quality tools applied to cleaner production programs

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e14

Contents lists available

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Quality tools applied to Cleaner Production programs: a first approach towarda new methodology

Diogo Aparecido Lopes Silva a,*, Ivete Delai b, Marco Aurélio Soares de Castro a, Aldo Roberto Ometto a

a School of Engineering of Sao Carlos, The University of Sao Paulo, São Carlos, Brazilb School of Economics, Business and Accounting of Ribeirao Preto, The University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 February 2012Received in revised form9 October 2012Accepted 19 October 2012Available online xxx

Keywords:Cleaner ProductionPollution preventionQuality toolsSource reduction

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 16 33738206.E-mail address: [email protected] (D.A. Lop

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.026

Please cite this article in press as: Lopes Silvmethodology, Journal of Cleaner Production

a b s t r a c t

The concept of Cleaner Production (CP) has been hailed for the several economic, environmental andsocial benefits it can provide. However, the implementation of CP programs continues facing problemsand barriers, such as the lack of detailed information, tools and techniques that can be employedsystematically to achieve the desired results. For instance, one notices a lack of investigations on thepossibilities of using well-known tools such as Quality Tools (QTs) in order to successfully implement andmaintain a CP program. This paper proposes a new CP methodology enhanced by a systematic inte-gration of QTs that helps to overcome the aforementioned problems. An initial review on CP method-ologies was complemented by a systematic review on the subject. The nine academic and industrypractitioner methodologies obtained were later synthesized into a new CP methodology, which proposesa standard for the phases needed on a CP program and the terminology used for them. Then, some well-known quality tools and other measures based on the quality approach were evaluated and had theirutilization proposed on each phase of this standard methodology. The results show 21 improvementopportunities on 9 of the 12 phases from the standard CP methodology established, including a set of 10quality tools. The use of these tools can enhance nearly all steps of a CP methodology, namely theplanning stage, crucial for the success a CP program. The authors conclude that the fact the standardmethodology was developed based on the complementarity of nine other methodologies, whileaddressing some of their scope issues pointed out earlier makes up for a greater comprehensiveness andease of implementation. Finally, the paper presents subjects for future research.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Cleaner Production (CP) has been successfully implementedaround the world and in different industries. Several industry casesare reported in the extant literature: paper and cardboard (Abbasiand Abassi, 2004), sanitation (Coelho, 2004), gold-plated jewelry(Giannetti et al., 2008), mining (Hilson, 2000), electronics (Allenby,2004) and base metal production (Moors et al., 2005). Environ-mental agencies have also reported several cases, such as the ZeroWaste Network database with over 500 success stories (ZeroWasteNetwork, 2012).

Despite this widespread use and the several economic, envi-ronmental and social benefits it can provide the implementation ofCP programs continue facing problems and barriers. The mostevident are: lack of integration and systematic implementation,

es Silva).

All rights reserved.

a, D.A., et al., Quality tools ap(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

given that these programs are usually implemented exclusively byenvironmental departments, which is problematic since thisdepartment does not have the authority and expertise necessary toapply CP to the entire company (Wang, 1999); lack of continuity e

CP programs are implemented but not monitored, reviewed andextended (Wang, 1999; Kalavapudi, 1995); and resistance to change(Stone, 2000; Callia et al., 2009). In addition, Murillo-Luna et al.(2011) point out some organizational barriers such as the limitedenvironmental motivation and employee preparation, inadequatetop management leadership, lack of employee involvement, poorcommunication systems and operational inertia.

One aspect that may contribute to these problems is the lack ofdetailed information, tools and techniques that can be employed toachieve results in each step, which could ultimately hinder thewhole process. An analysis of the main CP methodologies carriedout in this paper and summarized in Section 2.1.2 demonstratesthat most of them do not point out in detail the tools and tech-niques to be employed in each step, on the contrary, they merelydescribe the steps and their specific goals. Moreover, Cagno et al.

plied to Cleaner Production programs: a first approach toward a new016/j.jclepro.2012.10.026

D.A. Lopes Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e142

(2005), after analyzing 134 industrial pollution prevention projectreports also observed the limited use of systematic techniques andtools, deducing that most projects were empirical and not fullyintegrated into the management process, which suggests that thepreventive approach by companies is still in the early stage.

In this context, this paper proposes the integration of QualityTools (QTs) into a standard CP methodology as a way to facilitate itsimplementation and overcome some of the aforementioned prob-lems. QTs are adequate and can undeniably help in this endeavor asthey are already well known, corroborated and integrated intomost organizations’ management processes, familiar to mostmanagers and also very easy to adapt to an environmental programsince quality and environmental programs have many objectives incommon (Pojasek, 1999). Furthermore, the structure of CleanerProduction programs is based on the Deming Cycle or PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle (Stone, 2006). Despite this quality approach,CP methodologies rarely consider the use of QT’s. An analysiscarried out in this paper presented in Section 4.1 points out thatonly one CP methodology, of the nine studied, employed at leastone quality tool. In addition, we understand that the benefits of a CPprogram might be maximized and the time consumed by eachactivity reduced by applying a standard procedure or more preciseguidelines for each step, as the one proposed in this paper.

The paper is organized as follows: first it presents the conceptsthat underpinned this research and the methodology employed tocarry it out. Then, the proposed standard methodology with theintegration of quality tools is detailed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5highlights the main conclusions.

2. Literature review

2.1. Cleaner Production: concepts, benefits and implementationproblems

In 1989, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)defined Cleaner Production (CP) as the continuous application of anintegrated preventive environmental strategy to production,processes and services in order to increase eco-efficiency to reducerisks for humans and the environment (UNEP DTIE, 1996). Thepriority is to eliminate and/or minimize waste and emissionsgenerated in its sources rather than correct them at the end of theprocess, and this source reduction can be accomplished throughtwo general methods: product changes and process changes (USEPA,1998). CP seeks to promote production efficiency, environmentalmanagement and human development.

CP is often used interchangeably with Pollution Prevention (P2)according to UNEP DTIE (1996) is defined as source reduction,preventing or reducing waste where it originates, including prac-tices that conserve natural resources by reducing or eliminatingpollutants through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials,energy, water, and land (USEPA, 1998).

However, while both terms emphasize environmentalmanagement through source reduction rather than pollutioncontrol (USEPA, 1998), several differences can be pointed out:

- CP emphasizes change in a wide range of elements in envi-ronmental management, while the term ‘pollution prevention’is mainly used to describe environmental improvementsresulting from technological changes alone (Hilson, 2003);

- The geographical utilization: P2 is the common term in NorthAmerica, while CP is used in Europe, Asia and Australia (Hilson,2003; UNEP DTIE, 2012);

- CP goes beyond P2 by encompassing production processes andmanagement procedures, as well as the human and

Please cite this article in press as: Lopes Silva, D.A., et al., Quality tools apmethodology, Journal of Cleaner Production (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

organizational dimensions of environmental management,aiming to include the whole life cycle of the product(USEPA, 1998);

-CP is applicable not only to productive processes but also toproducts and services (UNIDO, 2002).

Therefore, it can be said that CP presents a more comprehensive,integrated and systemic approach as it includes changes in allorganizational aspects related to production and processes, and itsdefinition and the expression itself reflects a search for continuousimprovement, which is also a Quality Management goal. These arethe main reasons why CP is the concept employed in this paper.

2.1.1. Cleaner Production benefitsThere are numerous benefits reported for CP/P2 programs, some

reasons are due to the reduction of waste generation at its source,which also reduces several waste-associated costs that result inlower operating (USEPA, 1998; UNIDO, 2002; Miller et al., 2008)and health maintenance costs (USEPA, 1998), thus, increasingprofitability. These reductions are related to optimizing wastetreatment, recycling and disposal as well as reducing theconsumption of raw materials, water and energy (CEBDS, 2003;Giannetti et al., 2008; Staniskis and Stasiskiene, 2003;Unnikrishnan and Hegde, 2006), hazardous materials and emis-sions (Miller et al., 2008) and the possibility of raw or wastedmaterial recovery (UNIDO, 2002; Abbasi and Abbassi, 2004;Unnikrishnan and Hegde, 2006).

Besides the economic and environmental aspects, the improvedoperating efficiency of the company can result in internal benefits,such as improvements in workers’ health, safety and productivity,resulting in personal satisfaction and lower absenteeism (USEPA,1998; Hilson, 2000; Unnikrishnan and Hegde, 2006). Externalbenefits are also reported: reduced health risks to the surroundingpopulation and reduced liability risks (Healey, 1998) leading toimproved company image (UNIDO, 2002; Unnikrishnan and Hegde,2006; Miller et al., 2008) and even in increased market share andoverall improved relationships with stakeholders (USEPA, 1998;UNIDO, 2002).

To sum up, CP programs represent a win-win strategy in whichoptimizing the use of resources leads to reduced company costs andincreased profitability, while reducing their environmental impacts.

2.1.2. Cleaner Production programs: implementation problemsDespite the potential benefits of CP programs, recent articles

such as Dovi et al. (2009) point out that cleaner technologies andCleaner Production are being disseminated quite slowly, whichcould be caused by several difficulties that are felt and reportedduring the implementation of a CP program. Such barriers arepresented divided in four groups as presented by Shi et al. (2008):

- policy and market: macro-level policies focusing on end-of-pipe treatment instead of CP (Wang, 1999), stringent envi-ronmental legislation or lack of clear and continuous policies tosupport waste minimization and CP (Hilson, 2000); decliningpublic sector support and competing priorities in business(Miller et al., 2008);

- financial and economic: shortage of financial incentives (Wang,1999; Hilson, 2000; Zilahy, 2004); long return of investment(Zilahy, 2004; González, 2005), especially in the case of smalland medium-sized enterprises (Shi et al., 2008) and highinvestment projects (Mestl et al., 2005);

- technical and informational: insufficient awareness andknowledge of CP as well as of the many cleaner technologiesinternationally available, lack of skills (Hilson, 2000; Luken andRompaey, 2008; Thiruchelvam et al., 2003);


Table 1The 7 basic quality tools.

Quality tool Aim

Cause-and-effect diagram(Ishikawa chart orfishbone chart)

Identifies many possible causes for an effect orproblem and sorts ideas into useful categories(machine, method, measure, people, materials,environment)

Check sheet A structured, prepared form for collecting andanalyzing data that can be adapted for a widevariety of purposes

Control charts Applied to study how a process changes overtime to identify whether it is under control ornot (if there are special causes affecting theprocess outcomes)Process evolution can also be studied in amore simplistic way through Linear Graphs

Histogram Shows frequency distributions or how ofteneach different value occurs in a set of data

Pareto Chart Applied to prioritize problems as it displayson a bar graph which factors are moresignificant.It is based on the assumption that 80% of theproblems (effects) are caused by 20% ofsources (causes)

Scatter diagram Presents the relationship between twovariables

Stratification It separates data collected from differentsources so that patterns can be seen. Some authorsindicate using the “Flowcharts” with thestratification to facilitate identifying theanalysis categories

Source: Adapted from Tague (2004).

D.A. Lopes Silva et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2012) 1e14 3

- managerial and organizational barriers: according to Zilahy(2004), only recently has some attention been given to orga-nizational factors. These include behavioral barriers, such asresistance to change (Callia et al., 2009; Neto and Jabbour,2010; Stone, 2000) evidenced by a lack of willingness toembrace new technologies and procedures (Thomas, 1995), aswell as absence of top-level advocacy toward CleanerProduction; environmental management capacities and a clearlong-term technology strategy (Moors et al., 2005). Murillo-Luna et al. (2011) also point out an insufficient supply ofequipment and information, poor development of clean tech-nologies and procedures, lack of information about thetechnologies and procedures available and lack of organiza-tional capabilities such as limited environmental motivationand employee preparation, inadequate top managementleadership, lack of employee involvement, poor communica-tion systems and operational inertia.

Also, as for CP program management, such programs areseldom implemented systematically, using techniques and toolsand coordinating the efforts of individual departments (Wang,1999; Cagno et al., 2005). In addition, there is also a lack of CPcontinuity e options are implemented but not monitored andextended (Wang, 1999) ewhich can lead to employee disaffection(Neto and Jabbour, 2010) and lack of interest in continued efforts(Kalavapudi, 1995).

The time span of the articles thus far presented enable toconclude that the barriers faced by companies that try to imple-ment CP programs nowadays seem to be the same ones encoun-tered in the last decades. We understand that this happens becausethe CP methodologies found in the extant literature are quitesimilar and e for the most part e are merely the phases theycomprise, discussing their specific goals, not providing systematicprocedures for each phase, as demonstrated in the analysis pre-sented in Section 4.1. Moreover, this analysis revealed the lack ofa more comprehensive CP methodology, as well as a lack of infor-mation and clear description of the activities that should take placein each step of a Cleaner Production program.

2.2. Basic quality tools

The quality approach and its fundamentals are already wellintegrated into many organizations’ general management, as wellas into the environmental management. In the first case, it is donevia ISO 9000 or the Total Quality Management (TQM) approach,which at its core is a management approach to long term successthrough customer satisfaction (Ried and Sanders, 2005). This goalis achieved through a proactive and integrated organizationaleffort designed to improve quality at every level of the organiza-tion. In the environmental case, the integration occurs throughspecific environmental management systems, such as the ISO14000 and the EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme), ormore systemic environmental management approaches such asthe Total Quality Environmental Management (TQEM) e a methodto apply total quality management to corporate environmentalstrategies.

The quality approach presents a basic management method e

the Deming’s Cycle or PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Action) cyclee as wellas several sets of tools that can be applied to operationalize eachcycle phase and employed depending on the company’s qualitymanagement maturity, and also on the complexity of the problem.These sets range from very simple and straightforward tools tomore complex and Six Sigma statistical-based programs.

In this research, two sets of the most elemental and simple toolswere applied in order to facilitate the use of CP methodology. The


first one includes the most elemental ones e the 7 basic qualitytools e developed by professor Kaoru Ishikawa and summarized inTable 1.

The second set is formed by another set of five simple andeffective quality tools that are applied in the PDCA cycle, asdescribed below:

- Flowcharts: process flowcharts or process flow diagrams arecommon basic management tools that determine the sequenceof events in a process in order to identify the sometimesobscure elements in a process (Rose, 2005). They can include:sequence of actions, inputs and outputs, decisions that must bemade, people and time involved at each step and processmeasurements (Tague, 2004);

- Brainstorming: is a structured method for generating a largenumber of creative ideas in a short period of time of a group ofpeople (Tague, 2004);

- Benchmarking: is a structured process for comparing organi-zation practices or results to the best similar practices in othersorganizations, even in a different industry in order to identifyopportunities for improvement (Tague, 2004);

- 5W2H (what, when, who, where, why, how, how much) actionplan: is a very simple and effective tool for describing plannedactions in a careful and objective way, thereby ensuring itsorganized execution. The most complete form answers sevenquestions for each planned action: what is going to be done, bywhom, where, when, why, howmuch is going to cost and howit is going to be done. However, simpler versions could beemployed depending on the complexity of each situation(Werkema, 1995);

- Gravity Urgency Tendency (GUT) matrix: is a very simple, qual-itative and subjective prioritization tool that evaluatesa problem based on the three criteria: gravity, urgency andtendency. The gravity criterion considers long term effects andimpacts on people, things and outcomes if the problem is not


Table 2The Cleaner Production methodologies analyzed.

Author Description

Shen (1995) Book regarding several aspects of Cleaner ProductionCase et al. (1995) Book section on the development and maintenance of

a Pollution Prevention ProgramUNEP DTIE (1996) Cleaner Production program guidelines of the United

Nations Environment ProgramPojasek (2002) Academic paper on Pollution Prevention and Quality

ManagementCETESB (2002) Brazilian Company of Environmental Sanitation

Technology of the Sao Paulo State Pollution Preventionprogram guidelines

CEBDS (2003) Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Developmentguidelines for a Cleaner Production program

Stone (2006) Academic paper that evaluates and presents limitationsof Cleaner Production programs

Khan (2008) Academic paper on the development of a CleanerProduction program

EnvironmentCanada (2009)

Canadian Environment Agency online handbook ondeveloping and maintaining a P2 Program


solved. The urgency deals with how pressing its elimination is,while tendency evaluates if it is possible that the problemincreases progressively, diminishes or disappears by itself. Allof them could be rated from 1 to 5 by each group member andthe final assessment is achieved by multiplying the threecriteria rates (de Moraes, 1999).

3. Methodology

The research reported here comprised a literature review ofP2/CP methodologies, complemented by a systematic review(Cooper, 1998) carried out on the ISI Web of Knowledge electronicdatabase. A systematic review is focused on a research questionthat tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all researchevidence relevant to that question.

The CP methodologies found through these reviews wereanalyzed and later synthesized into a new and more complete CPmethodology. Finally, the use of one or more of the previouslydiscussed quality tools was proposed on each step of this ‘new’

methodology.Initially, a review conducted on books, handbooks and elec-

tronic databases revealed eight academic and practitioner CPmethodologies: Shen (1995), Case et al. (1995), UNEP DTIE (1996),Pojasek (2002), CETESB (2002), CEBDS (2003), Stone (2006) andKhan (2008). Once most of these methodologies dated from 2003and before, a systematic review was conducted in order to inves-tigate the existence of recently presented CP methodologies. Thisreview consisted in performing searches on the ISI Web ofKnowledge database. Using cleaner production, pollution prevention,methodology, programme, initiatives and guidelines as keywords, thefollowing string was built:

- Cleaner Production OR pollution prevention ANDmethodologyOR programme OR initiatives OR guidelines.

A set of 1824 results were obtained in the initial search. It wasrefined in order to present only results from 2006 to 2012, whichnarrowed the list down to 744 papers. These papers had their titleand abstract analyzed, resulting in a set of 45 articles. Only two ofthese articles presented P2/CP methodologies: Khan (2008) andStone (2006), both of which had already been selected for analysis.None of the 43 remaining articles presented a specific methodologyfor implementation of a Cleaner Production program; some papersfocused on specific steps of a CP program, however their contri-butions do not fall within the scope of this paper. For instance,Avsar and Demirer (2008) concentrated on internal auditing forpre-assessment, data collection and synthesis; Kupusovic et al.(2007) investigated Cleaner Production measures in slaughter-houses, performing a diagnosis of the industrial process and wasteflows generated, identifying opportunities for environmentalimprovement and recommending CP measures. Pandey and Brent(2008) also focused on audit procedures to identify CP technolo-gies, and assess them using a technology management approach.Finally, Fischer (2006) described actions taken by the Canadiangovernment, such as the development, by Environment Canada, ofthe Pollution Prevention Planning Handbook, an online guide thatpresents and details the steps to develop and implement a pollu-tion prevention plan (Environment Canada, 2009). The method-ology presented on this handbook was accessed and, due to itscompleteness, it was the only one added to the previously selectedones, though it was not found directly through the review.

All the methodologies found through the reviews are brieflydescribed in Table 2.

Before selecting which quality tools to use on a given step of theCP program, the nine methodologies were analyzed and compared


to each other in order to identify similarities and differences.However, this analysis also revealed some gaps in these method-ologies and therefore the lack of a more comprehensive CP meth-odology. Hence, an additional procedure was considered in thisstudy: the synthesis of a new CPmethodology, more complete thanthe existing ones, so that the initial proposition of enhancing a CPprogram through the use of quality tools could be more effectiveand provide maximum benefits.

This new CP methodology, labeled standard methodology, wasbased on a comparative and complementary analysis of the meth-odologies presented in Table 2 by applying the following criteria:

- Frequency of appearance: the phases which appeared mostfrequently in the methodologies were included;

- Similarity: phases that were similar were combined;- Complementarity: certain steps featured on a few or just one

methodology were included in order to complement the most‘frequent’ phases, bridging the gaps identified in the previousmethodologies.

Afterward, the content of the nine CP methodologies wasanalyzed in order to define the content of each phase of the stan-dard methodology. At the same time, the opportunities to applybasic quality tools were identified. The quality tools presented inSection 2.2 were selected for this investigation, as they are verysimple to use and already well-known in organizations of severalfields.

Besides the use of quality tools, a few other improvements basedon the quality approach were also acknowledged and proposed.These enhancements were proposed on a hypothetical case study,as reported on Section 4.2.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Analysis of the selected methodologies

Table 3 shows the comparative analysis of the selected meth-odologies, whose phases were classified in the PDCA macro phasesand which revealed some interesting findings.

First of all, it was noticed that all of the methodologies had thesame basic elements as described by Stone (2006) e developmentof environmental policy, organization and planning, asses-sment/audit, identification of options for improvement, evaluationof options, implementation and monitoring and review e which


Table 3Comparative analysis of the selected CP methodologies.

(continued on next page)


Please cite this article in press as: Lopes Silva, D.A., et al., Quality tools applied to Cleaner Production programs: a first approach toward a newmethodology, Journal of Cleaner Production (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.026

Table 3 (continued)


resemble the main phases of the Deming Cycle. The dissimilaritiesin their phases derive from the differences in their approaches,ranging from more technical (focused on the data collection stage)to more managerial (focused on the whole process including itslong term continuity).

The main gaps identified are discussed below:

- All the methodologies have a partial view that focuses only onthe assessment and data collection phases, not shedding lighton topics such as the structuring of the program and the teamresponsible for it;

- There are fundamental topics addressed only by one meth-odology. For instance, the goal definition and the programschedule are quoted only by CETESB (2002), assessment ofwaste generation causes by CEBDS (2003) and the identifica-tion of CP opportunities are often cited, however only UNEPDTIE (1996) asserts the importance of focusing on and char-acterizing the most problematic wastes;

- Most of them basically describe each step and comment ontheir specific goal, but do not offer more in-depth details onhow to carry them out, or tools that could be employed, whichcan undermine the implementation by casting doubts or


causing the organization to waste time on procedures thatcould later prove to be inefficient;

- There is a lack of consensus around the terminology employed,since the same phase is labeled differently among the studiedmethodologies, as for instance the phases “CP/P2 team orga-nization” and “Planning and organization” or “Evaluation ofoptions” and “Technical, economic and environmentalevaluation”;

- All of them present, though in different degrees, the samemacro-phases described by Stone (2006) e development ofenvironmental policy, organization and planning, assessment/audit, identification of options for improvement, evaluation ofoptions, implementation and monitoring and review e whichalso resemble the main phases of the Deming Cycle;

- It should also be noticed that only one quality tool was sug-gested in these methodologies e the flowchart.

4.2. The proposed standard methodology

Based on the aforementioned criteria, the first steps selected forinclusion in the standard methodology were: “identification of P2/



CP opportunities”, which appeared on 8 methodologies; followedby “top management commitment/support”, “employee sensibili-zation/education/training”, “company pre-assessment” and“implementation of P2/CP options/measures/projects” with 5appearances each; and “planning and organization”, “team orga-nization” and “program re-evaluation/maintenance activities”with4 appearances.

Additional steps were selected among the remainders (from 1 to3 appearances). Two of themwere selected because they are relatedto the structuring of the CP team, or ecoteam. Two other steps(priorities and goals definition and program schedule) help detailthe program, as well as setting a time frame/schedule for the activ-ities to be performed.

The last three selected steps “definition of assessment focus/prioritization”, “assessment of waste generation causes” and“target and characterization of problem wastes” help focus on theteam and on the organization efforts, while keeping in mindeventual budget and time limitations, maximizing the efficiency ofthe CP measures.

Therefore, the standard methodology phases grouped accordingto the PDCA cycle, their goals and the selected quality tools andother improvements proposed are summarized in Table 4 anddiscussed below. In total, we suggested 21 improvement opportu-nities on 9 of the 12 phases from the standard CP methodologyestablished, including a set of 10 quality tools (previously showedin Section 2.2).

For a clearer understanding of the proposed standard, wepresented a hypothetical application in a Brazilian wood process-ing company that aims to minimize the generation of wood solidwaste in its process; it does not characterize a case study as it was

Table 4The proposed standard CP methodology and the suggested improvements.

PDCA CP phase Goal

P Top managementcommitment

Ensure endorsemeorganization’s top

Employee engagement Employee awareneto ensure their comprogram

Organizing a CleanerProduction team

Define the programschedule

Presentation of the CPmethodology to the team

Train team membeconcepts, methododynamics

Company pre-assessment Improve team knoproduction procesenvironmental imp

Data collection Gather data

Definition of performanceindicators

Define or change iused to assess theproject

Data evaluation Identify the maincauses of problem

Identification of optionsfor improvement

Select CP improvewith the best techand environmentaimpacts

D Implementation of changes Carry out the implC Evaluation of actions toward

CP/monitoring planAssess the programensure its continu

A Program continuity Establish a systemensure the continu


not developed inside the company (Yin, 1994). The followingqualitative and quantitative data collected on the company wereused only to exemplify the methodological changes proposedhere: it generates 1500 ton/year of wood solid waste, whichrepresents 70% of the total amount of its waste generation, anda rate of 0.094 m3/m3 of final product. The target is to reduce suchrate to 0.080 m3/m3.

4.2.1. Phase 1: top management commitmentThis phase aims to ensure the endorsement of the organization’s

top management to guarantee the implementation of the CPprogram, as well as its long term continuity, which is crucial toachieve a robust and lasting program (Case et al., 1995). This isa pivotal step and its lack is pointed out as one of the main barriersfor CP implementation (Moors et al., 2005; Murillo-Luna et al.,2011).

The methodologies analyzed address this topic in differentdegrees. There is an emphasis in establishing the Top ManagementCommitment Declaration which should proclaim the main objec-tives of the program, providing directions to the CP team activities(Case et al., 1995; CETESB, 2002; Environment Canada, 2009). Astrong qualitative emphasis was found among the studied meth-odologies and no tools were suggested to establish such Declara-tion, only its aims and content.

Basedon the quality approachwhich emphasizes the importanceof setting specific quantitative goals in order to facilitate processimprovements setting their focus and direction, we understand thatthe current CP methodologies focus only on qualitative topmanagement endorsement could be seen as a shortcominghindering and delaying the process development. Therefore, one

Proposed improvements

nt by themanagement

- Definition of the CP program qualitativeglobal targets- Use of Linear Graph

ss and trainingmitment to the

team and macro - Definition of program team responsibilitiesand roles- Use of 3W1H

rs in the CP basiclogy and work

- Training in PDCA cycle and basic qualitytools

wledge about theses and theiracts

- Pre-assessment of environmental indicatorsthat are already in place- Evaluation of previous works alreadycarried out in the company- Use of GUT matrix- Use of check sheet- Use of stratification

ndicators to besuccess of the

- Implementation of targets and indicators- Use of control and Linear Graph

CP focus ands

- Use of Pareto Chart- Use of GUT matrix- Use of brainstorming- Use of causeeeffect Diagram

ment actionsnical competencel and economic

- Use of brainstorming- Use of 5W2H- Use of benchmarking- Definition of prioritization matrix

ementation planresults and

ity- Use of 5W2H

atic method toity of the program


Table 5Roles and responsibilities of each team member category.

Category Roles and responsibilities

Leader Represents the team, coordinatesmeetings and the program activities,train team members, controlsinvestments and program execution.It is the project manager of the CPteam


improvement suggested is the establishment of environmentalperformance indicators and quantitative targets as well as macrodeadlines for the key ones, transforming the qualitative declarationinto a more tangible one. Indicators aim to display the environ-mental performance of a process or product regarding a givenenvironmental aspect (ISO, 1999). It is important to establish globaltargets for some key environmental performance indicators such aswaste and emissions generation and resources consumption. Obvi-ously, specific numbers cannot bewell defined in this early stage, butgeneral directions such as “reduction of 20% in the waste generatedby the whole company or the product’s life cycle in “x” years or by2014” can be specified, as will be detailed later.

These target definitions can be supported by the quality toolLinear Chart. The Linear chart provides a view of the history of eachkey indicator in a period of time, which can be used to establishtargets. Targets can be defined in several ways: a specific valueestablished by the strategic planning (i.e.: zero waste, completeelimination of dangerous materials), best historic mark (outliersshould be disregarded), external benchmark (industry, competi-tors) or legal requirements. Fig. 1 presents an example of targetdefinition applying the Linear Chart for one key environmentalindicator (solid waste) of a wood processing company.

In this case, the indicator is solid waste generation and thetarget set was 0.080m3 of wood solid waste/m3

final product (blackline), defined based on the second best historic value. According tothe quality management approach, it is important for the target tobe challenging and achievable.

It is important that the CP program be aligned with currentsustainability and environmental policies and actions as well astake into account in the definition of the targets regulatoryrequirements as well as stakeholders’ expectations.

4.2.2. Phase 2: employee engagementThis phase is well developed in the methodologies assessed,

with no improvement opportunity found. There is a consensusaround the crucial importance of employee awareness and trainingto ensure their commitment to the program, which is pivotal for itssuccess. For Neto and Jabbour (2010) one of the greatest challenges/barriers in the consolidation of CP programmes is to ensure theengagement of employees in this process, which has direct impli-cations for human management activities. In this sense, Khan(2008) stresses the importance of establishing a healthy, two-waycommunication to encourage participation and raise awareness.This level of integration can help to incorporate pollution preven-tion principles and practices into standard business practice(Environment Canada, 2009).

The training program should include some specific topics andthe participation of top management (Case et al., 1995). The maintopics should be according to Case et al. (1995) and Shen (1995): CPconcept, benefits and successful cases; organizational environ-mental policy and legal requirements; and top managementcommitment declaration (goals and targets).

Moreover, simple awareness actions are also suggested to becarried out. For instance, posters, memos, departmental meetings,

Solid waste generation (m³ of waste / m³ of product)

0,0830,103 0,098 0,090

0,070

0,120

0,000

0,030

0,060

0,090

0,120

0,150

Jan/11 Feb/11 Mar/11 Apr/11 May/11 Jun/11

Fig. 1. Example of linear graph employed to define environmental indicator targets.


lectures and lectures by guest speakers about successful cases andemployee award programs (CETESB, 2002).

4.2.3. Phase 3: organizing a Cleaner Production teamIn general, the methodologies assessed propose describing the

program team (very fewpresented their responsibilities) andmacroschedule. Regarding the team’s composition, there is a consensusthat it will depend on the size of the company and the nature of itsproduction (Shen, 1995). The team should involve members of allorganizational areas (UNIDO, 2002; Case et al., 1995; Shen, 1995)within the scope of the program defined in phase 1 and some teammembers may be selected for their technical or business expertise(USEPA, 1998) to participate in some parts of the process, such asfinancial experts to calculate CP projects financial impacts, paybackand return on investment or environmental experts in specificsubjects in order to understand more in depth some project issues.

It is important to note that the CP team is responsible fordesigning and executing the program. However, depending on thescope and challenges identified by the team, other subordinatedsmall groups or teams with specific tasks can be created as well assome activities will be deployed to line department execution.

The roles and responsibilities of each member were presentedonly by CETESB (2002) and CEBEDS (2003), in a casual and super-ficial way. Therefore, it is suggested that the roles and responsi-bilities be clearly described and members be assigned dutiesaccording to their category presented in the responsibility matrix inTable 5. These are basic roles and each team can establish others, ifnecessary.

The next step consists of establishing a macro schedule of theprogram. Only CETESB (2002) and CEBDS (2003) presented amodelfor it, which is a version of the traditional Gantt Graph. However,the authors suggest that CP team develops a macro plan based onthe quality tool 5W2H (Werkema,1995) - the 3W1H. Different fromthe traditional schedule model available for the methodologiesanalyzed, the 3W1H is more complete since it also establishes whois responsible and how the work is to be carried out. This facilitatesthe teammanagement and control. It is important to point out thatin this phase only macro activities are defined in order to have anoverall idea of the project that will be executed later during theimplementation stage. Table 6 shows an example of such a plan.

4.2.4. Phase 4: presentation of the CP methodology to the teamThis is a fundamental phase that is poorly addressed by the

methodologies studied. Only one reference describes it e the

Vice-leader Helps the leader and representshim in his absence

Secretary Creates updates and manages teamdocuments (meetings notes, actionplans, meeting arrangements, etc.)

Members(all)

Participate and promote the groupactivities, propose actions andimplement the action plans of theprogram

Champion Top management member thatsponsors and promotes the programat the board level and helps to solveintra-organizational problems


Table 6Example of CP team macro schedule plan employing the 3W1H.

What Who How When

Employeeawareness

Ecoteam Use of notices, postersand meetings in smallgroups

25/Feb

Organizationpre-assessment

Ecoteam Visit the exterior andinterior areas of thecompany

03/Mar

Data collection Ecoteam Use of quality tools,based on the objectivesestablished

04/Mare10/Jun

Assess the datacollected

Leader andvice-leader

Based on the datacollected and usingquality tools

11/June09/Jul

Table 7Example of GUT matrix applied to the system boundary definition.

Life cycle perspective(all unit processes)

G U T GUT System boundaries(selected unit processes)

Wood storage 1 1 1 1 DisregardedDrying e e e e (Not applicable)Screening 1 1 1 1 DisregardedMachining 5 3 3 45 SelectedInternal recycling

(bark and finesto boiler)

1 1 1 1 Disregarded

Finishing 1 3 1 3 SelectedPainting 1 2 1 2 SelectedOthers chemicals

applicatione e e e (Not applicable)

Assembly 1 2 1 2 SelectedPackaging 1 2 3 6 SelectedDispatch e e e e (Not applicable)


CEBDS (2003), which proposes that all ecoteam members bethoroughly trained in the CP basic concepts, methodology andworking dynamic. However, it is argued that the ecoteam must bealso qualified in quality managementmethods and tools such as thePDCA cycle and basic quality tools presented in Section 2.2, as theycan be employed in several phases of the CP program. Thus, whensuggesting the integration of quality tools in the CP program,substantial background knowledge about the functioning mecha-nism of these tools is crucial for the ecoteam to adequately performall of the required activities in which such tools are applicable.

4.2.5. Phase 5: company pre-assessmentMost CP methodologies point out the need for a quick qualita-

tive assessment of the organization’s activities in order to improvethe ecoteam’s knowledge about the processes and their environ-mental impacts, thereby preparing them for the next steps. Theysuggest this should be carried out by visits to all organizationalareas for a perspective of the impacts, to understand the overalllayout of the processes, their flows andmain unit processes (Abbasiand Abassi, 2004; Avsar and Demirer, 2008). In addition, it is sug-gested that the ecoteam also pre-assesses the environmentalindicators already in place (in accordance with the CP’s goals),evaluate any previous work already carried out in the company andbuild the system boundary of the CP program.

Environment Canada (2009) proposes the definition of a systemboundary within the “baseline review” phase of CP/P2 initiatives,based on the life cycle perspective (i.e. extraction of raw materialsand inputs, product manufacturing, product use, end of life stages).It is considered which stages, in the life cycle of a product, processor service cause the greatest environmental impacts. This strategye only highlighted in this CP methodology analyzed e is relevantbecause allows a better definition of scope. The authors consideredto incorporate this strategy in the current phase e company pre-assessment e because looking to the standard CP methodologyestablished, it precedes data collection activities, thereby, it couldpromote a better orientation during data collection phase. Thesystem boundary is the most important result from pre-assessment.

To define the system boundaries, Environment Canada (2009)states that are necessary to list all life cycle phases (unit processes)involved, to thereby selecting the most important unit processes interms of environment impact in view of the Top ManagementCommitment Declaration defined. On the other hand, no tools ortechniques were suggested to establish such system boundary.Therefore, one suggestion is considering tools that can help assessand define the system boundary, like the GUT matrix, as it is appro-priate to prioritizequalitative aspects (Tange, 2004; deMoraes,1999).

The GUT matrix assesses three aspects qualitatively: gravity ofa problem (regarding its impacts), urgency (when it must be


addressed), tendency (the problem tends to worsen, stabilize orimprove). The meaning of these criteria will change according tothe focus studied. In the case of the aforementioned wood solidwaste, the following criteria could be employed:

- Gravity (G) e level of environmental impact of each materi-al/waste analyzed in each area. It can be classified as 1 e lowimpact; 3 e intermediate impact; 5 e high impact;

- Urgency (U) e material/waste costs (transport, treatment,recycling and disposal). It could be classified as: 1 e low cost; 2e intermediate cost; 5 e high cost.

- Tendency (T) e material/waste volume: 1 e decrease/stabili-zation; increase e 3.

With the GUT matrix, all unit processes listed can be ranked interms of these three criteria. Table 7 provides an example ofa system boundary definition within the case considered here:wood solid waste generation in a wood processing company. Inview of the example studied, the life cycle perspective adopted wasa gate to gate approach.

The decision on where the system boundary should be set is animportant one, because it will strongly influence the subsequentphases of the CP methodology. Additionally, others tools andtechniques can be applied to define the system boundaries, as theLife Cycle Assessment (LCA) technique, for example.

4.2.6. Phase 6: data collectionThis is a phase where there is a major consensus among the

methodologies studied regarding material balance and is one of thefew inwhich there is a suggestion to use quality tools e namely theflowchart. Shen (1995), UNEP DTIE (1996), CETESB (2002), CEBDS(2003), Environment Canada (2009) and USEPA (1998) point outtwomajor activities in collecting data: create qualitative flowchartsof the overall production process and/or its main activitiesdepending on the project scope, and quantify all inputs and outputspreviously identified. In other words, the qualitative flowcharts andthe quantification of inputs/outputs should follow the systemboundaries defined in phase 5.

In creating qualitative flowcharts, it is crucial that all inputs(materials, energy) and outputs (products, waste, and emissions) ofeach unit process be identified (Werkema, 1995). Fig. 2 shows anexample of such a flowchart for a specific unit process emachininge of the wood processing case, highlighting its wood solid wastegeneration.

Once all inputs and outputs were identified and validated, theirquantification began. In this case, CEBDS (2003) and EnvironmentCanada (2009) suggest they should also be quantified financially


- Wooden particleboard- Electricity energy- Lubricating oil

- Electricity energy- Lubricating oil

PLANING

SQUARING

- Wooden sawdust- Lubricating oil used- Particleboard fines

- Shavings- Lubricating oil used

INPUTS OUTPUTSOPERATIONS

Fig. 2. Example of a qualitative flowchart. Note: output flows highlighted in bold referto the solid waste generated.


in order to understand their impacts on costs and profits. At thisstage, the analyzed methodologies simply state that data must becollected e and CEBDS (2003) and Environment Canada (2009)present some tables for data collection e but no tool was pointedout for performing it. Therefore, we understand that two qualitytools could help in this stage: Check Sheet and Stratification.

The check sheet is a structured form for collecting and analyzingdata (Tague, 2004). Its use is suggested in this stage to facilitate andoptimize data collection and organization, since there is a great dealof data being collected and collated. Table 8 presents an applicationof the check sheet for thewood solid waste data collection/collationfor the same example presented in Fig. 2.

The Example in Table 8 could also include input flows of rawmaterials and energy consumption as showed in Fig. 2. However,for thewood solid waste case examined here, it was not considered.

Another quality tool that can be employed is the stratification,which separates data gathered from a variety of sources in order toidentify patterns (Tague, 2004), resulting in the identification of themain focus of a problem. For instance, it could be applied tounderstand the solid waste focus of the data presented in Table 8.To do so, data about each type of solid waste that occurs in eachmachine, shift or operators of the plaining process should becollected, as this is the major solid waste generator. Therefore, thepattern of the solid waste generation could be identified, in otherwords, if it occurs in the same intensity in all shifts, machines oroperators or if not, which is its major focus.

Tague (2004) identifies some examples of different sources thatmight require data to be stratified, such as: equipments, shifts,materials, departments, suppliers, products, time of day, and day ofweek.

4.2.7. Phase 7: definition of performance indicatorsOnly CETESB (2002) and CEBDS (2003) explicitly suggest this

phase, pointing out the need for defining the indicators (if they donot exist) or immediately change it after data collection as they arecrucial to assess the success of any project implementation. Themethodologies analyzed propose several general environmentalindicators, pointing out that these methodologies will depend onthe focus of each program.

The authors agree on that, however and based on the qualityapproach, they understand that the target indicators defined in

Table 8Example of check sheet applied to the processes presented in Fig. 2.

Solid waste Plaining(m3/day)

Squaring(m3/day)

Total(m3/day)

Wooden sawdust 0.040 0.000 0.040Particleboard fines 0.020 0.000 0.020Shavings 0.000 0.003 0.003


phase 1 need to be cascaded down in specific indicators for eacharea, shift, machine or operator, depending on the focus identifiedin phase 6, according to the stratification tool procedure. Therefore,the program targets defined by the top management wouldcascaded be down into the company’s main processes. In doing so,a company can easily identify the root causes and, consequently,solve the problem and achieve the target.

Moreover, if new indicators are created it is suggested toestablish targets aligned with the ones defined by the topmanagement in phase 1 and the same quality tools and orientationsfor target establishment employed in defining the global programtargets can be used here. It is important to ensure that the sum ofthe lower level indicators totalize the top management targets setin phase one.

4.2.8. Phase 8: data evaluationThe methodologies studied undertake this phase slightly

differently, however it can be said that this phase intends toidentify the main problems to be addressed by the ecoteam, as wellas its main causes. Founded on the results of phases 6 and 7, theysuggest the evaluation and selection of the main focus based on thequantity and toxicity of materials used and the waste generated(CEBDS, 2003; CETESB, 2002; UNEP DTIE, 1996; Shen, 1995), theapplicable legal requirements (CEBDS, 2003; CETESB, 2002), costinvolved with acquisition, treatment, disposal (Case et al., 1995;CEBDS, 2003; CETESB, 2002; Environment Canada, 2009), proba-bility of fines (CEBDS, 2003) and employee health risk (CETESB,2002). However, they do not present detailed tools to perform it,only some general tables in CEBDS (2003) and Environment Canada(2009).

In this phase, we understand that some quality tools could beemployed to facilitate its development. First, in the evaluation andselection of the main focus stage, companies could employ thePareto Chart due to its simplicity and clarity of results. The use ofthe Pareto Chart and other quality tools in this phase could beoptimized if the data was gathered using the check sheet and thenstratified. Applying the Pareto’s 80-20 principle, themain focuses ofany problem can be easily identified (Tague, 2004). Fig. 3 shows anexample of the Pareto Chart applied to the wood solid wastegeneration case, stratified by the unit processes from the systemboundaries defined.

It is evident that machining, packing and finishing areas areresponsible for the majority of waste generated (more than 80%) ofthe wood solid waste. This means that most of the solution effortsmust be employed in these areas in order to solve the problem ofwood solid waste generated.

In addition to the quantitative analysis with the Pareto Chart, itis suggested to perform a qualitative one, considering the envi-ronmental impacts in order to identify the areas with the highestquantitative and qualitative impacts. In this case, the GUT matrixcan be helpful, and its use is also proposed here like before in phase3 (pre-assessment), considering the same three criteria.

The GUT matrix results in this phase can generate differentconclusions in comparison to phase 3, since the life cycleperspective was not taken, and now there are much more datacollected and knowledge generated about the study. So, themeaning and value of G, U, and T criteria could strongly change, forexample, because of material/waste costs changes, variation ofinput/output flows and inclusion of others environmental aspectsduring the inventory process in phase 6.

Table 9 presents an example of the GUT matrix applied to thewood solid waste discussed. It can be seen that, when analyzing theenvironmental impacts qualitatively, the priority order is slightlydifferent compared to the one seen in the Pareto Chart: machiningand packaging remain the most important areas, but finishing was


Fig. 3. Example of Pareto Chart for data evaluation.


displaced by the painting area. Therefore, in this case, the mainfocus points would be machining, packaging and painting as theypresent the major qualitative and quantitative impacts.

Following the focus identification, the methodologies studiedsuggest more in depth data collection and analysis throughmass/materials/energy balances (Shen, 1995; UNEP DTIE, 1996;CEBDS, 2003). Shen (1995) and Environment Canada (2009) pointout that mass balances are useful to reveal quantities lost due tofugitive emissions or due to accumulation in equipment, allowingto identify waste sources and to better understand the origins ofeach waste stream. Once the mass balances are ready, an assess-ment following the same criteria employed previously in theselection of the key analysis focus should be performed (CEBDS,2003; UNEP DTIE, 1996). In this stage, we suggest using the Par-eto Chart and GUT matrix to identify the main focus.

The final stage in this phase is the identification of solutions forthe problems identified in themass balance results, which accordingto themethodologies studied, is approached differently.While UNEPDTIE (1996) and CETESB (2002) move straight to the discussion anddefinition of available measures and technologies that could be usedto solve the problems, CEBDS (2003) follows the quality manage-ment approach by firstly discussing possible causes and then themeasures and its economic and environmental evaluation.

In this stage, we propose the joint use of two tools e brain-storming and causeeeffect diagram e in order to identify theproblem root causes, as recommended by Werkema (1995) andThomas (1995). The latter suggests performing a cause and effectanalysis when the root cause of a particular waste stream isunknown or unclear; with the fishbone diagram possibly being theeasiest tool available. As for brainstorming, it is more frequentlyused to develop solutions to the problem; however, it can also be

Table 9Example of application of GUT matrix.

Areas G U T GUT Prioritiesorder

Machining 5 3 3 45 1�

Packaging 1 1 3 3 3�

Painting 1 5 3 15 2�

Finishing 1 2 1 2 4�

Assembly 1 1 1 1 5�


used to help identify possible causes. Another author, Card (1998)confirms that working teams that usually develop causeeeffectdiagrams in brainstorming sessions have more possibilities forsuccess to solve problems.

It is advised that the ecoteam, following the brainstormingmethodology and principles, first identify ideas about the maincauses of the problems identified in the areas shown in Table 9.After that, these ideas should be classified into the fishbonediagram categories. Then, new rounds of ideas could be generatedin order to identify the root cause(s) until the group realizes theyhave achieved this. A root cause is the one that once addressed willsolve the problem in focus (Werkema, 1995). Fig. 4 presents anexample of possible root causes of the wood solid waste generatedin the machining area presented earlier, which would be the focusof the action plan. It should also be carried out for the other focusedareas of packaging and painting.

4.2.9. Phase 9: identification of options for improvementThis phase aims to select the CP improvement actions. All of the

methodologies analyzed refer to this phase to some degree ofa more or less detail. However, there is consensus that the alter-natives should be assessed based on their technical, environmentaland economic viability. CEBDS (2003) states that the alternativeschosen should be those that present the best technical feasibilityand economic benefits. Environment Canada (2009) suggestsincluding, as a priority, the options for improvement which willprovide the greatest ability to eliminate the substances of concernat the source, reducing liability and further costs associated withmanaging these substances.

The technical feasibility should consider factors such as imple-mentation difficulty, skill requirements and adaptability toproduction variation, acceptance by stakeholders and if the alter-natives selected are well established, accepted and will achievedesired results (Environment Canada, 2009; Thomas, 1995). Forprojects that involve a new technology and/or technique, a pilottest could be required; if the option is not considered feasible, itshould not be discarded, but deferred for consideration at a latertime, when circumstances may be different (Case et al., 1995). Theenvironmental evaluation assesses potential environmental bene-fits such as reduction in consumption, in organic, inorganic andtoxic charges, toxicity levels, spills, and questions like product


Materials

Neglect

Lack of training

Particleboard with bad quality

Low moisture content

Incomplete operational documents

Old documents

Milling machineinefficient

Old machines

Root cause

Man

Method Machine

Solid Waste

Fig. 4. Example of causeeeffect diagram for the wood solid waste case in the machining area.

Table 10Example of prioritization matrix.

Improvement options(root cause e old machines)

Rates Total Classification

1 3 5

Replace old machines III I II 16 1�

Optimize machinemaintenance procedure

IIII I I 12 3�

Replace critical parts of theold machines for newones

III II I 14 2�

Change the cutting systemof all machines of themachining area

IIII II 10 Disregard


design or reformulation, energy recovery, on-site reuse, recyclingor recovery (CEBDS, 2003; CETESB, 2002; Environment Canada,2009). Finally, the economic evaluation of the alternatives iscarried out by calculating the traditional investment indicatorssuch as return rate, net present value and payback (CETESB, 2002;CEBDS, 2003; Shen, 1995). Besides these evaluations, Shen (1995)suggests an institutional feasibility analysis, covering aspects suchas managerial practices, financial practices and procedures,personnel practices, training requirements and accountabilityissues, in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of thecompany’s involvement in the implementation and operation ofsuch program.

Theworkreportedhereproposesadifferentproceduretoestablishthe solutions, which is based on the quality management approach.Firstly, the ecoteam, following the brainstorming methodology,generates potential solutions for each of the root causes previouslyidentified. In this stage it is important that the ecoteam stimulatesinput from all levels of the company, hearing and evaluating thesuggestions and ideas formulated by the personnel (Case et al.,1995).Thebenchmarking tool can alsobe employedhere inorder to identifybest practices inside and outside the company and its industry.

Once the ideas are generated, they must be prioritized. A simpleway to perform this is using a prioritization matrix in which eachsolution idea is rated by each ecoteam member through its tech-nical feasibility. Table 10 shows an example of such matrix appliedto the root cause e old machines e identified in Fig. 4.

This procedure should be carried out for all previously selectedroot causes. It is advised not to select many options for each rootcause, since the higher the number of options, the more complexthe technical, economic and environmental evaluations will be. Foreach improvement option selected economic and environmentalevaluations must be carried out and in cases when these evalua-tions show that the option does not adhere to company’s criteria, itshould be replaced for another option identified in the prioritiza-tion matrix. These evaluations can be carried out as proposed bythe methodologies analyzed and described at the beginning of thissection.


Once the final improvement actions are selected, the next stepproposed is to develop a detailed action plan which should also beapproved by the top management. The action plan is the final resultfrom the Plan stage of the PDCA cycle, which is the means by whichthe ecoteam has to achieve their goals. The use of 5W2H isproposed for developing the action plan, as it is the most commonand effective tool used to elaborate action plans according toWerkema (1995). Table 11 shows an example of this tool applied tothe “replace old machines” activity, described in Table 10.

4.2.10. Phase 10: implementation of changesIn this phase the actions selected should be implemented

according to the previously defined action plan. It represents the Dostage of the PDCA cycle.

4.2.11. Phase 11: evaluation of actions for CP/monitoring planThere is a consensus on this phase, although somemethodologies

present it in two different phases. Its main objective is to establisha procedure for assessingwhether the planned targets have beenmetand if the planned actions are being implemented. It corresponds tothe Check phase of the Deming Cycle presented in Table 3.

A monitoring plan must be created and approved by the eco-team members and the top management (CEBDS, 2003). This plan


Table 11Example of a 5W2H action plan.

WHAT Replace 3 old machines by new onesWHO John Kuhn with the support of the

electrical maintenance teamWHERE Machining areaWHEN 12/12/2012WHY The old machines were identified as

the major causes of the wood solidwaste generated in the machining area

HOW Filling out the standard replacementrequest

HOW MUCH US$ 100,000 for the 3 machines


should define thewhole evaluation process including the indicatorsand targets to be assessed, how the data are going to be collected,who is responsible for each monitoring task, evaluation meetingsschedule, its periodicity as well as the procedure in the case of notachieving the planned results (CEBDS, 2003). It is also important tocalculate the economic gains and effective costs from the imple-mentation of the actions (CETESB, 2002; Environment Canada,2009). Environment Canada (2009) shows a summary table ofcosts estimates, where a detailed evaluation of costs to purchaseand use the proposed actions identified is required.

The ecoteam (or part of it) will be the overseeing for monitoringand reporting the progress of the improvement actions imple-mented on the organization. In this sense, Environment Canada(2009) provides a summary of the activities which will be moni-tored using some tables for that. However no tools are suggestedand we understand that it could be done considering the 5W2Hquality tool, previously addressed in phases 3 and 9. Bellow followsTable 12 shows an example of this tool applied to the action plandescribed in Table 11 about the old machines substitution case.

Pojasek (2002) and CEBDS (2003) stress that along with thetracking of wastes and projects results, a proper program docu-mentation must be prepared and maintained. This documentationmay include reports of meetings, photographs and videos con-fronting the before and after situation with the improvementactions implemented.

4.2.12. Phase 12: program continuityThe majority of the methodologies analyzed imply that this is

a continuous program and provide some guidance in how toperform it. The main goal is to guarantee that the programwill last

Table 12Example of a 5W2H monitoring and reporting plan.

WHAT To monitor the 3 new machinesimplemented working.

WHO John Kuhn (from ecoteam) with thesupport of the electrical maintenanceteam

WHEN Every week, for one monthWHERE

(Where it will be reported)It must be reported considering thesolid waste generation indicator andthe script maintenance of the machines

WHY The new machines were implanted inthe machining area to reduce the woodsolid waste generation, their work needto be monitored until the process bestandardized

HOW John Kuln need to register if the 3machines are working properly, and ifthe wood solid waste still is generatedand its amount, considering the solidwaste generation indicator

HOW MUCH US$ 100,00 for the 3 machines per week


for an extended period of time, not discontinued as soon as diffi-culties arise or the initial targets are met. According to CETESB(2002), the program must be continued disregarding its first posi-tive or negative results. In the case of achieving the targets, thisauthor suggests that the program be restarted as soon as the targetsare met by establishing new ones and improving the ongoingprojects. On the other hand, if they are not met, the cycle mustrestart by identifying the causes of these results and establishingcorrective measures, which is in line with the quality managementphilosophy of continuous improvement.

We understand that this phase resembles the A-phase of theDeming Cycle, hence and two improvements are suggested. First, itis important that the CP team and the topmanagement reassess thewhole program in order to identify improvement opportunities.Secondly, the successful action must be standardized throughoutthe organization.

5. Conclusions

This paper aimed to present the integration of quality tools intoa standard Cleaner Productionmethodology as away to facilitate CPimplementation and to tackle some of the main barriers pointedout in the extant literature, mainly the limited use of systematictechniques and tools. This objective was achieved through theanalysis of nine academic and practitioner methodologies and theintegration of quality tools. The analysis of the current methodol-ogies points out some shortcomings, namely:

- All the methodologies have a partial view since they focus onlyon the assessment and data collection phases, not sheddinglight on topics such as the structuring of the program and theteam responsible for it. Moreover, only a few methodologiesaddress fundamental topics: goal definition and programschedule are only cited by CETESB (2002) and CEBDS (2003),and system boundaries definition cited by EnvironmentCanada (2009);

- There is a lack of consensus regarding the terminology used, asthe same phase is labeled differently among the studiedmethodologies, i.e., “Evaluation of options” and “Technical,economic and environmental evaluation”;

- Most of them basically describe each step and comment ontheir specific goal, however many details or tools that can beemployed in each phase are not presented, hence resulting inexecution problems e only one quality tool (flowchart) wassuggested in these methodologies.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the standard methodologyproposed in this paper addresses these shortcomings as it is morecomprehensive and easier to implement than any individualmethodology. It is more comprehensive because it was developedbased on the complementarity of the nine studied methodologies,while addressing some of their scope issues pointed out earlier. It isalso easier as it explains which and how very simple quality toolscan be employed to achieve results for each phase.

The results showed 21 improvement opportunities on 9 of the12 phases from the standard CP methodology established,including a set of 10 quality tools.

It can also be said that the main focus of the standard meth-odology improvements proposed in this paper was on the Planphase of the PDCA cycle. Most part of the improvements suggestedand explained was related to this phase, because this is the mostimportant part of the PDCA cycle. All major decisions taken in thisstage have a direct influence on the continuation of the remainingcycle phases, and when a good Plan is established it is more likelythat the other phases will also have good implementation success.



Therefore, it can be expected that some benefits of a CP programwill be maximized and the time consumed by each activity will bereduced by applying this proposed methodology.

This research is not without limitations. The main one is the factthat the proposed methodology was not fully tested in the field,there was only partial data collection in order to discuss some of itsphases. Secondly, it carries the scope and methodology bias of thenine methodologies assessed.

Further research could focus on developing a detailed guidelinefor the methodology presented in this paper that might be used bysmall and medium enterprises.

Finally, further developments are needed, in order to presentcontributions and find ways to intensify the dissemination ofCleaner Production concepts and practices in the industry sector.The most obvious is the practical application of the proposedmethodology in order to assess its suitability, efficacy andsimplicity of use. More advanced quality tools could also be studiedto eventually be included in the methodology.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank three Brazilian GovernmentalFunding Agencies e The Coordination for Graduate PersonnelImprovement (CAPES), The National Council for Scientific and Tech-nological Development (CNPq) and The São Paulo Research Founda-tion (FAPESP)e for the scholarships granted. The authors alsowouldliketothanktheanonymousreferees fortheir importantcontribution.

References

Abbasi, G.Y., Abbassi, B.E., 2004. Environmental assessment for paper and cardboardindustry in Jordane a cleaner production concept. J. Clean. Prod.12 (4), 321e326.

Allenby, B., 2004. Clean production in context: an information infrastructureperspective. J. Clean. Prod. 12 (8e10), 833e839.

Avsar, E., Demirer, G.N., 2008. Cleaner production opportunity assessment study inSEKA Balikesir pulp and paper mill. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (4), 422e431.

Cagno, E., Trucco, P., Tardini, L., 2005. Cleaner production and profitability: analysisof 134 industrial pollution prevention (P2) project reports. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (6),593e605.

Callia, R.C., Guerrini, F.M., de Castro, M., 2009. The impact of Six Sigma in theperformanceof apollutionpreventionprogram. J. Clean. Prod.17 (15),1303e1310.

Card, D.N., 1998. Learning from our mistakes with defect causal analysis. IEEESoftware 15 (1), 56e63.

Case, L., Mendicino, L., Thomas, D., 1995. Developing and maintain a pollutionprevention program. In: Freeman, H.M. (Ed.), Industrial Pollution PreventionHandbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 99e120.

CEBDS (Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development), 2003. Guia daprodução mais Limpa e faça você mesmo. http://www.pmaisl.com.br/publicacoes/guia-da-pmaisl.pdf (accessed 16.01.12.).

CETESB (Company of Environmental Sanitation Technology of the Sao Paulo State),2002. Manual para implementação de um programa de Prevenção à Poluição,fourth ed.. http://www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/tecnologia/producao_limpa/documentos/manual_implem.pdf (accessed 16.01.12.).

Coelho, A.C.D., 2004. Avaliação da aplicação da metodologia de produção maislimpa UNIDO/UNEP no setor de saneamento e estudo de caso: EMBASA S.A.M.Sc. dissertation. Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental, UniversidadeFederal da Bahia, Brazil.

Cooper, H., 1998. Synthesizing Research: a Guide for Literature Reviews. Sage,Thousand Oaks.

de Moraes, A., 1999. Considering ergonomic problems and the hierarchic inter-vention in a Brazilian phonographic industrial plant. In: Lee, G.C.H. (Ed.),Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety. IOS Press.

Dovi, V.G., Friedler, F., Huisingh, D., Klemes, J.J., 2009. Cleaner energy for sustainablefuture. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (10), 889e895.

Environment Canada, 2009. Pollution Prevention Handbook. http://www.ec.gc.ca/planp2-p2plan/default.asp?lang¼En&n¼56875F44-1 (accessed 31.08.12.).

Fischer, P., 2006. Canadian federal government requirements and support tools forpollution prevention planning. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (6e7), 629e635.

Giannetti, B.F., Bonilla, S.H., Silva, I.R., Almeida, C.M.V.B., 2008. Cleaner productionpractices in a medium size gold-plated jewelry company in Brazil: when littlechanges make the difference. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (10), 1106e1117.

González, P.R., 2005. Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption:a study of the Spanish pulp and paper industry. Bus. Strat. Environ.14 (1), 20e37.

Healey, M.J., Watts, D., Battista, L.L., 1998. Pollution Prevention OpportunityAssessments: a Practical Guide. John Wiley & Son, New York.


Hilson, G., 2000. Barriers to implement cleaner technologies and cleaner produc-tion (CP) practices in the mining industry: a case study of the Americas. Miner.Eng. 13 (7), 699e717.

Hilson, G., 2003. Defining “cleaner production” and “pollution prevention” in themining context. Miner. Eng. 16 (4), 305e321.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14031, 1999. EnvironmentalManagement e Environmental Performance Evaluation e Guidelines.

Kalavapudi, M., 1995. Pollution prevention incentives, barriers, regulations and stateprogrammes. In: Freeman, H.M. (Ed.), Industrial Pollution Prevention Hand-book. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 85e97.

Khan, Z., 2008. Cleaner production: an economical option for ISO certification indeveloping countries. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (1), 22e27.

Kupusovic, T., Midzic, S., Silajdzic, I., Bjelavac, J., 2007. Cleaner production measuresin small-scale slaughterhouse industry e case study in Bosnia and Herzegovina.J. Clean. Prod. 15 (4), 378e383.

Luken, R., Rompaey, F.V., 2008. Drivers for and barriers to environmentally soundtechnology adoption by manufacturing plants in nine developing countries.J. Clean. Prod. 16 (1 Suppl. 1), S67eS77.

Mestl, H.E.S., Aunan, K., Fang, J., Seip, H.M., Skjelvik, J.M., Vennemo, H., 2005.Cleaner production as climate investment e integrated assessment in TaiyuanCity, China. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (1), 57e70.

Miller, G., Burke, J., McComas, C., Dick, K., 2008. Advancing pollution prevention andcleaner production e USA’s contribution. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (6), 665e672.

Moors, E.H.M., Mulder, K.F., Vergragt, P.J., 2005. Towards cleaner production: barriersand strategies in thebasemetalsproducing industry. J. Clean.Prod.13 (7), 657e668.

Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garces-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., 2011. Barriers to the adoptionof proactive environmental strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (13), 1417e1425.

Neto, A.S., Jaboour, C.J.C., 2010. Guidelines for improving the adoption of cleanerproduction in companies through attention to nontechnical factors: a literaturereview. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 4 (19), 4217e4229.

Pandey, A.K., Brent, A.C., 2008. Application of Technology Management Strategiesand Methods to Identify and Assess Cleaner Production Options: Cases in theSouth African Automotive Industry. http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/8984/Pandey_Application%282008%29.pdf?sequence¼1(accessed 30.08.12.).

Pojasek, R.B., 1999. Zeroing in. Environ. Qual. Manag. 8 (4), 93e97.Pojasek, R.B., 2002. Merging pollution prevention into quality. Environ. Qual.

Manag. 11 (3), 85e90.Ried, D., Sanders, N.R., 2005. OperationsManagement: an Integrated Approach. Wiley.Rose, K.H., 2005. Project Quality Management: Why, What and How. J. Ross

Publishing, Boca Raton.Shen, T.T., 1995. Industrial Pollution Prevention. Springer, Berlin.Shi, H., Peng, S.Z., Liu, Y., Zhong, P., 2008. Barriers to the implementation of cleaner

production in Chinese SMEs: government, industry and expert stakeholders’perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (7), 842e852.

Staniskis, J.K., Stasiskiene, Z., 2003. Promotion of cleaner production investments:international experience. J. Clean. Prod. 11 (6), 619e628.

Stone, L., 2000. When case studies are not enough: the influence of corporateculture and employee attitudes on the success of cleaner production initiatives.J. Clean. Prod. 8 (5), 353e359.

Stone, L., 2006. Limitations of cleaner production programs as organisationalchange agents. I. Achieving commitment and on-going improvement. J. Clean.Prod. 14 (1), 1e14.

Tague, N.R., 2004. The Quality Toolbox. ASQ Quality Press.Thiruchelvam, M., Kumar, K., Visvanathani, C., 2003. Policy options to promote

energy efficient and environmentally sound technologies in small- andmedium-scale industries. Energ Policy 31 (10), 977e987.

Thomas, S.T., 1995. Facility Manager’s Guide to Pollution Prevention and WasteMinimization. BNA Books, Washington, D. C.

UNEP DTIE (United Nations Environmental Programme e Division of Technology,Industry and Environment), 1996. Cleaner Production e a Resource TrainingPackage, first ed. United Nations Publication, Paris.

UNEP DTIE (United Nations Environmental Programme e Division of Technology,Industry and Environment), 2012. Understanding Resource Efficient andCleaner Production. http://www.unep.fr/scp/cp/understanding/concept.htm(accessed 30.01.12.).

UNIDO (United Nations industrial development organization), 2002. Manual on theDevelopment of Cleaner Production Policies e Approaches and Instruments.Guidelines for National Cleaner Production Centres and Programmes. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/9750_0256406e.pdf (accessed 22.12.11.).

Unnikrishnan, S., Hegde, D.S., 2006. An analysis of cleaner production and itsimpact on health hazards in the workplace. Environ. Int. 32 (1), 87e94.

USEPA (United States Environmental ProtectionAgency),1998. Principles of PollutionPrevention and Cleaner Production: an International Training Course (Partici-pant’s Manual). http://www.p2pays.org/ref/02/01993.pdf (accessed 24.01.12.).

Wang, J., 1999. China’s national cleaner production strategy. Environ. Impact.Assess. Rev. 19 (5e6), 437e456.

Werkema,M.C.C.,1995.Asferramentasdaqualidadenogerenciamentodeprocessos,vol.1. FundaçãoChristiano Ottoni, Escola de Engenharia da UFMG, Belo Horizonte,MG.

Yin, R., 1994. Case Study Research Design and Methods. COSMOS Corporation,Washington D.C.

Zero Waste Network, 2012. Region 6 Success Stories Database. http://www.zerowastenetwork.org/success/index.cfm (accessed 02.07.12.).

Zilahy, G., 2004. Organisational factors determining the implementation of cleanerproduction measures in the corporate sector. J. Clean. Prod. 12 (4), 311e319.


quality tools applied to cleaner production programs

Documents