Compilation of the Best Practices for Auditing the Sustainable Development of Organizations

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Contemporary organizations tend to be moving away from the traditional model of management and head towards the idea of sustainable development. The article puts forward the idea of sustainable development concerning a company’s operations. The compiled catalog of best practices provides an operationalized concept of sustainable development and assumes the claim to achieve all well-balanced corporate economic, environmental, and social goals simultaneously. The catalog includes collections of best practices in three areas – Human, Lean and Green. According to the HLG concept, an enterprise is supposed to enhance its performance in the three areas: production (services) in terms of waste elimination in processes (Lean), the impact on the natural environment (Green), and workplace quality (Human). The catalog was developed to design and implement an audit tool aimed to measure sustainable development in manufacturing and service companies. Assessment of corporate sustainability is carried out by measuring indices obtained from the analysis of answers given to the questions regarding the application of good practices in the audited organization.


Sustainability Production Manufacturing Services Good practices Audit questions 


  1. 1.
    World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verrier, B., Rose, B., Caillaud, E., Remita, H.: Combining organizational performance with sustainable development issues: the lean and green project benchmarking repository. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 83–93 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryke, M., Starzyńska, B.: Human Lean Green conception as the instrument of sustainability of organizational development oriented towards the increase of its effectiveness. Research Papers of Wroclaw University of Economics, Sustainable development of organization – environmental responsibility 377, pp. 119–136 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rojek, I., Dostatni, E.: Artificial neural network-supported selection of materials in ecodesign. In: Trojanowska, J., Ciszak, O., Machado, J., Pavlenko, I. (eds.) Advances in Manufacturing II. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, pp. 422–431. Springer, Cham (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dostatni, E., Diakun, J., Grajewski, D., Wichniarek, R., Karwasz, A.: Functionality assessment of ecodesign support system. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 6(1), 10–15 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asharavi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T.R., Magnan, G.: How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: a theoretical review of their relationships. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25(8), 672–682 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nielsen, A.E., Andersen, S.E.: Corporate social responsibility. Int. Encycl. Strate. Commun. (2018). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alic, M., Rusjan, B.: Contribution of the ISO 9001 internal audit to business performance. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 27(8), 916–937 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lenning, J., Gremyr, I.: Turning internal audits into business audits that drive business relevant improvements. In: Proceedings of 9th QMOD-ICQSS International Conference on Quality and Service Sciences, pp. 712–725 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E.M., Lehmann, A., Traverso, M.: Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2, 3309–3322 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veleva, V., Ellenbecker, M.: Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 519–549 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harik, R., El Hachem, W., Medini, K., Bernard, A.: Towards a holistic sustainability index for measuring sustainability of manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53(13), 4117–4139 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson, M.C., Wu, J.: The problems of weak sustainability and associated indicators. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 24(1), 44–51 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamrol, A.: Quality Management with Examples. PWN, Warszawa (2008). (in Polish)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eswaramoorthi, M., Kathiresam, G.R., Prasad, P.S.S., Mohanram, P.V.: A survey on lean practices in Indian machine tool industries. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 52, 1091–1101 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah, R., Ward, P.T.: Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 129–149 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salleh, N.A.M., Kasolang, S., Jaffar, A.: Green lean TQM human resource management practices in malaysian automotive companies. Int. Sch. Sci. Res. Innov. 6(10), 2065–2069 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tortorella, G.L., Fogliatto, F.S.: Method for assessing human resources management practices and organisational learning factors in a company under lean manufacturing implementation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 52(15), 4623–4645 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garetti, M., Taisch, M.: Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges. Prod. Plan. Control 23(2–3), 83–104 (2012). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koźmiński, A.K., Obłój, K.: Outline of Organizational Balance Theory. PWE, Warszawa (1989). (in Polish)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Caiado, R., Nascimento, D., Quelhas, O., Tortorella, G., Rangel, L.: Toward sustainability through green, lean and six sigma integration at service industry: review and framework. Technol. Econ. Dev. 24, 1659–1678 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah, J., Deshpande, V.: Lean six sigma: an integrative approach of lean and six sigma methodology. Int. J. Curr. Eng. and Technol. 5, 3528–3534 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A., Vinelli, A.: Lean and green in action: interdependencies and performance of pollution prevention project. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 191–200 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garza-Reyes, J.A.: Lean and green – a systematic review of the state of the art literature. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 18–29 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bryke, M.: Lean Green. Will kaizen tools leading to lean help achieve the organization’s green status? KAIZEN Magazine, Medialog, Poznań 3(4) (2012). (in Polish)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bryke, M.: Lean Green. Environmental activities improve organization and allow you to control the costs of operation. KAIZEN Magazine, Medialog, Poznań 4(5) (2012). (in Polish)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bryke, M.: Lean Green. Why is it worth being green? Green value stream mapping. KAIZEN Magazine, Medialog, Poznań 2(7) (2013). (in Polish)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bryke, M., Kanus, M.: Human Lean Green. We are building an organizational culture ensuring sustainable development and effectiveness of the organization. KAIZEN Magazine, Medialog, Poznań 3(12) (2014). (in Polish)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bryke, M., Hamrol, A., Starzyńska, B.: Developing human lean green tool as an instrument of measuring sustainable organization development. In: 19th QMOD – ICQSS International Conference on Quality and Science Services, pp. 1035–1046 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Imai, M.: Kaizen: The Key To Japan’s Competitive Success. McGraw-Hill Education, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Imai, M.: Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense Approach to a Continuous Improvement Strategy. McGraw-Hill Education, New York (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Poznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland
  2. 2.Kaizen Institute PolandWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations