Next Article in Journal
Chlorobenzene Oxidation over Phosphotungstic-Acid-Coated Cerium Oxide: Synergistic Effect of Phosphotungstic and Cerium Oxide and Inhibition Mechanism of Sulfur Dioxide
Next Article in Special Issue
The Application of Environmental, Social and Governance Standards in Operational Risk Management in SSC in Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Impact of Multiple Factors on CO2 Emissions: Insights from Quantile Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Packaging in Sustainable Omnichannel Returns—The Perspective of Young Consumers in Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/su16062244
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification of Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing Implementation—The Perspective of Manufacturers of Parts and Components for Agricultural Transport

by
Przemysław Niewiadomski
1 and
Agnieszka Stachowiak
2,*
1
Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Zielona Góra, 50 Podgórna Str., 65-417 Zielona Góra, Poland
2
Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, 2 J. Rychlewskiego Str., 60-965 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(6), 2244; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062244
Submission received: 15 February 2024 / Revised: 28 February 2024 / Accepted: 5 March 2024 / Published: 7 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sustainability Research from Poznan University of Technology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable manufacturing involves executing manufacturing processes in a way that follows the sustainable development principles, striving to combine economic, ecologic and social goals. The expected benefits of sustainable manufacturing are a lower cost and an improved environmental impact and well-being of employees. The main goal of the research was to identify barriers to the implementation of sustainable manufacturing principles. Achieving the main goal required the implementation of partial goals: (G1) designing the research tool based on the specific features of sustainable manufacturing identified based on the literature research; (G2) identifying of barriers that limit and/or prevent the implementation of sustainable manufacturing; and (G3) assessing the significance of individual factors limiting (preventing) implementation. The research was conducted in the agricultural transport sector and the subjects of the research were manufacturers of parts and subassemblies for agricultural transport. The ranking of limitations and barriers enables the definition of recommendations for companies willing to implement sustainable manufacturing concepts.

1. Introduction

The management paradigm that dominated in the past, i.e., profit maximization, although it is still often followed, is nowadays competing with a desire to achieve various goals resulting from the expectations of individual stakeholder groups [1]. Moreover, the classic paradigms of visionary leadership, which takes into account the unpredictability of the environment, or organic leadership, which additionally assumes the ability of self-organization of systems and complexity, are no longer leading [2]. The consequence of this paradigm shift is a new business environment in which opportunities for the flourishing of intelligent organizations are emphasized [3] and flat structures capable of effective communication, continuous learning [4], and flexible operation [5] are promoted. From the perspective of management, this forces an evolution in the culture and changes in the structure, strategy and communicating schemes. It is therefore necessary to adapt traditional organizational forms to new requirements.
Taking into account changes such as globalization, growing environmental dynamics, hyper-competition, supply chain disruptions [6], distribution evolution [7] or information technologies development, and significant progress in science, new paradigms [8], useful in the changing and complex conditions of the operation of modern organizations, are needed. Hence, the authors point to the concept of sustainable manufacturing as the approach that responds to contemporary challenges and follows legal regulations. Sustainable manufacturing (SM) involves manufacturing products in economically sound processes that minimize negative environmental impacts while conserving energy and natural resources, while at the same time enhancing employee, community and product safety. However, since the implementation of sustainable manufacturing is not common, the authors aim to identify the barriers related to its implementation. The research is conducted among manufacturers of parts and subassemblies for means of agricultural transport, as agriculture is a sector crucial for the economy. Companies in this sector are aware of the great development challenges resulting from macrotrends and understand the need to implement the concept of sustainable manufacturing, yet a number of barriers limiting this adaptation are recognized. Some of the barriers are internal and result from internal beliefs, as well as the organizational or technological culture, while some are external and result from the existing institutional and legal environment.
In light of the above, this topic seems to be interesting for both academics and business practitioners. The research problem, namely the identification of the barriers to the implementation of sustainable manufacturing, is important. Its solution may significantly contribute to developing solutions enabling the elimination or minimization of the implementation barriers to sustainable manufacturing.
The research concept adopted in this work deals with the gap identified in the preliminary literature reviews, indicating a lack of research in the agricultural machinery sector. The research results will contribute to filling in the recognized gap. The authors stipulate that the described empirical studies do not provide grounds for generalization and drawing conclusions about the general population, and the obtained results only indicate the condition and dependencies within manufacturing enterprises classified within the surveyed sector.

2. Research Framework

2.1. Research Problem Definition

Undoubtedly, as a consequence of new operating conditions, new research perspectives are emerging, combining social sciences with technical fields. Particularly in recent years, interdisciplinary work related to new concepts, such as the concept of a sustainable organization, has become more and more visible in the field of science. Research on the managerial aspects (barriers to implementation of a new solution) of manufacturing processes (manufacturing of parts and subassemblies for agricultural transport means) benefits from interdisciplinary knowledge and research published by researchers representing a wide range of disciplines and fields of science, e.g., research on the recycling of transport means [9,10,11], the means of transport exploitation [12], the organization of manufacturing processes [13,14], the sustainability of processes [15], sustainable management [16,17], human resources management [17,18,19], and leadership and development [20,21], varying from an operational to a strategic perspective and from technical to social aspects. Although the concept of sustainable development appears to have been introduced and generally characterized, it is still not fully recognized. The wide interest in the concept among theoreticians and practitioners has resulted in numerous publications in this field; however, research on the sustainable manufacturing of parts and subassemblies for agricultural means of transport is limited, with fewer than five publications on this topic identified in the Scopus database as of January 2024.
Summing up, there is a shortage of scientific studies on the barriers for sustainable manufacturing implementation in companies manufacturing parts and subassemblies for agricultural means of transport.

2.2. Research Goal and Research Questions

The constitutive aim of this work is to identify barriers to the implementation of the concept of sustainable manufacturing and the factors determining them, based on the literature on the subject. Theoretical research should be complemented by empirical research, namely a study conducted among selected production companies operating in the agricultural machinery sector (specialization: production of parts and technical subassemblies for means of agricultural transport). The identification of barriers is based on the micro-to-macro approach where authors, based on theoretical and empirical research, recognize a specific parameter (micro) which is the key to explaining the phenomena at the level of the entire implementation process (macro).
The main goal was deconstructed into partial goals of a theoretical, methodological and practical nature.
The theoretical goals focused on the recognition of the general concept of sustainable manufacturing, which was followed by defining a catalog of barriers that significantly affect the process of implementing the sustainable manufacturing concept. The methodological purposes included hierarchization of the barriers identified. The practical goal was the validation of the developed hierarchy of factors determining the implementation of the concept of sustainable manufacturing (potential barriers). The expected result from partial goal realization was the identification of factors crucial for sustainable manufacturing implementation by manufacturers of parts and subassemblies for means of agricultural transport in Poland.
In the context of the conducted analyses, the following research questions were formulated:
RQ1. 
What are the barriers described in the literature to the implementation of sustainable manufacturing?
RQ2. 
Are the literature review results, experts’ opinions and opinions of manufacturers of parts and subassemblies for means of agricultural transport in Poland on the recognized barriers coherent?
RQ3. 
What is the hierarchy of importance for manufacturers of parts and subassemblies for means of agricultural transport in Poland of particular sustainable manufacturing implementation barriers?
The research questions will be answered in the course of our theoretical and empirical research. The subjects of this study are manufacturing companies operating in the agricultural transport sector, while the objects of the study are the barriers of sustainable production implementation.

3. Materials and Methods

In the conducted research, a three-stage research procedure was used. The procedure is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 presents a three-stage approach starting with literature analysis, which allowed for setting the basis for the research procedure by means of the identification of barriers to sustainable manufacturing implementation. The barriers identified were presented in the form of a list, which was validated by the experts in the expert research conducted with a scientific regime and the experience-based commitment of the researchers involved. The validated list of barriers was used to design the assessment tool that enabled the hierarchization of the barriers from a practical perspective in the next stage of the research procedure. The opinions of representatives of manufacturers of parts and subassemblies for means of agricultural transport were collected and analyzed. Based on the opinions collected, conclusions and generalizations were made.

4. Research Results

4.1. Literature Query

The key element of the authors’ work was a review of the literature on the subject, including studies in the field of social sciences, as well as engineering and technology.
The literature analysis started with the identification of works on barriers to sustainable manufacturing. The expert method of literature review, which does not require the authors to describe the defined search criteria, making literature studies arbitrary, showed that sustainable manufacturing implementation barriers is a topic that is included under various headings and in various combinations. Due to the fact that the databases do not include scientific texts written in a language other than English and at the same time do not have bibliometric data in this language, which could constitute a substantive contribution to this work, a systematic review of the literature was abandoned. Yet, with the expert search, the identified publications were reviewed and a list of barriers were identified.
The next step was to search for specific barriers in the context of sustainable manufacturing to confirm the importance of the barriers. At this stage, both Polish- and English-language texts was used. The analysis was carried out in four phases. Hence, key factors (barriers) were extracted from the available texts.
The barriers identified in the literature review included the following [22]:
Secondly, through logical analysis, repeated thematic component areas were distinguished. Then, the corresponding content was assigned to each factor. In the final stage, the frequency of occurrence of individual factors was examined and conclusions were drawn, which were presented during an organized creative thinking session with experts in sustainable manufacturing field.

4.2. Factory of Ideas

The authors conducted the expert-based research, collecting opinions of purposefully selected experts in the relevant field. The number of experts and the composition of the group were related to the breadth of the problem to be solved and the credibility of the assessments. The criteria for selecting the experts were as follows: expertise in the manufacturing of parts and subassemblies for means of agricultural transport; experience in management; and interest in sustainable manufacturing. The size of the problem to be solved determined the need to include only specialists in the field (management and production engineering and transport) in the expert analysis; however, features such as creativity (ability to solve creative tasks), attitude to expertise, conformism, constructive thinking and self-criticism were also considered.
It was assumed that a debate in a group of experts may lead to (1) the creation of new knowledge and (2) the verification of the accuracy of the selection of factors developed on the basis of previous research and definitions reflecting them. To conduct the research, eighteen experts were appointed, consisting of owners (9 people), senior managers (5 people), and middle-level employees (2 people) of small (27.78%), medium (55.56%) and large (5.56%) production companies operating in the sector of agricultural machinery in Poland (manufacturers of parts and technical subassemblies for means of agricultural transport) and representatives of two scientific units (11.11%). Most of the experts were between 41 and 50 years of age (33.33%); 27.78% of the experts were aged below 40 years, 16.67% of the experts were between 51 and 60 years old, while 22.22% were over 60 years old. The group of people with a university degree definitely prevailed among the experts (77.78%); 16.67% had secondary education, while 5.56% had vocational education.
Based on the research approaches presented in the literature on the subject [106,107,108], the expert debate was based on a proprietary method. It was assumed that the search begins with the most general formulation of the problem, then the issues should be more and more precise. This was conducive to a multi-directional search, and at the same time it enabled the overcoming of potential barriers appearing when specifying the problem. As part of this session, a list of barriers identified in the implementation of the idea of sustainable manufacturing was specified (and used in the next stage of the research).
The presented constructs were concepts that were understandable by the expert group [109]. They were concepts designed to organize knowledge and guide empirical research on a selected aspect of reality [110]. Validation of their content—presented in a later part of this study—therefore refers to the extent to which the measurement scale reflects the selected semantic field of the construct, i.e., its content [111]. Thus, it contributes to a reduction in semantic problems.

4.3. In-Depth Research

The next step of the research was comparing the list of identified barriers with the opinions of companies involved in the manufacturing of sub-assemblies and parts for means of agricultural transport. Business practitioners were asked to take part in a survey to verify the list of barriers and give additional insights to improve our understanding of the nature and sources of the barriers identified. Seventy-four respondents participated in the survey, representing the companies involved. Among the surveyed enterprises, there were producers of agricultural tractors, cars and trailers and self-propelled machines used for harvesting fruit plants and vegetables.
For the purposes of collecting statistical material, a questionnaire was prepared, and the data collection process itself was carried out using the CASI technique.
The majority of surveyed enterprises had only Polish capital (77.03%), while 16.22% had mixed capital, and only 6.76% had solely foreign capital. Most of the surveyed entities were natural persons conducting business activities (45.95%), and there was also a significant presence of limited liability companies (28.38%) and civilian firms (6.76%). The participation of joint-stock companies (1.35%), general partnerships (9.46%), and limited partnerships (8.11%) was relatively low.
Most of the companies that took part in the survey were small to medium-sized businesses, with the majority of them employing between 10 and 50 employees. The vast majority of enterprises had an established position in the market and had been operating for many years; 64.86% had been operating for at least 11 years.
The majority of surveyed companies primarily operated within the domestic and European markets, while 25.68% operated globally. The survey was mainly filled out by individuals at the highest management level of the company, including owners and co-owners, persons from the management board, as well as senior and middle management.
A noteworthy number of respondents (44.59%) had a master’s degree, and a considerable proportion had completed post-graduate studies. The respondents were mainly aged between 45 and 54, with significant representation from the 36–44 and 55–65 age groups.
The respondents demonstrated extensive experience in the sector, with 60.81% having more than 15 years of work experience.
In this part of the study, an attempt was made to verify the theoretical assumptions—and those resulting from expert research—about the impact of certain factors on the limitations in the implementation of the idea of sustainable manufacturing (Table 1). The list of barriers was presented to the respondents and they were asked to assess the importance of each of the barriers from the lowest (1) to the highest (5).
This verification was preceded by a thorough analysis of the concept of a sustainable organization together with an indication of the direction of its definition and a thorough analysis of the methods of its measurement and application.
First of all, basic descriptive statistics were determined for all analyzed implementation barriers (in total, respondents assessed twenty-five definitions on a five-point Likert scale, with the value 1 meaning a definitely low barrier (no impact) and 5 indicating a definitely high barrier). Table 1 presents the assessed barriers listed in descending order, based on the arithmetic mean value of respondents’ indications. Due to the limited possibility of presentation, the presentation of the standard deviation, median, mode, minimum and maximum values was abandoned.
It can be noticed that only in the case of three factors was the average respondents’ assessment of their significance at least 3.50 (rather significant). These factors include (1) an unfavorable legal and economic environment, (2) an excessive focus on profit and disregard for environmental aspects or interpersonal relations (implementation of the concept in a technical way), and (3) an excessive focus on current affairs (lack of vision for the future).
Nine factors were assessed by the respondents as being of medium importance in the context of the impact on the implementation of the concept of sustainable manufacturing (the average oscillated between 3.03 and 3.47). The vast majority of determinants (thirteen) were assessed as constituting a rather small barrier in the context of implementation.
When analyzing the determined averages, it can be seen that the legal form, the size of the company, the age of the respondent, the length of service in the industry or the length of service in the current company do not significantly differentiate the assessment of the significance of barriers.
All of the discussed barriers on the way to implementation success should be considered together, and a good practice among initiators and leaders in implementing concepts and solutions correlated with the idea of sustainable manufacturing would be to check each time whether the planned activities related to the introduction of changes meet each of the conditions for effective implementation from the point of view of the environment.

5. Conclusions

The recommendations are directly connected with the most significant barriers identified. Hence, the suggested approach when a problem of resistance to sustainable manufacturing implementation is recognized includes the following:
  • Anticipating and overcoming resistance in relation to selected SM postulates of the concept;
  • Implementing visionary leadership;
  • Questioning “constancy”;
  • Implementing an intensive and extensive communication process;
  • Choosing the right moment and waiting for implementation;
  • Implementing of individual SM postulates;
  • Legitimizing the implemented SM postulates.
In the context of the above, a cycle of actions is outlined, which includes (1) engaging in implementation through a joint diagnosis of the situation; (2) developing a shared vision; (3) creating and gaining acceptance for the adopted vision, necessary competences and skills, and readiness to implement further actions; (4) disseminating new solutions in the enterprise; and (5) controlling the course of the transformation process and solving any problems that arise.
Hence, the transformation requires the control of key elements that form the basis for overcoming barriers preventing the implementation of selected postulates of the concept of sustainable management. Therefore, an awareness of the need to transform the company and a desire to participate in the entire process are crucial. Interdisciplinary knowledge on how to change the company and create the ability to implement the required postulates is required.
Implementing the idea of sustainable manufacturing should be an action undertaken with a specific intention and a properly designed scheme of action. The purpose of implementation is the development of the enterprise, maintaining and increasing its effectiveness or overcoming difficulties (crises) and improving results. In the context of the above, it should be emphasized that it is not only important to notice the sources and directions of changes, but also to know their nature and conditions. This skill determines the entire process of planning and implementing the concept.
It is necessary to make the need for sustainable manufacturing obvious to the company as a whole and to all of the stakeholders. The key is to create a need for change in people. This can be achieved by (1) communicating a vision, (2) gaining support for change, (3) planning change, (4) implementing specific projects, and (5) removing resistance to change. Therefore, the enterprise must develop its own operating practices, implement policy and create appropriate attitudes among its members.
The manner and scope of implementation of the sustainable manufacturing postulates is a derivative of the adopted management model. Therefore, a rational approach to the discussed issue is particularly important, including a properly constructed implementation management cycle, which requires answers to the following questions: (1) why? (indication of the reason for implementing the concept); (2) what? (defining the purpose and scope of its implementation); and (3) how? (developing an action plan for implementation and improvement activities).
The basic problem in the process of implementing the concept is to determine the successive stages. In the context of the above, it is recommended to (1) define the company’s goals, both the main and subordinate ones; (2) analyze the connections and interactions with the environment (network analysis); (3) conduct an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the opportunities and threats; (4) analyze the possible directions of the implementation of the concept; (5) develop an implementation strategy; and (6) implement the chosen solution.
These are, of course, only recommendations as to the scope and direction of the implementation process in the company, but following them provides a certain guarantee of success in terms of the implemented postulates of sustainable manufacturing.
The adopted research methodology enabled the recognition of the quantitative and qualitative state of the factors constituting a barrier to the implementation of the concept of sustainable manufacturing. It should be emphasized that the results of the authors’ searches are presented in the form of conclusions. They provide answers to the detailed problem questions and the main problem of the research. The solution to the research problem concerning the essence, typology and characteristics of sustainable manufacturing is presented in the form of general conclusions, as follows:
  • The concept of sustainable manufacturing has not been and is still not clearly defined; over the years, the concept has evolved from a complete lack of recognition of the need for its implementation to the emergence of interest in its various dimensions;
  • In the literature on the subject, there are many definitions of sustainable manufacturing (although the extensive interpretative analysis of the proposals of various researchers carried out for research purposes is not presented in this study (publishing rigor)).
Parallel to the analysis and evaluation of the literature output, techniques of creative thinking were used. On this basis, the requirements were completed in the context of building a research model. Thanks to this procedure, each time, a questionnaire was prepared, provide a tool for conducting the proper study. Suggestions, recommendations and guidelines for management practitioners resulting from the conducted empirical research are related to the proposal of changes in the field of management towards balance. Persons responsible for development are presented with specific barriers, the overcoming of which is the essence of improvement activities.
Although the work presents a certain cross-section of parameters, it should be treated as a base element for further discussions on the search for ways to stimulate improvement attitudes, thus providing an incentive to build sustainable organizations. The developed research construct is characterized by such a high degree of compatibility that it can be assumed to justify its use in the study of sectors different from the presented one. In this regard, it is postulated that future research could be undertaken in the fields of (1) increasing the degree of adaptability and adapting the method to research sectors different from the sector studied in this work (universalization of the method) and (2) systematically updating the developed set of the most important barriers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S.; methodology, P.N.; validation, A.S. and P.N.; formal analysis, P.N.; investigation, A.S. and P.N.; writing—original draft preparation, P.N.; writing—review and editing, A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that research tool included only questions about organization and its functioning, no personal data or opinions were collected.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bradbury, H. Sustaining inner and outer worlds: A whole-systems approach to developing sustainable business practices in management. J. Manag. Educ. 2003, 27, 172–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cappelli, P.; Keller, J. Classifying work in the new economy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2013, 38, 596–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pandey, S.; Rishi, P. Sustainable Development Goals through public sector social responsibility of Indian energy firms—A qualitative analysis. Int. J. Intell. Enterp. 2023, 10, 221–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kolyasnikov, M.S.; Kelchevskaya, N.R. Knowledge management strategies in companies: Trends and the impact of Industry 4.0. Upravlenec 2020, 11, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Niewiadomski, P. Determinanty Elastyczności Funkcjonowania Przedsiębiorstwa Produkcyjnego Sektora Maszyn Rolniczych; Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej: Poznań, Poland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gołda-Jacyna, I.; Izdebski, M.; Szczepański, E.; Gołda, P. The assessment of supply chain effectiveness. Arch. Transp. 2018, 45, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zwolińska, B.; Michlowicz, E. Impact of change in the structure of distribution system on incurred cost. Arch. Transp. 2016, 39, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Michlowicz, E. Logistics engineering and Industry 4.0 and digital factory. Arch. Transp. 2021, 57, 59–72. [Google Scholar]
  9. Merkisz-Guranowska, A. Issues related to the optimization of location of vehicle recycling network entities. Arch. Transp. 2010, 22, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Merkisz-Guranowska, A. Multicriteria optimization model for end-of-life vehicles’ recycling network. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2013, 8, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Merkisz-Guranowska, A. A comparative study on end-of-life vehicles network design. Arch. Transp. 2020, 54, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jacyna, M.; Merkisz, J. Proecological approach to modelling traffic organization in national transport system. Arch. Transp. 2014, 30, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mariappanadar, S.; Kramar, R. Sustainable HRM: The synthesis effect of high performance work systems on organisational performance and employee harm. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2014, 6, 206–224. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee, H.W. Sustainable leadership: An empirical investigation of its effect on organizational effectiveness. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 2017, 20, 419–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aragão, C.G.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Green training for sustainable procurement? Insights from the Brazilian public sector. Ind. Commer. Train. 2017, 49, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bansal, P.; Song, H.-C. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Almarzooqi, A.H.; Khan, M.; Khalid, K. The role of sustainable HRM in sustaining positive organizational outcomes: An interactional framework. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2019, 68, 1272–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ybema, J.F.; van Vuuren, T.; van Dam, K. HR practices for enhancing sustainable employability: Implementation, use, and outcomes. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 886–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wikhamn, W. Innovation, sustainable HRM and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iqbal, Q.; Piwowar-Sulej, K. Sustainable leadership in higher education institutions: Social innovation as a mechanism. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2022, 23, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Iqbal, Q.; Ahmad, N.H. Sustainable development: The colors of sustainable leadership in learning organization. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 29, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hariyani, D.; Mishra, S. Organizational enablers for sustainable manufacturing and industrial ecology. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 6, 100375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mittal, V.K.; Sangwan, K.S. Prioritizing barriers to green manufacturing: Environmental, social and economic perspectives. Procedia CIRP 2014, 17, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Muduli, K.; Govindan, K.; Barve, A.; Geng, Y. Barriers to green supply chain management in Indian mining industries: A graph theoretic approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ghose, M.K. Indian small-scale mining with special emphasis on environmental management. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abdullah, M.; Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Jayaraman, K. Barriers to green innovation initiatives among manufacturers: The Malaysian case. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2016, 10, 683–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sharma, Y.C.; Aggarwal, P.; Singh, T.N. Economic liabilities of environmental pollution by coal mining: Indian scenario. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2009, 11, 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bhanot, N.; Rao, P.V.; Deshmukh, S.G. An integrated approach for analysing the enablers and barriers of sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 142, 4412–4439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mathiyazhagan, K.; Govindan, K.; NoorulHaq, A.; Geng, Y. An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Russo, M.V.; Harrison, N.S. Organizational design and environmental performance: Clues from the electronics industry. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 582–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ghazilla, R.A.R.; Sakundarini, N.; Abdul-Rashid, S.H.; Ayub, N.S.; Olugu, E.U.; Musa, S.N. Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian SMEs: A preliminary findings. Procedia CIRP 2015, 26, 658–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barve, A.; Muduli, K. Modelling the challenges of green supply chain management practices in Indian mining industries. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2013, 24, 1102–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Luthra, S.; Kumar, S.; Garg, D.; Haleem, A. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 762–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Govindan, K.; Kaliyan, M.; Kannan, D.; Haq, A.N. Barriers analysis for green sup-ply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 147, 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jawahir, I.S.; Bradley, R. Technological elements of circular economy and the principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dhull, S.; Narwal, M.S. Drivers and barriers in green supply chain management adaptation: A state-of-art review. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2016, 4, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shankar, K.M.; Kannan, D.; Kumar, P.U. Analyzing sustainable manufacturing practices—A case study in Indian context. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 1332–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhu, X.; Zhang, H.; Wu, C.; Huang, Z. An economic model of integration framework of lean production and green manufacturing based on sustainability balanced scorecard. Bol. Tec./Tech. Bull. 2017, 55, 263–269. [Google Scholar]
  39. Fargani, H.; Cheung, W.M.; Hasan, R. An empirical analysis of the factors that support the drivers of sustainable manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2016, 56, 491–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Koho, M.; Torvinen, S.; Romiguer, A.T. Objectives, enablers and challenges of sustainable development and sustainable manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), Tampere, Finland, 25–27 May 2011; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kumar, S.; Kumar, N.; Haleem, A. Conceptualisation of Sustainable Green Lean Six Sigma: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2015, 8, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chiou, T.Y.; Chan, H.K.; Lettice, F.; Chung, S.H. The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2011, 47, 822–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jovane, F.; Westkämper, E.; Williams, D. The Manufuture Road: Towards Compet-itive and Sustainable High-Adding-Value Manufacturing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Govindan, K.; Madan Shankar, K.; Kannan, D. Application of fuzzy analytic net-work process for barrier evaluation in automotive parts remanufacturing towards cleaner production—A study in an Indian scenario. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rahimifard, S.; Coates, G.; Staikos, T.; Edwards, C.; Abu-Bakar, M. Barriers, drivers and challenges for sustainable product recovery and recycling. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2009, 2, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bey, N.; Hauschild, M.Z.; McAloone, T.C. Drivers and barriers for implementation of environmental strategies in manufacturing companies. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 62, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Luken, R.; Van Rompaey, F. Drivers for and barriers to environmentally sound tech-nology adoption by manufacturing plants in nine developing countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, S67–S77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nambiar, A. Challenges in sustainable manufacturing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 26–28 December 2022; pp. 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  49. Chen, C.C.; Shih, H.S.; Shyur, H.J.; Wu, K.S. A business strategy selection of green supply chain management via an analytic network process. Comput. Math. Appl. 2012, 64, 2544–2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aboelmaged, M.G. Reconstructing Six Sigma barriers in manufacturing and service organizations: The effects of organizational parameters. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2011, 28, 519–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kumar, S.; Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kumar, N.; Haleem, A. Barriers in green lean six sigma product development process: An ISM approach. Prod. Plan. Control 2016, 27, 604–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hahn, R. ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2013, 22, 442–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. ISO 26000; ISO 26000: Guidance on Social Responsibility. 1st ed. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  54. Nunes, B.; Bennett, D. Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: An environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Benchmarking Int. J. 2010, 17, 396–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alefari, M.; Salonitis, K.; Xu, Y. The role of leadership in implementing lean manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2017, 63, 756–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Govindan, K.; de Freitas, T.P.; Soubihia, D.F.; Kannan, D.; Latan, H. Barriers to the adoption of green operational practices at Brazilian companies: Effects on green and operational performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 3042–3058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hariyani, D.; Mishra, S.; Sharma, M.K. A descriptive statistical analysis of barriers to the adoption of integrated sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile manufacturing system (ISGLSAMS) in Indian manufacturing industries. Benchmarking 2022, 30, 2705–2733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Berger, S.L.T.; Tortorella, G.L.; Rodriguez, C.M.T. Lean Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review of Practices, Barriers and Contextual Factors Inherent to Its Implementation; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 39–68. [Google Scholar]
  59. Cherrafi, A.; Elfezazi, S.; Chiarini, A.; Mokhlis, A.; Benhida, K. The integration of lean manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future research directions for developing a specific model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 828–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Giunipero, L.C.; Hooker, R.E.; Denslow, D. Purchasing and supply management sustainability: Drivers and barriers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2012, 18, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kulatunga, A.K.; Jayatilaka, P.R.; Jayawickrama, M. Drivers and barriers to im-plement sustainable manufacturing concepts in Sri Lankan manufacturing sector. In Proceedings of the 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Berlin, Germany, 23–25 September 2013; pp. 171–176. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lodgaard, E.; Ingvaldsen, J.A.; Gamme, I.; Aschehoug, S. Barriers to lean implemen-tation: Perceptions of top managers, middle managers and workers. Procedia CIRP 2016, 57, 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Veiga, G.L.; Lima, E.P.; Angelis, J.J.; Costa, S.E.G. The strategic role of lean a dis-cussion. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2011, 8, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hines, P.; Found, P.; Griffiths, G.; Harrison, R. Staying lean; thriving, not just surviving. Cardiff. Hsu, C.W., Hu, A.H., 2008. Green supply chain management in the electronic industry. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 5, 205–216. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mittal, V.K.; Sangwan, K.S. Development of a model of barriers to environmentally conscious manufacturing implementation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 584–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Govindan, K.; Hasanagic, M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 278–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sarkis, J.; Helms, M.M.; Hervani, A.A. Reverse logistics and social sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 337–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Brammer, S.; Hoejmose, S.; Marchant, K. Environmental management in SMEs in the UK: Practices, pressures and perceived benefits. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2012, 21, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bhanot, N.; Rao, P.V.; Deshmukh, S.G. Enablers and barriers of sustainable manufacturing: Results from a survey of researchers and industry professionals. Procedia CIRP 2015, 29, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xia, X.; Govindan, K.; Zhu, Q. Analyzing internal barriers for automotive parts remanufacturers in China using grey-DEMATEL approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 811–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kumar, R. Barriers in implementation of lean manufacturing system in Indian in-dustry: A survey. Int. J. Latest Trends Eng. Technol. 2014, 4, 243–251. [Google Scholar]
  72. Cherrafi, A.; Elfezazi, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Benhida, K.; Mokhlis, A. Barriers in Green Lean implementation: A combined systematic literature review and interpretive structural modelling approach. Prod. Plan. Control 2017, 28, 829–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kaur, J.; Sidhu, R.; Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.; Goyal, S. A DEMATEL based approach for investigating barriers in green supply chain management in Canadian manufac-turing firms. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 312–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Singh, A.; Singh, B.; Dhingra, A.K. Practices: Drivers and barriers of green manufacturing practices a survey of indian industries. Int. J. Eng. 2012, 1, 5–19. [Google Scholar]
  75. Wiedmann, K.-P.; Hennigs, N.; Pankalla, L.; Kassubek, M.; Seegebarth, B. Adoption barriers and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1201–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. del González, P.R. Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: A study of the Spanish pulp and paper industry. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2005, 14, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mittal, V.K.; Sangwan, K.S.; Herrmann, C.; Egede, P.; Wulbusch, C. Drivers and barriers of environmentally conscious manufacturing: A comparative study of Indian and German organizations. In Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Berkeley, CA, USA, 23–25 May 2012; pp. 97–102. [Google Scholar]
  78. Petrini, M.; Pozzebon, M. Managing sustainability with the support of business intelligence: Integrating socio-environmental indicators and organisational context. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2009, 18, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Machado, S.D.V.C. Exploring barriers in lean implementation. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2014, 5, 122–148. [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhang, L.; Narkhede, B.E.; Chaple, A.P. Evaluating lean manufacturing barriers: An interpretive process. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2017, 28, 1086–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Raut, R.; Narkhede, B.E.; Gardas, B.B.; Luong, H.T. An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing sustainable practices. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018, 25, 1245–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ravi, V.; Shankar, R. Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72, 1011–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Weerakkody, V.; Janssen, M.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mittal, V.K.; Sindhwani, R.; Kapur, P.K. Two-way assessment of barriers to Lean– Green Manufacturing System: Insights from India. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2016, 7, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Baumgartner, R.J.; Ebner, D. Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wyrwicka, M.K.; Mrugalska, B. Mirages of Lean Manufacturing in Practice. Procedia Eng. 2017, 182, 780–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Berner, B.; Hantz, K.; Chojnacki, J.; Grieger, A. Środki transportowe do przewozu płodów rolnych. Autobusy Technol. Eksploat. Syst. Transp. 2015, 5, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  88. Crute, V.; Ward, Y.; Brown, S.; Graves, A. Implementing Lean in aerospace challenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges. Technovation 2003, 23, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Halling, B.; Wijk, K. Experienced barriers to lean in Swedish manufacturing and health care. Int. J. Lean Think. 2013, 4, 43–63. [Google Scholar]
  90. Pandey, H.; Garg, D.; Luthra, S. Identification and ranking of enablers of green lean Six Sigma implementation using AHP. Int. J. Product. Qual. Manag. 2018, 23, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gupta, H.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Rezaei, J. Barriers and overcoming strategies to supply chain sustainability innovation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Worley, J.M.; Doolen, T.L. The role of communication and management support in a lean manufacturing implementation. Manag. Decis. 2006, 44, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Simons, T.L.; Peterson, R.S. Task conflict snd relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. J. Appl. Psychol. 2000, 85, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. McLean, B.L.; Boren, T. Barriers to implementing sustainability locally: A case study of policy immobilities. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 1489–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kopitov, R. Enhancing Business Sustainability: Improving Business Policy’s Methodology by Managerial Principles’ Development. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 99, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lam, P.K.; Chin, K.S.; Pun, K.F. Managing conflict in collaborative new product development: A supplier perspective. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2007, 24, 891–907. [Google Scholar]
  97. Kwon, I.W.G.; Suh, T. Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management: A path analysis. Supply Chain Manag. 2005, 10, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kadambi, B. IT-Enabled Supply Chain Management—A Preliminary Study of Few Manufacturing Companies in India [WWW Document]. 2000. Available online: http://www.xlri.ac.in/cltm/LogistiX-2-2000.HTM (accessed on 7 January 2024).
  99. Groover, M.P. Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing; PHI: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  100. Cudney, E.; Elrod, C. A comparative analysis of integrating lean concepts into supply chain management in manufacturing and service industries. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2011, 2, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kumaravel, S.; Chakraborty, A. Identifying Drivers of Sustainability Initiatives in Manufacturing Organizations—An Exploratory Study from the Indian Cement Industry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  102. Deif, A.M. A system model for green manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1553–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Antony, J.; Antony, F.J.; Kumar, M.; Cho, B.R. Six sigma in service organisations: Benefits, challenges and difficulties, common myths, empirical observations and success factors. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2007, 24, 294–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Schaper, M. The challenge of environmental responsibility and sustainable development: Implications for SME and entrepreneurship academics. In Radical Changes in the World: Will SMEs Soar or Crash; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; pp. 541–553. [Google Scholar]
  105. Nordin, N.; Deros, M.B.; Wahab, D.A. Change management issues in lean manufacturing: Literature analysis. In Proceedings of the Engineering Postgraduate Conference (EPC) Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment; UKM: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  106. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S. The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: An Example. Design Considerations and Applications. Inf. Manag. 2014, 42, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Paliwoda, S.J. Predicting the Future Using Delphi. Manag. Decis. 1993, 21, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Paulus, P.B.; Dzindolet, M.T.; Poletes, G.; Camacho, L.M. Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 19, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Suddaby, R. Editor’s Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2010, 35, 346–357. [Google Scholar]
  110. Peter, J.P. Construct validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hoskisson, R.E.; Hitt, M.A.; Johnson, R.A.; Moesel, D.D. Construct Validity of an Objective (Entropy) Categorical Measure of Diversification Strategy. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 215–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 02244 g001
Figure 1. Research realization scheme. Source: Own work.
Figure 1. Research realization scheme. Source: Own work.
Sustainability 16 02244 g001
Table 1. Barriers to the implementation of sustainable manufacturing from companies’ perspectives.
Table 1. Barriers to the implementation of sustainable manufacturing from companies’ perspectives.
Scope and Range of Activity12345AV.
% of Indications
(Number of Indications)
Unfavorable legal and economic environment-14.9 (11)17.6 (13)28.4 (21)39.2 (29)3.92
Excessive focus on profit (manufacturing efficiency), not taking into account environmental aspects and interpersonal relationships (implementing the concept in a technical way); implementation of the concept only to obtain economic and financial benefits5.4 (4)4.1 (3)40.5 (30)28.4 (21)21.6 (16)3.57
Excessive focus on current affairs (lack of vision for the future); preoccupation with current problems5.4 (4)9.5 (7)29.7 (22)35.1 (26)20.3 (15)3.55
Traditional habits, patterns, behaviors; traditional organizational culture5.4 (4)12.2 (9)29.7 (22)35.1 (26)17.6 (13)3.47
Cessation of implementation due to a change in priorities (short-term goals)6.8 (5)12.2 (9)33.8 (25)31.1 (23)16.2 (12)3.38
Weak training system on sustainable manufacturing practices5.4 (4)10.8 (8)43.2 (32)28.4 (21)12.2 (9)3.31
Using ready-made patterns and solutions without matching them to the conditions and context of the company4.1 (3)18.9 (14)36.5 (27)28.4 (21)12.2 (9)3.26
Inconsistency of goals. Misunderstanding needs. Lack of interest of companies in the implementation of projects whose benefits are considered in the long term. Little business potential.10.8 (8)18.9 (14)27.0 (20)20.3 (15)23.0 (17)3.26
Implementation of the concept in a random, fragmentary way8.1 (6)16.2 (12)33.8 (25)27.0 (20)14.9 (11)3.24
Insufficient communication about the goals and nature of the changes4.1 (3)16.2 (12)40.5 (30)32.4 (24)6.8 (5)3.22
No support from third parties (advice, consultation)8.1 (6)18.9 (14)41.9 (31)18.9 (14)12.2 (9)3.08
Resistance from employees6.8 (5)16.2 (12)45.9 (34)29.7 (22)1.4 (1)3.03
Lack of motivation and commitment resulting from a lack of vision and resulting benefits8.1 (6)24.3 (18)39.2 (29)24.3 (18)4.1 (3)2.92
Failure to take into account the real needs of enterprises16.2 (12)18.9 (14)35.1 (26)17.6 (13)12.2 (9)2.91
Lack of modern technological solutions; mismatch with the requirements of the environment (lack of compatibility)14.9 (11)16.2 (12)40.5 (30)21.6 (16)6.8 (5)2.89
Unsatisfactory effects of the previous implementation attempt for companies, consisting in insufficient applicability of the proposed solutions13.5 (10)23.0 (17)37.8 (28)12.2 (9)13.5 (10)2.89
Staff rotation17.6 (13)21.6 (16)33.8 (25)14.9 (11)12.2 (9)2.82
Low awareness of the need to implement the concept of sustainable manufacturing; little understanding of the essence, especially among executive employees14.9 (11)16.2 (12)41.9 (31)27.0 (20)-2.81
Low awareness of potential profits (reluctance from the perspective of long-term expectations)16.2 (12)23.0 (17)37.8 (28)10.8 (8)12.2 (9)2.80
Improper style of implementation of individual solutions20.3 (15)18.9 (14)33.8 (25)17.6 (13)9.5 (7)2.77
Imposing solutions, no possibility to participate in the transformation process (blocking employee initiatives)12.2 (9)28.4 (21)35.1 (26)20.3 (15)4.1 (3)2.76
Excessive formalization17.6 (13)21.6 (16)39.2 (29)14.9 (11)6.8 (5)2.72
Lack of commitment from management12.2 (9)32.4 (24)33.8 (25)20.3 (15)1.4 (1)2.66
Low staff competences, lack of specialist knowledge20.3 (15)18.9 (14)41.9 (31)16.2 (12)2.7 (2)2.62
No financial resources; identifying transformation with large outlays23.0 (17)39.2 (29)25.7 (19)9.5 (7)2.7 (2)2.30
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Niewiadomski, P.; Stachowiak, A. Identification of Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing Implementation—The Perspective of Manufacturers of Parts and Components for Agricultural Transport. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062244

AMA Style

Niewiadomski P, Stachowiak A. Identification of Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing Implementation—The Perspective of Manufacturers of Parts and Components for Agricultural Transport. Sustainability. 2024; 16(6):2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062244

Chicago/Turabian Style

Niewiadomski, Przemysław, and Agnieszka Stachowiak. 2024. "Identification of Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing Implementation—The Perspective of Manufacturers of Parts and Components for Agricultural Transport" Sustainability 16, no. 6: 2244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062244

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop