An Assessment Framework for Managing Corporate Sustainable Manufacturing

Doktorsavhandling, 2019

Every object that we make use of in our daily life is the result of myriad decisions made on how production processes should utilise human capital, natural resources, and innovation. That is to say, it is the result of how products and production systems are being managed, and with which goals in mind. The question that many practice-oriented academic researchers like myself have often asked is: when regulatory pressure is an insufficient motivator and support from costly external consultancies is either impractical or just another layer of complexity to have to manoeuvre, how can manufacturing companies achieve by 2030 the United Nations-championed goal of responsible production and consumption on their own?

The question I was asking offered many possible answers. This became apparent as I navigated the already crowded discourse on sustainability assessment methods and tools (solutions) applied to production systems. At the conclusion of this investigation, several research gaps were made evident, which I grouped under three main areas of focus: 1) from an industry point of view: low margins of resources and competences to apply sustainability assessment solutions developed by academics. 2) the necessity of designing these solutions with the principle of life-cycle thinking in mind, for a manufacturing company to truly deserve the term ‘sustainable’. 3) misalignments can occur between a corporate sustainability strategy (when it exists) and the implementation/management of the strategy at the shop floor. This misalignment has been overlooked.  Proper assessment solutions are thus needed to manage it.

To address these issues, I developed an assessment framework for corporate sustainable manufacturing that included six assessment solutions. The assessment framework provides top and middle management of manufacturing companies with qualitative and quantitative information in order to affect: (1) the process of sustainability strategy development and implementation, (2) the evaluation of sustainable technology investments, and (3) energy efficiency performance evaluation in day-by-day production. Furthermore, (1), (2) and (3) must be logically linked in order for cascading sustainability goals to be achieved in unison. The developed framework equips production management with assessment solutions for the above three functions to allow for more informed decisions that improve the sustainability performance. It must be conceded in advance that this research work is not an exemplar of theoretical novelty: many such assessment solutions are already available in the literature, especially for (2) and (3). Alternatively (and willingly), I have endeavoured to strengthen this body of knowledge by pinpointing its gaps and ultimately supporting its real world efficacy.