Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Original article

Sustainability index development for manufacturing industry

Hasan H. Latif a,⇑, Bhaskaran Gopalakrishnan b, Ashish Nimbarte b, Kenneth Currie b
a
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
b
Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Manufacturing industries are adopting new techniques and philosophies to address the acute shortage of
Received 21 September 2016 non-renewable energy. Many of these manufacturing industries are focusing on achieving sustainability
Revised 16 January 2017 in every possible stage of their production, from raw material to the recycling of waste. Thus, the signif-
Accepted 18 January 2017
icance of using renewable energy, properly handling waste, and progressively conserving the environ-
ment is increasing day by day. In this research, the definition of sustainability is quite specific: being
productive while making little to no impact on non-replenishable resources. The objective of the research
Keywords:
is to determine the sustainability index of manufacturing plants. Since the topic has a broad scope, this
Sustainability
Index methodology
research is limited to small and medium scale industries, which have common sets of operation and
Manufacturing industry defined process plans. Besides, the focus is on non-hazardous waste and the indicators of the index are
Carbon footprint selected with respect to energy efficiency, workers’ health and safety and waste reduction potential.
Energy efficiency An interactive model has been developed to determine the sustainability index based on user responses.
Based on the sustainable index, the model is able to provide suggestions to improve sustainability as well
as carbon footprint reduction. The research has used datasets from various projects of the Industrial
Assessment Center (IAC) at West Virginia University to build the knowledge database. The interactive
model is validated by case studies from the IAC. The outcome of this research is a model that can assist
industry to identify their shortcomings in achieving sustainability, determine the carbon footprint reduc-
tion potential, and compare the sustainability index as a benchmark measure.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction enhance the decision-making capability for modifications to man-

ufacturing processes. Current efforts have failed to provide a rigor-
Sustainability in manufacturing has recently received an ous index for examining the sustainability of manufacturing
increasing amount of attention. It is considered as an effective processes. To provide a useful tool for comparing sustainability
solution to advance the continuous growth and expansion of the across processes and companies, a comparative and quantitative
manufacturing industry [1]. Recently National Council for scoring system is critical.
Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM) has shaped a policy initiative The aim of this research is to develop an interactive model to
towards sustainable manufacturing [2]. The covered sectors of develop the sustainability index for small and medium scale man-
manufacturing lie within North American Industry Classification ufacturing industry. According to Industrial Assessment Center
System (NAICS) 311-339 definition [3]. The manufacturing indus- (IAC) program of Department of Energy (DOE), the manufacturing
try sectors have significant anomalies. Minimal effort has been industries with gross annual sales below 100 USD million and
given on sorting the anomalies; however, sustainable manufactur- employees fewer than 500 at plant site are considered as small
ing is considered a key step in moving forward. To provide a useful to mid-sized category [4]. A low score in sustainability index will
tool for comparing sustainability across processes and companies, indicate the area that needs improvement. Simultaneously, the
a comparative and quantitative scoring system or index is essen- carbon foot print will be determined to enhance the energy and
tial. The literature lacks clear efforts for creating a sustainable waste management efficiency potential. This research addresses
manufacturing index. The goal of creating such an index is to the problems of overcoming the research gap in sustainability
determination by integrating the various indicators. The contribu-
⇑ Corresponding author. tion of this research is threefold: 1) introducing an index based
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.H. Latif), [email protected] scoring system 2) evaluating the benefits of having sustainable
(B. Gopalakrishnan), [email protected] (A. Nimbarte), krcurrie@mail. policy 3) identifying the potential scope of opportunities within
wvu.edu (K. Currie).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.01.010
2213-1388/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95 83

existing manufacturing industry. The flow of information of this required to achieve sustainable manufacturing though modeling
paper has been presented in the following manner: Section 1 of material, energy and waste flows [16]. Despeisse et al. showed that
this paper has discussed the need of sustainable manufacturing some companies such as Brandix, Ford, Sony, and Rolls-Royce are
indices and Section 2 has covered the literature review in this area. already reaping the benefits of focusing on sustainable manufac-
Section 3 has explained the methodology of determining the sus- turing [17]. According to Ball et al., zero carbon manufacturing
tainability index (SI). Section 4 has modeled the determination of (ZCM) can be considered as a constituent element of sustainable
the sustainability index and Section 5 has conducted analysis. manufacturing. ZCM improves the environmental performance of
Section 6 of this paper has provided the conclusion. systems by understanding and examining MEW process mapping
[18]. Some of the latest techniques on sustainable manufacturing
Literature review has been implemented by Fuzzy based assessment models. Singh
et al. has done a study on fuzzy interference system models for
Until now, agricultural systems, ecological systems, and finan- the evaluation of manufacturing sustainability of small and med-
cial institutions have introduced sustainability indices despite hav- ium enterprises [19]. At first a list of sustainability indicators for
ing many different approaches applied in various ways without manufacturing small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) is iden-
any standardization. Most of the research has been focused on tified and weak areas are detected to enhance the performance of
few factors with a holistic approach, although pragmatic, quantita- overall sustainability. This approach will assist the decision maker
tive analysis is much needed in this area. First, this paper has to select an appropriate strategy to reduce the environmental
investigated the different sectors where sustainability index has impact.
been exercised. Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI) in collabo- There are many key performance indicators required to define
ration with RobecoSAM provided a financial sustainability index the sustainability index of a manufacturing plant. Some research-
for investors [5]. Although the authors are working with a varying ers specify that a lean approach can be one of these indicators, even
definition of sustainability, the method for determining sustain- though the notion is not fully supported by all the peers in
ability provides a baseline for calculating diversified indices. Lee researching sustainability index in manufacturing plants. Marhani
and Huang use fifty-one sustainability indicators to determine a et al. discussed how lean approaches can help the cause of achiev-
sustainability index for Taipei, a city of Taiwan [6]. The authors ing sustainability [20]. Abolhassani et al. analyzed how lean
have divided the indicators into four different categories such as approaches can impact a continuous improvement process in a
economic, social, environmental, and institutional dimensions. manufacturing industry [21]. Yang et al. showed that lean practice
Zhou et al. discuss how to work with composite indicators while will not improve environment performance all the time [22]. This
condensing multidimensional indices into one index score [7]. is even though reducing waste and reusing resources across the
Composite indicators depend on aggregation methods of sub- spectrum of a manufacturing system is mandatory within the con-
indices, normalization methods, and a specific weighting scheme. text of lean manufacturing. Gunasekaran and Spalanzani investi-
The conceptual requirements for a City Sustainability Index (CSI) gated the sustainability of manufacturing and services [23]. The
were discussed by Mori and Christodoulou [8]. They place impor- researchers classified and performed a critical review to develop
tance on creating a CSI and compared the sustainability perfor- a framework for sustainability business development, and sug-
mances of various cities to observe the global impact of cities on gested future research directions with tools, techniques and some
the environment and human life compared to their economic con- performance measures and metrics for sustainable business devel-
tribution. Chavez and Alipaz created a dynamic and aggregated opment. The classification scheme for the literature in manufactur-
watershed sustainability index indicator [9]. They integrated ing sustainability are i) sources of sustainable challenges and
hydrologic, environmental, life and policy issues to develop their problems, ii) advances in sustainable business development in
model. A sustainability index should have a proper definition with manufacturing and services, iii) sustainability in product/process
specific objectives. For example, according to Emerson et al., Envi- design and development, iv) sustainability in supply operations,
ronmental Performance Index (EPI) focuses on the impacts of coun- v) sustainability in production operations, vi) sustainability in dis-
tries on the environment, which includes twenty-five indices with tribution chain operations, and vii) sustainability through re-
two objectives: (i) reducing environmental stresses to human manufacturing, recycling and reverse logistics.
health and (ii) protecting ecosystems and natural resources [10]. Despeisse et al. discussed sustainable manufacturing
Singh et al. combined all the initiatives and framework for sustain- approaches and cross functional factory modeling. They focused
able indicators. The selection of indicators is very important [11]. on the gap in knowledge on how to acquire expected conceptual
Mayer mentioned the impacts of selecting a wrong set of indicators aims at the operational level [24]. method to provide connection
in his review article [12]. He put significant importance on indica- between the generic sustainability concepts and more specific
tor selection and accumulated the current discrepancies in sustain- examples of operational practices for resource efficiency in facto-
ability indices. Sands and Podmore worked on design and ries were presented in the paper. Finally, a resource flow analysis
development of an Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and was tested and presented via a prototype tool. The overall analysis
described a case study used to validate the performance of the focuses on the events within the ecosystem of a factory (gate to
index [13]. The EPIC model (Erosion Productivity Impact Calcula- gate). It accounted for location and time as well as manufacturing
tor) was used and fifteen sustainability sub-indices were chosen processes in a manner that was not supported by the independent
to determine the index. Ngai et al. exposed the intangible benefits disciplines of either process simulation or building energy analysis
of environmental management practices and their potential to tools. Sustainable Energy Ireland published a draft of an energy
drive organizational competitiveness [14]. management system which complies with ISO 14001 and is based
A collective review on sustainable manufacturing efforts by pre- on the plan of to-do-check-act cycle [25]. Sustainable energy Ire-
vious researchers are depicted as below. Nagalingam et al. mea- land (SEI) is referring to it as EN 16001 and it helps organizations
sured the performance of product returns with recovery for set up a comprehensive energy management system and continu-
sustainable manufacturing [15]. They developed a framework for ally improve their utilization performance, leading to lower carbon
performance measurement with the help of six sigma methodol- footprint and lower energy costs. ISO 50001 works in the same
ogy. A survey of sustainability indices for countries was developed direction by establishing the benchmarking energy management
by Bohringer and Jochem [1]. The article examined the power of framework for industrial plants, commercial facilities and
indices on policy making. Smith and Ball described the steps organizations.
84 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95

Kimura discussed evolution and the future of sustainable man- selected parameters with rationale for their selection are given
ufacturing [26]. The author advocated a comprehensive framework below.
for resource circulation to improve resource efficiency. System
planning and product design technology, manufacturing technol- 1. Energy Efficiency (E): Energy efficiency is the first and foremost
ogy, resource circulation technology are the important research indicator of sustainability prediction. The National Association
and development items for sustainable manufacturing. In the of Manufacturers (NAM) stated that the manufacturing sector
future, product quality management and innovation, efficiency in consumes around one third (32%) of all energy in United States
manufacturing processes, improvement of resource circulation [30]. A company or organization’s sustainability largely
and new product/service for social innovation need to be depends on how efficiently it is using energy. In many cases,
addressed to attain progress on sustainable manufacturing. the energy efficient mode is a lucrative upfront approach that
Mizuno et al. approached designing sustainable manufacturing pays for itself over time, while providing the extra benefits of
scenarios using a 3S simulator [27]. The 3S simulator means sus- minimizing energy cost and maximizing energy productivity.
tainable society scenario which is an integrated design support Afgan, N.H. et Al. discussed how energy system assessment is
environment for sustainable society framework. The designing of an important indicator of sustainability [31]. Indeed, the grow-
a scenario involves with formulating a problem, constructing a ing adoption of energy saving techniques is a recent trend in
logic tree, determining scenario structure and describing sub- manufacturing industries. From the Industrial Assessment Cen-
scenario dimensions. Joung et al. addressed the need for an ter (IAC) database, the sub-indices or questions have been pre-
improved version of indicator sets [28]. The author showed how pared. There is software named ‘Energex’ that has been used
the indicators can play role to assess a company’s manufacturing widely to estimate the efficiency of energy. Energex was created
process from five different dimensions of sustainability: environ- by Gopalakrishnan et al. for the NRCCE at WVU [32]. By adapt-
mental stewardship, economic growth, social happiness, techno- ing the Energex software and using the IAC database, twenty-
logical advancement, and performance management. Yuan et al. nine factors have been selected from eight sub-groups that
stated sustainable manufacturing from a pollution prevention affect the efficient usage of energy. The eight sub factors are
standpoint by taking into consideration three key components of lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC),
manufacturing: technology, energy, and material [29]. They also steam, process heat, pumps and fans, motors, air compressors,
performed a case study on a nano-manufacturing technology uti- and cooling towers or chillers.
lizing atomic layer deposition. 2. Waste Management (W): Mayer discussed the strengths and
In regard to the discussion of literature, most of the previous weaknesses of a sustainability index [12]. One of the important
research have focused on very few factors with a holistic approach, guidelines for achieving better sustainability is following the
although a quantitative analysis is needed in this area. Minimal triple bottom line of sustainability [33]. Waste management
amount of work has been found on the methodology for a system- falls into the environmental aspects of sustainability. Reducing
atic approach to sustainability with every aspect of manufacturing waste is one of the most effective ways to achieve sustainable
industries. A systematic methodology is required to improve manufacturing processes. Manufacturing industries are con-
energy efficiency, productivity, and a work environment to achieve fronted with several challenges, such as energy and water effi-
sustainable manufacturing goals. For that reason, a sustainability ciency, environmental emissions, carbon footprint, and lost
index is an important goal. This paper has provided an estimation workdays due to workers’ injury and illness. All these factors
of sustainability index by incorporating key factors. collectively add waste to the production of goods, significantly
impacting ‘‘the bottom line of sustainability” and future growth
of these industrial facilities. Mangalampalli created the soft-
Methodology ware called ‘Wastex’ which deals with waste minimization
[34]. This research has used Wastex features and factors to esti-
A sustainability index should be designed in such a way that it mate waste minimization performance. Only solid waste has
becomes applicable to all industry. The index should be chosen been considered for this research. In total, fifteen factors are
carefully so that it truly reflects the sustainability of a manufactur- used to calculate a sustainable manufacturing index. There are
ing organization, irrespective of any borders. The success and accu- nine types of waste which contributes to nine factors, as stated
racy of a sustainability index depends on how appropriately the in the appendix. The waste management approach forms rest of
given data sets resemble the actual occurrences. To achieve the the six factors. These waste management approaches are
appropriate resemblance, the index should be properly within focused on general strategy of handling waste for manufactur-
the context of the developed algorithm. The algorithm should also ing plants.
provide relative sensitivity to the changes in the index’s parametric 3. Workers’ health and Safety (S): If workstations are not designed
attributes. The most important aspect of the research is to inte- ergonomically, they increase the risk of acute as well as chronic
grate energy, waste and workers’ safety into one sustainability injuries. Most of the non-ergonomically designed workstations
index. or tasks have at least one human factors issue. According to
Aiming to assess sustainability in manufacturing industries, this Chengalur et al., simple design suggestions based on the ergo-
research is focused on integrating some recognized indicators into nomics interventions are known to eliminate or reduce possible
an index value. Since sustainability is a dynamic and holistic pro- risks for workplace accident or injuries [35]. Further, Monden
cess, it is assumed that a sustainability index is a function of energy revealed that improved workstations and tasks have a positive
efficiency (E), waste management (W), and workers’ safety and effect on workers’ health and overall attitude [36]. Based on
health environment (H). This research will try to develop an algo- these findings, it is apparent that sustainability depends on
rithm that will consider each of these indicators and provide an workers’ health and safety. Since the cost of injuries and acci-
index numerical value to compare among small to medium scale dents due to human factors issues varies significantly, sustain-
manufacturing industries. Considering the influence of indicators able manufacturing must have consideration for workers’
on sustainability, specifically in the environment of small to med- health and safety. National Institute for Occupational Safety
ium scale manufacturing industries and depending on the avail- and Health (NIOSH) uses a standard questionnaire to assess a
ability of related data, three indicators have been selected as the workplace environment [37]. This research has used the rele-
input parameters to model the sustainability index structure. The vant parts of that questionnaire and adapted it into thirty-
 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95 85

Table 1
Details of indicators in sustainability index.

Indicators Details Source Structure

Energy Efficiency (E) Measuring the energy efficiency approach Energex 29 Factors
IAC Database 8 Sub-groups
Waste Management (W) Finding out the waste management attitude Wastex 15 Factors
Workers Health & Safety (H) Workers health and safety environment NIOSH 33 factors
4 Sub-groups

three factors with four sub-groups to determine the sustainabil- technique in this research is using pairwise comparison. The NASA
ity impact of a manufacturing industry. The four subgroups are Task Load Index (TLX), prepared by the Human Performance
physical exposure, psychosocial and psychophysical exposure, Research Group, California used this pairwise technique effectively
environmental exposure, and general policy. Working methods and exhibited how this technique is very useful in calculating
differ among industries. There should be a method to address index [39]. Pairwise comparison is a method where each candidate
different focuses and needs for different industries so that sub- is matched with each of the other candidates. Based on the user
groups can get adequate importance. selection, each candidate gets prioritized. In this research, the pair-
wise comparison technique has been applied to figure out relative
In Table 1, all the indicators, explanations, sources of sub- weight among different categories. At the subgroup level of
indices and structures of indices are presented. A questionnaire workers’ health and safety, it has been applied, and relative weight
containing all the indicators, subgroups, and factors is prepared among different subgroups is determined.
for user input. The questionnaire is designed in such a way that The weighting of the indicators is set from the calculation of the
positive answers represent good sustainable approaches and nega- selections from the pairwise technique. The rationale behind
tive answers represent poor sustainable approaches. For example, choosing this method is to apply relative importance with respect
in the energy efficiency index section, there is a subgroup on Com- to the individual organization’s setup. Every manufacturing plant is
pressed Air. The questionnaire has 5 factors, or 5 questions in this unique. At the same time, the manufacturing industries have some
section. Users will respond to the 5 questions with ‘‘Yes”, ‘‘No” or common basic traits that can be considered. A sustainability index
‘‘Not Applicable.” The questionnaire is provided in the appendix should focus on those areas. Even though there are common traits,
as a data collection form. This questionnaire is an important com- their levels of importance vary among industry. Some of those
ponent of this research because it shows a glimpse of all the details levels are intentionally ignored, whereas some of those levels of
of different sectors that are being analyzed for sustainability. common traits are out of scope for the research on sustainability.
After collecting the responses from the users, it is critical to For example, one industry may generate more waste than another
integrate the responses in a proper way. ‘‘Yes” responses are industry producing different products. Hence, there is a high
recorded as positive responses and ‘‘No” responses are recorded chance that one industry will focus more on waste management,
as negative responses. ‘‘Not Applicable” responses are eliminated whereas the other will focus more on a lean approach. Both indus-
from further calculation. Performance indicator is simply the ratio tries should have a common approach towards energy efficiency
of the positive responses to the total number of responses. and workers’ health and safety. Based on their focus and need,
the weight on each indicator will be changed according to the
Performance Indicator;Q i response, thereby providing the adaptive weighting approach
Number of Positive Responses towards the sustainability index.
¼ %
Number of Positve Responses þ Number of Negative Responses
Modeling sustainability index
ð1Þ

The performance indicator reflects the sustainable approach of The methods used to calculate each indicator’s index are dis-
that subgroup. Better sustainable approaches can provide higher cussed in the following section.
positive responses. They lead to the plant obtaining a higher per-
formance indicator. Because of the diverse nature of the individual Energy efficiency index
sustainability indicators, the physical measurement of individual
metrics cannot be directly aggregated. All the indicators need to In the energy efficiency sector, consumption-based relative
be converted into a normalized scale. In this research methodol- weighting has been placed to acclimatize different systems of man-
ogy, all the individual indicators are normalized to a scale from 0 ufacturing plants. Energy consumption profiles vary among indus-
to 100%, where 0 is the worst sustainability performance and tries; therefore, energy usage needs that adaptation capability to
100% is the best sustainability performance. provide a meaningful sustainable index. The input and output
From the literature review, it has been found that there are sev- parameters of energy efficiency index are given in Table 2 as below.
eral ways to approach this challenge, but these approaches have to The model elicits the consumption percentage from each user
consider all aspects, such as counting relative boundary limit, and and uses the weighted average to develop a 100% ratio. Later on,
comparison across indices. Without prior information, the weight performance Qi is multiplied by the relative weighting average to
can be placed by matching percentile methodology in indices. capture the overall impact of each group. In this research, all three
Foa showed the appropriateness of using matching percentile sections of energy efficiency, waste management and workers’
methodology when some data are imputed [38]. In the question- health and safety have used this performance indicator at various
naire, there are ‘‘Not Applicable” responses. In that case, matching levels. Fig. 1 shows the calculation method of performance indica-
percentile methodology eliminates those responses. For instance, if tor for subgroup ‘‘Compressed Air.”
a subgroup gets all ‘‘not applicable” responses, it will not take part For the energy efficiency section, there are twenty-nine factors
in further analysis. If a subgroup gets all negative responses, it will in eight subgroups. The user is required to provide an approximate
provide a performance indicator of 0%. energy consumption percentage with respect to each of those eight
Determining the relative importance or impact levels on overall sub-groups. Using the ePEP software designed and provided by the
sustainability index is another challenge. Another widely used Department of Energy (DOE), the user can estimate energy
86 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95

Table 2 here Qi = Performance of group i; Xie = Consumption percentage of

Input and output parameters for energy efficiency index. electricity of i group; ae = Total annual electricity consumption,
Input parameters Output parameters kWh/yr; 2.19 is used as constant since 1 kWh = 2.19 lbs CO2;
Energy distribution profile (Total annual energy Consumption
P = Constant, based on number of implemented project, k where
consumption for electricity in kWh/yr & fuel in percentage
MMBtu/yr, and consumption percentage P ¼ f0:15 when k < 5
distribution of subgroups by ePEP analysis) 0:10 when 5 6 k 6 10
Response of the questionnaire Performance indicator
Number of implemented projects in last 5 years Carbon footprint 0:05 when k > 10g
reduction potential
Xig = Consumption percentage of fuel (natural gas/coals/saw dust)
of i group; ag = Total annual fuel (natural gas/coals/saw dust) con-
consumption percentage based on energy bills and usage of the sumption, MMBtu/yr.
equipment [40]. 139 is used as a constant since 1 MMBtu = 139 lbs CO2. From the
The model requires consumption percentage with respect to above Eq. (4), carbon footprint reduction potential can also be
electricity and fuel (natural gas/coals/saw dust). Moreover, the achieved by being more sustainable in using energy. In the Eq.
model needs the total annual consumption usage for electricity (4), the values of P signify the extent of the carbon footprint reduc-
(kWh/yr) and fuel (natural gas/coal/sawdust/others) (MMBtu/hr). tion potential. It is widely known in the energy efficiency field that
Total annual consumption is required to calculate carbon footprint implemented energy efficiency measures tend to save 5% to 20% of
reduction potential. Consumption percentages are given for each the energy in most situations [4]. The carbon footprint reduction
subgroup with respect to electricity and fuel. The equation to potential is related to the energy savings potential. The value for
determine the usage for each subgroup is as follows. P, estimated to vary between 5% and 15%, is integrated with the
overall electricity and natural gas consumption and the imple-
ae
xie 293 þ xig ag mented nature of the projects contained therein, as can be
Usage of subgroup i;Mi ¼ % ð2Þ
ae
293
þ ag observed from Eq. (4). Moreover, there are energy efficiency pro-
jects which save significant energy as opposed to others that
here i = 1, 2, . . ., 8 whereas i1 = Lighting, i2 = HVAC, . . ., i8 = Chillers/
may not save as much energy. The plant managers tend to imple-
Cooling Towers; Xie = Electricity consumption percentage of i sub-
ment projects that have significant energy savings potential with
group; Xig = Fuel (natural gas/coals/sawdust/others) consumption
low payback on investment. More the projects implemented, less
percentage of i subgroup; ae = Total annual electricity consumption,
will be the carbon footprint reduction potential. The value of P
kWh/yr; ag = Total annual fuel (natural gas/coal/sawdust/others)
has been designed to ensure the validity and estimated accuracy
consumption, MMBtu/yr; 293 is the constant which comes from 1
of the carbon reduction potential.
MMBtu = 293 kWh.
From Eq. (2), the total consumption of a particular subgroup can
be calculated. These calculations will eventually serve as relative Waste management index
weightage (Mi).
The energy efficiency index is the multiplication of relative For the waste management segment, there are fifteen factors
weightage (Mi) and performance (Qi) from Eq. (1). without any subgroup. Industries generate various kinds of waste,
X making it time consuming for users to respond to groups of nonre-
Energy efficiency index ¼ ðMi  Q þ iÞ  100; lated waste questions on the questionnaire. To make it effective
i ¼ 1; 2; . . . 8 ð3Þ and compact, all fifteen factors are arranged without any associa-
tion with subgroups. Table 3 shows the input and output parame-
here Mi = Relative weightage of group i; Qi = Performance of group i. ters for waste management index.
The carbon footprint reduction potential for the energy effi- The user is required to provide an approximate tonnage of
ciency section is described below. waste generation per year and a recycling percentage. Table 4
Carbon Footprint Reduction Potential depicts nine types of generated waste. In Energy Analysis of 108
" #
X8 Industrial Processes, Harry analyzed the carbon footprint of differ-
¼ fð1  Q i Þ  xie g  ae  2:19  P ent raw materials and other resources [41]. Based on this data and
i¼1
" # the Wastex software [34], it has been concluded that manufactur-
X8 ing industries are generating nine types of waste. The model does
þ fð1  Q i Þ  xig g  ag  139  P lbs ð4Þ not provide any relative weighting among the waste; rather, it
i¼1
focuses on the plant’s approach to deal with the waste. Users pro-

Fig. 1. Sample calculation for performance indicator, Qi.

 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95 87

Table 3 Workers’ health and safety index

Input and output parameters for waste management index.

Input parameters Output parameters Worker duties and responsibilities change based on the practice
Response of the questionnaire Performance indicator of the industry. An automated manufacturing industry, for exam-
Waste generation amount in tons/yr with Carbon footprint reduction ple, is quite different from a physical labor dominated industry.
recycle percentage potential Moreover, there are many industries in which the cognitive part
is the dominant section for workers. After analyzing several indus-
try records from NIOSH and the E3 projects of West Virginia
Table 4 University, it has been found that four major areas are contributing
Carbon footprint value, Yj with respect to waste type. profoundly towards workers’ health and safety in a working place.
Type of Waste Carbon Footprint (lbs/ton) These four major areas are physical exposure, psychosocial and
Plastic 2300
psychophysical exposure, environmental exposure and general
Glass 2004 policy. Thirty-three factors as well as questions in total have been
Metal Cleaning Solvent 113 designed for the workers’ health and safety index within four sub-
Waste Water 700 groups. Table 5 shows the input and output parameters for work-
Chemicals 3400
ers’ health and safety.
Paint 400
Waste Sludge 19,510 The pairwise comparison technique discussed earlier has been
Wood Waste 570 used here to determine the relative weight of each subgroup.
Scrap Metal 9200 Two options are presented each time. The user has to choose one
of two available options. At this time, two further options with dif-
ferent combinations will be presented to user. Similarly, the user
vide recycling percentages from which the aggregated recycling will choose an option again, and based on the selection, the relative
percentage can be determined from the following Eq. (5). weighting will be determined. In spite of using the same technique
for top level relative weighting calculation, this method can vary
X9 among situations possessing varying outcomes. In total, six selec-
Ri t i tions can get recorded and each candidate can get any number of
Aggregated Recycling Percentage; G ¼ Xi¼1
9
%;
t selections ranging from 0 to 3; thus, the selections become difficult
i¼1 i
to keep track of and analyze based on the developed scenario.
i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 9 ð5Þ Another normalization technique has been applied based on the
recorded responses, showing the impending relative weight as a
here i1 = Plastic, i2 = Glass, . . ., i9 = Scrap Metal; Rj = Recycle percent- percentage from the ratio of recorded selections to the total num-
age of waste group i; tj = Total waste amount of group i, tons/yr. ber of selections. Eq. (8) shows the normalization technique on the
The performance indicator Qi is an important element to the selection.
waste management index. It is similar to the energy efficiency per- Relative weightage for the subgroups of workers’ health and
formance factor mentioned in Eq. (1). Here, a ‘‘Not Applicable” safety index,
response means this kind of wastage is not being generated by Number of Selections for Subgroup i
the particular manufacturing plant, so it is ruled out from any fur- Ui ¼ ð8Þ
Total Number of Selections
ther analysis. To improve the waste management index, the man-
ufacturing industry has to focus on its waste handling technique. If here i = 1,2,3,4 and total number of selections = 6, i1 = Physical pos-
a plant has a high recycling percentage with better waste manage- ture, i2 = Psychosocial and psychophysical exposure, i3 = Environ-
ment approaches, a higher waste management index can be mental exposure, i4 = General policy.
achieved. So, waste management index can be calculated as below Again, performance indicator Qi is vital in a waste management
per Eq. (6). index. It is the same as the energy efficiency performance factor as
mentioned in Eq. (1). The workers’ health and safety index is the
multiplication of relative weightage (Ui) and performance (Qi).
Waste Management Index ¼ ðG  Q i Þ  100 ð6Þ
’
For the carbon footprint reduction, a company should have the Workers Health & Safety Index ¼ Ui  Q i ð9Þ
capability to recycle all of their generated waste. While this is very
here i = 1, 2, 3, 4; Ui = Relative weightage of group i; Qi = Perfor-
challenging, companies must try to achieve that target, as it can
mance of group i.
significantly reduce the carbon potential. In fact, better waste man-
For workers’ health and safety, carbon footprint is not directly
agement approaches reduce more carbon footprint than can be
connected to the index, but it affects productivity; hence, more
obtained through energy efficiency. The carbon footprint reduction
sustainable working conditions can reduce carbon footprint. How-
potential for the waste management section is described below by
ever, this research is not focusing on this factor due to this factor’s
Eq. (7). This opportunity demonstrates how much carbon emis-
low impact on the carbon footprint reduction potential.
sions is saved by embracing better waste management approaches.

Overall sustainability index

Carbon Footprint Reduction Potential
X
9 Overall Sustainability Index (SI) for manufacturing industries
¼ fð1  Rj Þ  tj  Y j glbs ð7Þ will be obtained by the following equation:
j¼1
X3
Z i ai
SI ¼ Xi¼1
3
; i ¼ 1; 2; 3 ð10Þ
here j = 1, 2, . . ., 9; Rj = Recycle percentage of waste; tj = Total waste Z
i¼1 i
amount, tons/yr; Yj = Constant which varies with each type of
waste, lbs/ton.The values of Yj with respect to different wastes are where SI (0–100) is the sustainability manufacturing index;
given in the following Table 4. ai = Individual index on each indicator = Any values from 0 to 100;
88 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95

Table 5 ment. According to Table 6, the relative weighting are 30%, 20%,
Input and output parameters for workers’ health & safety index. and 50% for energy index, waste index and worker index respec-
Input parameters Output parameters tively. For energy index calculation, total annual energy consump-
Pairwise comparison among 4 subgroups Relative weightage tion profile is required for case study 1. The total annual
Response of the questionnaire Performance indicator consumption of electricity is 10,529,750 kWh/yr and other fuel
(natural gas/coals/saw dust) consumption is 12,116 MMBtu/yr.
Based on ePEP and recorded responses, the sustainability index is
Zi = Weightage on each factor.a1 (0–100) is the energy efficiency given below. Table 8 shows the energy consumption details and
indicator; a2 (0–100) is the waste management indicator; and Table 9 shows the waste generation profile of the case study 1.
a3 (0–100) is the workers’ health and safety indicator. Weight on At this stage, the company personnel required to answer the
each factor is calculated using the pairwise comparison technique. questions. The interactive model records the responses and formu-
The user has to choose one of two available candidates, and based lates the equations accordingly. Table 10 displays summary of the
on their selection, relative weighting will be determined. There recorded responses. Applying Eq. (1) to each of subgroups, perfor-
are only two situations that may occur: each candidate gets the mance indicator (Qi) is calculated. For example, the first entry in
same amount of selection, or each candidate gets a different amount the Table 10 ‘‘Lighting” has 3 positive responses and 1 negative
of selection ranging from 0 to 2. The following Table 6 shows the response. Thus performance indicator of lighting is 75%.
two possible situations and relative weighting according to the By using Eq. (2), consumption of the subgroup can be deter-
scenario. mined. For example, the first entry in Table 8 ‘‘Lighting” has 10%
The relative weight for situation 2 is quite simple and clear. For of total electricity consumption and 0% fuel (natural gas/coals/saw
situation 1, candidate three with zero responses should not be dust) consumption. Thus consumption percentage with respect to
totally ruled out because its impact on sustainability index cannot total energy becomes 7.48%. Now applying Eq. (3) to all of the sub-
be completely negated. Thus, candidate one is obtaining more groups of energy, the energy index can be found. Performance indi-
importance while candidates two and three also have significant cator and consumption percentage of each subgroup are displayed
importance on the sustainable index situations. The relative weight in Table 11. Thus energy efficiency index = 58.76.
distribution is justified by case studies in later stages. In the last five years, the management has implemented more
The sustainability manufacturing index is simply the weighted than ten projects designed to improve these areas. From Eq. (4),
average of three indicators (E, W, S). As per Eq. (10), the indica- the value of ‘P’ is found as 0.05. Using Eq. (4), the possible carbon
tors have been assigned with the relative weighting, Zi. In the footprint savings is calculated. which is 28,825 lbs CO2. Similarly,
event of a situation in which indicator weights might vary from by applying the Eq. (4) to the each of subgroups, total carbon foot-
plant to plant, weights should be selected by consensus among print reduction potential is shown in Table 11.
several stakeholders of the organization. Using the adaptive Now, the steps of calculating the waste index are shown in the
weight helps to avoid the skewing of results, and allows for effec- following section. Applying Eq. (1) to the waste management sec-
tive differentiation between stakeholders. Furthermore, the linear tion, performance indicator (Qi) is calculated. In total, the waste
and weighted average structure of Eq. (10) is simple and management has 7 positive responses and 2 negative responses
transparent, allowing for error compensation in the indicators with 6 ‘‘Not Applicable” responses. Thus, performance indicator
and parameters. of waste management is 78%. Now applying Eq. (5) to Table 9,
From the recorded responses of the questions and pairwise aggregated recycling percentage is calculated. Aggregated recy-
comparison, the score for individual indicators is calculated from cling percentage = 94.97%. By using Eq. (6), waste management
a database. It can also point out the sector where the organiza- index is found, which is 73.86. Using Eq. (7), the carbon footprint
tion is lacking in terms of sustainability. Thus, a sustainability savings in terms of emissions reduction is calculated. The amount
index can help give the user information on the organization’s is not significant because of the plant’s affinity for recycling the
sustainability performance and pathway for subsequent accumulated waste. The value of Yj is found from Table 4. The car-
improvement. bon footprint savings for waste management is
180,481,060 lbs CO2.
For the workers’ health and safety part, the user form plant 1
Analysis of the model
had to select one option from each row again from Table 12. User
selections are displayed in bold letter.
The model requires further analysis and validation for overall
Based on the responses, the manufacturing company prioritizes
effectiveness. Different scenarios can provide a better understand-
environmental exposure with 3 selections, psychosocial and psy-
ing of the model’s behavior. Case studies using the IAC and E3 data-
chophysical exposure with 2 selections, physical posture with 1
bases were used to assess and analyze the sustainability index of
selection and general policy with no selection. Applying Eq. (1)
the manufacturing industry.
to the worker section, performance indicator (Qi) is calculated.
Table 13 shows the recorded responses and performance indica-
Analysis of case study one tors. By using Eq. (8) on the selection number, relative weighting
can be found in Table 14. For instance, relative weighting of psy-
From the IAC database, one company which shows the possibil- chosocial and psychophysical exposure with 2 selections is 0.33.
ity of good sustainable manufacturing practice is used to test the Now applying Eq. (9), the worker’ health and safety index can
sustainability index. The main product of the company is automo- be found. Performance indicator and relative weight of each sub-
tive sensors and spark plugs. On the day of IAC assessment, plant group are displayed in Table 14. Thus workers health and safety
managers participated in the survey and were given the chance index is 72.61. After calculating all the indicators indices, it is quite
to examine all the possibilities of the model. The input details from simple to calculate overall sustainability index. By using Eq. (10),
respective company personnel are described below. At first the overall sustainability is calculated, which is 68.71.
user had to select one option from each row from Table 7. User’s Sustainability index can help to assess a plant’s status with sus-
selections are displayed in bold letter. tainability. It is a relatively easy and quick way of assessing various
Based on the response, the manufacturing company prioritizes plants across industries. Collected information can help further to
workers’ health and safety, energy efficiency, and waste manage- analyze and sort the problems, bottlenecks, etc. For example,
 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95 89

Table 6
Relative weightage with possible different scenarios.

Candidates (Energy efficiency, waste management, workers health & safety) Situation 1 Situation 2
recorded response relative weightage, Zi recorded response relative weightage, Zi
Candidate one 2 50% 1 33.33%
Candidate two 1 30% 1 33.33%
Candidate three 0 20% 1 33.33%

Table 7 Table 11
User’s selection to prioritize indicators. Calculated parameters for each subgroups of energy.

Select the option that is more important at manufacturing plant Sub groups Performance Consumption Carbon Footprint
indicator, Qi percentage reduction (lbs CO2)
Energy usage Waste management
Waste management Workers health & safety Lighting 75% 7.48% 28,825
Workers health & safety Energy usage HVAC 50% 7.56% 12,631
Steam 0% 5.04% 16,841
Process Heat 0% 12.61% 42,103
Pumps & Fans 100% 18.70% 0
Table 8 Motors 50% 22.44% 172,951
Energy consumption details for case study 1. Compressed 40% 11.22% 103,771
Electricity Fuel (Natural gas/Coal/Sawdust) Air
Chillers/ 100% 14.96% 0
Total annual usage 10,529,750 Total annual usage 12,116 Cooling
(kWh/yr) (MMBtu/yr) Towers
Consumption percentage Consumption percentage Total 377,122

Sector Percentage Sector Percentage

Lighting 10% Lighting 0%
Table 12
HVAC 0% HVAC 30%
User’s selection to prioritize subgroups of workers’ health and safety.
Steam 0% Steam 20%
Process heat 0% Process heat 50% Select the option from each row that better suits your workplace
Pumps & fans 25% Pumps & fans 0%
Motors 30% Motors 0% Physical posture Psychosocial and psychophysical exposure
Compressed air 15% Compressed air 0% Environmental exposure General policy
Chillers/cooling 20% Chillers/cooling towers 0% Physical posture Environmental exposure
towers Physical posture General Policy
Total 100% Total 100% Environmental exposure Psychosocial and psychophysical exposure
General policy Psychosocial and psychophysical exposure

Table 9
Waste generation profile for case study 1. 2 ‘‘No” responses, Chillers/Cooling Towers subgroup has 1 ‘‘Yes”
response and Pumps & Fans subgroup has 1 ‘‘Yes” response with
Waste sector Total waste amount Recycling percentage
1 ‘‘Not Applicable” response. This results in an energy efficiency
(tons/yr) (%)
index score of 58.76. Table 9 shows waste generation profile which
Electronic Waste 0 –
helps to calculate aggregated recycling percentage (94.97%) and
Glass Waste 0 –
Metal Cleaning Solvent 1200 90 recorded responses with waste management index. For waste
Wood Waste 0 – management, the index score is 73.86, due to the fact that the com-
Waste Water 0 – pany is doing quite well with 7 ‘‘Yes” and 2 ‘‘No” responses. In
Paint Waste 0 – addition to that, recorded responses, selection numbers, relative
Chemicals 0 –
Waste Sludge 0 –
weight, and performance indicator for workers’ health & safety
Scrap Metal 185,000 95 are mentioned in Tables 12–14. Table 14 shows that psychosocial
and psychophysical exposure received 2 selections, environmental
exposure received 3 selections and physical posture subgroup
received 1 selection. In accordance with the plant’s claim to value
Table 11 displays the energy index, as well as breaking down the workers’ health & safety, the workers’ health and safety index score
major energy consumption areas into Motors (22.44%), Pumps & is 72.61, and the resultant sustainability index of 68.71.
Fans (18.70%) and Chillers/Cooling Towers (14.96%) with their It is very important to focus on the right sector. For example, by
respective recorded responses. Motors subgroup has 2 ‘‘Yes” and changing the focus on energy, the sustainability index can instantly

Table 10
Summary of recorded responses from energy sector.

Sub groups Number of questions Positive response Negative response Not-Applicable response Performance indicator, Qi
Lighting 4 3 1 0 75%
HVAC 4 2 2 0 50%
Steam 7 0 1 6 0%
Process Heat 2 0 2 0 0%
Pumps & Fans 2 1 0 1 100%
Motors 4 2 2 0 50%
Compressed Air 5 2 3 0 40%
Chillers/Cooling Towers 1 1 0 0 100%
90 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95

Table 13
Summary of recorded responses from workers’ health and safety.

Sub groups Number of question Positive response Negative response Not-applicable response Performance indicator, Qi
Physical posture 8 3 2 3 60%
General policy 8 2 6 0 25%
Psychosocial and psychophysical exposure 9 6 3 0 67%
Environmental exposure 8 4 1 3 80%

Table 14
Different parameters for workers’ health and safety. As per the analysis from case study 1, the sustainability index
Sub groups Selection Relative Performance can be improved by shifting the focus on the workers’ health and
number weightage, Ui indicator, Qi safety. The user just has to select workers’ health and safety in
Physical posture 1 0.17 60% the questionnaire as the primary focus area; however, this does
General policy 0 0 25% not improve the actual environment. Fig. 4 displays the part of
Psychosocial and 2 0.33 67% implementation suggestions from the model that can be imple-
psychophysical
mented for a better sustainability index score
exposure
Environmental exposure 3 0.50 80% Figs. 4 and 5 reiterate the finding of case study 1, which is focus-
ing on the high indicator’s index can deliver better sustainability
index. These figures also represent how the sustainability index
changes when the focus changes from energy efficiency, to waste
be altered. If the priorities are arranged in a way where waste man- management or workers’ health and safety. Therefore, focusing
agement is foremost with energy efficiency and workers’ health on workers appears to be the right path for the company. Since
and safety following, then the sustainability index changes to the plant claims to focus on waste management, this indicates that
69.14. major efforts are still needed. This observation helps to prioritize
Fig. 2 demonstrates a relative comparison of sustainability the implementation suggestions and improving sustainability.
index between waste and worker safety with respect to energy By understanding how focusing on different areas can affect the
efficiency. Sustainability index shows inclination towards the indi- sustainability index, a strategic plan can be developed. With the
cator with higher index. For example, whenever energy gets low aforementioned significance of the sustainability index, real
priority, sustainability index reflects higher number. If priority of change can be achieved by attempting to improve the company’s
energy remains same, prioritizing waste can reflect higher sustain- performance. The company, as well as society, can benefit by
ability index. implementing the suggestions
By observing Fig. 3, it is evident that the sustainability index can At this point of the discussion, it is important to analyze which
be improved by focusing on the highest individual factor’s index. implementations require immediate attention. Assuming that,
For example, the sustainability index can be improved by focusing company two decides to implement 5 projects from each of the
more on waste and worker. This observation also helps to prioritize sectors.
the suggestions.
Situation 1
Analysis of case study two Assuming the plant implements 5 projects from energy sector.
The 5 implementations are given as below.
From the IAC database, another company is used to test the sus-
tainability index. The company’s main product is rolled aluminum 1. Installing economizer on the process heat.
foil. On the day of IAC assessment, the maintenance manager par- 2. Using VFD on large pumps and fans which have variable load.
ticipated in the survey and was given the chance to explore all the 3. Using occupancy sensors in warehouse.
possibilities of the model. The manufacturing company prioritizes 4. Establishing motor management system.
waste management, then energy efficiency and finally workers’ 5. Creating vibration program.
health and safety. In the last 5 years, the management has imple-
mented less than 5 projects in these areas. The total annual con- After running the model again, the sustainability index stands
sumption of electricity is 5,017,410 kWh/yr and fuel (natural as 42.07 and energy efficiency index is 70.67 from 42.74. So the
gas/coals/saw dust) consumption is 32,623 MMBtu/yr. Based on energy index has increased 65% with 5 implementations.
ePEP and recorded responses, the sustainability index is given
below. Situation 2
Energy efficiency index is 42.74. Waste management index is Assuming the plant implements 5 projects from waste manage-
21.51. Workers’ health and safety index is 50.56. The overall sus- ment. The 5 implementations are given as below.
tainability index is 33.69. The sustainability index is low because
of their low score on waste management, in spite of the company’s 1. Placing labels on all of the harmful substances and storing them
claim that they focus on this area. Surprisingly, the plant per- properly.
formed relatively better on workers’ health and safety, with an 2. Establishing a trash pickup program.
index score of 50.56. Since the plant manufactures hot rolled alu- 3. Making the trash program as a companywide initiative.
minum foil, the workers take mandatory safety precautions. It is 4. Establishing a single stream waste collection program.
difficult to move the hot rolled product from one place to another, 5. Following a proper guideline and methods to dispose electronic
which is why the plant is equipped with equipment such as pallet waste.
trucks, movable cranes, and accessible safety instructions. If the
plant shifts its focus to improving workers’ health and safety, then After running the model again, the sustainability index stands
energy efficiency and finally waste management, then the sustain- as 51.61 and waste management index is 57.35 from 21.51. So
ability index score becomes 42.41. the waste management index has increased 167% with only 5
 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95 91

Fig. 2. Surface Plot of sustainability index vs worker, energy and sustainability index vs waste, energy.

After running the model again, the sustainability index stands

as 38.74 and workers’ health and safety index is 75.83 from
50.56. So the workers’ health & safety index has increased 50% with
only 5 implementations.
From this analysis, it is observed that focusing on the prioritized
segment can have a better impact on the sustainability index.
Overall sustainability index gets affected by the plant’s focus.
Implementations on waste management will provide better sus-
tainability index. As an example of the impact of these suggestions,
industry personnel can focus on the waste-related suggestions so
that the immediate impact will be greatest.
Carbon footprint reduction potential is inversely related to sus-
tainability index. If sustainability index increases, the carbon foot-
print reduction amount decreases. When a plant is achieving good
Fig. 3. Surface plot of sustainability index vs worker, waste. sustainability index, few implementation suggestions are avail-
able. Thus, opportunities for reducing carbon footprint will be
reduced and hence the carbon footprint reduction potential will
implementations. Since the number of factors are very limited and
be lower. Similarly, when sustainability index decreases, the car-
the plant has a decent aggregated recycling percentage, implemen-
bon footprint savings potential will be higher. For example, case
tations on this segment has better impact than other two sections.
study 1 shows the overall sustainability index as 58.76 with
377,122 lbs CO2 carbon footprint savings potential for energy effi-
Situation 3 ciency. After implementing 5 suggestions from energy section, the
Assuming the plant implements 5 projects from workers’ health overall sustainability index becomes 74.09 with 100,400 lbs CO2
& safety. The 5 implementations are given as below. carbon footprint savings potential for energy efficiency.
The benefits of determining the sustainability index is multi-
1. Creating a good work-life balance. faceted. The analysis in the aforementioned section is an example
2. Re designing the work so that moderate force is enough to per- of how the information can be used for increasing the sustainabil-
form the task. ity initiatives. By shifting the focus or making small changes, a
3. Stopping repetitive motions such as lifting, pushing, and company can achieve sustainability easily. Industries can benefit
bending. financially by making these changes to improve sustainability, thus
4. Using proper protection for noisy environment. acquiring support from upper management for implementation
5. Facilitating strong trade unions. resources.

Fig. 4. Surface plot of sustainability index vs worker, energy and sustainability index vs waste, energy.
92 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95

savings as well as the payback. Because situations can vary

among industries, care will need to be taken to ensure the
general model is representative.
3) Add more questions as well as factors to make the model
more robust. However, it is necessary to limit the number
of questions so that the survey does not take too much time
to complete.
4) Incorporate the ability to consider large-scale manufacturing
industries. This requires adding the capability to deal with
variations of fuel, workstations, energy equipment, and
types of waste.
5) After collecting and maintaining a database, a standard
approach can be prepared. This standard approach will help
to identify the quantitative range of the sustainability index.
6) Selection of priority is crucial in current algorithm. A method
needs to be developed to restrain biased selection. For
Fig. 5. Surface plot of sustainability index vs worker, waste. instance, indices, itself can provide a basic understanding on
priority. Number of employees, energy consumption amount,
waste generation amount can also influence the selection.
Conclusion

In this research, the manufacturing industries’ situations have Appendix

been studied and factors influencing sustainable manufacturing
have been analyzed. In order to achieve sustainable manufacturing Data collection form
in a competent way, it is important to have a meaningful sustain-
ability index through which manufacturing industries can compare
among themselves and measure internal improvement. The large
manufacturing industry has not been included in this sustainabil- Select the option between each row that is more important in
ity index model because of following reasons: 1) large industry your manufacturing plant
has complex business structures. It is difficult to integrate them
into a generic model. 2) the available sources of data are collected Energy usage Waste management
from IAC database, which is focused on small to medium scale Waste management Workers health & safety
industries. For this reason, a model has been designed by selecting Workers health & safety Energy usage
significant factors and integrating them in various ways for small
to medium scale industries.
The developed model has been justified using various tech-
niques and reflects realistic approaches in the manufacturing Energy efficiency questionnaire
plants. Pairwise comparison, weighted average, normalization
techniques, and relative adaptive weighting methods form the How many projects you have implemented to improve your
backbone of the model. The model takes inputs from users and energy efficiency in last 5 years?
adapts the weightings according to the input. Based on the inputs,
it provides a sustainability index score for the three factors individ- Less than 5 projects 5–10 projects More than 10 projects
ually, as well as the overall score. The model also shows the carbon
footprint score and suggestions that may help the particular com-
pany improve sustainability. The analysis shows that giving the
lowest performing factor the highest priority leads to the fastest
improvement in sustainability. Electricity Fuel (Natural Gas/Coal/Saw
Obtained results and graphs are meaningful and reflect the real- Dust)
istic situation. Two case studies were run through the model. The
Total Annual Total Annual
individual factor indices and overall sustainability index show
Usage (kWh/yr) Usage (MMBtu/yr)
the sensitivity towards changes and ultimately provide guidance
towards improvement. Though the model works well, it can still Consumption Percentage1 Consumption Percentage
be improved. This research has performed the first and most criti-
Sector Percentage Sector Percentage
cal step, but many interesting research questions remain unan-
swered. The author’s recommendations for further improvement Lighting Lighting
are as follows: HVAC HVAC
Steam Steam
1) Weight the questions and factors inside each subgroup Process heat Process Heat
based on the overall impact. For example, using dimmer Pumps & fans Pumps & Fans
control in lighting saves less than installing T8 bulbs in the Motors Motors
facility. The current model does not differentiate the weight Compressed air Compressed Air
of these factors. In future, the questions can be weighted and Chillers/cooling Chillers/cooling
impact differently in the energy efficiency index. towers towers
2) Categorize implementation suggestions with respect to cost Total Total
and impact factors. The author envisions this as the database 1
Additional help on defining usage percentage can be generated from ePEP software
taking input from the user and calculating the potential which is available at https://ecenter.ee.doe.gov/EM/tools/Pages/ePEP.aspx.
 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95 93

Lighting Motors

 Does your plant have more than 80% of T5 or T8 fluorescent or  Do you use a significant amount of cogged belts?
LED light?  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Do you have vibration checking program for motors?
 Do you use occupancy sensors in your plant/warehouse?  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Do you have a motor management system in term of rewinding
 Do you use skylights in your plant? and replacing?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Do you use dimmer controls in your plant?  Do you have capacitor banks at the motors to increase power
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. factor?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
HVAC
Compressed air
 Do you use economizers on the HVAC units?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. 1) Do you have air leak checking program?
 Do you have setback temperature controls during nights and 2) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
weekends? 3) Do you use vortex nozzles for cleaning and other types of air
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. related applications?
 Do you maintain the least possible temperature difference 4) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
between inside and outside of the plant and office areas? 5) Do you use sequencer for controlling multiple compressors?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. 6) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Have you checked the dock door seals in last 5 years? 7) Do you recover the heat from the compressor exhaust?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. 8) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
9) Are the compressors discharging air at the lowest possible
Steam set pressure?
10) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Do you have an air to fuel boiler tuning program?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. Chillers/Cooling towers
 Does air to fuel ratio of your burner stay within 3.0% to 5.0%?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Can you set a higher set point for cooling tower/chiller, if it does
 Is the burner used in process heating equipment or boilers in not impact production?
your factory less than 20 years old?  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Do you have a steam trap maintenance system? Waste management questionnaire
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Are you recovering waste heat from boiler stack to produce hot
water or heat the plant? Waste sector Total waste amount Recycling
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. (tons/yr) percentage
 Do you use adequate insulation for the boiler surface, pipeline Electronic Waste
and steam line? Glass Waste
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. Metal Cleaning
 Do you use economizers on the boilers? Solvent
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. Wood Waste
Waste Water
Process heat Paint Waste
Waste Sludge
 Do you use pre-heat combustion air on the process heating Total
equipment?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Do you increase the temperature of feed charge materials by  Do you have a trash pickup program?
using stack heat available in the furnace?  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Is it a company-wide initiative?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
Pumps & fans  Do you have single stream wastage collection program?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 If you have a variable working load in pumps and fans, do you
 If you have glass materials in waste, do you separate it?
use Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) on pumps and fans and
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
other process motors as applicable?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  If you have metal cleaning solvents in waste, do you have
proper disposable method for them?
 Do you have vibration checking program for electrical motors
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
associated with pumps and fans?
 If you have waste water, do you recycle it?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
94 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95

 Yes/No/Not Applicable. 11) Do you have policy that prevents workers from lifting, push-
 Do you pay for the waste water sewage? ing, pulling heavy loads?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. 12) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Do you use chemicals to prevent scale formation in cooling 13) Do you provide annual or bi-annual safety or ergonomics
towers? training?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. 14) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 If you have any scrap metal waste, do you recycle or sell it? 15) Do you have policy that ensures job rotation?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. 16) Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 If you generate paint waste, do you dispose the filter in an
environmentally friendly manner? Psychosocial and psychophysical exposure
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 If you generate waste sludge, do you recycle it?  Do the employees frequently complain about work-related
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. stress due to the social work environment (social support, rela-
tionship with supervisor, colleague, etc.?)
 If you generate wood waste, do you send it to a power plant or
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
other end users?
 Do you have policy that encourages/trains the employees on
 Yes/No/Not Applicable maintaining healthy work-life balance?
 Is all of your harmful substances labelled and stored properly?  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Do you provide annual or bi-annual stress management
 Do you have proper guideline and methods for electronic waste training?
disposal?  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Is it easy for the employees to take time off during work to take
 Does your workplace perform any of these: reuse envelopes, care of personal or family matters?
print both side of the papers, reusable coffee mugs, use  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
rechargeable batteries and battery chargers?  Do you have trade union that represent/protect workers
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. interest?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
Workers health & safety Questionnaire1
 Do you have policy that encourages employee participation in
day-to-day decision making?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
Select the option from each row that better suits your  Do you have policy/mechanism (suggestion box, complain box,
workplace employee counselling, etc.) that promotes healthy work
environment?
Physical posture Psychosocial and psychophysical  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
exposure  Do you promote regular outings/games/fun activities/team
Environmental General policy building exercises among employees?
exposure  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
Physical Posture Environmental exposure
Physical posture General Policy Environmental exposure
Environmental Psychosocial and psychophysical
exposure exposure  Do the employees frequently complain about work-related dis-
General policy Psychosocial and psychophysical comfort or stress due to physical work environment (noise, illu-
exposure mination, climate, etc.)?
 Yes/No/Not Applicable.
Physical exposure  Do you routinely conduct survey to monitor employees’ noise
exposure?
1) Do the employees hardly ever complain about work-related  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
pain or discomfort (neck, back, upper extremity, etc.) due to  Do you routinely conduct survey to monitor employees’ vibra-
physical exertion? tion exposure?
2) Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
3) Are the workstations/work-activities designed to prevent  Do you routinely conduct survey to ensure that the
use of sustained awkward postures?3 workstations/work-activities do not have excessive illumina-
4) Yes/No/Not Applicable. tion/glare issues?
5) Are the workstations/work-activities designed to prevent  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
use of forceful arm exertions?  Do you provide sufficient sizes/options for all the necessary per-
6) Yes/No/Not Applicable. sonal protective equipment (PPE)?
7) Are the workstations/work-activities designed to prevent  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
use of repetitive or high frequency exertions?  Do you have policies to prevent slipping/tripping hazards?
8) Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
9) Are the employees prevented from using same equipment/-  Do you have after work housekeeping policies to ensure that the
workstation continuously for >=4 h per day? workstations are maintained neat and clean?
10) Yes/No/Not Applicable.  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 Are the mechanical ventilation systems in good condition and
regularly maintained so that employees do not get exposed to
dust, fumes, and gases?
1
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/stress/pdfs/qwl2010.pdf  Yes/No/Not Applicable.
 H.H. Latif et al. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 24 (2017) 82–95 95

 Do you have policy that prevents outdoor work under severe [13] Sands GR, Podmore TH. A generalized environmental sustainability index for
agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2000;79(1):29–41.
weather condition without proper protection?
[14] Ngai EWT, Chau DCK, Poon JKL, To CKM. Energy and utility management
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. maturity model for sustainable manufacturing process. Int J Prod Econ
2013;146(2):453–64.
General policy [15] Nagalingam SV, Kuik SS, Amer Y. Performance measurement of product
returns with recovery for sustainable manufacturing. Rob Comput Integr
Manuf 2013;29(6):473–83.
 Do you maintain emergency response plan? [16] Smith L, Ball P. Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through modelling
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. material, energy and waste flows. Int J Prod Econ 2012;140(1):227–38.
[17] Despeisse M, Mbaye F, Ball PD, Levers A. The emergence of sustainable
 Do you have a procedure for recording work-related incidents manufacturing practices. Prod Plan Control 2012;23(5):354–76.
and near misses? [18] Ball PD, Evans S, Levers A, Ellison D. Zero carbon manufacturing facility—
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. towards integrating material, energy and waste process flows. Proc Inst Mech
Eng Part B 2008;223(9):1085–96.
 Do you have policy that enforces routine review of all the [19] Singh S, Olugu EU, Fallahpour A. Fuzzy-based sustainable manufacturing
reported incidents and near misses? assessment model for SMEs. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2014;16(5):847–60.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. [20] Marhani MA, Jaapar A, Bari NAA, Zawawi M. Sustainability through lean
construction approach: a literature review. Procedia Social Behav Sci
 Do you routinely provide training on health and safety regula- 2013;101:90–9.
tions relevant to your plant? [21] Abolhassani A, Layfield K, Gopalakrishnan B. Lean and US manufacturing
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. industry: popularity of practices and implementation barriers. Int J Prod
Perform Manage 2016;65(7):875–97.
 Do you have policy that enforces regular maintenance check-
[22] Yang MG, Hong P, Modi SB. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
up? management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. firms. Int J Prod Econ 2011;129:251–61.
 Do you have policy that enforces adequate machine guarding? [23] Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A. Sustainability of manufacturing and services:
investigations for research and applications. Int J Prod Econ 2012;140
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. (1):35–47.
 Do you have competent persons trained to ensure the safe evac- [24] Despeisse M, Oates MR, Ball PD. Sustainable manufacturing tactics and cross-
uation of all persons from buildings in the event of serious and functional factory modelling. J Clean Prod 2013;42:31–41.
[25] Rourke FO, Boyle F, Reynolds A. Renewable energy resources and technologies
unexpected events (fire, cyclone, tornado, etc.)? applicable to Ireland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(8):1975–84.
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. [26] Kimura F. Sustainable manufacturing: evolution and future. In design for
 Do you have policy in place to treat workers in an event of innovative value towards a sustainable society, vol. 2012, 2012. p. 63–6.
[27] Mizuno Y, Kishita Y, Wada H, Kobayashi K, Fukushige S, Umeda Y. Designing
emergency/accident? sustainable manufacturing scenarios using 3S Simulator. In design for
 Yes/No/Not Applicable. innovative value towards a sustainable society, vol. 2012, 2012. p. 89–94.
[28] Joung CB, Carrell J, Sarkar P, Feng SC. Categorization of indicators for
sustainable manufacturing. Ecol Ind 2013;24:148–57.
[29] Yuan C, Zhai Q, Dornfeld D. A three dimensional system approach for
References environmentally sustainable manufacturing. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol
2012;61(1):39–42.
[1] Böhringer C, Jochem PE. Measuring the immeasurable—a survey of [30] NAM. Last accessed on August 17, 2016. Available at <http://www.nam.org/
sustainability indices. Ecol Econ 2007;63(1):1–8. Newsroom/Facts-About-Manufacturing/>.
[2] NACFAM. Last accessed on October 15, 2016. Available at <http:// [31] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG. Energy system assessment with sustainability
www.nacfam.org/PolicyInitiatives/SustainableManufacturing/tabid/64/ indicators. In sustainable assessment method for energy systems, vol. 2000,
Default.aspx>. 2000. p. 83–125.
[3] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last accessed on January 10, 2017. Available at [32] Gopalakrishnan B, Plummer RW, Nagarajan S. Energex: expert systems for
<https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_naics.htm>. industrial energy conservation and management. Energy Eng 1997;94
[4] Department of Energy. Last accessed on January 10, 2017. Available at <https:// (2):58–79.
energy.gov/eere/amo/industrial-assessment-centers-iacs>. [33] Willard B. The new sustainability advantage: seven business case benefits of a
[5] Lopez MV, Garcia A, Rodriguez L. Sustainable development and corporate triple bottom line. New Society Publishers; 2012.
performance: a study based on the dow jones sustainability index. J Bus Ethics [34] Mangalampalli P. A computer based approach for industrial waste
2007;75(3):285–300. minimization (Master’s thesis). Industrial and Management Systems
[6] Lee YJ, Huang CM. Sustainability index for Taipei. Environ Impact Assess Rev Engineering, West Virginia University; 1997.
2007;27(6):505–21. [35] Chengalur SN, Rodgers S, Bernard. Kodak’s ergonomics design for people at
[7] Zhou L, Tokos H, Krajnc D, Yang Y. Sustainability performance evaluation in work, 2004.
industry by composite sustainability index. Clean Technol Environ Policy [36] Monden Y, editor. Applying just in time: the American-Japanese
2012;14(5):789–803. experience. Institute of Industrial Engineers: Industrial Engineering and
[8] Mori K, Christodoulou A. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Management Press; 1986.
towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ Impact Assess Rev [37] Center for disease control and prevention, Quality of work life questionnaire.
2012;32(1):94–106. Last accessed on January 20, 2017. Available at <http://www.cdc.gov/
[9] Chaves HM, Alipaz S. An integrated indicator based on basin hydrology, niosh/topics/stress/pdfs/qwl2010.pdf>.
environment, life, and policy: the watershed sustainability index. Water [38] Foa R, Tanner J. Methodology of the indices of social development. ISD
Resour Manage 2007;21(5):883–95. Working Paper Series; 2012.
[10] Emerson J, Esty DC, Levy MA, Kim CH, Mara V, Sherbinin A, et al. [39] Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of
Environmental performance index. New Haven: Yale Center for empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 1988;52:139–83.
Environmental Law and Policy; 2010. [40] Department of Energy. Last accessed on January 10, 2017. Available at
[11] Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK. An overview of sustainability <https://ecenter.ee.doe.gov/EM/tools/Pages/ePEP.aspx>.
assessment methodologies. Ecol Ind 2009;9(2):189–212. [41] Brown HL. Energy analysis of 108 industrial processes. The Fairmont Press, Inc;
[12] Mayer AL. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for 1996.
multidimensional systems. Environ Int 2008;34(2):277–91.