Upload
bthiep
View
22
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Bài báo khoa học
Citation preview
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
1/18
204 Int. J. Sustainable Manufacturing, Vol. 2, Nos. 2/3, 2011
Copyright 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
A measurement infrastructure for sustainablemanufacturing
Shaw C. Feng* and Che B. Joung
Engineering Laboratory,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
100 Bureau Drive, NIST,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Global resource degradation, climate change, and environmentalpollution are worsening due to increasing globalised industrialisation.Manufacturing industries have thus been put under pressure to cope with theseproblems while maintaining competitiveness. Sustainable manufacturing hasbeen proposed to meet these challenges. The measurement of sustainability inmanufacturing enables the quantitative measure of sustainability performancein specific manufacturing processes that will support decision-makingfor more sustainable processes and products. This paper describes a proposedsustainable manufacturing measurement infrastructure. The centre piece of thisinfrastructure is a sustainability performance management component that willeffectively manage a sustainable indicator repository, measurement processguidelines, and sustainability performance analysis, evaluation, and reporting.The sustainability measurement infrastructure provides a foundation for
decision-making tools development and enables users to create a tightintegration into business strategy development processes. Examples in thispaper are on carbon emissions and energy consumption.
Keywords: sustainable manufacturing; sustainability performance analysis;sustainability measurement.
Referenceto this paper should be made as follows: Feng, S.C. and Joung, C.B.(2011) A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing, Int. J.Sustainable Manufacturing, Vol. 2, Nos. 2/3, pp.204221.
Biographical notes: Shaw C. Feng is a Mechanical Engineer. He haspublications on systems integration, sustainability measurement, and productlifecycle assessment. He leads the research project on sustainability indicatorsand metrics within the sustainable manufacturing programme at NIST.
Che B. Joung is a Guest Researcher and has publications on design, analysis,and sustainability measurement. His research is on sustainability metricsand measurement infrastructure development. He is responsible for aresearch project on sustainability indicators and metrics within the sustainablemanufacturing programme at NIST.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
2/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 205
1 Introduction
Manufacturing industries are confronted with a new major challenge in operating
sustainably due to the degradation of energy and natural resources, deterioration of the
global environment, and demand for a higher quality of life. While manufacturing is the
basis of civilisation and provides high quality human living standards, manufacturing is
the main source of consuming natural resources and producing toxic by-products and
wastes. This has forced a number of manufacturing stakeholders to become more
interested in impacts beyond just the financial cost of manufacturing. Consumers are
increasingly interested in the environmental impact of the products they buy. Investors
want to judge how much sound governance that the manufacturing company has for
environmental compliance. Governments and communities are gradually emphasising
corporate social responsibility. With these circumstances, there is a critical need for the
development of sustainable manufacturing processes and products. In this context, theglobal research community has to develop new methods and metrics for sustainable
manufacturing (Bansal, 2005).
The United Nations already defines that sustainable development should meet present
needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs
(Harris et al., 2001). In another view, sustainable development is an organisations ability
to advance its economic state without compromising the natural environment and the
social equity that provide the quality of life for all community residents, present, or
future. Therefore, sustainability is a competitive issue in all manufacturing sectors.
According to the definition from the US Department of Commerce, sustainable
manufacturing is the creation of a manufactured product with processes that have
minimal negative impact on the environment, conserve energy and natural resources, are
safe for employees and communities, and are economically sound (DOC, 2008). This
definition has only manufacturing processes in consideration. Following this definition,
the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing points out that design for
manufacturing should have considerations on the entire lifecycle of a manufactured
product, including the manufacturers economic benefits and the full impact of a product
on the environment and the society (NACFAM, 2011). A revised definition is, hence,
proposed as follows: sustainable manufacturing is the creation of a product that
throughout its entire lifecycle, the product has minimal negative impact on the
environment, conserves energy and natural resources, is safe for human beings, and is
economically sound for both producer and consumer.
The Organization for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD), one of the
leading organisations promoting sustainable manufacturing, recently asserted several
forward-looking activities (OECD, 2009). One of them is to develop sustainability
indicators, performance metrics, and analysis software toolsets to help businessesbenchmark performance and improve their production processes and products.
Additionally, the American small manufacturers coalition (ASMC) identified a critical
thread to US manufacturing that sustainability measurement systems are inadequately
deployed in its June 11, 2009 news letter. Thus, a measurement infrastructure is a critical
need to enable sustainable manufacturing.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
3/18
206 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
To realise sustainable manufacturing, companies must have a sustainability
measurement methodology. In this paper, an effort to develop a measurementinfrastructure for sustainable manufacturing is introduced. The rest of the paper is
organised as follows. Section 2 presents a study of the status on sustainable indicators
and metrics development. Section 3 provides an overview of the proposed infrastructure
for measuring sustainability performance. Section 4 describes an example to measure
performance using two indicators. Examples are on CO2 emissions and energy
consumption. Other sustainability issues, such as eco-toxic substance emissions and raw
material consumptions, are as important as CO2 emission and energy sustainability.
Section 5 summarises the current development work and future directions.
2 Current state in sustainability indicators development
The analysis of sustainability of an organisation is often a combination of three major
dimensions: environment, society, and economy (Antonio et al., 2007). Other major
dimensions exist, such as performance management. Sustainability measurement for
decision-making has been difficult to ascertain due to the many indicators available that
represent a dimension or a combination of dimensions. Furthermore, in simplifying these
indicators and in providing a holistic view of sustainability, a single multi-dimensional
sustainability measure is often the goal of measurement. A single multi-dimensional
sustainability measure is, in general, difficult to achieve because the dimensions are
interrelated in a complex way (Kibira et al., 2009). Each major dimension consists of
many sub-dimensions. Measurement units amongst these sub-dimensions are different
and make aggregation into a single sustainability measure with a common unit difficult.
Moreover, indicator set developers often normalise and associate weights on some of the
sub-dimensions to aggregate. Weighing a sub-dimension is subjective and prone to
inconsistency. Even with these difficulties, there have been many within-company or
international attempts to measure and analyse sustainability performance with composite
indices or individual indicator sets. The functions of these indices and sets have included
reporting numbers to stakeholders and assessing sustainability performance in products
and manufacturing processes for company management, while others have been
developed for sector-specific sustainability performance assessments. Table 1 shows a
matrix of source names, numbers of indicators, types, and purposes of some available
indices and indicator sets. Two major indicator types, shown in the third column, are
individual and composite. An overview of each is given below:
Global reporting initiative (GRI) indicator set (GRI, 2006): the GRI is a voluntary
initiative. The GRI reporting mechanism has an organisation of defined indicators.They are in two major categories: core and additional. The indicators are functionally
grouped in three dimensions: economy, environment, and society. A reporting
organisation, such as a manufacturing company, reports actual numbers in individual
indicators. Using the report, that organisations sustainability performance according
to GRI can be analysed and tracked. The purpose of the analysis and tracking is for
decision-making at multiple levels of the organisation, such as management,
operation, and internal or external stakeholders (Staniskis and Arbaciauskas, 2009).
Dow Jones sustainability indexes (DJSI) indicator set (SAM Indexes, 2007):the DJSI is used to assess the financial and sustainability performance of the top 10%
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
4/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 207
of the companies in the Dow Jones global total stock market index. The assessment
is performed by means of questionnaire, as well as media and stakeholder analyses.The results from the assessment evaluate the performance of a company in
12 criteria, covering the economic, environmental, and social dimensions.
Companies must meet all 12 criteria to be included in DJSI.
Environmental sustainability index (ESI, 2005) and environmental performanceindex (EPI, 2010) indicator sets: both the ESI and EPI focus on evaluating
environmental stewardship. The 2005 ESI and 2010 EPI were developed by the
Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy. The ESI provides a way to estimate
overall sustainability performance of countries. The ESI and EPI are one-value
indices. The ESI has six policy categories and 21 core factors, which are aggregated
from a set of 68 basic indicators. An ESI value for one economy is simply the
average value from the values of 21 factors. A calculated value is then normalised on
a scale from 0 (low sustainability) to 100 (high sustainability). The EPI has
19 indices and complements the ESI by assessing the policy performance of
countries in reducing environmental stresses on human health, enhancing ecosystem
vitality and sustainable natural resource management.
Indicators of sustainable development (ISD) indicator set (UNCSD, 2007): the ISDwas developed by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
(UNUSD) and is used to assess the degree of sustainable development of a country
or region. The latest version of ISD was finalised in 2006 and contains 96 indicators,
of which 50 are considered core indicators. The indicators are categorised by
14 themes that account for the economic, social, and environmental health of
developing countries.
OECD core environmental indicators (OECD CEIs, 2003): the CEIs were designedfor monitoring environmental conditions and trends of member countries. The CEI
includes 46 indicators, which address a range of environmental, social, and economic
issues. The framework developed by OECD in assessing the environmental progress
of countries implements a Pressure-State-Response model that identifies the pressure
indicators, which stress the environment. The resulting environmental impacts from
these pressures produce a current state of the environment defined by state
indicators. Reaction to reduce such impacts can then be seen through response
indictors.
Ford product sustainability index (PSI) (Schmidt and Taylor, 2006): Fords PSIconsiders sustainable indicators within the environmental, economic, and societal
dimensions that are specifically relevant to automobile manufacturing and services.
Because of the specialisation, Fords PSI only considers eight indicators: mobilitycapability, life cycle ownership costs, the life cycle impact on global warming, the
life cycle impact on air quality, sustainable materials, restricted substances
management, safety, and drive-by-noise. Scoring of the sustainable performance for
an automobile is done by comparing the best in industry vehiclescore for each
indicator.
General Motors metrics for sustainable manufacturing (Dreher et al., 2009): thesemetrics were developed by a project of General Motors (GM) that reviewed the state
of the art of metrics for sustainable manufacturing. The goal of the project was to
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
5/18
208 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
determine which metrics for sustainable manufacturing should be recommended for
implementation. Based on the project work, GM recommended over 30 metricsunder six major categories: environmental impact, energy consumption, personal
health, occupational safety, waste management, and manufacturing costs. For
sustainable manufacturing improvement, GM compares current metric performance
with that of industry leaders and adjusts their organisation accordingly.
International standard ISO14031 indicator set (ISO, 1999): the ISO 14031 is aninternational standard, which contains specifications for companies to develop their
own indicators for Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE). Environmental
performance indicators are in three categories:
1 operational performance, which forms the basis of evaluation of environmental
aspects
2 management performance, which indicates the environmental protection effortsand report results achieved in regards to influencing its environmental
management performance
3 environmental condition, which indicates the quality of the surrounding
environment. ISO14031 has 155 informative indicators under these three
categories.
Wal-mart sustainable product index (Wal-mart SPI, 2009): the Wal-mart sustainableproduct index is still being developed. The intent of the index is to provide Wal-mart
suppliers and Wal-mart with a worldwide sustainable product index. Current
development of the index has focused on a 15-question survey to suppliers that
emphasises the environmental issues with production. The company expects to help
customers to make purchase decisions and to encourage suppliers to meet
sustainability requirements. Unlike others, no technical detail has yet becomeavailable.
Environmental pressure indicators for European Union (EU-EPI) (European Union,1999): the EU-EPI is the result of the environmental pressure indices project, which
aims to provide the EU with a comprehensive description of the most important
human activities that have a negative impact on the environment. The EU-EPI
contains 60 indicators that overview the pressure of human activities on the
environment in ten policy fields including air pollution, climate change, loss of
bio-diversity, marine environment and coastal zones, ozone layer depletion, resource
depletion, dispersion of toxic substances, urban environmental problems, waste, and
water pollution and water resources. All 60 indicators were chosen based on the
preference of a scientific advisory group, which has consisted of over
2,300 scientists and engineers for the 15 countries then within the European Union.
Eco-indicator 99 indicator set (Pre Consultants, 2004): the Eco-Indicator 99 is adamage-oriented methodology, which is a life cycle assessment (LCA) weighting
method specially developed for product design. A single valued damage indicator is
derived based on the algorithmic approach of the Eco-Indicator 99 system and
accounts for three main damages: mineral and fossil resources, ecosystem quality,
and human health. The Eco-Indicator 99 has been a tool used by engineers in
environmentally sustainable product design.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
6/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 209
Table 1 Various sustainability indicators and metrics
Indicator setNumber ofindicators
Type Purpose
Global report initiative (GRI) 70 Indicators Individualindicators
Sustainability reportguidelines
Dow Jones sustainabilityindexes (DJSI)
12 criteria-basedindex
Compositeindicators
Corporate sustainabilityindex for investmentfirms
Environmental sustainabilityindex
68 Indicators Compositeindices
Gauge of nationalenvironmentalstewardship
Environment performanceindex
19 Indices Compositeindices
Index of nationalenvironmental protection
resultsUNCSD indicators ofsustainable development
96 Indicators Individualindicators
Indicators of nationalsustainable development
OECD core environmentalindicators
46 Indicators Individualindicators
Indicators of nationalenvironmental policyperformance towardsustainable development
Ford product sustainabilityindex
8 Indicators Compositeindices
LCA-based productsustainability index
GM metrics for sustainablemanufacturing
30 Metrics Individualindicators
Metrics of sustainablemanufacturing in GM
ISO 14031 environmentalperformance evaluation
155 Exampleindicators
Individualindicators
Guidance on the designand use of environmental
performance evaluationwithin an organisation
Wal-mart sustainable productindex
15 Questions Individualindicators
Sustainable product indexfor suppliers
European Unionenvironmental pressureindicators
60 Indicators Individualindicators
Indicators ofcomprehensiveenvironmental pressureby human activities
Eco-Indicators 99 3 Mainfactor-based
single indicator
Compositeindices
Lifecycle impactassessment of a product
The OECD has developed a categorisation method based on a survey of how companies
organise different data and measurements in order to understand the sustainabilityperformance in their manufacturing processes, products, and services (OECD, 2010).
Most indicator sets, such as ISO14031, UN CSD and OECD CEI, belong to individual
indicator sets. An individual indicator setis a simple group of indicators that collectively
measure sustainability. An example of an individual indicator set is a group of basic
indicators such as CO2 emissions, CH4 emission, N2O emission, and green house gas
concentration. Each indicator in the set is independent and benchmarked respectively. A
composite indicator/indexis the synthesis of groups of individual indicators, expressing
the whole phenomenon of sustainability or a single dimension of sustainability as one
through a limited number of indices. Some indicator sets, such as 2005 ESI and
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
7/18
210 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
2010 EPI, are sets of composite indices for the environmental dimension of sustainability.
These composite indices are especially effective when companies want to provide a largeamount of information into a simple readable format for management or external
stakeholders.
Of all the indicator sets and indices discussed, the main issue is their focus on the
external reporting for stakeholders, rather than on internal information needed for
decision-making or for innovation. In this context, manufacturers need a sustainability
measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing, with which they could
evaluate and track the sustainability performance in their products and processes.
3 Sustainability performance measurement infrastructure
The sustainability measurement infrastructure we propose includes four majorcomponents: the sustainability performance management (SPM) component, the
sustainable indicator repository (SIR) component, the sustainability measurement process
guidelines (SMPG) component, and the sustainability performance analysis, evaluation,
and reporting (SPAER) component. Figure 1 shows these four components and their
inter-relationships. The component in the centre is the SPM component. It manages a
multi-dimensional indicator set stored in the SIR by providing several functions, such as
requirements for updating the indicator set, versioning control, and ensuring consistency
with measurement process guidelines and the reporting function. The SPM also provides
requirements for managing the SMPG component. Further, the SPM sets preconditions
for the generation of internal and external reports, based on the functions within the
SPAER component.
Figure 1 Key components of sustainability measurement infrastructure (see online versionfor colours)
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
8/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 211
3.1 Sustainable indicator repository
The sustainability indicator repository contains all the necessary sector-specific
multi-dimensional indicators. The indicators in the repository specify how to
measure sustainability in manufacturing and form the basis of metrics for
sustainability performance benchmarking within eco-innovative product development
and manufacturing process planning strategies. Sustainability indicators in the repository
have been and will be continuously adapted from other developed sets (see Table 1).
Other indicators will be developed in a standardised manner, such as those specified in
ISO 14301. Adapted or developed indicators will generally have the following
characteristics [partially from Sustainable Measures (2009) and Moss and Grunkemeyer
(2007)]:
Measurable: an indicator must be capable of being measured quantitatively or
qualitatively in multi-dimensional perspectives, e.g., economic, social,environmental, technical, and performance management.
Relevant: an indicator must show useful meaning on the manufacturing processesunder evaluation. It must fit the purpose of measuring performance.
Understandable: an indicator should be easy to understand by the community,especially, for those who are not experts.
Reliable/usable: information provided by an indicator should be trusted and useful.Reliable measurement is necessary.
Data accessible: an indicator must be based on accessible data. The informationneeds to be available or easily gathered when necessary.
Timely manner: measurement for an indicator must take place with the frequency toenable timely, informative decision-making.
Long term-oriented: An indicator must be compatible with an open standard tosupport long-term archival needs for future generations.
Based on these characteristics, indicators will be managed within the repository. Every
indicator will have the following attributes:
indicator name is a name given to the adopted or developed indicator
identification (ID) is a unique logical name or number to identify an indicator
measurement type indicates whether the indicator is quantitative or qualitative
unit of measure is the unit of the value for the indicator
references of each adopted or developed indicator to identify from which existingindicator set(s) or specific indicator(s) that the indicator is adopted or developed
application level defines the organisational level(s) that the indicator is applied. Withthis information, policymakers or decision makers in the organisation can set up their
own sustainability metrics based on their business strategies.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
9/18
212 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
3.2 Sustainability measurement process guidelines
SMPG in the SMPG component are defined as a sequence of operations in which the
necessary instruments and tools are used to determine the value of an indicator for a
specific purpose. The main purpose is for internal decision-making and external
accountability reporting; therefore, the sustainability measurement process must contain
the information concerning measurement operations and associated instruments, target
value(s), related object and indicator(s) according to the application level of the indicator
and business strategies.
As mentioned in Section 2, an organisation can track sustainability performance using
the following two distinct approaches: the individual indicator(s) approach and the
composite index approach. The former approach provides an easy way to track and
improve the sustainability performance according to specific needs. The latter approach
provides a holistic way to track and improve the performance based on theirsustainability goals. The composite index approach needs aggregating methods,
normalising methods, and weighting algorithms to combine different unit-based
indicators into a single index (Singh et al., 2009). Hence, a sustainability measurement
operator must have a full understanding of the measurement process guidelines to
interpret the value and assign a reasonable uncertainty to that value of an index.
Fiksel et al. (1999) emphasised four sustainability measurement principles, which can
help enterprises address the challenges associated with measuring and reporting
sustainability:
1 resource and value
2 triple bottom line
3 product life cycle consideration
4 leading and lagging indicators.
They pointed out that the sustainability performance measurement process usually
involves three phases structure, i.e., plan, implement, and review. One of the main
requisites of sustainability measurement is that every indicator is obtained by standard-
based measurement methods, procedures, instrument certifications, and reference
materials in a tightly integrated manner with business operations throughout the product
life cycle. In this context, several guidelines should be set up for the measuring process
within this infrastructure including:
measurement operation sequence has to be logical and traceable so that it can be
repeatable and comparable in time dependent product life cycle
measurement instruments (data collectors) must be certified and calibrated instandard manner for the robustness
sources and the magnitudes of measurement errors must be explicitly expressed
expression of measurement uncertainty needs to conform to open standards.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
10/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 213
3.3 Sustainability performance analysis, evaluation, and reporting
In measuring sustainability performance, metrics are usually applied. Sustainability
metrics are a set of measurements, corresponding to indicators that are used to evaluate
the sustainability performance of an organisation. Based on timely measured results,
manufacturing companies can analyse and evaluate their sustainability performance,
observe the trend of sustainability, and perform sustainability accounting. Figure 2 shows
an example of time tracking of some metrics with respect to a targeted benchmark value.
Time-dependent evaluations of indicators enable engineers and managers to see the trend
of specific metrics and the gap to the target at a given time. This information guides them
to analyse sustainability and make appropriate decisions for eco-innovation in product
development. In analysis, effective indicators allow engineers and designers to focus on
specific areas of interest during the design process. Other metrics, namely lumped
metrics, provide a holistic view of the sustainability of an organisation and may serve as akey benchmark for reporting, but can fail to capture the competing drivers in the system,
thus limiting the ability of engineers and designers to accurately analyse the process.
Finally, the quality and impact of engineering design must also be understood within this
component as they are closely related to design of the metrics used in the analysis and
will affect the evaluation of the measurement process (Reich-Weiser et al., 2008).
Figure 2 Tracking performance (see online version for colours)
Using the results from measurement processes, engineers can not only report but also
make necessary decisions for their business operations, such as redesign. The
performance evaluation might be done in multiple passes with adequate analysis tools. A
typical example of internal communication purposed evaluation is for the indicators to
have a relation with their confidential business information, like manufacturing cost. In
this case, existing practices, like enterprise resource planning or design for six-sigma
(Bras, 2008), can be good tools for internal performance analysis and reporting. On the
other hand, some indicators like enterprise-based green house gas emissions or
CO2-emissions are for typical external communication indicators. In this case, the GRI
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
11/18
214 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
can be a good tool for external communications. One challenge to make meaningful
communication with internal and external stakeholders is how to serve various audienceswith different information needs. Business strategy and sustainability communication and
reporting should, therefore, be linked with sustainability performance evaluation and
management. To make this happen, sustainability information and communication should
be treated in the same manner as strategic planning and accounting (Schaltegger and
Wagner, 2006).
Consequently, all the developed and adapted indicators must have associations with
standard measurement methodologies and instruments throughout the product life cycle.
Engineers or designers can hence track the sustainability performance with indicators via
standard-based repeatable measurement methods with the expression of measurement
uncertainty (ISO, 1993). Furthermore, they will be able to access measured metrics via
various design analysis tools, and use the results in their decision-making processes for
product innovation and communications with a diverse group of stakeholders.
4 Case study: CO2emission
To make eco-friendly products, it is necessary to reduce the CO2 emission in
manufacturing individual components in an assembly. Product developers, including
manufacturing process engineers, need effective indicators to evaluate the CO2emission
and energy use in production. Using a CO2-emission indicator with a set of given
measurement process guidelines, engineers can calculate the quantity represented by the
indicator. With the results from the calculations, they can make a decision on the
sustainability of the design and planned process with respect to the CO2emission and
energy efficiency. This section gives an example of an assembly of machined parts
(Ameta et al., 2009) in Figure 3. This assembly consists of three parts: A, B, and C. A
and B are machined parts, and C is a purchased part from a supplier. In this case study,
CO2emission in the machining parts is assumed to be directly related to the energy used
in the machining operations. Figure 4 schematically shows the machining operations that
are applied to A and B within the organisation of the company.
Figure 3 A machined subassembly (see online version for colours)
Source: Ameta et al. (2009)
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
12/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 215
Figure 4 Manufacturing process of the selected subassembly example (see online version
for colours)
4.1 Carbon emission and energy metrics
In this case study, two indicators from the repository are used to analyse the CO2
emission and energy use in machining operations (Ameta et al., 2009). The names of theindicators are carbon weight of machining operation and energy use by machining
operation. The IDs are CW_MO and EU_MO respectively. The measurement type of
these two indicators is quantitative. In the EU_MO indicator, energy used by a machining
operation, E [J], is calculated by two different ways: direct measurement of cutting
parameters and estimation by using appropriate mathematical cutting models. The
measured EU_MO is calculated by the following equation:
( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( )( )( )1
0
t
t
E E F t F t v t v t dt = (1)
Fis the cutting force [N],Fis the estimated force deviation, vis the cutting speed [m/s],
vis the estimated cutting speed deviation, Eis the estimated cutting energy deviation, t[s] is the time of machining, t0 is the starting time, and t1 is the end time. For
simplification in calculating EU_MO, only the energy used in the machining operations
is considered. Energy used by auxiliary operations such as warming up, pumping, and
cooling are ignored. All the machining operation parameters such as cutting force and
cutting speed can easily be gathered from the machine tool controller. To estimate the
machining energy in the part design stage, engineers generally use the specific energy per
unit time (Kalpakjian, 1995). The specific energy is the energy used per unit time
required to remove a unit of volume of a given material. By obtaining the total removal
volume, machining energy is estimated using the following equation:
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
13/18
216 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
r tE V u= (2)
Vr is the volume to be removed, and ut is specific energy per unit time. Based on the
above calculation, the carbon weight (CW) of the machining operations can be computed
by the following equation1:
( )CW CW f E E = (3)
CW is the estimated carbon weight deviation, parameter f is a conversion factor fortransformation energy to carbon weight, which can be found in a report from the energy
information administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy (DOE) (EIA, 2002).
According to the EIA report, the value off is 1.72 104g/J in the state of Maryland.
4.2 Energy measurement process
In the above-mentioned EU_MO calculation procedure, the volume to be machined can
be calculated using a three-dimensional solid model in a computer-aided design (CAD)
system. On the other hand, in the real-time data collection, EU_MO should be calculated
using machiningparameterslike machining force, machining speed, and machining time.
In general, the data of these parameters can be collected from an advanced machine
controller or measured by appropriate instruments in real time. Data collection can be
prone to error, so measurement uncertainty has to be managed and estimated in
association with the measured value. Based on the measured value and the expression of
measurement uncertainty, equation (1) can be approximated by the following equation
with a sample time of t:
( ) ( )1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
n
i i i i
iE E F t F t v t v t t
= =
(4)
In this case study, all parameters are assumed to come from an automated monitoring
system, which is connected to the machine controller and able to publish the real-time
machining parameters of the machine centre to the workshop floor engineers via network.
With this automated system, repeatability of the measurement can be easily obtained,
provided the system is monitored, maintained, and calibrated as scheduled.
4.3 Analysis, evaluation, and reporting in an organisation
The analysis of sustainability performance is the first part of reporting. Analysis methods,
such as using equations (1) or (4) above, have to be documented in the sustainability
report to provide traceability. Analysis results, as shown in Table 2, must also be a part ofthe report. Furthermore, the EU_MO indicator can be used in various evaluations. On the
machining side, the CW_MO indicator can provide guidance on the CO2emission of a
machining centre, such that engineers can decide which machine centre is the best choice
in terms of minimum CO2 emission and energy consumption. Engineers can also
establish the history of performance of a machine tool and rank all the machine tools that
they have. It can give historic information to the process planners and maintenance
personnel. On product design, the EU_MO indicator can be used as an input in redesign.
A company needs to establish their own analysis and evaluation practices in using
indicators to measure performance.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
14/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 217
Table 2 Analysis of indicators at component process level
Parameters
Indicators
Given
Measured
Energyused
Carbonweight
Part
Operation
Volumetobe
removedVr
(mm
3)
Surface
speedv
(m/s)
ForceF
(N
)
Operation
timet(s)
E(J)
E(J)
CW(Kg)
CW(Kg)
MO1-1
291,546.28
3.112
742
5
294.64
679,922.64
4,581.72
1.17098
0.007891
MO1-2
26,116.47
4.262
204
4
61.21
53,194.32
1,042.92
0.09161
0.001796
MO1-3
17,002.84
3.451
78
2
268.48
72,248.40
1,852.56
0.12443
0.003191
A
MO1-4
22,114.4
1.831
40
2
402.08
29,432.52
1,471.68
0.05069
0.002535
MO2-1
265,660.96
3.072
743
5
268.48
612,410.40
4,121.28
1.05471
0.007098
MO2-2
106,804.03
4.12
221
5
250.32
226,816.92
5,131.44
0.39063
0.008838
MO2-3
51,346.46
3.162
36
3
236.98
26,958.96
2,246.76
0.04643
0.003869
MO2-4
17,002.84
3.331
74
2
268.48
66,159.36
1,788.12
0.11394
0.003080
B
MO2-5
23,722.72
1.831
56
2
402.08
41,205.60
1,471.68
0.07097
0.002535
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
15/18
218 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
Reporting the value of an indicator can come from various levels in an organisation. At
an assembly level, the CO2emission and the energy consumption are aggregations fromvalues at the component level. In this case, the value of an individual EU_MO indicator
at the assembly level is a result of the energy consumption in all the machining
operations. For a given process plan of Part A and Part B, the calculated results can be
found in Table 2, where the data are calculated using the equation (4) with a number of
datasets from a specific machine centre, and total product-level carbon weight is a
summation of carbon weights of all the parts. In general, engineers can evaluate
sustainability performance at any level of an organisation, from the machine tool level to
the factory level.
5 Summary and future work
There are many sustainability indicator sets available. Most of them are designed to
address sustainability issues at a global, regional, or company level. Very few of them
directly address environmental, economic, and social sustainability performance at the
manufacturing process level. This paper introduces the development of an information
infrastructure for sustainability performance measurement and management for
manufacturing processes and manufactured products. The infrastructure consists of four
main components:
1 sustainability indicator repository
2 SMPG
3 SPAER
4 SPM.
The SPM is the central piece of the proposed infrastructure. It manages the development
and expansion of the indicator repository, updates the measurement process guidelines,
and relates data collected from measurement processes to functions of analysis and
evaluation to generate relevant sustainability reports. An assembly of machined parts is
used for the case study in the context of CO2 emission reduction in a manufacturing
company. In this case study, the process of how a given indicator can be defined and used
to guide the evaluation of the sustainability performance in a machining process is shown
along with the aggregation of indicator values throughout different levels in an
organisation.
The future work includes developing a testbed and measurement process guidelineson more cases. The testbed is to provide a facility for examining the sustainability
measurement methodologies including the proposed sustainability measurement
infrastructure. The implementation of guidelines will provide precision and traceability
for measuring the sustainability in products and manufacturing processes.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
16/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 219
Disclaimer
No approval or endorsement of any commercial products by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) is intended or implied. Certain company names are
identified in this paper to facilitate understanding. Such identification does not imply that
their products are necessarily the best available for the purpose of sustainability.
References
Ameta, G., Mani, M., Rachuri, S., Lyons, K., Feng, S. and Sriram, R. (2009) Carbon weightanalysis for machining operation and allocation for redesign, International Journal ofSustainable Manufacturing, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.241251.
Antonio A., Mata, T., Costa, C. and Sikdar, S. (2007) Framework for sustainability metric, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 10, pp.29622973.Bansal, P. (2005) Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp.197218.
Bras, B. (2008) Sustainable design and manufacturing: concepts, case studies, Frontiers,NASAEnvironmental and Energy Conference, NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton,Virginia, available athttp://www.teerm.nasa.gov/Environmental_EnergyConference2008.html.
Core Environmental Indicators (OECD CEIs) (2003) OECD environmental indicators:development, measurement and use, Reference paper, OECD Environmental Performanceand Information Division, available at http://www.oecd.org/env/.
Department of Commerce (DOC) (2008) How does Commerce Define SustainableManufacturing?, available athttp://www.trade.gov/competitiveness/sustainablemanufacturing/how_doc_defines_SM.asp.
Dreher, J., Lawler, M., Stewart, J., Strasorier, G. and Thorne, M. (2009) GM metrics forsustainable manufacturing, Project report, Laboratory for Sustainable Business, MIT,available athttp://actionlearning.mit.edu/s-lab/files/slab_files/Projects/2009/GM,%20report.pdf.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2002) Updated State-level Greenhouse Gas EmissionCoefficient for Electricity Generation 19982000, Office of Integrated Analysis andForecasting, US Departments of Energy.
Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI) (2010) 2010 Environmental Performance Indicators,Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy/Center for International Earth ScienceInformation Network In collaboration with World Economic Forum/Joint Research Centre ofthe European Commission, available athttp://epi.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/0008/epi-2010.pdf.
Environmental Sustainability Indicators (ESI) (2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index:Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship, Yale Center for Environmental Law
and Policy/Center for International Earth Science Information Network, available athttp://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005.pdf.
European Union (1999) Towards environmental pressure indicators for the EU, Environment andEnergy Paper Theme 8, Luxembourg, European Commission, available athttp://biogov.cpdr.ucl.ac.be/communication/papers/tepi99rp_EN105.pdf.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
17/18
220 S.C. Feng and C.B. Joung
Fiksel, J., McDaniel, J. and Mendenhall, C. (1999) Measuring progress towards sustainability.
Principles, process, and best practices, in Hart SL (Ed.): Proceedings of the EighthInternational Greening of Industry Network Conference, University of North Carolina,Kenan-Flagler School of Business.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2006) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Version 3.0, GRI,available at http://www.globalreporting.org.
Harris, J., Wise, T., Gallagher, K, and Goodwin, N. (2001) A Survey of Sustainable Development:Social and Economic Dimensions, Island Press, Washington.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1993) Guide to the Expression of Uncertaintyin Measurement, 1st ed., ISBN: 9267101889, Geneva, Switzerland.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1999)Environmentalmanagement-Environmental Performance Evaluation-Guidelines, ISO 14031:1999(E)Geneva, Switzerland.
Jeswiet, J. and Kara, S. (2008) Carbon emissions and CESTM in manufacturing, CIRP
Annal-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 57, pp.1720.Kalpakjian, S. (1995) Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 3rd ed., Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.
Kibira, D., Jain, S. and Mclean, C. (2009) A system dynamics modeling framework forsustainable manufacturing,Proceedings of the 27th Annual System Dynamics SocietyConference, Albuquerque, NM.
Moss, M. and Grunkemeyer, T. (2007) Using resident formulated multi-dimensional indicators toassess urban communities, progress toward meeting sustainability goals, InternationalConference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment, Glasgow CaledonianUniv. Scotland.
NACFAM (2011) The viewpoint and definition on sustainable manufacturing at the website of theNational Council for Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM), available athttp://www.nacfam.org/PolicyInitiatives/SustainableManufacturing/tabid/64/Default.aspx.
OECD (2009) Policy Brief: Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-innovation: Towards a Green
Economy, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/27/42944011.pdf.
OECD (2010)Eco-Innovation in Industry: Enabling Green Growth, OECD Publishing.
Pre Consultants (2004) The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle assessment,Methodology report, available at http://www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/ei99-reports.htm.
Reich-Weiser, C., Vijayaraghavan, A. and Dornfeld, D. (2008) Metrics for sustainablemanufacturing, Proceedings of the 2008 International Manufacturing Science andEngineering Conference, MSEC2008-72223, Evanston, Illinois.
SAM Indexes (2007) The Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), available athttp://www.sustainability-index.com.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2006) Managing sustainability performance measurement andreporting in an integrated manner, Sustainability accounting as the link between thesustainability balanced scorecard and sustainability reporting, in S. Schaltegger, M. Bennettand R. Burritt (Eds.): Sustainability Accounting and Reporting, pp.681697, Springer,
Dordrecht.Schmidt, W. and Taylor, A. (2006) Ford of Europes product sustainability index,Proceedings of
13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, Belgium, pp.510.
Singh, R., Murty, H., Gupta, S. and Dikshit, A. (2009) An overview of sustainability assessmentmethodologies,Ecological Indicators, Vol. 9, pp.189212.
Staniskis, J. and Arbaciauskas, V. (2009) Sustainability performance indicators for industrialenterprise management, environmental research, Engineering and Management, Vol. 2,No. 48, pp.4250.
5/28/2018 A Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing
18/18
A measurement infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing 221
Sustainable Measures (2009) Available at http://sustainablemeasures.com.
United Nations, Committee on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (2007) Indicators ofSustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, 3rd ed., United Nations, New York,New York, available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf.
Wal-mart Sustainable Product Index (SPI) (2009) Supplier Sustainability Assessment: 15 Questionsfor Suppliers, available at http://walmartstores.com/download/3863.pdf.
Notes
1 We did not take account of carbon emission signature (CES). If CES were added, equation (2)would be replaced by CW=ECES(see Jeswiet and Kara, 2008).