1 Introduction

This study addresses the need for businesses to care for the natural environment and society, beyond generating wealth for shareholders. In manufacturing companies, concrete actions related to resource use, waste generation, and their impact on individuals and the biosphere are crucial. These actions, termed sustainable operational practices (SOP) align with strategic priorities of the firm to achieve market advantages [1].

This study aims to explore the characterization of SOP in manufacturing firms and their alignment with strategic priorities in manufacturing (SPM). Thus, the guiding research questions are: 1) How are SOP characterized in manufacturing firms? 2) How do these practices align with SPM in such firms?

To achieve these purposes, a sample of 412 manufacturing companies in the Metropolitan Area of Bucaramanga, Colombia, is used. The study structure comprises a literature review to position the research conceptually, followed by a description of the methodological considerations, including data collection, measurements, and analysis procedures [2, 3]. The study ends with the presentation and discussion of the results, along with the derived conclusions and recommendations from the analysis.

2 Literature Review

Literature review is based on searching terms such as sustainable operational practices, environmental/sustainable initiatives, environmental/sustainable actions. Further terms included manufacturing strategies, manufacturing priorities and competitive priorities.

2.1 Sustainable Operational Practices

SOP comprise planning, production, supply, and logistics activities with a sustainable perspective in manufacturing [2]. SOP are implemented throughout the product life-cycle stages, including product design, production, supply chain management, and reverse logistics.

In product design, SOP focus on eco-design to create environmentally friendly products manufacturing. They involve making environmentally conscious decisions during new product development, estimating environmental consequences, and promoting green innovation [2, 4]. During production, SOP integrate environmental goals to reduce emissions, waste, and resource consumption. Innovative technologies may be used to mitigate environmental risks in the production process [4].

SOP extend to the supply chain, encouraging environmentally and socially responsible practices among suppliers and customers. This involves joint actions to address design, raw material selection, packaging, and logistics based on environmental considerations. Finally, SOP in reverse logistics focus on managing waste through recycling, remanufacturing, and proper disposal, with a view of achieving maximum recovery of value and create market opportunities [2, 4].

2.2 Strategic Priorities in Manufacturing

Strategic deployment in firms involves translating corporate strategy into functional priorities [5]. Manufacturing strategies contribute to corporate goals through SPM to ultimately boost competitiveness. Initially, four SPM were identified in literature: cost, quality, flexibility, and delivery. Over time, additional priorities emerged, including after-sales service, time-to-market, and environmental protection. Recent studies validate six relevant manufacturing priorities: cost, quality, reliability, flexibility, environmental protection, and social well-being [1, 3].

2.3 Integration of Perspectives

The implementation of SOP in manufacturing firms is expected to align with SPM so as to ultimately enhance environmental and social performance. The literature suggests integrations of SOP on SPM like cost, quality, flexibility, and delivery when the focus is on pollution prevention [6]. However, disaggregating SOP into social and environmental practices reveals a more significant impact on SPM related to environmental practices [7]. Further, the alignment between SOP and SPM is influenced by the financial situation of firms [8]. Environmental performance, when combined with lean manufacturing, can find better compatibility as a SPM itself [3]. Nevertheless, literature lacks consensus, underscoring the need to understand SOP's disaggregation and its alignment with SPM [3, 7].

3 Research Methods

The study focuses on manufacturing companies in the Metropolitan Area of Bucaramanga (MAB), Santander, Colombia. The region prioritizes resource-efficient management for increased productivity and competitiveness.

An online questionnaire was used to collect data from a final sample of 412 manufacturing firms operating in the MAB. The response rate was 6.123%, with 67.48% of respondents being general managers, partners, and/or owners of the companies. The final sample predominantly consisted of small businesses (96.84%). In terms of activities, sampled firms engaged mainly in manufacturing food, beverages, textiles, and other products (52.18%). Data collection occurred in 2022.

The questionnaire development involved adapting 23 items for SOP measurement from previous studies [9, 10]. Items assessed the level of implementation of SOP in product design, production transformation, supply and distribution, as well as reverse logistics, using a 7-point Likert scales. SPM were measured by asking respondents to rank 10 priorities from most important to least important in manufacturing for competitiveness in their markets. Items related to SPM were also adapted from previous literature [1, 5]. Structural variables included firm size (number of full-time employees) and economic activity (NACE codes 10-32).

The instrument, with respective items and scales, underwent review by academic experts in sustainability and questionnaire development. Adjustments were made based on feedback to obtain the final version for distribution to companies.

After data cleaning, exploratory principal component analysis (EPCA) determined SOP’s structure and internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha. Cluster analysis identified company profile groups based on SOP. Another cluster analysis classified firms’ SPM. ANOVA compared mean differences in SOP and SPM among profile groups.

4 Results

EPCA on SOP items revealed three factors, explaining 65.246% variance (see Table 1).

Table 1. Exploratory principal component analysis of SOP
Full size table

The three extracted factors were labeled as product design and production (12 items), supply chain (8 items), and reverse logistics (3 items). Loading values were larger than 0.600 (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was 0.948, and Bartlett's test was significant). Cronbach's alpha was larger than 0.700 for each factor.

Two-stage cluster based on the summated scales of the factors formed 4 firm groups. ANOVA in Table 2 compared SOP mean values among groups, including the number of employees.

Table 2. Firm profile groups based on SOP
Full size table

Cluster analysis identified four firm groups: “Advanced” (N = 197) with consistently higher SOP values, “Laggards” (N = 34) with consistently lower SOP values, and two groups with specific emphases: one (N = 63) on product design and production, and the other (N = 118) on supply chain and reverse logistics. Statistically significant differences in SOP types were found within groups but not for the case of firm size.

Then, two-stage cluster analysis based on the 10 SPM resulted in four company groups. Table 3 shows ANOVA results for SPM and firm size.

Table 3. Firm profile groups based on SPM
Full size table

The analysis revealed four distinct profiles of companies based on SPM. Group 1 prioritizes environmental and social aspects, while Group 2 focuses on flexibility. Group 3 emphasizes efficiency and innovation, and Group 4 prioritizes quality and customer satisfaction. ANOVA results in Table 3 show significant differences in SPM among the groups, but not in the number of employees.

Finally, Differences in SOP among SPM profiles were evaluated through ANOVA (see Table 4). Statistically significant differences were found in both product design/production SOP and supply chain SOP.

Table 4. SOP according to profiles of SPM
Full size table

The highest mean values for SOP were found in the profile of SPM on environmental and social issues (N = 73), while the lowest were in the quality and customer satisfaction profile (N = 162). The flexibility (N = 27) and efficiency and innovation (N = 150) profiles also showed notable SOP values.

Further analysis included the comparison of SOP based on firm size and economic activity, considered as control variables. In both cases, statistically significant differences were only evidenced concerning reverse logistics SOP. In terms of size, medium-sized firms had higher mean value (mean = 6.111, ANOVA F = 3.483, p < 0.05). Based on economic activity, higher mean values were evidenced in firms that manufacture petrochemical, pharmaceutical and plastic products (mean = 5.505, ANOVA F = 5.449, p < 0.05).

5 Conclusions and Implications

The results show that environmental and social SPM align with SOP in product design, production, and the supply chain, contributing to improved sustainability performance in firms. SOP focused on product design and production underpin SPM related to flexibility, efficiency, innovation, and customer satisfaction. Efficiency and innovation SPM also align with SOP at the product design and production level, driving resource use optimization and greening products. Further, quality and customer satisfaction SPM align with SOP related to product design and production, emphasizing continuous improvement and conformity to standards. However, none of the characterized SPM show strong alignment with SOP in reverse logistics, indicating potential challenges in this alignment.

Managers should assess sustainability integration in their operations and align SOP accordingly, while regulatory bodies should provide incentives for SOP implementation, especially in reverse logistics. The study enriches the fields of operations management and strategy by understanding the alignment between SOP and SPM in manufacturing firms.