The concept of sustainable manufacturing

and its definitions: A content-analysis based

literature review
The concept of sustainable manufacturing (SM) is becoming increasingly mature due
to the focus on many of its research topics for a long time. This research has
undoubtedly extended the body of knowledge, yet the numerous definitions of SM in
prior art still indicate a lack of consensus on the true meaning of the concept. It is thus
to be expected that these discrepancies will constrain further development and use of
the SM concept in industrial practice.

The goal of this paper is to analyze the different definitions of SM and identify the
current understanding of what researchers mean by the concept. We use an inductive
content analysis of definitions published from 1990 to 2016 in a variety of academic
journals. A total of 189 articles including a manifest definition of SM and 89 original
definitions were identified. Our analysis revealed that the most commonly used
definition is the one proposed by U.S. Department of Commerce in 2008; 63% of the
analyzed articles cite or slightly rephrase this definition, while 86% of the identified
definitions are used in less than three articles. Although the majority of researchers
seems to agree upon eleven sub-categories of SM, a wide range of issues (67 sub-
categories) associated with SM indicates inconsistency in the general understanding of
the concept. It is proposed that the findings in this study can serve as a foundation for
the development of a common language for SM in both research field and industrial
practice.

 Previous article in issue
 Next article in issue

Keywords
Sustainable manufacturing definitions

Content analysis

Literature review
Sustainability

Manufacturing

1. Introduction
After several decades of research in SM, there is still no common definition among
scholars. Moreover, many authors argue that there is no common and unified
understanding of what SM is (Dornfeld, 2009), (Haapala et al., 2013), (Wang et al.,
2016), (Millar and Russell, 2011), (Despeisse, 2013), (Nakano, 2009), who all
highlight the problem of numerous definitions (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016). state that
“there are no generally accepted or universal definitions for sustainable manufacturing
… there are many insufficient attempts”. The definitions evolve as authors modify
definitions or interpretations of SM. This situation makes it difficult for industry to
take the concept from theory to implementation.
One of the reasons behind the large number of definitions is the many different
interpretations of the ‘sustainability’ concept: e.g., seeing sustainability as an
environmental initiative; as a goal or a process; as an integration of different aspects;
or as a compromise between pillars, etc. Researchers claim that the large number of
terms and definitions in the SM research field is a barrier to sharing knowledge,
particularly between academia and industry. This calls for a more common
terminology and vocabulary to enable effective communication in the field of SM
(Despeisse et al., 2012). Differences between the terms used to define SM can lead to
misinterpretations of its true meaning and thus how to implement the concept in the
industry. This prevents organizations from forming a clear picture of SM, which is
needed to implement associated practices. This is supported by the empirical study
conducted by (Ihlen and Roper, 2014), who concluded that corporations make no
attempt to explicitly define the sustainability concept, thus pursuing sustainability
with unclear strategies. While some organizations make efforts to implement SM
practices, the lack of a standard terminology constrain dissemination of best practices
among manufacturers (Despeisse et al., 2012) (Garretson et al., 2016). argue that a
common terminology is essential for development and implementation of best (SM)
practices in the industry.
The objective of this work is to identify and analyze the definitions of SM in prior art,
as well as to identify the current understanding of what researchers mean by the
concept using an inductive content analysis. In other words, the study aims to
determine any variability in the understanding of SM as a concept and its content.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the

methodology used in this study. Content analysis as a method to analyze definitions is
introduced and its three main phases, preparation, organization and reporting are
described. Section 3 discusses the findings from the content analysis. Finally,
concluding remarks are drawn in Section 4.
2. Research methodology
Content analysis has previously been used in social science to analyze definitions;
e.g., “social participation” (Levasseur et al., 2010), “green supply chain management”
and “sustainable supply chain management” (Ahi and Searcy, 2013), and “corporate
social responsibility” (Dahlsrud, 2008). Content analysis is currently an established
method that also may be used to gain insight into the SM field. Inductive content
analysis has been used previously to advance the understanding of the sustainable
agriculture concept by (Velten et al., 2015), who conducted a structured literature
review of papers that engaged critically with the definitions of sustainable agriculture
and applied content analysis to identify categories associated with sustainable
agriculture concept.
2.1. Content analysis as a research method
Content analysis is a type of qualitative study, which is defined as “a research method
for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic
classification process of coding and identifying themes and patterns” (Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005). Further, it is a systematic reading for making replicable and valid
interferences from texts or other symbolic matter (Krippendorff, 2012). The purpose
of using content analysis as a research method is to provide new insights and increase
the understanding of a specific phenomenon, and to gain a broader and more
condensed description of the phenomenon, as well as to describe and quantify a
phenomenon.
Content analysis as a method includes both quantitative and qualitative research
strategies. Quantitative analysis gives the result in the form of frequency, typically
answering the question ‘how many’. Qualitative analysis presents data in the form of
categories, enabling interpretation of the text (Bengtsson, 2016).
Two approaches to content analysis can be distinguished: inductive (conventional)
and deductive analysis (Moretti et al., 2011). The choice of the approach is
determined by the main purpose of the study. Deductive content analysis is
recommended when the purpose of the study is to test a theory. Inductive content
analysis is used when there are no previous studies that deal with the phenomenon or
when the former knowledge is fragmented. The advantage of inductive content
analysis is that information is gained directly from the data without imposing
preconceived theoretical perspectives.
When performing a content analysis, a decision should be made whether a latent or
manifest content will be analyzed. A manifest content is the obvious components—
what the text says—while the interpretation of the underlying meaning of the text is a
latent content (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004).
One of the challenges of content analysis is the lack of a common recipe or standard
for execution of it. Therefore, the quality of content analysis has been discussed
widely by researchers; see, e.g., (Koch and Harrington, 1998). In the case of content
analysis, terms such as validity, reliability, and trustworthiness have been used to
address quality of the study (Elo et al., 2014). Trustworthiness becomes particularly
important for inductive content analysis since the categories are created from raw data
without a theory-based categorization matrix. Therefore, in order to improve the
scientific value of our research to be presented herein, the following three phases of
inductive content analysis will be described in detail below: preparation, organization
and reporting.
2.2. Preparation phase
Preparation phase consists of a collection of the suitable data and making sense of the
data (Elo et al., 2014).
2.2.1. Unit of the analysis
The preparation phase starts with the selection of the unit of the analysis (Guthrie
et al., 2004). Since the purpose of the research is to identify the current understanding
of the SM concept, we chose a manifest definition of ‘sustainable manufacturing’ as a
unit of the analysis.
2.2.2. Data collection method
To identify definitions used by researchers, the search of articles that include
definitions of SM was chosen as data collection method.
2.2.3. Sampling strategy
Articles that include a definition of SM—either cited (secondary) or original—have
been the object of the search. The following databases were used: ScienceDirect
(www.sciencedirect.com), Scopus (www.scopus.com), and the Google Scholar
database. In total, 1587 articles in ScienceDirect, 4832 in Scopus, and 14,500 in
Google Scholar include the term ‘sustainable manufacturing’ from January 1990 up
until December 2016.
To limit the number of papers for review and to identify the most relevant articles, the
following search criteria were applied:

The following search words were used: (“sustainable manufacturing is”) OR

(“sustainable manufacturing is defined”) OR (“define sustainable
manufacturing”), OR (“sustainable manufacturing” AND (“is defined” OR
“define” OR “definition”)) utilizing “All fields” category.

The data range was chosen for the entire period, including the year 2016, which
means that papers published in 2017 have been excluded.

When a reference was made to a definition published earlier, the original

source were retrieved for further review, whenever available.

Only articles written in English were considered.

The use of our search strategy could possibly result in the exclusion of relevant
articles. For example (Miller et al., 2010), use terms as “green, or sustainable,
manufacturing is defined …”. In addition, articles could potentially be excluded if a
definition is given without the use of the word ‘definition’; for example, “sustainable
manufacturing can be understood as”. Moreover, terms as “sustainability in
manufacturing”, “manufacturing sustainability”, “sustainable production”, “green
manufacturing”, and “industrial ecology” have not been considered in our search—
even though some researchers tend to use these terms as synonyms for “sustainable
manufacturing”.
Although the literature search was extensive, it should not be confused with a state-of-
the-art review. However, we claim that the sample size is sufficient to provide a basis
for the different interpretations of SM made by researchers over the past 26
years. Fig. 1 shows the number of papers that include the term ‘sustainable
manufacturing’ in ScienceDirect and Scopus databases from 1990 through 2016,
representing the sample of papers chosen for further analysis.

Since most of the papers are published after 2008, all articles that include the term
‘sustainable manufacturing’ in “All fields” (abstract, title, keywords, etc.) from 1990
through 2008 have been reviewed (343 in Scopus and 119 in ScienceDirect). In
addition, a search was conducted in the Journal of Cleaner Production in
ScienceDirect database with search words ‘sustainable manufacturing’ AND
‘definition’ in “All fields”, published from 1990 through 2016. Altogether 108 articles
were found and reviewed, and among these only eleven articles include a clear
definition of SM.

The identified papers were analyzed in detail to ensure that they include an explicit
definition of SM. Articles containing the term without a definition were excluded
from the further analysis. Some papers include the term ‘sustainable manufacturing’
but fail to define the concept; for example, in the paper (Brundage et al., 2016), the
authors refer to SM in context of performance indicators, yet without defining the
term.
2.3. Organization phase
As the result of the search process, 189 articles were selected for further reading and
analysis. Each of the papers was carefully reviewed to identify an explicit definition
of SM. Each definition was read carefully to ensure correct interpretation before
further analysis.

All definitions were coded using NVivo 11 software. The coding categories were
derived directly from the terms. The use of preconceived categories was avoided to
allow the categories and their designations to be extracted from the raw data. This
strategy enabled new insights to emerge during the course of the study.

After the categories were defined, both qualitative and quantitative analyses were
accomplished. The goal of the qualitative analysis was to present data in words and
categories, facilitating interpretations of the analyzed text. The quantitative analysis
aimed to present facts from the text in the form of frequency as a number of articles
by category, a number of original definitions of SM, a number of the most commonly
used definitions, and a number of the most used terms and concepts. The quantitative
analysis also enabled analyzing the definitions in chronological terms and to see how
the understanding evolved over time.

2.4. Reporting phase
The common critic of content analysis is that journal articles usually focus on the
reporting of results, rather than describing the analysis process (Elo et al., 2014). To
increase the research significance of this study, the analysis process is presented in the
result section, including the choices made during the analysis.
3. Results and discussion
The goal of the current analysis is to identify categories providing representations of
how researchers define SM, and the underlying ideas and conceptions associated with
this concept. Altogether 189 papers have been carefully reviewed and the different
definitions have been analyzed using inductive content analysis. When a paper
included more than one definition, all its definitions were coded. First, the definitions
from all articles were extracted and interpreted in order to obtain a sense of the whole.
Then, the definitions were interpreted carefully to derive appropriate coding. In the
first round, the code labels emerged from the text. In the second round, codes were
reviewed and renamed, if appropriate. Then, the codes were sorted into 10 categories
and 78 sub-categories. Appendix A presents the categories, sub-categories, a number
of articles that include codes from the sub-category, along with examples of text
coded into each sub-category.
The sub-categories have been analyzed chronologically, and the frequency of sub-
categories for each year is presented in Appendix B. The variety of sub-categories was
continuously increasing from 2008, with the exception of 2011. Only ten sub-
categories appear after 2011. This may indicate some evolvement in the understanding
of SM as a concept. Moreover, the majority of articles published after 2008 defines
SM according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, as “the creation of manufactured
products that use processes that minimize negative environmental impacts, conserve
energy and natural resources, are safe for employees, communities, and consumers
and are economically sound”. This particular definition was cited or rephrased in 120
articles (see Fig. 2, definition [10]).
Eighty-nine original definitions have been identified during the review of selected
articles. Fig. 2 shows the reference number of the paper with the definition presented
in brackets (see Appendix C for the complete list of identified articles and
definitions), as well as the number of articles that use the same definition outside the
circle. It should also be noted that some articles include more than one definition.
Here nine definitions were identified to appear twice while 68 definitions were used
only once.
3.1. Terms defining the ‘sustainable manufacturing’ concept
A review of the different definitions reveals inconsistency as to how
‘sustainable manufacturing’ is referred to in the literature. For example, some
authors define SM as a strategy or approach, whereas others define it as
paradigm or system. Fig. 3 shows terms that various authors use to define SM.
Most of the articles (126) define SM as a ‘creation’ or ‘production’ of product
and services. The majority of these papers use the definition proposed by U.S.
Department of Commerce. Here the terms that appear only in one article are
grouped in sub-category ‘Other’; examples are given as “an effort”, “the
science and technology”, “the set of systems and activities”, “a vision”, “the
essence of business”, “the global closed-loop supply”, “management”, “the
technique, policies and the procedures”, “application of practices”.