrating waste and operationsmanagement requires following up performance on a regular basis.Hence developing a tool or system that can facilitate updating andmonitoring of performance for each actor is suggested for furtherimprovements.

In general, a lack of on-site preparation made comprehensiveeco-mapping a time-consuming endeavour. Further developmentand possibly technical aids for visual tool communication on theoperations and team levels would be helpful.

References

Abdul Rashid, S.H., Evans, S., Longhurst, P., 2008. A comparison of four sustainablemanufacturing strategies. Int. J. Sust. Eng. 1, 214e229.

Allen, F.W., Halloran, P.A., Leith, A.H., Lindsay, M.C., 2009. Using material flowanalysis for sustainable materials management: part of the equation for prioritysetting. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 662e665.

Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G., Worrell, E., 2011. Material efficiency: awhite paper. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 55, 362e381.

Arbnor, I., Bjerke, B., 2008. Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge. SAGEPublications, London, UK.

Bellgran, M., H€ockerdal, K., Kurdve, M., Wiktorsson, M., 2012. Green PerformanceMap e Handbok. M€alardalen University Press, Eskilstuna, Sweden in Swedish.

Berglund, R., Karling, M., Mellby, C., 2011. Det v€ardefulla engagemanget: En guidef€or Lean och andra strategier f€or utveckling. Swerea IVF, M€olndal, Sweden inSwedish.

Bergmiller, G.G., McCright, P.R., May 2009. Parallel models for lean and Green op-erations. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Confer-ence. Institute of Industrial Engineers, Miami, Florida accessed via. http://zworc.com/site/publications_assets/ParallelModels.pdf (on July 23 2013).

Brondi, C., Fornasiero, R., Vale, M., Vidali, L., Brugnoli, F., 2012. Modular frameworkfor reliable LCA-based indicators supporting supplier selection within complexSupply chains. In: Advances in Production Management Systems, InternationalConference, APMS 2012, 24e26 September 2012, Rhodes, Greece, 200e207.

Coghlan, D., Brannick, T., 2005. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization,second ed. SAGE Publications, London, UK.

Curran, T., Williams, I.D., 2012. A zero waste vision for industrial networks inEurope. J. Hazard. Mater. 207e208, 3e7.

Dowlatshahi, S., 2000. Developing a theory of reverse logistics. Interfaces 30,143e155.

Dües, C.M., Tan, K.H., Lim, M., 2013. Green as the new lean: how to use lean prac-tices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 93e100.

Ellinger, A.E., Dougherty, P.J., Keller, S.B., 2000. The relationship between marketing/logistics interdepartmental integration and performance in u.s. manufacturingfirms: an empirical study. J. Bus. Log. 21, 1e22.

Engel, H.-W., 2002. Eco-mapping e a Visual, Simple and Practical Tool to Analyseand Manage the Environmental Performance of Small Companies and CraftIndustries, second ed. accessed via. http://www.ecomapping.com/en/tools-methodes/ecomapping.html URL:, on 1 July 2010.

EPA, 2003. Lean Manufacturing and the Environment: Research on AdvancedManufacturing Systems and the Environment and Recommendations forLeveraging Better Environmental Performance. United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, D.C.

EPA, 2007. The Lean and Chemicals Toolkit, Chapter 3. United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, D.C accessed via. http://www.epa.gov/sustents/environment/toolkits/chemicals/ (10 July 2011).

EU, 2006. Waste Framework Directive. Directive 2006/12/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.

Faniran, O.O., Caban, G., 1993. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Eng.Constr. Archit. Manag 5, 182e188.

Fillmore, W.E., 1981. Material handling analysis is approached from traditionalpoints of view. Ind. Eng. 13, 52.

Florida, R.L., 1996. Lean and green: the move to environmentally consciousmanufacturing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 39, 80e105.

Fredriksson, G., H€oglund, E., 2012. Att minska byggavfallet: En metod f€or attf€orebygga avfall vid byggande (Reducing Construction Waste: a Method forPreventing Waste during Construction). In Swedish. Tyr�ens AB, Skanska, NyaKarolinska Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.

Gravitis, J., 2007. Zero techniques and systems e ZETS strength and weakness.J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1190e1197.

Gumbo, B., Mlilo, S., Broome, J., Lumbroso, D., 2003. Industrial water demandmanagement and cleaner production potential: a case of three industries inBulawayo, Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth. 28, 797e804. Parts A/B/C.

Halme, M., Anttonen, M., Kuisma, M., Kontoniemi, N., Heino, E., 2007. Businessmodels for material efficiency services: conceptualization and application. Ecol.Econ. 63, 126e137.

Herrmann, C., Thiede, S., Stehr, J., Bergmann, L., 2008. An environmental perspectiveon lean production. In: Mitsuishi, M., Ueda, K., Kimura, F. (Eds.), ManufacturingSystems and Technologies for the New Frontier. Springer-Verlag, London,pp. 83e88.

Higashida, A., Kokubu, K., Shinohara, A., 2013. Introducing material flow cost ac-counting and creating visibility e analyzing MFCA in practice based on a lon-gitudinal case study. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Asia PacificInterdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, 26e28 July 2013, Kobe,Japan, pp. 26e28 accessed via. http://www.apira2013.org/proceedings/pdfs/K246.pdf (15 December 2013).

Hillenbrand, S., 2002. What is practical waste management? Environ. Qual. Manag.11, 91e93.

Hogland, W., Stenis, J., 2000. Assessment and system analysis of industrial wastemanagement. Waste Manag. 20, 537e543.

H€ockerdal, K., 2012. Enhancing the Process of Environmental Improvement inManufacturing Industry. Lic. thesis. School of Innovation, Design and Engi-neering. M€alardalen University Press, V€asterås, Sweden.

Jasch, C., 2003. The use of environmental management accounting (EMA) foridentifying environmental costs. J. Clean. Prod. 11, 667e676.

Jayaram, J., Das, A., Nicolae, M., 2010. Looking beyond the obvious: unraveling theToyota production system. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128, 280e291.

King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., 2001. Lean and Green? An empirical examination of therelationship between lean production and environmental performance. Prod.Op. Manag. 10, 244e256.

Kokubu, K., JMA Consultants, 2007. Guide for Material Flow Cost Accounting.Environmental Industries Office, Environmental Policy Division, Industrial Sci-ence and Technology Policy and Environment Bureau, Ministry of Economy,Trade and Industry, Tokyo, Japan.

Kokubu, K., Campos, M.K.S., Furukawa, Y., Tachikawa, H., JanuaryeFebruary 2009.Material Flow Cost Accounting with ISO 14051. ISO Management Systems,pp. 15e18 accessed via. www.iso.org/ims, 15 January 2012.

Kokubu, K., Kitada, H., 2012. Material flow cost accounting and conventionalmanagement thinking: introducing a new environmental management ac-counting tool into companies. In: Paper Presented at the InterdisciplinaryPerspectives on Accounting Conference 2012, 11e13 July 2012, Cardiff, Wales.

Kurdve, M., 2008a. Applying industrial waste management in practice reassessingthe economics of the waste hierarchy. In: Tang, K., Yeoh, J. (Eds.), WASTEnomicse Turning Waste Liabilities into Assets. Middlesex University Press, London, UK,pp. 141e152.

Kurdve, M., 2008b. Chemical management services: safeguarding environmentaloutcomes. In: Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C. (Eds.), Envi-ronmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production. Springer Science,Berlin, Germany, pp. 209e229.

Kurdve, M., 2010. Chemical Management Services from a Product Service SystemPerspective: Experiences of Fluid Management Services from Volvo GroupMetalworking Plants, Lic. Diss. The International Institute for Industrial Envi-ronmental Economics, Lund University, Lund.

Kurdve, M., Romvall, K., Bellgran, M., Torstensson, E., 2011. A systematic approachfor identifying lean and green improvements related to packaging material inassembly. In: Proceedings of the 4th Swedish Production Symposium, SPS11, 3-5 May 2011, Lund, Sweden, pp. 3e10.

Kurdve, M., Zackrisson, M., Wiktorsson, M., Harlin, U., 2012. Lean and Green inte-gration into production system models e experiences from Swedish industry.In: Proceedings of the 5th Swedish Production Symposium, SPS12, 6e8November 2012, Link€oping, Sweden, pp. 115e124.

Lebersorger, S., 2008. Achieving zero waste through waste prevention. In: Tang, K.,Yeoh, J. (Eds.), WASTEnomics e Turning Waste Liabilities into Assets. MiddlesexUniversity Press, London, UK, pp. 179e190.

Liker, J.K., 2003. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World'sGreatest Manufacturer. Mcgraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Lilja, R., 2009. Fromwaste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change ofdiscourse in the waste policy of Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 129e136.

Lindahl, M., 2005. Engineering Designers’ Requirements on Design for EnvironmentMethods and Tools, Doctoral Diss. Department of Machine Design, IntegratedProduct Development, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Lindskog, Å., Larsson, M., 2012. Från produktvalsprocessen till avfall: Metod ochverktyg f€or att f€orebygga avfall (From the Product Selection Process to Waste:

Methodology and Tools to Prevent Waste). in Swedish. Tyr�ens AB and RegionSkåne, Kristianstad, Sweden.

Lundqvist, U., Andersson, B., Axs€ater, M., Forsberg, P., Heikkil€a, K., Jonson, U.,Larsson, Y., Liljenroth, U., Sj€oberg, C., Str€omberg, K., Wendin, M., 2004. Designfor Recycling in the Transport Sector e Future Scenarios and Challenges. CMReport 2004:7. Chalmers University of Technology, G€oteborg, Sweden.

Modig, N., Åhlstr€om, P., 2012. This Is Lean: Resolving the Efficiency Paradox.Rheologica Publishing, Halmstad, Sweden.

Mont, O., 2004. Product Service Systems: Panacea or Myth? Doctoral Diss. The In-ternational Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University,Lund, Sweden.

Moxen, J., Strachan, P.A. (Eds.), 1998. Managing Green Teams: EnvironmentalChange in Organisations and Networks. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK.

Muther, R., Jungthirapanich, C., Haney, R.J., 1994. Simplified Systematic HandlingAnalysis, third ed. Management & Industrial Research Publications, Marietta,GA.

Nawrocka, D., Brorson, T., Lindhqvist, T., 2009. ISO 14001 in environmental supplychain practices. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1435e1443.

Netland, T., 2012. Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific productionsystems: one-best-way or own-best-way? Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 1e14 iFirstonline_ 2012 Taylor & Francis, accessed via. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.676686http://www.tandfonline.com. ISSN: 0020-7543 print/ISSN 1366-588X, d 1 June 01 2012.

Norell Bergendahl, M., 1992. St€odmetoder och samverkan i produktutveckling(Supporting Methods and Collaboration in Product Development). KTH RoyalInstitute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden in Swedish.

Onishi, Y., Kokubu, K., Nakajima, M., 2008. Implementing material flow cost ac-counting in a pharmaceutical company. In: Schaltenegger, S., Bennett, M.,Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C. (Eds.), Environmental Management Accounting for CleanerProduction. Springer Science, Berlin, Germany, pp. 395e409.

Rashid, S.H.A., Evans, S., 2010. In: Material Efficiency: the Factors Influencing UKManufacturing Companies in Choosing Type of Strategies, Paper Presented atthe 11th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Confer-ence, 7e10 December 2010 Melaka, Malaysia.

Romvall, K., Kurdve, M., Bellgran, M., Wictorsson, J., 2011. Green performance map e

an industrial tool for enhancing environmental improvements within a pro-duction system. In: Paper Presented at the 18th CIRP International Conferenceon Life Cycle Engineering, 2011. Braunschweig, Germany.

Rother, M., 2010. Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness,and Superior Results. McGraw-Hill.New York, NY?

Rother, M., Shook, J., 2003. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Valueand Eliminate Muda. The Lean Enterprise Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Schaltenegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C., 2008. Environmental man-agement accounting (EMA) as a support for cleaner production. In:Schaltenegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R.L., Jasch, C. (Eds.), EnvironmentalManagement Accounting for Cleaner Production. Springer Science, Berlin,Germany, pp. 3e26.

Seadon, J.K., 2010. Sustainable waste management systems. J. Clean. Prod. 18,1639e1651.

Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., Drew, D., 2004. Mapping approach for examiningwaste management on construction sites. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 130, 472e481.

Simpson, D.F., Power, D.J., 2005. Use the supply relationship to develop lean andgreen suppliers. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 10, 60e68.

Smith, L., Ball, P., 2012. Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through modellingmaterial, energy and waste flows. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 227e238.

Spivey, D.A., 1974. Construction solid waste. J. Constr. Div. 100, 501e506.Stoughton, M., Votta, T., 2003. Implementing service-based chemical procurement:

lessons and results. J. Clean. Prod. 11, 839e849.Tang, K., Yeoh, J. (Eds.), 2008. WASTEnomics e Turning Waste Liabilities into Assets.

Middlesex University Press, London, UK.Torres, A.S., Gati, A.M., 2009. Environmental value stream mapping (EVSM) as

sustainability management tool. In: Proceedings of Portland InternationalCenter for Management of Engineering and Technology Conference, 2e6August. Oregon, Portland, pp. 1689e1698.

T�oth, G., 2003. Evaluation of environmental performance of companies. Soc. Econ.25, 383e402.

Tukker, A., Tischner, U., 2006. New Business for Old Europe: Product-serviceDevelopment, Competitiveness and Sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing, Shef-field, UK.

UN, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: OurCommon Future (The Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

World Economic Forum, 2012. More with Less: Scaling Sustainable Consumptionand Resource Efficiency. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.

Zackrisson, M., Enroth, M., Widing, A., 2000. Environmental Management SystemsePaper Tiger or Powerful Tool. IVF Research Publication 00828, IVF, M€olndal,Sweden.

Zokaei, K., Lovins, H., Wood, A., Hines, P., 2013. Creating a Lean and Green BusinessSystem: Techniques for Improving Profits and Sustainability. CRC Press, BocaRaton, FL.

Zorpas, A., 2010. Environmental management systems as sustainabletools in the way of life for the SMEs and VSMEs. Bioresour. Technol. 101,1544e1557.