Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Applying 3DCE to environmentally responsible manufacturing practices

Lisa M. Ellram a, *, Wendy Tate b, Craig R. Carter c
a

Department of Marketing, Farmer School of Business, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA
Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of Tennessee, 343 Stokely Management Center, 916 Volunteer Boulevard, Knoxville, TN 37996-0001, USA
c
College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 16 June 2008

A review of recent literature in the elds of operations, supply chain, and management indicates there is
on-going interest in improving new product development (NPD) performance. Three-dimensional
concurrent engineering (3DCE), the simultaneous design of product, process and supply chain have been
proposed as a way to improve traditional NPD outcomes, such as reduced time to market, lower costs,
and improved customer acceptance. There appears to be a lesser concern associated with the environmental impacts of new products. Environmentally responsible manufacturing (ERM) on new product
development focuses on reduced emissions, hazardous materials elimination, and lower product weight
without sacricing functionality. This paper explores the following issue: will employing 3DCE to
integrate NPD and ERM yield better benets than the separate and uncoordinated application of environmental goals and NPD initiatives?
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Three dimensional concurrent engineering
Environmentally responsible manufacturing
New product development

1. Introduction and background

With decreasing product life cycles and increased global competitive pressures, organizations are focusing more than ever on
new product development success [1,2]. At the same time, organizations are experiencing increased social and regulatory
demands to behave in an environmentally conscious manner on
a global scale. Thus, as organizations develop new products, they
are under pressure to concurrently consider product functionality,
cost, value and environmental impacts. Frequently, environmental
requirements are seen as a burden or as mandates that simply slow
product development and add costs [3], detracting funds from the
main business of the company [4]. The environmental aspects of
new products are often considered after the product is developed,
rather than in parallel [5,6]. As a result of adding requirements late
in the process, delays ensue and costs rise as changes are made, and
the burdensome reputation earned by environmental requirements
becomes a self-fullling prophesy.
The purpose of this paper is to explore ways in which integrating
ERM initiatives into new product development can have a positive
or neutral impact on the new product development process, cost,
and timeliness, while simultaneously meeting or improving upon
environmental goals. This will be done by using the concept of
three-dimensional concurrent engineering (3DCE) as a platform for
marrying NPD and environmentally responsible manufacturing

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 970 491 2719; fax: 1 970 491 3522.
E-mail address: Lisa.Ellram@colostate.edu (L.M. Ellram).
0959-6526/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.017

(ERM). 3DCE is dened as: .the simultaneous development of

products, processes and supply chains [7, p. 14]. Although 3DCE is
only about 10 years old in theory and even newer in practice, it
implicitly builds on the previous literature in a number of areas [8].
Prior research has dened environmentally responsible
manufacturing (ERM) as:
A corporate system that integrates product and design issues
with issues of production planning and control and supply chain
management in such a manner as to identify, quantify, assess, and
manage the ow of environmental waste with the goal of reducing
and ultimately minimizing its impact on the environment, while
also trying to maximize resource efciency [9].
This denition of ERM does not include broader social issues of
sustainable development, but focuses strictly on environmental
aspects, and the economic aspects as they affect the rm.
3DCE presents a platform for ERM to be more integrated into
mainstream, new product development (NPD) efforts. 3DCE is
credited with many potential benets, including reduced costs,
reduced time to market, improved supplier integration and improved quality [7,10,11] which are generally NPD goals. Simultaneously, it appears that some of the basic ideas of integrating
product, process, and supply chain are also being espoused for ERM
[12]. The fundamental question is: will using 3DCE as a framework
for integrating NPD and ERM yield greater benets than the separate and uncoordinated application of ERM principles and NPD
initiatives? This is a critical question for organizations that wish to
pursue ERM, but believe that ERM will hurt their competitiveness
by increasing costs, increasing new product introduction times, and
generally conicting with traditional new product development

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

goals. This paper expands upon extant literature, by using 3DCE as

a theoretical lens. Traditional new product development benets
derived from 3DCE approaches can be augmented by using 3DCE
methods to support organizations goals of creating more environmentally responsible products, processes and supply chains,
while still attaining competitiveness in cost, quality, and features.
This paper is organized as follows: the 3DCE framework and its
linkage to NPD are rst briey introduced. Next, the relationship
between 3DCE and ERM is explored. The 3DCE model is then used
to integrate NPD with ERM, with propositions generated based on
this combination. The propositions look at both the why and the
how to of using 3DCE to combine NPD with ERM. The paper
closes with presentation of a conceptual model and a managerial
decision framework, a discussion of how to test the propositions,
and future research directions.

2. The three-dimensional concurrent engineering

framework and new product development
Despite numerous calls for more theory-building research in
operations and supply chain management research [13,14,15] there
has been relatively little theory-building research appearing within
the broad eld of supply chain management to date [16]. Such
conceptual theory-building methods can create a better balance
between inductive and deductive reasoning and research [13]. In
this paper, we develop what [13, p. 7] refers to as a conceptual
framework a collection of two or more interrelated propositions
which explain an event, provide understanding, or suggest testable
hypotheses of the application of 3DCE to ERM. The methodology to
accomplish this theory building consists of an integration of a
number of different works . summarize(ing) the common elements, contrast(ing) the differences, and extend(ing) the work in
some fashion, [13, p. 8] and also through the denition of variables
and the development of specic predictions [15, p. 368] based on
this integration of existing theory along with logical deduction
which bring about the conceptual frameworks propositions [17, p.
323]. The data collection to support this methodology occurred
through a rigorous key-word search of the literature using ABI Inform/Inform and Elsevier Science Direct. An extensive database of
the relevant literature was developed through initial searches on
specic terminology. As literature was discovered that contained
information relevant to ERM-3DCE, the references were examined
and added to the developing literature database.

Concurrent Engineering

While traditional NPD focuses specically on the product, concurrent engineering (CE) represents a revolution of new product
development thought by simultaneously focusing on product and
process using cross-functional teams [1,18,19]. However, due to its
popularity, CE by itself no longer provides a source of competitive
advantage [7]. Further, in companies that now practice twodimensional concurrent engineering (product and process only),
supply chain development tends to be haphazard [7, p. 14].
3DCE represents an important step beyond these approaches,
simultaneously focusing on product, process, and supply chain to
improve NPD. While NPD and ERM can be integrated without 3DCE,
this will likely result in neglect of supply chain design. Supply chain
design is critical to both ERM and NPD. Supply chain design specically considers, .whether to make or buy a component,
sourcing decisions, and contracting decisions (such as structuring
the relationships among supply chain members). Logistical and
coordination decisions include inventory, delivery and information
systems to support on-going operation of the supply chain, [7, pp.
146147]. Thus, the level of supply integration in 3DCE is well
beyond that required in concurrent engineering. If supply chain
design is not explicitly integrated as part of NPD and ERM, it is likely
that higher costs and reduced performance will ensue. For example,
when moving its excellent products and processes to North
America for production, it was the supply chain design that caused
problems for Toyota. Its sourcing decision to use North American
suppliers to make parts wherever possible, the way it structured
relationships among suppliers and its coordination of information
within the supply chain were all problematic, delaying product
launch by 10 months, and raising development costs by 40%. Toyota
quickly re-designed its supply chain to utilize back-up sources from
Japan, at a cost of around $1,000,000 per month in premium
airfreight charges [20, pp. 152153]. These problems all reect issues with integrating supply chain design into new product
development. Supply chain design in 3DCE goes beyond simply
integrating a suppliers technological capability, to include that
suppliers information processing and communication capability,
inventory management and even the suppliers relationships with
its suppliers. 3DCE provides the next level of breakthrough in
improving performance. This is documented by Petersen et al., who
demonstrated that early supplier involvement in supply chain
design supports improved product and process design [2].
The relationship among and between each of the elements of
3DCE: product, process and supply chain, is depicted in Fig. 1. For
example, the key issue in simultaneously considering product and

Three Dimensional Concurrent

Engineering (3DCE)

Product Design

Process Design

Design Specifications, Quality,

Materials, Performance

Manufacturing Methods,
Equipment, Layout, Capacity

SupplyChain Design
Insource/Outsource, Customer
and Supplier Relationships

Customer and Supplier

Involvement in NPD, ESI,
Channel Structure

1621

Distribution, Logistics Systems,

Inventory Control Processes,
Information Technology/Exchange

Fig. 1. 3-D Engineering integrating the literature. Modied from Fine, [7, p. 146] and [8].

1622

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

process design is concurrent engineering. In supply chain and

process design, key issues include linking distribution and logistics
systems with processes. The relationships among the elements of
3DCE are discussed in more depth in the next section, where the
link between 3DCE and ERM is presented.

3. Integrating three-dimensional concurrent

engineering (3DCE) with environmentally
responsible manufacturing (ERM)
As dened above, environmentally responsible manufacturing
involves the development of products while minimizing the
immediate and future environmental impact of these products, and
maximizing resource efciency. The types of activities that fall
under the umbrella of environmentally responsible activities are
shown in Fig. 2. There is a value judgment present in the pyramid,
with the items at the bottom being the least positive, and becoming
progressively better for the environment as one moves up the
pyramid. For example, at the top of the pyramid, a buying organization may actually improve its ERM by eliminating a hazardous
material, thereby removing the party in the supply chain that
provides that hazardous material. Texas Instruments had to eliminate specic hazardous materials from their product line because of
customer demands and to avoid a recall. They formed a crossfunctional team responsible for the development of a systematic
process for assuring compliance with regulatory and customer
requirements regarding banned and restricted substances [22].
Essentially, environmentally responsible manufacturing (ERM) activities entail reducing any type of manufacturing waste that has
a negative impact on the environment, and at the most positive
extreme, improving the environment. The literature indicates many
benets of ERM. These include but are not limited to reduced
operating and total product costs, increased protability and market share, reduced waste, effort and environmental impact; competitive advantage by being an environmentally responsible
company; corporate differentiation; enhanced corporate image;
reduced energy related risks, reduced health expenses related to
pollution, and improved regulatory compliance and reduced nes,
penalties and environmental liabilities [3,5,2331].
In the course of reviewing this literature, research propositions
are introduced, which justify why and suggest how 3DCE should be
used to integrate NPD and ERM. The goal of these research propositions is to demonstrate the potential application of 3DCE in
integrating NPD and ERM, to show some of the potential tensions
in the existing literature, and to help guide future research. The rst
section looks at environmental aspects of product, process and

Sustainable

Enhancement
Elimination

Neutral
Resource Reduction
Reuse
Depleting

Recycling/Remanufacturing
Disposal with Energy Recovery

Fig. 2. A hierarchy of environmental improvements. Adapted from the work of Stock

[21], previously referenced in [8].

supply chain design independently, while later sections consider

the implications of 3DCE as a whole.
3.1. Applying 3DCE to ERM: ERM product, ERM process
and ERM supply chain design
In the mainstream operations literature, product design focuses
on issues such as design specications, quality, materials and performance [1,7,56]. In ERM, product design applies this focus in
making a product that uses environmentally friendly materials,
uses fewer materials, and mixes fewer materials together, so that
the materials are easier to separate at the end of the products life
[32,33]. For example, environmentally friendly packaging may
result in reduced cost, lower weight and associated logistics costs,
and reduction in materials sent to landlls [34]. Porter and van der
Linde [24] also point out that focusing on producing environmentally friendly products may create safer and less costly nal products, which have higher, more consistent quality and greater scrap
value. An ERM approach to product design takes a life cycle view,
focusing improvement efforts on the areas of greatest environmental impact over the products life cycle [25,3537]. In addition,
consideration should be given to assessing the appropriate life of
the product, and matching that with the expected use period [38]. A
summary of the literature linking ERM to product, process and
supply chain design and 3DCE, is provided in Table 1. Table 2 shows
the focus of the 3DCE and ERM literature on various dimensions of
practice.
Mainstream process development considers manufacturing
methods, equipment, layout and capacity [6,31]. Process-related
ERM initiatives also include a focus on processes that reduce the
source of waste. Waste is any activity that creates additional costs
for the organization or consumes any type of resources without an
offsetting benet [16,55]. Reduction of waste can be accomplished
through production process changes, operational improvements
that reduce waste, and improved inventory management
[5,32,35,36]. Porter and van der Linde [24] also point out that
a sustainable process focus may result in improved process consistency, reduced downtime, and lower costs. Recyclable products
can lower the users disposal costs and lead to designs that allow
companies to more readily recover valuable materials.
Traditional supply chain design focuses on what the company
should in-source versus out-source, who it desires as customers
and suppliers, and the types of relationships it desires with others
in the supply chain [7]. While some organizations might not want
extensive supplier and customer involvement in supply chain
decision making, research supports that such involvement actually
reduces NPD time to market by averting later problems and delays,
[57]. With ever-decreasing product lifecycles, getting products to
market quickly can have a major impact on the products protability and success over its life cycle [18,5861].
Essentially, ERM supply chain initiatives focus on the impact of
the rms activities outside of the rms boundaries, such as the
nature of supplier or customer relationships or delivery mechanisms. Supply chain-oriented ERM initiatives may directly involve
external stakeholders in order to gain the perspective of those
outside of the rms boundaries. Players external to the rm are
engaged for specic reasons, such as supplier involvement to
reduce waste or to utilize more environmentally friendly materials
in their activities [26,41,46,47]. For example, perhaps in part
because of the negative image that WalMart has in some circles, it is
responding to consumers desires for environmentally sound
practices by working with its suppliers to reduce waste in the
supply chain. This is illustrated by Unilevers redesign of its liquid
All Laundry (product) detergent into Small and Mighty. It went
from a bulky 100 oz bottle to a slim 32 oz. bottle with the same
number of loads washed, but Unilever was worried that customers

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

1623

Table 1
Relevant ERM literature summary
Environmental literature stream

Relationship to 3DCE

Contributing authors

Product design

Environmental product design takes a life cycle view and focuses on making
a product that uses environmentally friendly materials, fewer materials, and
mixes fewer materials together.
Involves the reduction of the source of waste through production process and
operational process changes including, improved inventory management,
procurement, and transportation. A sustainable process focus may result in
improved process consistency and quality, reduced downtime, lower costs and
lower waste.
Focus on the impact of the rms activities outside of the rms boundaries
including supplier involvement, evaluation, and audit, customer demands and
concerns, stakeholder perspectives, ESI, and improved demand information.
Consider the impact of incoming components as well as outgoing products.
Sustainable products and processes are designed simultaneously with supply chain
member participation while giving consideration to the entire product lifecycle,
from birth to regeneration.
Conceptual benets of integrating 3DCE and sustainability include reduced
operating costs, competitive advantage, differentiation, improved image, reduced
risks, reduced regulatory compliance costs.

[24,25,3237,39,40]

Process design

Supply chain design

Integration of product/
process/ supply chain

would not notice it next to the large size competitors. This product
meets many ERM supply chain initiatives: less packaging, less
energy cost, less transportation, less to dispose of or recycle, less
shelf space and more. WalMart supported this, heavily promoting

[5,24,32,35,36,4145]

[23,26,41,4649,12,31,50,51]

[25,35,5254,12]

the product. Small and Mighty has been very successful not just at
WalMart, but in other stores as well [62]. Motorola is another
example where working with customers and suppliers positively
improved its environmental footprint. By standardizing pallet

Table 2
Comparison of NPD and ERM practices using the 3DCE lens
Dimensions of 3DCE practice

NPD focus

ERM focus

Key metrics

Reduce cost, inventory, and cycle time; improve

product success and reduce time to market.
Reduce time to market by involving
key supply chain members.
Decrease up front development costs and
overall costs of product introduction;
some consider costs of use and disposal.

Reduce waste and material usage, positive environmental

impact, increase customer acceptance.
Not an explicit goal; however, may reduce time to market
due to anticipating environmental regulatory issues.
Determine the appropriate life of the product and balance
that with expected use. Focus improvement efforts on the
areas with the greatest environmental impacts over the
products lifecycle.
Diminish the environmental impact of the logistics process.
Consolidate shipping, reduce product weight, minimize
packaging and handling, reduce damage, and
reverse logistics planning.
Quality improvements from the focus on issues such as
durability, upgradeability, serviceability, disposability, and
manufacturability. Quality is viewed as a means to reduce
waste and other impacts on the environment.
Focus on the use of environmentally friendly materials,
use and combine fewer materials. Safety, reduced cost,
more consistent quality, and increased scrap value are other
priorities of ERM product design.
Include the methods, equipment and facilities required to
process the goods, and focus on processes that reduce waste.

Time to market
View of life cycle costs

Logistics

Logistics are a necessary part of the manufacture

of products for both inbound and outbound goods, and an
important function in supporting customer service.

Quality

Improve quality and functionality. Quality

improvements come from simultaneous product
development and participation of multiple team members

Product design

Concern with product specications, performance,

quality, and materials. Will it be manufactured
internally with existing or standard technology, or
perhaps use new components or materials?
Link operations strategy to business strategy. Focus on
methods that will be used to manufacture the product:
equipment requirements, plant layout, and process ow.
Span organization boundaries to include customer
and supplier needs and capabilities.
Focus on in-source versus out-source decisions.

Process design

Supply chain management

Voice of the customer

Supplier integration

Internal functional involvement

Managerial involvement

Product, process,
supply chain integration

Reduce time to market and costly changes due to changing

requirements. Involvement of customers
increases the probability of product success, satisfaction,
service, and retention.
Involve suppliers early in the design process to incorporate
ideas and technology as
well as decrease time to market.
Utilize cross-functional teams early in the project to include
design, engineering, manufacturing, and
marketing. Teams are critical for difcult to reverse decisions.
Requires more bottom up managerial support and
decision-making but also requires top management
support for coordination across functions.
Improve operating performance, new product success,
reduce time to market, improve customer
satisfaction and service levels.

Focus on the impact of the rms activities outside of the

rms boundaries. Include planning for the reverse ow of goods
and other and environmental considerations. May include
environmental supplier evaluation and selection and
customer/stakeholder environmental concerns.
Reduce costs and develop environmentally sound products
which meet customers needs.

Involve suppliers in product and process design to reduce

environmental impact. Supplier management is crucial
because their impact on the environment can exceed that of
internal operations.
Utilize cross-functional teams, including purchasing, logistics,
transportation, EHS, design, engineering, nance, and marketing.
ERM initiates from grass roots efforts and incorporates other
administrative interests as well as middle and top management
involvement.
Reduce waste and emissions, eliminate hazardous materials,
minimize environmental impact, maximize resource efciency,
and positive overall environmental footprint.

1624

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

dimensions and improving packaging design it was able to significantly reduce waste, improve logistics productivity, and reduce the
number of work days lost due to injury [22,63].
3.2. The 3DCE-ERM linkage
A review of the literature related to 3DCE concepts in the
mainstream operations literature and in the environmental literature shows that the two literature streams have developed with
many parallels, but limited overlaps, as demonstrated in Table 2. The
literature supporting 3DCE concepts focuses on traditional NPD
performance improvements such as cost reduction, cycle time
reduction, and inventory reduction. The literature focused on
product, process and supply chain design in ERM focuses almost
exclusively on improving environmental impacts. Where environmental impacts and traditional manufacturing goals such as quality
have been studied together and applied in practice, it has been
demonstrated that an environmental focus contributes to improved
quality [42]. Recent business developments such as WalMarts green
product initiative and the growing number of rms that are trying to
support protably developing and selling more environmentally
sound products suggests that, there need not be any conict between the environment and the economy, [62]. It appears that
business practice may be leaping ahead of theory in this arena.
Because there is such extensive overlap among the approaches
used to facilitate NPD and environmental improvements within the
supply chain, there is a great potential for synergy from simultaneously considering traditional performance issues and environmental performance issues in embracing 3DCE concepts. In most
organizations today, environmental goals are still treated quite
separately from traditional new product development goals [6,48].
Traditional goals and environmental goals are managed separately,
creating redundancy and waste in the system. In addition, there is
a perception outside of the environmental health and safety arena
that pursuing environmental goals is strictly compliance-based,
and thus raises product costs while slowing product development
[22]. In the current parallel but separate approach for traditional
versus environmentally responsible product development, this is
probably true. However, by incorporating ERM goals at every step
of the way in 3DCE, organizations should be able to enjoy all of the
benets of traditional NPD and ERM. We will label the integration
of ERM goals and NPD initiatives as NPDERM, and introduce the
papers rst proposition, which posits:
Proposition 1: companies utilizing 3DCE to integrate NPD-ERM
will outperform companies that separately manage NPD and ERM,
in areas such as:
a
b
c
d

reducing environmental waste,

reducing new product time to market,
lowering cost, and
improving product quality.

The benets of concurrent engineering in NPD have been widely

embraced as summarized in Table 1. However, the outcomes of ERM
have been more widely contested within both the academic and
practitioner communities. For example, researchers have found
a positive (e.g., [64,31,65]), negative (e.g., [6668]), and no
relationship (e.g., [69]) between environmental and rm performance. Thus, while this proposition may seem obvious, both
research ndings and managerial perceptions indicate otherwise.
This proposition suggests that it is the integration of NPD and ERM
using 3DCE that will result in various aspects of improved rm
performance. Being able to demonstrate mainstream benets such
as cost savings could be a huge boost for environmental programs,
which have been traditionally viewed as a user of resources, rather
than as a contributor to the rms bottom line [70]. This proposition

is also in the spirit of the ndings of Pil and Rothenberg [42], who
link quality initiatives with improved environmental performance.
The benets listed in proposition 1 are currently being seen on
a product-by-product scale by companies that utilize 3DCE practices to integrate ERM and NPD. For example, in considering
product, process and supply chain issues in developing its Small
and Mighty detergent, Unilever was able to reduce waste and lower
cost. The high level of customer acceptance seems to indicate that
the quality is equal to or better than the old product. This product is
popular enough that it has been copied by Procter and Gamble [62].
At Motorola pallet standardization and package redesign helped to
decrease the time it took to get products to market. Because of the
increased logistics productivity, pallet standardization and
improved tracking and supplier communication, there were fewer
damaged parts and rejected items coming into the production
facilities. This made it easier to get the parts to the production line
and to the customers in a timely fashion [70].
The literature on traditional NPD and the literature related to
NPD with an ERM focus, clearly support that NPD with an ERM
focus takes a much more holistic approach, at least in theory
[25,35,5254,71]. As suggested by Fine [7], the design of products,
processes and supply chains are inexorably intertwined. 3DCE
makes the consideration of the customers, suppliers and supply
chain design explicit rather than an afterthought. A case in point is
Chrysler, who was working to understand and improve its Jeep V8
engines, looking at the critical parts along the chain. However, it
was completely unaware that one of the critical suppliers to its key
supplier for this new concept was planning to get out of what it
viewed as an unprotable business. Without a broader supply chain
perspective, Chrysler had become heavily dependent on a supplier
who did not wish to continue in this line of business [7, p. 106].
While traditional product design is often still performed along
functional lines, or at most with an organization-wide focus rather
than a supply chain focus, organizations cannot afford to perform
sustainable new product development in that manner.
For example, a company with a traditional NPD approach may
judge its success based on sales, protability and inventory levels.
These are all largely internal measures that are taken at a point in
time. ERM focuses on the longer term, considering environmental
impacts throughout a product life cycle. Along those same lines,
ERM considers environmental impacts of products or services
throughout the supply chain [12,50].
3.3. Key supply chain members and impact of integrating
ERM with NPD using 3DCE
In order to minimize the total environmental footprint of an
organizations products, it is important to consider ERM supply
chain issues related to incoming components, as well as the environmental impact of outgoing products. Concurrent product, supply chain and process design in NPD focuses on customer
requirements, distribution, logistics systems, inventory control
processes, information technology and information sharing. Similarly, research indicates that to be successful, environmental
processes must be integrated into all stages of the supply chain and
span the entire life cycle of the product [3]. As part of environmental strategy, organizations are realizing that there is an
advantage to managing waste streams, and preventing pollution,
rather than controlling waste at the end of the pipeline [72,62]. The
following sections explore the impact of logistics, suppliers and
customers on a rms NPD processes and the success of a rms
ERM initiatives, using the 3DCE lens.
3.3.1. Logistics integration
There are signicant savings in both costs and resources that can
be achieved with the integration of logistics processes with supply

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

chain design in ERM. This is also a concern in traditional applications of 3DCE to NPD. For example, better network design and
planning for both inbound and outbound freight allows for full
truckload shipments, reducing fuel consumption and pollution
[57]. Within this realm, reverse logistics can play a signicant role
by creating a closed loop system. This provides efcient returns and
product recovery from the consumer back to the manufacturer and
transforms the value chain into one of regeneration [3,74]. The
reverse logistics process may be a source of competitive advantage
for the rm: assets can be recovered, costs can be reduced, value
can be recaptured for the disassembled products, customer service
levels can improve and loyalty may increase [44,62]. When IBM
developed its ERM focus, it began to reach out more into the supply
chain. It focused rst on its internal operations and the environmental impacts of its products in use. It then reached out to key
suppliers and implemented environmental supplier selection and
performance criteria. However, IBM then realized that while it had
designed its products to be environmentally friendly throughout
their useful lives, the products may not have been properly disposed of, thereby negating their efforts. Thus, IBM implemented
a reverse logistics program for products at their end of life, so that
they could be properly disassembled and reused or recycled
[72,73].
If properly implemented, ERM changes that involve the productsupply chain design linkage (see Fig. 2) can benet not only the
focal rm, but other members of the supply chain as well. For
example, Norwegian food Coop NKL involved transportation carriers and distributors and retailers in a pilot packaging redesign
program rather than use a traditional cross-functional team [20],
historically comprised of internal members of the marketing, production, logistics, and purchasing departments. A combined input
and effort, including relevant members of the external supply
chain, allowed consideration of both the packaging and the supply
chain characteristics. The end result was improved packaging
design, which yielded more efcient pallet utilization and retail
shelf storage, at a signicant savings. Just as importantly, these cost
savings were experienced and shared among members of the
supply chain, including suppliers, retailers, and transportation
carriers.
3.3.2. Supplier integration
In order to create products that have low supply chain environmental impact, it is essential to be able to procure materials and
components with reduced environmental impact [49]. It is important to involve suppliers in the early stages of design because up to
80% of the environmental, social and cost factors are determined at
these early stages [10,38,53,75,76]. Research supports that an
action targeted at supplier management can be more effective in
reducing the adverse impact from the total product life cycle than
an action solely targeting an individual organization [48]. Purchasing involvement with suppliers can include activities such as
material reduction, reuse, and substitution of more environmentally friendly materials [49]. Many of the changes in materials that
result in less waste may come from suppliers [48]. Similarly,
including suppliers in traditional NPD can improve manufacturability [77] and quality [23], reduce relationship risk [78], and increase overall NPD success [79]. The literature in concurrent
engineering also supports that supplier involvement results in
improved process and product outcomes [1,10,19,80].
By improving the quality and the specications of the incoming
materials, waste can be reduced. For example, an electric utility
company in an alliance with their cable supplier re-designed the
power cable packaging to reduce supply chain costs and waste. The
new packaging approach was a reel-less method, which resulted
in an immediate annual savings of over $650,000 in purchased
materials and expenses. Other cost savings included the

1625

elimination of wood reels, reduction in cable waste, disposal costs

including labor, and shipping charges. In addition the environmental benets included reduced demand for newly harvested
wood, a reduction in wood waste, and reuse of material that would
normally be sent to a landll [22].
3.3.3. Customer integration
Including customer requirements in traditional product design
reduces the overall time to market as well as the number of costly
changes to the product [57], signicantly improving new product
success [57,80,81]. A customer focus can help reduce supply chain
waste and associated cost, as well as improve customer satisfaction,
service and retention [82]. Customer requirements can be turned
into goals that unify the entire NPD team across their functional
boundaries [19]. The ERM literature further suggests that supplier
and customer involvement in ERM-focused NPD will result in
improved outcomes, such as lower overall costs, and products and
services that better meet the customers needs [25,53,54]. This
relationship gives producers of environmentally sustainable products an incentive to incorporate customer requirements and supplier inputs into product specications. Thus:
Proposition 2: companies that utilize the 3DCE approach of
integrating key supply chain members early in NPDERM will
outperform companies that do not have this early integration.
a Companies that utilize the 3DCE approach of integrating
logistics providers early in NPDERM will outperform companies that do not have this early integration, in areas such as (i.)
lower cost and (ii.) reduced environmental waste.
b Companies that utilize the 3DCE approach of integrating key
suppliers early in NPDERM will outperform companies that do
not have this early integration, in areas such as: (i.) lower cost
and (ii.) reduced environmental waste.
c Companies that utilize the 3DCE approach of integrating key
customers early in NPDERM will outperform companies that
do not have this early integration, in areas such as: (i.) lower
cost, (ii.) reduced environmental waste and (iii.) improved
customer satisfaction.
On the surface, this proposition may seem self-evident. However, all indications from the practitioner and scholarly literature
support that such early involvement is not commonplace. In
addition, some rms will just involve one external supply chain
member, such as key customers, and ignore the potential benets of
involving suppliers and logistics providers. This was the case with
Motorola, which developed an excellent new product in cell phones
by understanding customer needs and concerns, and even considering end of life product returns. However, Motorola did not
actively involve its suppliers and logistics providers in NPD and
ERM concerns associated with the supply chain for inbound parts.
As a result, inbound packaging and labeling problems, pallet
problems and resultant excess injury and waste disposal problems
due to poor labeling and improper pallet conguration and materials cost Motorola millions each year. Thus, it seems that the results
of testing this proposition could lie on a continuum, from companies which do not involve logistics providers, suppliers or
customers in any aspect of NPDERM, to those that involve all three
in product, process and inbound and outbound supply chain design
[83]. The advantage of overtly using 3DCE to integrate NPD with
ERM is that it makes explicit the areas to be considered. Thus, if
applied properly, the impact of packaging choices and supply chain
decisions would not be overlooked.
Gathering the evidence to empirically test this proposition could
help organizations better justify early supply chain involvement in
NPDERM, and perhaps even gain an understanding of which areas
of involvement by which external supply chain members are the

1626

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

most fruitful. While the above literature and propositions focus on

the importance of engaging key supply chain stakeholders in NPD
ERM through 3DCE, it does not directly address the key internal
stakeholders. The next sections consider this issue.
3.4. Engaging internal functions in NPDERM using 3DCE
Just as it is critical to involve key external supply chain members
in NPDERM, it is also critical to involve internal functions on crossfunctional teams. The mainstream 3DCE literature notes the
importance of cross-functional teams in new product development
[7]. Cross-functional teams provide an avenue for participants to
express concerns, as well as enhance organizational learning [60],
and more effectively manage complex decision-making processes
[84]. Cross-functional project teams should be established early in
the NPD process and include members from design engineering,
manufacturing engineering, planning, marketing, purchasing and
logistics [7]. Early involvement allows for early problem identication, better cross-functional coordination and faster decisionmaking [85].
The environmental literature also notes the importance of crossfunctional teams in the success of environmentally responsible
projects. Those involved should include purchasing and design,
manufacturing, logistics and transportation [46,47], nance, marketing, environmental health and safety personnel and other key
internal stakeholders. HewlettPackard, recognized as a Global 100
Most Sustainable Corporation, explicitly incorporates design for
environment in its new product development process, engaging
EHS on its cross-functional product development teams [70,86,87].
HewlettPackards design for environment initiative has three
areas of focus: materials innovation; energy efciency; and design
for recyclability. One example of a successful outcome of crossfunctional design for environment is the DeskJet 3740. It weighs
only 4.5 pounds, shares a common platform with other printers,
and will reduce material use by more than 26,000 pounds over
a four-year period [87]. HewlettPackard also receives numerous
awards for its environmentally conscious product design and
recycling programs for both hardware and print cartridges.
The mainstream 3DCE or NPD literature gives limited attention
to the involvement of the environmental health and safety (EHS)
group in environmental initiatives, although they in fact lead or
guide many such initiatives [22]. For example, GEMI, the Global
Environmental Management Initiative, has a strong membership of
EHS directors, who are held accountable for leading and directing
their organizations environmental initiatives. Thus, in order to
effectively accomplish environmental goals within the 3DCE
framework, representatives from EHS should be part of the crossfunctional team using 3DCE for ERM. Further, this participation
must begin early in the design process, before difcult-to-reverse
decisions have been made. This also implies that the internal crossfunctional team should be a focal interface with key supply chain
stakeholders, such as logistics, customers and suppliers. Thus:
Proposition 3: Firms that include the environmental health and
safety function in cross-functional coordination during, or prior to,
the design phase of new product development within the 3DCE
framework will achieve superior environmental outcomes versus
rms who do not.
The argument can effectively be made that all waste begins with
the design practices of an organization. In designing products,
processes and supply chains that do not specically consider
environmental impact, organizations implicitly design for waste
rather than for environment [88]. Intel Corporation strives to be
a leader in EHS performance. In 2001, Intel engineers discovered
a way to reduce the weight of the trays used to transport microprocessors by switching from injection-molded plastic to thermoformed plastic. This innovation saved millions of dollars per years

and millions of pounds of plastics material per year, with minimal

up-front capital investment. The project was developed by an
engineering group but implemented by representatives from
engineering, manufacturing, commodity management and supplier
qualication, EHS, various Intel product groups, and key customers
[22].
Proposition 3 could be tested via an in-depth case study which
examines 3DCE-ERM integration at the project level, across time
and through multiple case analyses which incorporate retrospective data (e.g., [96]) and integrate more objective data such as
internal documentation of the implementation process. This
methodology would allow for the comparison of the results of
similar projects where EHS was involved early in development and
where it was rst involved at a later stage.
3.5. Top management support
From an organization standpoint, there appears to be a gap in
the execution of NPDERM. The strategic choice literature indicates
that top management may initiate changes to organizational
structure and systems; however, actual changes in product and
process frequently occur from the bottom-up [89]. For this
research, a top-down approach is dened as one in which a rms
top management directs the implementation of an action; in contrast, a bottom-up approach occurs when the implementation
originates from managers within a specic function in the organization (e.g., [90]). 3DCE changes to production processes and
products, which are based in an organizations technology, are ones
that are often driven from the bottom-up, where the expertise
exists within the technical core of functional areas such as research
and development and engineering [91,92]. However, broader
administrative changes pertaining to organizational design and
structure, which often come from the top-down, are probably also
necessary [93]. Correspondingly, our review of the environmental
literature indicates that middle management plays a key role
regarding changes to supply chain relationships and product choice
[94], while top management can signicantly inuence an organizations culture and policies regarding socially responsible initiatives [95]. Support by top management is also required to
coordinate activities across product, process, and supply chain [96].
This suggests that a combined, top-down, bottom-up approach
might be needed to effectively align the 3DCE integration in the
NPDERM model. Thus it appears that an alignment of product,
process, and supply chain will require the strong support of both
top and middle management. Much of the change might be driven
initially at the functional level through the new product
development process, for example, by marketing and R&D. However, top management support and coordination will likely be
necessary in order to orchestrate the coordination of the production process and conguration of the supply chain. These
ndings suggest the need for the involvement and direction of both
top and middle management in effecting 3DCE integration into
NPD-ERM, and lead to the next proposition:
Proposition 4: a combined, top-down, bottom-up managerial
approach is essential for effective NPDERM utilizing 3DCE.
This proposition suggests that literature that advocates top
management [97101] versus middle management [94102] support is not incorrect, but rather incomplete. Given the cross-functional and at times grass roots [102] nature of environmental
projects, a combined top-down, bottom up approach is likely
needed. GEMI also acknowledges this, trying to reach both audiences with its research initiatives. For example, its recent report on
the contribution of environmental and other EHS initiatives to
shareholder value was directed to CEOs and CFOs [70], while a later
report on improving supply chain value through EHS was directed
at EHS and supply chain professionals [22]. In the Motorola

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

example mentioned above, the effort to improve packaging

compliance began as a grass-roots effort with EHS. It did not receive
full cross-functional acceptance and support until upper-level
management became involved.

4. A model for effectively integrating 3DCE

with NPD and ERM
The literature reviewed in Section 2 shows that there is a wellestablished body of knowledge supporting 3DCE dimensions and
their linkages, although the literature does not always use the 3DCE
terminology, or link the various aspects of 3DCE holistically. It also
demonstrates that there is a growing body of knowledge on ERM.
However, an integrated framework delineating the integration of
3DCE to simultaneously support 3DCE and ERM is needed. Our
objective here is not to propose an all-encompassing model that
exhaustively identies the antecedents to and consequences of
integrating 3DCE into NPDERM, but rather to provide a broad
framework to guide future research and investigation in this area.
The framework, shown in Fig. 3, illustrates the proposed linkages
among the constructs. They are discussed further in Section 5.

5. Theoretical and managerial implications

A key purpose of this research was to demonstrate the strong
relationship between 3DCE NPD and ERM. This was done through
the development of four research propositions, and the theoretical
model in Fig. 3. In practice, many organizations treat NPD and ERM as
separate processes, while both independently use many of the 3DCE
concepts. The traditional NPD business objectives are outcomes such
as reduced time to market, low cost, and improved manufacturability. The goals of ERM are oriented towards reducing the environmental impact of products throughout the life of the product,
including disposal. The approach that is effective in achieving the
goals of both NPD and ERM is to simultaneously design the product,
the process and the supply chain: in other words, to use 3DCE. This
paper contends that 3DCE approaches can be effectively used to
integrate the goals of ERM efforts with those of NPD efforts. Such
synergy provided by 3DCE will increase the acceptance of ERM in
NPD. Companies can meet the apparently conicting goals of sustaining the environment, while satisfying corporate protability
objectives and providing excellent new product performance. The
theoretical implications of our propositions and framework are
discussed next in Section 5.1. A managerial framework for guiding
3DCE-ERM decisions is then presented in Section 5.2.

Customer, Supplier
and Logistics
Involvement

1627

5.1. Theoretical implications

Proposition 1 posits that by integrating ERM with NPD processes
through 3DCE, organizations can deliver measurable benets above
what they would be able to achieve if ERM and NPD were managed
separately. This is illustrated in the middle and right box of Fig. 3.
These benets include, but are not limited to: environmental waste
reduction, reduced time to market, lower costs and quality
improvements. These benets should be of great interest to
managers of ERM. The best way to glean support for their efforts
within an organization is to show that there is a net benet beyond
helping the environment. Too often, sustainable initiatives are
viewed as increasing the rms cost, although this is changing
rapidly [103]. To be able to demonstrate a net benet in terms of
cost, speed, or other traditional performance measures could
greatly increase the acceptance of ERM efforts in the organization.
Demonstrating the value of ERM to the organizations success is
a major objective of environmental industry groups such as GEMI
[22,70].
Proposition 2 focuses on the natural synergy that results from
key supply chain stakeholder involvement in NPDERM efforts.
This is shown in the top left box in Fig. 3. The inputs and outputs of
ERM extend beyond the borders of the organization into the supply
chain. Thus, following a 3DCE approach that incorporates logistics
issues along with the voice of the supplier and the voice of the
customer will result in more successful outcomes in terms of both
ERM objectives and traditional NPD objectives reected in 3DCE.
Fine [7] emphasizes the criticality of choosing the right suppliers
and forming the right types of relationships with those suppliers.
Prior research suggests that the same holds true when working
with customers. Thus, the benets suggested by proposition 2:
lower cost, reduced environmental waste, and improved customer
satisfaction, could go a long way in gaining support for NPDERM
initiatives simultaneously utilizing 3DCE.
Like proposition 2, propositions 3 and 4 focus on the importance
of getting the right people involved in NPDERM. Proposition 3
(middle left box in Fig. 3) emphasizes the importance of an internal
team at the earliest stages of NPD for successful 3DCE. The team
should include key internal players, including EHS. The team
should play a signicant role as an interface with key supply chain
members.
Proposition 4 (the bottom left box in Fig. 4) implies the need for
top management to better understand the potential advantages to
appropriately aligning product, process, and supply chain, rather
than creating a conguration of the 3DCE variables that they simply
feel most comfortable with. Obviously, this is easier said than
done. Miller [104] suggests that managers can align such a conguration in incremental steps rather than giant leaps. As

(+)
P2

Outcomes
Cross-Functional
Team Involvement

Top-Down,
Bottom-Up
Approach

(+)
P3

3DCE to Align
NPD and ERM

(+)
P1, P2, P3

(+)
P4

Fig. 3. A 3DCE framework for NPDERM.

Reduced Cost
Reduced Waste
Decreased Time
to Market
Improved Quality
and Customer
Satisfaction

1628

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

Product Process, Reuse of By-Products,

Recycling, Remanufacturing

ERM and 3DCE

Product Design

Process Design

Use of Environmentally Friendly

Products, Material Changes/Reduction
in the Number of and Different
Type of Materialst

Elimination of Waste
Through Process Changes
and Improvements

Supply Chain Design

Changing Supply Chain, Suppliers,
Customers, Improved Demand Information,
Supplier Evaluation

Early Supplier Involvement, Supplier Selection

Criteria, Customer Involvement, Customer Demand,
Improved Forecasting, Supplier Management

Reverse Logistics, Inventory Control.

Processes, Integration of Technology,
Information Processes, Procurement
Practices, Life Cycle Analysis

Fig. 4. 3-D Engineering integrating new product development and environmentally responsible manufacturing. Modied from Fine, [7, p. 146] and [8].

emphasized in proposition 4, effective NPDVERM utilizing 3DCE

requires involvement and support at all levels of the organization. It
cannot be a top management solution. Understanding this is
particularly critical as more companies jump on the green
bandwagon. For example, 3Ms top management provides highlevel support and resources for ERM. It relies upon the business
units and various levels and functions to identify and implement
sustainability initiatives that are in line with 3Ms Environmental,
Health and Safety (EHS) Management System and support a life
cycle perspective [89]. Cross-functional, new product introduction
teams use a Life Cycle Management matrix to address the environmental, health and safety (EHS) opportunities and issues at each
stage of the products life [105]. Fig. 3 shows the incorporation of
the four propositions as a basic framework for integrating traditional NPD with ERM. First, support from external supply chain
members (proposition 2), internal team members (proposition 3)
and both top management and the functional workforce (proposition 4) is needed to create alignment of NPD and ERM goals. With
this alignment of goals, positive results will be forthcoming from
NPDERM utilizing 3DCE, such as environmental waste reduction,
reduced time to market, and cost improvements. These benets
will be greater than what could have been achieved had NPD and
ERM been pursued separately. Taken together, Fig. 3 provides
a preliminary roadmap for considering the key people and types of
involvement in using 3DCE to link new product development and
environmentally responsible manufacturing to yield the desired
outcomes.
5.2. A managerial framework for NPDERM utilizing 3DCE
Fig. 4 is an adaptation of the 3DCE model presented by Fine [7].
This framework illustrates how NPD and ERM are linked through
3DCE. It can be used as a point of reference for managers interested
in better understanding some of the processes associated with
3DCE in NPDERM. For example, if a manager was interested in
implementing NPDERM with 3DCE, the framework in Fig. 4 provides a listing of the particular activities of concern in the areas of
product, process and supply chain for ERM. It also notes the
activities that are at the intersection of two areas. Due to the
integrated nature of 3DCE there are many activities that overlap
two areas. A true 3DCE perspective on NPDERM would embrace
the simultaneous development and integration of some activities in
each area of product, process and supply chain or their overlaps.

This gure can also be useful to practicing ERM managers to help

ensure that they did not overlook key NPDERM activities that
might present performance improvement opportunities.
6. Conclusions and future research
The NPDERM framework based on 3DCE presented here offers
many new research opportunities. The framework suggests that
studies examining the alignment of product, process, and supply
chain are needed to improve outcomes and to expand the body of
knowledge in the area of ERM. In this section, consideration is given
to the next logical steps in conducting research related to utilizing
3DCE within the area of NPD and ERM.
6.1. Testing the proposed model
Given the exploratory nature of the proposed framework, the
rst step in systematically examining the relationship between
NPD and ERM should be through targeted case studies, to better
understand the relationship between these two constructs. To
explore proposition 1, which posits that organizations that
integrate ERM with NPD using 3DCE achieve superior results, the
researchers would have to target a sample of rms that manage
NPDERM using 3DCE and ones that manage NPDERM separately.
A case study approach would also allow the researchers to identify
additional antecedents and consequences to those proposed in the
framework in Fig. 3. Included among the potential, additional
antecedents is the role of government regulation in shaping 3DCE
alignment with regards to ERM efforts. While regulation might
drive environmental initiatives, it can also act as a barrier to
effective alignment [24]. Consequences of ERM include not only
environmental results, which might require a life cycle analysis to
allow more accurate measurement but also entail nancial consequences. GEMI [70] has suggested that successful ERM initiatives
boost shareholder value. These possible outcomes of using 3DCE to
integrate NPDERM might be measured by examining archival data
and through the use of a nancial event methodology [23].
A case study methodology should include the use of multiple
informants, across functional areas and even across organizations,
to allow a deeper and richer understanding of the framework. Such
participation would be crucial to gather evidence for propositions
2, 3 and 4, which consider the participation of key supply chain
members, internal team members such as EHS, and top

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

management, respectively. It is important to obtain the perspectives of the various internal and external stakeholders to
understand their roles in and perceptions of the organizations
3DCE efforts in regard to NPDERM. Incorporated within this phase
of research should be a specication of the domain of the frameworks constructs, which is a recommended rst stage in
developing empirical measures of research constructs [106,107].
The unit of analysis would likely be a specic NPDERM project, in
order to best understand the specic interactions among players as
well as the outcomes.
6.2. Expanding the model to include social and economic issues
The concept of sustainability extends beyond environmental
issues to embrace social issues as well as local economic issues. The
3DCE-ERM model of new product development can be expanded to
include broader sustainability goals as part of the new product
development process. The key benet of including social and economic goals as part of 3DCE-ERM is integration into NPD, rather
than inclusion as an afterthought. The benets expected in the
propositions above should also extend to social and economic
issues. For example, proposition 2 states that, Companies that
utilize the 3DCE approach of integrating key supply chain members
early in NPDERM will outperform companies that do not have this
early integration. One would also expect that companies that
employ early integration of other sustainability goals, such as
economic and social/cultural sustainability, would perform better
on those measures than companies that do not.
It would also be very interesting to explore the synergy among
environmental, economic and social sustainability as part of new
product development. Does early integration of all of these goals
during new product development create improvement in specic
performance outcomes, such as reduced cost and waste, versus
a focus on just the environmental aspects of sustainability? Might
there be some tradeoffs present to create a balance among environmental, economic and social goals? The authors believe that
integrating multiple goals earlier in NPD will create greater benets
than focusing on just environmental aspects alone. While tradeoffs
will certainly exist in some areas, it is becoming increasingly
obvious through company experiences such as those shared in the
paper that an environmental focus can support, if not enhance
quality, cost, customer service and other goals, rather than lead to
sacrice.
6.3. Future research
To complement the case studies in investigating the relationship
between 3DCE and ERM, a survey methodology could be employed
to expand upon and triangulate the ndings from the case studies
that we proposed above [108]. Here, researchers will need to generate valid and reliable scales to measure 3DCE in NPD and ERM.
Figs. 1 and 4 and Table 2 provide a starting point for construct
development. In addition to ndings from the proposed case
studies, researchers can employ focus groups and personal
interviews to offer insights for generating scale items. Due to their
breadth, the measurement via a survey instrument of some constructs, such as ERM, may have to be framed from the perspective of
a single dimension of ERM.
Further, given the need to coordinate the alignment of 3DCE,
future empirical research will likely require a high level and/or
multifunctional perspective. In fact regardless of the chosen
research methodology, future research will need to examine the
relationship between 3DCE and NPDERM from a broad-based
perspective one that will be able to knowledgeably consider and
report upon the integration of product, process, and supply chain
from multiple perspectives.

1629

7. Conclusions
There is a great deal of interest in the state of the environment
today. Utilizing the approaches suggested by the relatively new
theory of 3DCE in improving the outcomes of NPD and environmentally responsible manufacturing efforts holds great promise for
integrating ERM into mainstream NPD concerns. 3DCE appears to
be a lens for demonstrating that ERM efforts can support traditional
product development goals as well as environmental product
development goals. While 3DCE is still new in practice, companies
beginning to embrace 3DCE can take it to the next level by combining their NPD and ERM programs. The amalgamation of these
activities is a logical t that can support better outcomes for the
organization, with less cost and fewer resources than pursuing NPD
and ERM separately.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Institute for Manufacturing
Enterprise Systems (IMES) in the W. P. Carey School of Business and
Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University. The
authors would like to thank Elliott Rabinovich, Kevin Dooley, and
Manus Rungtusanatham for their helpful suggestions and insights
towards improving earlier versions of this paper.
References
[1] Koufteros X, Vonderembse M, Doll W. Integrated product development
practices and competitive capabilities: the effects of uncertainty,
equivocality, and platform strategy. J Oper Manag 2002;20(4):33155.
[2] Petersen K, Handeld R, Ragatz G. Supplier integration into new product
development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design. J Oper
Manag 2005;23(3/4):37188.
[3] Handeld R, Walton S, Seegers L, Melynk S. Green value chain practices in the
furniture industry. J Oper Manag 1997;15:293315.
[4] Walley N, Whitehead B. Its not easy being green. Har Bus Rev 1994;72(3):
4652.
[5] Angell L, Klassen R. Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: an
agenda for research in operations management. J Oper Manag 1994;
17:57598.
[6] Handeld R, Melnyk S, Calantone R, Curkovic S. Integrating environmental
concerns into the design process: the gap between theory and practice. IEEE
Trans Eng Manage 2001;48(2):189208.
[7] Fine C. Clockspeed. New York: Perseus Books; 1998.
[8] Ellram L, Tate W, Carter C. An integrative approach to 3DCE. Int J Phys Distrib
Logist Manage 2007;37(4):30530.
[9] Smith R, Melnyk S. Green manufacturing. Dearborn, MI: Society of
Manufacturing Engineers (1996). In: Melnyk S, Sroufe R, Montabon F, editors.
How Does Management View Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing?.
Prod Inventory Manag J 2001;42(34):56.
[10] Balasubramanian R. Concurrent engineeringda powerful enabler of supply
chain management. Qual Prog 2001;34(6):4753.
[11] Klassen R, Angell L. An international comparison of environmental
management in operations; the impact of manufacturing exibility in the U.
S. and Germany. J Oper Manag 1998;16(23):17794.
[12] Sarkis J. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management.
J Clean Prod 2003;11:15974.
[13] Meredith J. Theory building through conceptual methods. Int J Oper Prod
Man 1993;13(5):311.
[14] Melnyk SA, Handeld RB. May you live in interesting times. the emergence
of theory-driven empirical research. J Oper Manag 1998;16(4):3119.
[15] Wacker JG. A denition of theory: research guidelines for different theorybuilding research methods in operations management. J Oper Manag 1998;
16(4):36185.
[16] Carter CR, Ellram LM. Thirty-ve years of the Journal of Supply Chain
Management: where have we been, where are we going? J Suppl Chain
Manage 2003;39(2):2739.
[17] Handeld RB, Melnyk SA. The scientic theory-building process: a primer
using the case of TQM. J Oper Manag 1998;16(4):32139.
[18] Blackburn J, Hoedemaker G, Van Wassenhove L. Concurrent software engineering: prospects and pitfalls. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1996;43(2):17988.
[19] Swink M. A tutorial on implementing concurrent engineering in new product
development programs. J Oper Manag 1998;16:10316.
[20] Judson J. Integrating supplier designed components into a semiautomatic
product development process. In: MIT, LFM Masters thesis, 1998, Idem
assessing a new product development process using 3-dimensional
concurrent engineering and term paper for course 15.769, Cambridge, MA:
MIT, 1998, in Charles Fine Clockspeed, pp. 152153.

1630

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

[21] Stock J. Development and implementation of reverse logistics programs.

Oakbrook, IL: Council of Logistics Management; 1998.
[22] GEMI.
Forging
new
links.
Available
at:
http://www.gemi.org/
GEMI-ForgingNewLinks-June04.PDF; 2004 [accessed 11-1-2004].
[23] Klassen R, McLaughlin C. TQM and environmental excellence in
manufacturing. Ind Manage Data Syst 1993;93(6):1426.
[24] Porter M, van der Linde C. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Har
Bus Rev 1995;73(5):12034.
[25] Shrivastava P. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.
Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(4):93660.
[26] Min H, Galle W. Green purchasing strategies: trends and implications. Int J
Purchasing Mater Management 1997;33(3):107.
[27] Sarkis J. Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. European J
Oper Manag 1998;107:15974.
[28] Carter C, Kale R, Grimm C. Environmental purchasing and rm performance: an
empirical investigation. Transport Res E Logist Transport Rev 2000;36:21928.
[29] Klassen R. Just in time manufacturing and pollution prevention generate
mutual benets in the furniture industry. Interfaces 2000;30(3):95106.
[30] Melnyk S, Sroufe R, Calantone R. Assessing the impact of environmental
management systems on corporate and environmental performance. J Oper
Manag 2003;21(3):32951.
[31] Rao P, Holt D. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance? Int J Prod Oper Manage 2005;25(9):898916.
[32] Sarkis J, Rasheed A. Greening the manufacturing function. Bus Horiz 1995;
38(5):1728.
[33] De Ron A. Sustainable production: the ultimate result of continuous
improvement. Int J Prod Econ 1998;56-57(20):119.
[34] Maxwell J, Rothenberg S, Briscoe F, Marcus A. Green schemes: corporate
environmental strategies and their implementation. Calif Manag Rev 1997;
39(3):11834.
[35] Starik M, Rands G. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem
perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Acad Manage Rev
1995;20(4):90835.
[36] Sabatini J. The color of money. Automot Manuf Prod 2000;112(6):749.
[37] Nielsen P, Wenzel H. Integration of environmental aspects in product
development: a stepwise procedure based on quantitative life cycle
assessment. J Clean Prod 2002;10:24757.
[38] Thompson B. Environmentally-sensitive design: Leonardo was right!. Mater
Des 1999;20:2330.
[39] Waage S. Reconsidering product design: a practical road-map for
integration of sustainability issues. J Clean Prod 2007;15(7):63849.
[40] OBrien C. Sustainable productionda new paradigm for a new millennium.
Int J Prod Econ 1999;6061:17.
[41] Walton S, Handeld R, Melnyk S. The green supply chain: integrating
suppliers into environmental management processes. Int J Purchasing Mater
Management 1998;34(2):211.
[42] Pil F, Rothenberg S. Environmental performance as a driver of superior
quality. Prod Oper Manag 2003;12(3):40415.
[43] Pohlen L, Farris M. Reverse logistics in plastics recycling. Int J Phys Distrib
Logist Manag 1992;22(7):3547.
[44] Dault V. The bi-directional supply chain: creating value out of reverse
logistics. Supply Chain Forum 2002;3(1):209.
[45] Gungor A, Gupta S. Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and
product recovery: a survey. Comput Ind Eng 1999;36:81153.
[46] Carter J, Narasimhan R. Sourcings role in environmental supply chain
management, part 1 of 2. Supply Chain Manage Rev 2000a;III(4):7888.
[47] Carter J, Narasimhan R. Sourcings role in environmental supply chain
management, part 2 of 2. Supply Chain Manage Rev 2000b;III(4):7888.
[48] Handeld R, Walton S, Sroufe R, Melynk S. Applying environmental criteria to
supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy
process. Eur J Oper Res 2002;141:7087.
[49] Carter C, Carter J. Interorganizational determinants of environmental
purchasing: initial evidence from the consumer products industries. Decision
Sci 1998;29(3):65984.
[50] Hervani A, Helms M, Sarkis J. Performance measurement for green supply
chain management. Benchmarking Int J 2005;12(4):33053.
[51] Chen C. Design for the environment: a quality-based model for green product
development. Manage Sci 2001;47(2):25063.
[52] Hart S. A natural resource based view of the rm. Acad Manage J 1995;20(4):
9861014.
[53] Maxwell D, van der Vorst R. Developing sustainable products and services. J
Clean Prod 2003;11(8):88395.
[54] Manzini E, Vezzoli C. A strategic design approach to develop sustainable
product service systems: examples taken from the environmentally friendly
Italian prize. J Clean Prod 2003;11(8):8517.
[55] Sazadeh M, Ritzman L, Sharma D, Wood C. An empirical analysis of the
productprocess matrix. Manage Sci 1996;42(11):157691.
[56] Sroufe R, Curkovic S, Montabon F, Melnyk S. The new product design process
and design for environment crossing the chasm. Int J Oper Prod Man 2000;
20(2):26791.
[57] Burchill G, Fine C. Time versus market orientation in product concept
development. Manage Sci 1997;43(4):46579.
[58] Gupta A, Wilemon DL. Accelerating the development of technology-based
new products. Calif Manag Rev 1990;32(2):2444.
[59] Eisenhardt K, Tabrizi B. Accelerating adaptive processesdproduct innovation
in the global computer industry. Adm Sci Q 1995;40:84110.

[60] Koufteros X, Vonderembse M, Doll W. Concurrent engineering and its

consequences. J Oper Manag 2001;19:97115.
[61] Swink M. Product developmentdfaster, on-time. Res Technol Manage 2002,
JulyAugust:508.
[62] Gunther M. The green machine. Fortune. Available at: http://walmartstores.
com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg 651 August 6, 2006 [accessed
March 9, 2007].
[63] Carter C, Ellram L, Tate W. Structure, inuence, and beliefs: a logistics application of social network analysis. J Bus Logist 2007;28(1):13768.
[64] Klassen R, McLaughlin C. The impact of environmental management on rm
performance. Manage Sci 1996;42(8):1199214.
[65] Spicer BH. Investors, corporate social performance, and information
disclosure: an empirical study. Account Rev 1978;53(1):94111.
[66] Bragdon J, Marlin J. Is pollution protable? Risk Manage 1972;19(4):918.
[67] Ullmann A. Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the
relationship among social performance, social disclosure, and economic
performance. Acad Manage Rev 1985;10(3):54077.
[68] Codeiro J, Sarkis J. Environment proactivism and rm performance: evidence from business analysts forecasts. Bus Strategy Environ 1997;6(2):
10214.
[69] Alexander G, Buchholz R. Research notes corporate social responsibility and
stock market performance. Acad Manage J 1978;21(3):47986.
[70] Gemi.
Clear
advantage.
Available
at:
http://www.gemi.org/
GEMI%20Clear%20Advantage.pdf; 2004 [accessed 10-15-2004].
[71] Sidkar S. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE J 2003;
49(8):192832.
[72] IBM environment and well being progress report. From IBM, environment
website. Available at: http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment/annual2002/
ibmbroch02.pdf; 2002 [accessedJune 30, 2003].
[73] Ellram L, Tate W. IBMs supply-base efforts towards sustainability. PRACTIX:
best practices in purchasing and supply management. Available at:
http://www.capsresearch.org/publications/pdfs-protected/practix082003.
pdf [accessed August, 2003].
[74] Sarkis J. Supply chain management and environmentally conscious design and manufacturing. Int J Environ Conscious Des Manuf 1995;
4(2):4352.
[75] Ashley S. Designing for the environment. Mech Eng 1993;115(4):528.
[76] Argument L, Lettice F, Bharma T. Environmentally conscious design: matching industry requirements with academic research. Des Stud 1998;
19(1):6380.
[77] Wasti S, Liker J. Risky business or competitive power? Supplier involvement
in Japanese product design. J Prod Innovat Manag 1997;14:33755.
[78] Birou L, Fawcett S. Supplier involvement in integrated product development:
a comparison of US and European practices. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag
1994;24(5):414.
[79] McCutcheon D, Grant R, Hartley J. Determinants of new product designers
satisfaction with suppliers contributions. J Eng Technol Manage 1997;14:
27390.
[80] OLeary-Kelly S, Flores B. The integration of manufacturing and marketing/
sales decisions: impact on organizational performance. J Oper Manag 2002;
20(3):22140.
[81] Ettlie J. Integrated design and new product success. J Oper Manag 1997;
15(1):3355.
[82] Vokurka R, Lummus R. Better supply chain with Baldridge. Available at: Qual
Prog(4):517 http://qic.asq.org/perl/search.pl?item 18969, April 2003;36
[accessed February 10, 2004].
[83] Fiksel J, Lambert D, Artman L, Harris J, Share H. Environmental excellence:
the new supply chain edge. Supply Chain Manage Rev 2004;8(5):508.
[84] Grifn A. The effect of project and process characteristics on product
development cycle time. J Marketing Res 1997;XXXIV:2435.
[85] Zirger B, Hartley J. The effect of acceleration techniques on product
development time. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1996;43(2):14352.
[86] Global 100 most sustainable corporation report. Available at:
http://www.global100.org/2005/index.asp [accessed December 29, 2005]n.d.
[87] HewlettPackard global citizenship report. Available at: http://www.hp.com/
hpinfo/globalcitizenship/gcreport/pdf/summary_data_table.pdf;
2005
[accessed December 29, 2005].
[88] McDonough W, Braungart M. Cradle to cradle. New York: North Point Press;
2002.
[89] Daft R. A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Acad Manage J 1978;
21:193210.
[90] Carter C, Kaufmann L, Beall LS, Carter P, Hendrick T, Petersen K. Reverse
auctionsdgrounded theory from the buyer and supplier perspective.
Transport Res E 2004;40(3):22954.
[91] Higgins C, Howell J. Champions of change: identifying, understanding, and
supporting champions of technology innovations. Organ Dyn 1990;
19(1):4055.
[92] Howell J, Higgins C. Champions of technology innovation. Adm Sci Q 1990;
35(2):31741.
[93] Teece D. The diffusion of an administrative innovation. Manage Sci 1980;
26(5):46470.
[94] Carter C, Ellram L, Ready K. Environmental purchasing: benchmarking our
German counterparts. Int J Purchasing Mater Management 1990;
34(4):2839.
[95] Carter C, Jennings M. Logistics social responsibility: an integrative framework. J Bus Logist 2002;23(1):14580.

L.M. Ellram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 16201631

[96] Carter C, Dresner M. Environmental purchasing and supply management:
cross-functional development of grounded theory. J Suppl Chain Manage
2001;37(3):1227.
[97] Mintzberg H. Managerial work: analysis from observation. Manage Sci 1971;
18(2):B97110.
[98] Mintzberg H. The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row; 1973.
[99] Mintzberg H. The managers job: folklore and fact. Har Bus Rev 1975;53(July/
August):4961.
[100] Kurke L, Aldrich H. Mintzberg was right! A replication and extension of the
nature of managerial work. Manage Sci 1983;29(8):97584.
[101] Hamel G, Prahalad C. Strategic intent. Har Bus Rev 1989;67(MayJune):
6376.
[102] Drumwright M. Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. J Marketing 1994;
58(3):119.

1631

[103] Thomson TS. Its good to be green. BusinessWeek. Available at: http://www.
businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_19/b3983116.htm?chan search
May 8, 2006 [accessed March 10, 2007].
[104] Miller D. Congurations revisited. Strategic Manage J 1996;17(7):50512.
[105] 3M Worldwide Environmental Health & Safety Management Systems. From
3M Worldwide Environmental Social and Economic Sustainability Website.
Available at: http://www.3m.com/about3m/sustainability/policies_ehs.jhtml
[accessed June 30, 2003] (n.d.).
[106] Churchill G. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J Marketing Res 1979;16(1):6473.
[107] Flynn B, Sakakibara S, Schroeder R, Bates K, Flynn E. Empirical research
methods in operations management. J Oper Manag 1990;9(2):25084.
[108] McGrath J. Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas. In:
McGrath JE, Martin J, Kulka RA, editors. Judgment calls in research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1982. p. 69102.