Trade-offs among Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green Paradigms in Supply Chain Management: A Case Study Approach

  • Helena Carvalho
  • Susana Azevedo
  • Virg´ılio Cruz-Machado
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 242)


Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green (LARG) management paradigms may help companies and supply chains to become more competitive and sustainable. However, the deployment of those management paradigms could lead to opposite results. This paper intends to identify and the necessary understanding of those paradigms trade-offs. An exploratory case study approach is used to identify the trade-offs in the automotive supply chain context. The case study findings show that not all the companies belonging to the same supply chain need to have a higher implementation level for all LARG practices. Some companies can be more Resilient than others, and the same happens with the Lean paradigm: not all companies in supply chain need to be totally Lean. Because of the differences in the LARG practices implementation level among supply chain echelons, two separate sequences of capabilities were found. For the automaker “quality” should be developed first, then “flexibility”, “environmental protection” in addition to “cost”, and finally “delivery”. In the first-tier supplier echelon “quality” should be developed first, subsequently “flexibility”, “delivery”, and ultimately “cost” and “environmental protection”.


Lean Agile Resilience Green Supply chain Trade-offs capabilities Automotive industry Case study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stevens GC (1989) Integrating the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 19(8):3–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21(1/2):71–87Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carvalho H, Cruz-Machado V (2009) Lean, agile, resilient and green supply chain: A review. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Bangkok, Thailand 3–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azevedo SG, Carvalho H, Cruz-Machado V (2011) A proposal of LARG supply chain management practices and a performance measurement system. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning 1(1):7–14Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carvalho H, Duarte S, Machado VC (2011) Lean, agile, resilient and green: Divergencies and synergies. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2(2):51–179Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Azevedo SG, Carvalho H, Cruz-Machado V (2011) Pathways between lean and green paradigms and supply chain performance. In: Proceedings of 2011 International Conference on Economics, Business and Marketing Management-EBMM, Shangai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Azevedo SG, Carvalho H, Duarte S et al (2012) Influence of green and lean upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59(4):1–13Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Azevedo SG, Govindan K, Carvalho H et al (2012) Ecosilient index to assess the greenness and resilience of the upstream automotive supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carvalho H, Azevedo SG, Cruz-Machado V (2013) An innovate agile and resilience index for the automotive supply chain. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management (In Press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carvalho H, Azevedo SG, Cruz-Machado V (2012) Agile and resilient approaches to supply chain management: Influence on performance and competitiveness. Logistics Research 4(1-2):49–62Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu YC (2003) Lean manufacturing: A perspective of lean suppliers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23(11):1349–1376Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elkins DA, Huang N, Alden JM (2004) Agile manufacturing systems in the automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 91(3):201–214Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Azevedo SA, Machado VH, Barroso AP et al (2008) Supply chain vulnerability: Environment changes and dependencies. International Journal of Logistics and Transport 2(1):41–55Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Azevedo SG, Carvalho H, Cruz-Machado V (2011) The influence of green practices on supply chain performance: A case study approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47(6):850–871Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Naylor BJ, Naim MM, Berry D (1999) Leagility: Integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 62(1-2):107–118Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tice J, Ahouse L, Larson T (2005) Lean production and EMSs: Aligning environmental management with business priorities. Environmental Quality Management 15(2):1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuriger G, Chen F (2010) Lean and green: A current state view. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Cancun, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Price JL, Joseph JB (2000) Demand management — A basis for waste policy: A critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management. Sustainable Development 8(2):6–105Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Christopher M, Peck H (2004) Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management 15(2):1–14Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kannan VR, Tan KC (2005) Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: Understanding their linkages and impact on business performance. Omega 33(2):153–162Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anand G, Kodali R (2008) A conceptual framework for lean supply chain and its implementation. International Journal of Value Chain Management 2(3):313–357Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lyons A, Coronado A, Michaelides Z (2006) The relationship between proximate supply and build-to-order capability. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106(8):1095–1111Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang GQ, Zhang XY, Liang L (2005) Towards integrated optimal configuration of platform products, manufacturing processes, and supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 23(3-4):267–290Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Banerjee SK (2000) Developing manufacturing management strategies: Influence of technology and other issues. International Journal of Production Economics 64(1-3):79–90Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carvalho H, Barroso AP, Machado VH et al (2012) Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering 62(1):329–341Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosic H, Bauer G, JammerneggW(2009) A framework for economic and environmental sustain ability and resilience of supply chains. Rapid Modelling for Increasing Competitiveness 91–104Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tang CS (2006) Robust strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management 9(1):33–45Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K Nishitani (2010) Demand for ISO 14001 adoption in the global supply chain: An empirical analysis focusing on environmentally conscious markets. Resource and Energy Economics 32(3):395–407Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nawrocka D, Brorson T, Lindhqvist T (2009) ISO 14001 in environmental supply chain practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(16):1435–1443Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang YA, Matthews HS (2008) Seeking opportunities to reduce life cycle impacts of consumer goods-An economy-wide assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment 1–6Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nair SR, Menon CG (2008) An environmental marketing system—A proposed model based on Indian experience. Business Strategy and the Environment 17(8):467–479Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mollenkopf D, Stolze H, Tate WL et al (2010) Green, lean, and global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40(1/2):14–41Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Venkat K, Wakeland W (2006) Is lean necessarily green? In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, North AmericaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Winter SG (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24(10):991–995Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morash EA, Droge CL, Vickery SK (1996) Strategic logistics capabilities for competitive advantage and firm success. Journal of Business Logistics 17(1):1–22Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Flynn BB, Flynn EJ (2004) An exploratory study of the nature of cumulative capabilities. Journal of Operations Management 22(5):439–457Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vitasek KL, Manrodt KB, Abbott J (2005) What makes a lean supply chain? Supply Chain Management Review 9(7):39–45Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hoek RV, Harrison A, ChristopherM(2001) Measuring agile capabilities in the supply chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21(1/2):126–148Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parmigiani A, Klassen RD, Russo MV (2011) Efficiency meets accountability: Performance implications of supply chain configuration, control, and capabilities. Journal of Operations Management 29(3):212–223Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Avella L, Vazquez-Bustelo D, Fernandez E (2011) Cumulative manufacturing capabilities: An extended model and new empirical evidence. International Journal of Production Research 49(3):707–729Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Da Silveira GJC (2005) Improving trade-offs in manufacturing: Method and illustration. International Journal of Production Economics 95(1):27–38Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ferdows K, De Meyer A (1990) Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of a new theory. Journal of Operations Management 9(2):168–184Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schmenner RW, Swink ML (1998) On theory in operations management. Journal of Operations Management 17(1):97–113Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rosenzweig ED, Easton GS (2010) Tradeoffs in manufacturing? A meta-analysis and critique of the literature. Production and Operations Management 19(2):127–141Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Seuring S (2009) The product-relationship-matrix as framework for strategic supply chain design based on operations theory. International Journal of Production Economics 120(1):221–232Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yin RK (2002) Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, Incorporated 5Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Curkovic S, Sroufe R (2011) Using ISO 14001 to promote a sustainable supply chain strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment 20(2):71–93Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNIDEMI, Departamento de Engenharia Mecˆanica e Industrial Faculdade de Ciˆencias e Tecnologia (FCT)Universidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations