The document presents a structural framework of environmental performance indicators for production processes. It provides a literature review of existing frameworks and their typologies of indicators. It then develops a new framework by filtering 91 identified indicators according to their relevance for production processes based on the SCOR model. The resulting framework includes 58 indicators across 12 indices covering key areas like materials, energy, waste, emissions and their relation to production. It aims to provide a focused set of indicators for assessing environmental performance within manufacturing operations.

1. Development of a Structural Framework of
Environmental Performance Indicators for Production
Processes
Johannes Plehn1
, Alexander Sproedt1
, Tomomi Nonaka2
, Paul Schönsleben1
,
1
ETH Zurich, BWI Center for Industrial Management,
8092 Zurich, Switzerland
{jplehn, asproedt, pschoensleben}@ethz.ch
2
Keio University, Graduate School of System Design and Management, 4-1-1, Hiyoshi,
Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 223-8526, Japan
nonaka-t@z5.keio.jp
Abstract. A structural framework with corresponding environmental
performance indicators (EPIs) is one key element in the concept of
environmental performance measurement. Despite the availability of several
standards and guidelines providing a structural framework with typologies of
EPIs, no approach has become prevalent on a company level. Furthermore, no
framework exists to assess production processes from an environmental
perspective. This paper provides a comprehensive state of the art analysis and
description of the current typologies of performance indicators and develops a
structural framework for production processes by filtering EPIs according to
their relevance and applicability in production using the SCOR model.
Keywords: Sustainable Manufacturing, Structural Framework, Environmental
Performance Indicators, Environmental Performance Management
1 Introduction
Manufacturing companies face new challenges in integrating aspects of
sustainability in their traditional business objectives. According to Kleindorfer,
Singhal et al. [1] the reasons for this trend are threefold:
 Costs of materials and energy are continuously growing due to their scarcity and
the increasing demand of rapidly industrializing countries like China and India.
 Public pressure to improve environmental performance is rising, resulting in
governmental regulations.
 Customer demand is shifting to environmentally friendly products, empowering
improved environmental performance as a selling proposition.
Beside the efforts made by manufacturing companies in the past to improve their
supply chain structure towards a higher environmental performance, manufacturers
notice that they must also take advantage of their influence in internal production
processes to fully exploit their improvement potential. A change in production can

2. 2 Johannes Plehn1, Alexander Sproedt1, Tomomi Nonaka2, Paul Schönsleben1,
have a significant environmental impact on the upstream process chain (e.g. increase
of material efficiency in production can reduce transportation of the inbound
logistics). The stronger focus on production can also be observed in a recent study
including 300 experts in factory planning in Germany. The peer group identified
environmental sustainability as a major trend with 73% of the experts rating this
aspect as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ [2].
A key prerequisite for managing and improving environmental performance in
production is a sufficient environmental performance measurement system (EPMS).
Beside a procedural framework defining a step-by-step process to develop a
customized set of indicators considering the specific situation of the company, a
EPMS is based on a structural framework, specifying a generic typology of
performance indicators [3]. Although there are several structural frameworks or even
standards defined by various organizations (e.g. ISO 14031 [4]), there is neither a
consensus regarding a set of indicators and corresponding metrics on company level
nor for production processes. The resulting non-transparency bears the risk to define
irrelevant indicators including the corresponding expenses to measure them or of
neglecting indicators that are relevant for the system, impeding a sufficient
performance measurement. To support manufacturing companies and especially
decision makers in production this paper provides:
 A comprehensive state of the art analysis and description of structural frameworks
including a classification of their indicator typologies according to the structure of
indices defined by the ISO 14031 and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
framework
 The development of a new structural framework of environmental performance
indicators for production processes based on the condensed and customized
indicators of the classified frameworks
2 Methodology
The research methodology of this paper can be described in four steps. First, a
comprehensive literature review is conducted to reveal the state of the art of structural
frameworks and the recommended typologies of indicators. Second, the frameworks
ISO 14031 [4], Global Report Initiative [5] and the VDI 4070 [6] are investigated in
detail identifying 91 different EPIs. Third, the EPIs are assigned to the Plan, Source,
Make, and Deliver processes using the SCOR model and filtered according to their
relevance for production processes. Fourth, the resulting 58 EPIs are embedded in a
structural framework.
3 Results
A multitude of approaches exist trying to define a structural framework for
manufacturing companies. In most cases structural frameworks define typologies of
EPIs and give recommendations and examples of adequate EPIs. Furthermore, to
support decision makers a structural framework should be not only generic enough to
enable companies to benchmark performance or test their compliance with standards,

3. Development of a Structural Framework of Environmental Performance Indicators for
Production Processes
but also specific enough to allow companies to assess their performance adequately
within their specific environment.
3.1 Literature Review – Typologies of EPIs
A state of the art analysis was conducted to identify the different characteristics of the
approaches and to analyze the recommended typologies of indicators (indices). The
term index is used according to the definition given by the World Resource Institute
as an aggregation of EPIs due to calculation or interpretation [7]. For example the
index energy in the ISO 14031 framework is composed of several indicators (e.g.
quantity of energy used per year or per unit of product). Table 1 presents the results
obtained from the analysis giving an overview of ten approaches, namely the ISO
standard 14031 [4], the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines from the GRI [5], The
two standard procedures VDI 4070 and VDI 4075 [6, 8], the typologies provided in
the Green SCOR framework [9] and the indices provided and discussed in the
research papers of Veleva and Ellenbecker [10], Michelsen et al. [11], Fan et al. [12],
Paju et al. [13] and Jasch [14].
Table 1. Overview of approaches and recommended indices
Indices [4] [5] [6] [8] [10] [11] [9] [12] [13] [14]
Materials X X X X X X X X X
Energy X X X X X X X X X
Supporting Services X
Products X X X X X
Provided Services X
Waste X X X X X X X X X X
Emissions X X X X X X X X X
Physical Facilities X X X
Transport X X
Compliance X
Biodiversity X
Overall X
X - recommended
To distinguish between the different approaches, the indices defined by ISO 14031
and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework have been selected as reference.
The ISO 14031, a subcategory of the ISO 14001, defines eight indices and
recommends 59 operational performance indicators to measure the environmental
performance of an organization’s operations. To ensure the consideration of all
aspects of environmental performance measurement, the ISO 14031 set of indices has
been extended by the supplementary GRI indices (transport, compliance, biodiversity
and overall). The GRI is a network-based organization that develops and publishes

4. 4 Johannes Plehn1, Alexander Sproedt1, Tomomi Nonaka2, Paul Schönsleben1,
sustainability reporting guidelines defining nine indices and 30 EPIs which are
already used by more than 1000 organizations, [5].
The Table illustrates the main characteristic of the current frameworks available to
assess environmental performance. There is no consensus due to the different
understanding in terms of areas that need to be investigated to assess environmental
performance. Most of the frameworks focus mainly on physical input (e.g. materials
and energy) and output (e.g. emissions and waste). Moreover, the indices proposed by
VDI 4075, Veleva and Ellenbecker and Jasch also consider products, as part of the
output streams leaving the system and therefore need to be analyzed. In contrast, the
ISO14031 and GRI frameworks see the need to include also supporting activities and
services, as well as transport, compliance and biodiversity. Beyond the differences in
recommended indices, there is also a diverging scope of the indices proposed. The
GRI framework for example recommends EPIs in ten different indices, whereas the
Green SCOR suggests EPIs only in two.
The multitude of indices and their difference in scope illustrated is even aggravated
due to the fact that beside the differences in proposed typologies of EPIs, the
approaches also differ strongly in their recommendations concerning the EPIs an
index is based on. This issue can be observed when analyzing the approaches in
detail. For example, the consolidation of the EPIs proposed by ISO 14031, GRI and
VDI 4070 leads to 99 different indicators in total and 91 EPIs after erasing similar
indicators.
Considering the implications for manufacturing companies in terms of
transparency we see the dilemma decision makers face today. With no consensus
established as a reference, a company is forced to select the relevant indices and
indicators out of a multitude of possibilities. On one side this selection needs to be
broad enough to ensure the consideration of all relevant aspects of EPMS, on the
other side the selection must not include irrelevant indices and indicators. Companies
need to focus on their core competencies and therefore must concentrate strongly on
the indices relevant for their purpose, in particular SMEs with low capacity for
activities in EPMS [15]. Especially in the production environment this task of
selecting appropriate EPIs is even more complicated. Decision makers first of all need
to identify which indices and EPIs are relevant for production and then decide
whether the typology or indicator is relevant for their specific situation.
To keep the effort for decision makers in operations to define a sufficient set of
EPIs at an acceptable level, a structural framework is needed with a special focus on
the production environment.
3.2 Structural Framework of EPIs for production processes
The structural framework developed in this paper is based on the indices and EPIs
defined and recommended by ISO 14031, GRI and VDI 4070. The three frameworks
have been selected due to their broad scope, detailed documentation of EPIs and
importance for practical application [16]. First, the structural frameworks were
combined and similar indices and indicators were erased, ending up with 12 different
indices and 91 different indicators. Second, the Plan, Source, Make, Deliver and
Return processes defined by the SCOR model were used to classify the remaining
indices and indicators and to identify their relevance for production processes (Make

5. Development of a Structural Framework of Environmental Performance Indicators for
Production Processes
processes). Consequently an indicator has been assigned to the Make processes and
therefore is regarded as relevant if:
 The indicator is reflecting the performance of Make processes (e.g. quantity of
hazardous materials used in the production process is linked to Make 1.3 -
Produce and Test) or
 The indicator may be affected by the execution of Make processes, although
measured in other areas (e.g. % of materials that are recyclable/reusable in Source
3.1 may depend on the process design in the production process).
Subsequently indicators with no such characteristics have been filtered as not
relevant to assess environmental performance for production processes (e.g. share of
regenerative energy sources is part of Plan 3.4 and therefore categorized as a Plan
process).
The result of the classification is a structural framework based on 58 EPIs
applicable in the production environment covering all 12 indices mentioned in Table
1. Most of the 32 neglected indicators were linked to Plan processes. For an overview
of the identified EPIs see Table 2.
The majority of the recommended indicators of the structural framework presented
in Table 2 are related to input and output streams discussed before and expressed in
the indices materials, energy, products, wastes and emissions. Within the index
materials, there are EPIs recommended which may be relevant for the environmental
performance of production processes in the areas of materials, water and packaging.
The index energy covers both the measurement of energy consumption as well as the
EPIs to assess the efforts made to reduce energy consumption and the reductions
achieved. The EPIs recommended by the index products have a strong focus on the
production processes. The EPI rate of defective parts is strongly related to the quality
management in production whereas the indicator number of units of by-products
generated per unit of product is determined by the process design. The index category
wastes can be subdivided in EPIs covering waste disposal and the amount of waste
reduced, reused or recycled. Emissions includes 14 recommended indicators. Beside
EPIs for heat, vibration, light, noise and radiation, the core areas are emissions to air
and emissions to water.
In addition to the most frequently mentioned indices presented in Table 1, the
structural framework in Table 2 also pays attention to the areas of services supporting
the organizations operation, service provided by the organization, physical facilities
and equipment, transport, compliance, biodiversity and overall. The index services
supporting the organization’s operation covers all activities that are related to
production processes but are executed or supported by contractors. The indicator
quantity of materials used during after-sales servicing of products recommended in
the index services provided by the organization should be only considered if the result
is dependent from process design in the production processes. Within physical
facilities and equipment there are EPIs proposed which are dependent from
maintenance in production (e.g. shut-downs) and reflect the influence of the
infrastructure used by production on the environment. Transport covers the
environmental impact of the transportation of goods and the workforce needed. The
index compliance pays attention to the sanctions for non-compliance due to
production processes, whereas biodiversity is focusing on the impacts and effects of

6. 6 Johannes Plehn1, Alexander Sproedt1, Tomomi Nonaka2, Paul Schönsleben1,
Table 2. Structural framework for production processes
quantity of materials used per unit of product quantity of water per unit of product
quantity of processed, recycled or reused materials used quantity of water reused
quantity of packaging materials discarded or reused per unit of
product
quantity of hazardous materials used in the production
process
quantity of auxiliary materials recycled or reused packaging material ratio
quantity of raw materials reused in the production process returnable packaging ratio
quantity of energy used per year or per unit of product direct energy consumption by primary energy source
quantity of energy generated with by-products or process
streams
initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and
reductions achieved
quantity of energy units saved due to energy conservation
programmes
initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and
reductions achieved
amount of hazardous materials used by contracted amount or type of wastes generated by contracted service
providers
amount of recyclable and reusable materials used by
contracted service providers
number of products introduced in the market with reduced
hazardous properties
number of units of by-products generated per unit of product
rate of defective products
quantity of waste stored on site quantity of waste controlled by permit
total waste for disposal quantity of hazardous waste eliminated due to material
substitution
quantity of hazardous, recyclable or reusable waste produced
per year
quantity of hazardous, recyclable or reusable waste produced
per year
quantity of waste per year or per unit of product quantity of waste converted to reusable material per year
quantity of specific emissions per year quantity of specific material discharged to water per unit of
product
quantity of specific emissions per unit of product quantity of waste energy released to water
quantity of air emissions having global climate-change
potential
quantity of material sent to landfill per unit of product
quantity of air emissions having ozone-depletion potential quantity of effluent per service or customer
quantity of waste energy released to air noise measured at a certain location
total water discharge by quality and destination quantity of radiation released
quantity of specific material discharged per year amount of heat, vibration or light emitted
number of hours per year a specific piece of equipment is in
operation
initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and
services, and extent of impact mitigation
number of emergency events (e.g., explosions ) or nonroutine
operations (e.g., shut-downs) per year
percentage of inventory loss
average fuel consumption of vehicle fleet complaints received due environmental burdens
number of hours of preventive maintenance to equipment per
year
description of significant impacts of activities, products and
services on biodiversity in protected areas
number of IUCN Red List species with habitats in areas
affected by operations, by level of extinction risk
strategies, current actions and future lans for managing
impacts on biodiversity
emissions
physical facilities and equipment
transport
overall
materials
energy
quantity of materials used during after-sales servicing of products
services supporting the organizatons operation
products
services provided by the organization
wastes
biodiversity
compliance
significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods and materials used for the organization’s
operations, and transporting members of the workforce
monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for noncompliance with environmental laws
and environmental laws and regulations
total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type
production on protected areas and species. The last index overall defines the indicator
total environmental protection expenditures and investment by type measuring the
efforts made to protect the environment.

7. Development of a Structural Framework of Environmental Performance Indicators for
Production Processes
4 Discussion
The proposed structural framework gives an overview of indices and EPIs relevant
for the environmental assessment of production processes. A filter was used to reduce
the amount of EPIs to support decision makers when selecting appropriate EPIs for
production by increasing the transparency of available and relevant indicators.
Condensing the framework from the current approaches to measure environmental
performance on company level, this approach ensures a sound integration of
environmental performance measurement in the overall environmental assessment of
manufacturing companies.
The relevance of the proposed indices and indicators needs to be tested in industry
to validate the applicability of the framework proposed. Particularly the relevance of
the indices services supporting the organizations operation, service provided by the
organization, compliance, biodiversity and overall is questionable due to lack of
pressure enforced by material costs, legislation or customers. Moreover, the accuracy
of recommended EPIs needs to be tested to avoid information overlap in the
measurement procedure.
This paper is based on a research project of the Center for Industrial Management
(BWI) of the ETH Zurich, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Material Science and
Technology (EMPA) and the University of Applied Sciences (HTW) Berlin to
develop a generic process model to evaluate and improve economic and
environmental performance of production systems simultaneously. The project
consortium includes companies from the plastics, steel and the metal working
industry. One key element of the project is the development of an EPMS for
production systems. During the next project steps the structural framework will be
applied in four case studies.
5 Conclusion
The manufacturing industry is still lacking a consensus on indices and EPIs relevant
for the environmental performance measurement. Particularly in production this
impedes a selection of suitable indicators. The structural framework presented in this
paper is an approach to support decision makers in the production environment when
assessing their processes. The applicability of the recommended framework still need
to be validated in case studies.
Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank the industry partners and are
grateful to the Swiss Federal Innovation Promotion Agency CTI for their support
through project 12402.1 PFES-ES (EcoFactory).

8. 8 Johannes Plehn1, Alexander Sproedt1, Tomomi Nonaka2, Paul Schönsleben1,
References
1. Kleindorfer, P.R., K. Singhal, and L.N. Wassenhove, Sustainable Operations
Management. Production and Operations Management, 2005. 14(4): p. 482-492.
2. Heinen, T., et al., Zukunftsthemen der Fabrikplanung. Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen
Fabrikbetrieb, 2010. 105(5): p. 405-409.
3. Folan, P. and J. Browne, A review of performance measurement: Towards
performance management. Computers in Industry, 2005. 56(7): p. 663-680.
4. ISO - International Organisation for Standards, Environmental Management. 2000.
5. Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 2011, Amsterdam.
6. VDI, Sustainable management in small and medium-sized enterprises - Guidance
notes for sustainable management. 2006.
7. Hammond, A.L. and W.R. Institute, Environmental indicators: a systematic
approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the
context of sustainable development. 1995: World Resources Institute Washington^
eDC DC.
8. VDI, Cleaner Production (PIUS) - Basic principles and area of application. 2005.
9. Supply-Chain Council, Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR), Version
9.0. 2008, Washington.
10. Veleva, V. and M. Ellenbecker, Indicators of sustainable production: framework and
methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2001. 9(6): p. 519-549.
11. Michelsen, O., A.M. Fet, and A. Dahlsrud, Eco-efficiency in extended supply chains:
A case study of furniture production. Journal of Environmental Management, 2006.
79(3): p. 290-297.
12. Fan, C., J.D. Carrell, and H.C. Zhang. An investigation of indicators for measuring
sustainable manufacturing: IEEE.
13. Paju, M., et al. Framework and Indicators for a Sustainable Manufacturing Mapping
Methodology. in Winter Simulation Conference. 2010.
14. Jasch, C., Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2000. 8(1): p. 79-88.
15. Sproedt, A., et al., Environmental Sustainability Assessment: An Evaluation of
Established Methods and Analysis of their Suitable Applications in Industrial
Practice, in APMS 2010 International Conference on Advances in Production
Management Systems. 2010: Cernobbio, Italy.
16. Nawrocka, D. and T. Parker, Finding the connection: environmental management
systems and environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2009. 17(6):
p. 601-607.