Procedia CIRP 26 ( 2015 ) 229 – 234

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

(

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Peer-review under responsibility of Assembly Technology and Factory Management/Technische Universität Berlin.

doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.030

ScienceDirect

The Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing

Creating an environmentally sustainable food factory: A case study of the

Lighthouse project at Nestlé

J. H. Miah

1,2,

, A. Griffiths

, R. McNeill

, I. Poonaji

, R. Martin

, S. Morse

, A. Yang

, J. Sadhukhan

Nestlé UK Ltd, Rowan Drive, Fawdon, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE3 3TR, UK

Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES), Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2

7XH, UK

Nestlé UK Ltd, Group Technical, Haxby Road, York, YO91 1XY, UK

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PJ

Abstract

Many manufacturing companies recognise the need to produce products that are cleaner, greener, and

environmentally sustainable, yet they are only at the early stages of this transition in addressing the symptoms

of unsustainability at their direct operations by reducing waste and the use of energy, water and material. The

implementation of reductions in these areas can be disparate and minimal given the life cycle of a product.

Bridging the gap between the rhetoric of sustainable manufacturing and reality requires a holistic, systems

thinking approach to ensure the implementation of sustainability is unified and strategic. This paper presents a

novel environmentally sustainable manufacturing framework that encompasses energy, water, waste,

biodiversity, and people & community. It adopts a systems thinking perspective to address the factories

‘environme

ntal life cycle impact to deliver factory and supply chain benefits. The insights from the application

at a Nestlé confectionery factory are reported.

Keywords:

Environmental Sustainability; Sustainable Manufacturing; Life Cycle Analysis; Systems Thinking; Food

Factory; Confectionery

1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in

‘sustainable manufacturing’

[1-5] as part of the endeavour to

move towards a green and resource-efficient global economy

[6, 7]. The

UK’s largest manufacturing sector –

the food

industry

–

is under increasing pressure from regulators,

consumers, and NGOs to ensure they are operating more

sustainable [8-11]. Due to the diversity of food products and

scale of operations (i.e. global to local), the implementation,

pace and principles of sustainable manufacturing in industry

is disparate, uncoordinated and limited in scope. At a system

level, many manufacturing companies operate in complex

business, environmental and social environments (Figure 1).

This requires many actors

to ‘act’

in alignment simultaneously

to contribute to a system-level change and therefore

overcome the ‘Prisoners’ Dilemma’

[12]. Although the goal of

a system-level change is desirable and important, many

manufacturing companies are at the early stages of the

transition towards sustainable manufacturing.

The general approach by companies toward sustainable

manufacturing in practice [13-17] has been to focus resource

(e.g. time, people, finance) at direct operations with a limited

impact boundary i.e. factories with an external local/regional

impact level. The common areas that are addressed in an

incremental process to varying degree include; energy, water,

waste, packaging, transport, buildings, employee, community

and supplier engagement. Although innovation is key for

future progress there are general frameworks available to

focus on these areas through the implementation of the

energy, water, and waste hierarchy, and the adoption of

sustainability

certification

schemes

for

buildings

(e.g.

BREEAM). Also, in recent times, awareness of biodiversity

and ecosystems has risen [18] to the extent some companies

are seeking to demonstrate these considerations within their

operations [17, 19].

However, industrial practices are largely

shaped and subjected to economic models based on neo-

classical economic theory. This hinders a fast transition

towards sustainable manufacturing e.g. long paybacks.

In comparison, conceptual sustainable manufacturing themed

frameworks can also vary in scope and breadth from

machine-level [3], facility-level [4] and supply chain-level [5]

and can cover a range of environmental, social and economic

considerations. This can be attributed to the floating signifier

properties of the sustainability dimension and the complexity

of modern manufacturing in its entirety. For example, the

OECD has developed a sustainable manufacturing toolkit [4]

that provides a step-by-

step guide for ‘environmental

excellence’

at a facility-level covering; materials, water,

energy, infrastructure, travel and logistics, releases, and

products. However, the toolkit is limited to the facility-level. In

contrast, Duflou et al [20] focuses solely on energy efficiency

but at multiple levels; device/unit, line/cell/multi-machine

system, facility, multi-factory system, enterprise/global supply

chain. In a similar manner, Jayal et al [5] advocates a

sustainable manufacturing framework that takes a holistic and

multiple view of manufacturing that involves the entire supply

chain centred on product innovation via Design for

Environment (DfE). Therefore, taken together, the picture for

sustainable manufacturing is broad and challenging to

implement

practice,

given

the

complex

business,

environmental and social environment of manufacturing

(Figure 1).

A recent trend in industry as an approach to setting the pace

towards

sustainable

manufacturing

establish

sustainability pilot projects (Table 1) that will act as a beacon

a ‘Lighthouse’ for

encouraging comparatively high

sustainability performance across

a company’s

multiple

manufacturing sites. The alternative approach

–

i.e. top-down

230

J.H. Miah et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 ( 2015 ) 229 – 234

–

is to decide how to strategically select sites for specific

solutions; this often results in a series of feasibility studies

and often ends in delayed action or no action

–

i.e. paralysis

by analysis. The bottom-up approach is an alternative to the

top-down approach as it provides flexibility and freedom for a

site. It enables more accelerated development, as bottom-up

practical and workable solutions then establish a site with

high sustainability performance. The main benefit of the pilot

approach is that it enables a company to test in the context of

sustainable manufacturing; ideas, technologies, and technical

& social processes outside of the organisational mainstream

before scaling-up and rolling-out across the multiple-sites of a

company’s oper

ations.

To this end, this paper provides a short overview of the role of

pilot projects with a sustainability remit and is supported by a

selected case study of the application of a novel

environmentally sustainable manufacturing framework. This

case study is called the

‘

Lighthouse Model

’

(Figure 2) by

Nestlé UK Ltd and covers energy and Life Cycle Assessment.

The aim of the framework is to further drive the transition

towards sustainable manufacturing by demonstrating the

practical implementation at a confectionery factory that will

act as a blueprint for other manufacturing sites within the

Nestlé factory network and wider industry.

THE

ROLE

PILOT

INITIATIVES

AND

SUSTAINABILITY

In the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) discourse [21, 22] the

role of pilot projects, technologies, grassroots movements are

critical to the

Niche

(micro) level in bringing about higher

changes at the

Regime

(Meso) and the

Landscape

(Macro)

level; a three-level system for transformative change.

The

Niche

level or ‘area’ is the

protected space provided for

radical innovation and experimentation e.g. electric cars, eco-

design, and renewable technologies. This level is less subject

to market/organisational and regulation influences and can

facilitate the interactions between actors that support wider

adoption. The

Regime

(Meso) level refers to the dominant

practices, rules and technologies that provide stability and

reinforcement to the prevailing socio-technical systems. The

Landscape

(Macro) level refers to the overall socio-technical

setting that encompasses both the intangible aspects of

social values, political beliefs and world views and the

tangible facets of the built environment including institutions

and the functions of the marketplace such as prices, costs,

trade patterns and incomes. [21, 22]

In the context of MLP theory, the implementation of

sustainability pilot projects by different companies (Table 1)

seeks to bring about a new way of thinking

–

mainly internally

to the company, but also the wider industry and society. This

can come from learning-by-doing, expectation formation and

collective impact.

Table 1: Different sustainability-themed pilot initiatives by

manufacturing companies.

Company

Project title / aim

Frito-Lay [23]

Near net-zero manufacturing facility

Ecover [24]

Ecological factory

Arla Foods [25]

Zero-carbon dairy plant

MAS Intimiates Thurulie [26]

Eco-factory

Renault-Nissan [27]

Zero-carbon car factory

Nestlé UK Ltd [28]

Lighthouse Model

3 ASPECTS OF THE STUDY

3.1 Energy efficiency

The rise in industrial energy prices over the past decade [29]

and interest in environmental sustainability has seen many

food manufacturers

–

the largest manufacturing sector in the

UK - focusing on energy reduction as a top priority [8]. The

food industry, with 9,340 food factories in the UK, is a major

energy user accounting for about 14% of energy consumption

by UK businesses [11, 30]. While this represents a rather

significant proportion of industrial energy use, improving the

energy efficiency of food factories can be a complicated

endeavour given the diversity of the food products

manufactured and the technologies employed.

There are various options open to food processing factories

via the energy hierarchy; energy reduction, energy efficiency

and renewable energy. As part of improving energy efficiency,

heat recovery by heat integration known as Pinch analysis

[31, 32] is another key measure that can be implemented by a

combination of direct and indirect approaches. A common

approach in the practice of Pinch analysis is based on the use

of graphical techniques for carrying out Pinch analysis and

design, which are often applied for targeted areas in a factory

that focuses on either direct or indirect heat exchange by first

building the data bottom-up at a process-level; several heat

integration studies have demonstrated energy savings of 10-

45% from process retrofitting [32-34].

Despite these achievements, the food processing industry

has not been forthcoming to use such an approach, either at

a targeted area or factory level primarily due to the low

financial returns that can be gained from capturing low grade

heat (typically 50-140°C), diverse thermodynamic profiles,

material quality, non-continuous operation, small number of

streams, integration complexity and seasonal operation [34].

While acknowledging these challenges, there are nonetheless

significant opportunities for the food processing industry to

improve energy efficiency, reduce costs and emissions and

optimise heat recovery systems by applying heat integration

as a retrofit for mature factories. The key results of the

application of a novel heat integration framework developed

by Miah et al [35] are reported in this paper as part of the

‘

Lighthouse

Model’

(Figure 2).

3.2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a system analysis tool to

describe the ‘cradle

-to-

grave’ environmental impa

cts of

products and processes [36]. It is an advanced sustainability

tool that powerfully captures the environmental impacts at

different levels e.g. short, mid and long-term. The key benefits

to industry include; environmental hot-spot analysis, product

design & product improvement, strategic planning, supply

chain management, marketing & communications, industrial

ecology and industrial symbiosis.

Recent developments in the LCA landscape for example the

Product Environmental Footprinting (PEF) guidelines [37],

World Food LCA Database [38], and ISO 14000 series

updates [39] has positioned LCA after nearly 40 years since

conception as a key sustainability tool for industry. However,

the general methodology of LCA seems straightforward in

principle but can be challenging and complex in reality where

the company product portfolio is many and diverse e.g.

thousands of product types across different product

categories. This situation is characteristic in the food industry,

due to changing consumer demand, competition and brand

differentiation, thus a portfolio of products via creative-

231

J.H. Miah et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 ( 2015 ) 229 – 234

destructive process is in constant flux (Figure 1). This poses a

major practical challenge for factories and the overall

company aspiring towards environmental sustainability. One

approach to rationalise this complexity and understand key

environmental hot spots across the value chain is to develop

specific methodologies and rules for product categories e.g.

coffee, dairy, confectionery [40]. The challenges associated

with the application of LCA for environmental hot spotting of

confectionery value chains are reported in this paper as part

of the ‘Lighthouse Model’

(Figure 2).

Figure 1: The life cycle of a food product at a system level.

4 METHODOLOGY

The Lighthouse Model (Figure 2) is a six-pillar approach to

sustainable

manufacturing

encompassing

technical,

environmental, economic and social aspects at a regional

level. The difference between the Lighthouse Model and other

pilot projects (Table 1) is the breadth of focus areas that

includes biodiversity and Life Cycle Assessment. The scale of

implementation is principally at a factory level but also

extends to a regional and supply chain level on specific areas

like biodiversity, people & community and value chain. The

different implementation levels are due to the practical level

and reach that a factory can influence externally. For

example, the role of LCA is principally to identify

environmental hot spots across the value chain which can

inform both the factory and company to develop strategic

environmental partnerships with major actors across the

value chain.

Figure 2: Six-pillar Lighthouse Model and aims.

To address the different pillars a basic implementation

methodology is first employed followed by further detailed

investigation and research for each pillar. This involves:

1. Create a factory-level sustainability team.

2. Create an internal Lighthouse steering committee to

accelerate decision making and review at a company

level meeting every quarter.

3. Identify internal & external stakeholders on different

pillars.

4. Engage with internal & external stakeholders by seeking

advice and exploring different solutions for the different

pillars.

5. Develop solutions into project proposals.

6. Present projects to Lighthouse steering committee to

prioritise and approve.

7. Implement project.

8. Report

full/partial

results

Lighthouse

steering

committee every quarter.

9. Repeat steps 3

–

Within each pillar, a specific line of research can be explored

to identify further opportunities and solutions. The general

research methodology involves:

1. Literature review.

2. Identify gaps in literature and opportunity.

3. Develop novel methodology and solution.

4. Present solution to Lighthouse steering committee to

prioritise and approve.

5. Implement project.

6. Report

full/partial

results

Lighthouse

steering

committee every quarter.

7. Repeat steps 1

–

Since sustainability is an ambiguous term, the search for

sustainable manufacturing is open-ended. As such, the

Lighthouse Model process can continue until the Lighthouse

steering committee are satisfied with the overall achievement.

232

J.H. Miah et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 ( 2015 ) 229 – 234

5 CASE STUDY

The case studies is a selection of research projects that looks

at maximising energy efficiency by heat integration and the

role of LCA in environmental hot spotting of confectionery

products. Due to the content and scope limitations of this

paper, it is not possible to present full methodologies and

results, and the reader is referred to supporting literature

where available.

5.1 Confectionery factory description

The site used for this case study is a confectionery factory in

the UK that manufactures 13 different brand products that are

sugar, chocolate and biscuit based, and utilises a diverse

range of processing technologies. The 13 brand products are

split across 130 Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) which are a

variation of a brand product format e.g. single bar pack and

multiple bars pack. The factory is over 50 years old and

occupies a large footprint in an urban area with multiple

dedicated production plants (zones) all housed in one

building. The factory is physically constrained by the

presence of housing, transport infrastructure and other

industrial sites. In addition to the range of production zones

there are a number of utility systems that support these

production zones. The factory employs 650 people working in

a number of shifts where the primary activity can vary from

running production (ramp-up and continuous) to cleaning and

maintenance. This is different for different zones and

contributes to the discontinuous nature at a factory level.

5.2 Energy efficiency key results and discussion

The key results and findings of the application of a novel

decision-making framework for heat integration in complex

and diverse food factories are presented [35]. The aim of the

framework is to provide the user with a step-by-step guide to

evaluate

all

heat

recovery

opportunities

through

combination of direct and indirect heat integration. The key

features that distinguish this approach from previous authors

[32-34] are the practical holistic assessment of heat

integration from a combination of direct and indirect heat

exchange at both a zonal-level and a factory-level. The whole

procedure comprises four stages; process zoning and data

extraction, preliminary analysis, intra-zonal integration, and

inter-zonal integration. By adopting an integrated approach,

the framework seeks to maximise heat recovery for the total

factory, as opposed to solely for targeted areas which focus

either on direct or indirect heat integration as found in

previous examples [32, 33]. Also, the inclusion of key

decision events that cover potential energy reduction,

material quality, and investment requirement ensure the

assessment is rigorous and justified.

The application of the framework at a confectionery factory in

the UK has resulted in the development of five heat

integration opportunities that collectively can deliver between

3.77

–

5.72% energy reduction at a factory level with a total

investment of £321,328 and an annual cost saving between

£48,884

–

£104,661 resulting in a payback of the cost of the

changes between 3.07

–

6.57 years. The expected energy

savings is on the lower end as it was initially found that the

potential factory energy reduction could be between 13.37

–

16.61%. It was found that this factory had a larger heat sink

that could not be matched by the smaller heat source

available. Also, the entire heat source available was not

integrated and the final assessment resulted in a number of

unmatched streams that left the factory with a surplus heat

and a number of unmatched cold sinks that could not be

integrated due to lack of suitable streams, unfavourable

geographical proximity, and potential compromise of material

quality. This surplus heat was found to represent between

9.60-10.89% of the factory energy with a larger cold sink

unmatched representing between 32

–

33.05% of the factory

energy. This amount was unexpected and may be

experienced at other food factories. At this stage, a factory

energy reduction between 3.77

–

5.72% is the highest

amount of what is achievable for this case site with heat

integration. Therefore, other energy reduction measures must

be explored at the unit operation level, such as energy

efficient technologies, behaviour change that encourage

efficient operation of machines, and redesign of production

lines that can contribute to a factory energy reduction.

5.3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) key challenges and

discussion

The research for the LCA as part of the Lighthouse Model is

not yet complete and an overview of the goal, scope and

implementation challenges to date are provided.

5.3.1 Goal and Scope:

The scope of the LCA research is from cradle-to-cradle i.e.

full confectionery value chain. The goal is as follows:

Evaluate the practical challenges of implementing LCA

from a factory-level perspective.

Identify

environmental

hot

spots

across

the

confectionery

value

chain

from

factory-level

perspective.

Develop a general LCA methodology for confectionery

products

5.3.2 Functional Unit:

The functional unit is 1000 kg of packaged product.

5.3.3 LCA challenges:

A general attitude in industry [5, 41] is that conducting an LCA

is time-consuming and not practical. Hence, the reluctance for

wide application. However, this is dependent on the sector

and product type e.g. conducting an LCA on a jet engine that

has 10,000 components compared to a food product that has

less than 20 ingredients. The most significant challenge with

LCA lies in data comprehension, availability and reliability. In

the context of the food industry, the diversity of food products

across different product categories e.g. hundreds of

thousands of products sold to consumers compounds the

LCA implementation challenge for a company. From a

factory-level perspective, food factories can manufacture a

range of products in different product formats known as Stock

Keeping Units (SKUs). A SKU is created for new products

and brand extensions and can be in the form of new

packaging material and/or different product size. As a result

of the dynamic food retail environment, the portfolio of SKUs

changes as companies try to appease a changing consumer

palate. The approach to rationalise SKU diversity and develop

a product subject that is representative is to group similar

SKU products e.g. sugar, chocolate and biscuit that share

similar processing technology and where the core product is

similar. This is followed by a packaged volume comparison of

the different product types within a group for a 1 year period.

The highest product type is then selected for the LCA. From

this, each product group contains a number of SKUs which

are sold to a range of customers in different countries.

For the selected product group, there will be a range of

ingredients and packaging materials that are sourced from

various locations and in different quantities with multiple

suppliers e.g. UK, Brazil, and China. The challenge here lies

in rationalising the multiple suppliers to one for each

233

J.H. Miah et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 ( 2015 ) 229 – 234

ingredient and packaging material for environmental hot

spotting. The approach taken was to determine the quantity of

ingredients and packaging materials as a weight % of final

product. This was done by extracting data from the product

specification and recipe. Based on the weight % list, it will

become apparent what the significant materials are and can

be based on the Pareto principle. The approach taken to

justify the selection of one supplier is to compare the volume

of material purchased from each supplier and then select the

highest. Once the LCA model is developed, it would be

possible to change the supplier location parameter to

determine the environmental impact sensitivity.

For the selected product group, there will be a range of SKUs

which have various destinations e.g. domestic or export

markets. Within these markets there can be various

customers e.g. retailers and wholesalers. The challenge here

lies in rationalising the customer destination for environmental

hot spotting. This can be resolved by comparing the SKU

volume and select the significant SKUs based on the Pareto

principle. From this, the significant SKUs are then grouped

based on similar formats e.g. tube packaged product or

bagged packaged product. The highest volume group is then

selected for further analysis. This involves determining the

logistical routes from the factory to the customer destination

based on delivery order data. From the factory, a product will

typically be stored in distribution centres before they are

delivered to a customer. For a national company, there may

be several distribution centres to be able to have a national

reach. From the delivery order data, the delivery volume is

compared for each customer and the significant customers

are identified via the Pareto principle. At this stage, it is up to

the company to decide which customer to select for the LCA

as this can lead to environmental partnerships. Also, once the

LCA model is developed, it would be possible to change the

customer location parameter to determine the environmental

impact sensitivity.

Another challenge which constrains LCA is available Life

Cycle Inventory (LCI) datasets. The largest and widely utilised

database is EcoInvent [42]. However, even this database is

limited and will not contain environmental profiles for all

ingredients in a company product portfolio. Similarly, another

database is the World Food LCA Database [38] which is

currently under development. Therefore, it is unlikely a food

LCA will be able to obtain all LCI data for the different

ingredients given the diversity of food products in the world.

The approach taken to overcome this data gap for

environmental hot spotting is to identify significant ingredients

based on the Pareto principle and then search LCI databases

for relevant environmental profiles. If the profiles are not

available, then direct engagement with suppliers is pursued.

This route opens up a collaborative approach where the

company and supplier seek to work together to understand

environmental impacts and can result in environmental

partnerships.

Another

challenge

which

woven

throughout

the

implementation is the handling and reconfiguring of data from

multiple sources e.g. metered, archived, different IT platforms,

CAD, production data measured in tons but delivered data

measured in cases, inconsistent information from people.

There is no simple approach to overcome this as data are

generated and stored in their current manner for a specific

purpose and the link to LCA is an afterthought which will

require further integration. The experience of the LCA

practitioner is important and some of the rules mentioned will

help.

6 SUMMARY

This paper presents an overview of a novel environmentally

sustainable manufacturing framework, supported by a

selected case study from its application at a confectionery

factory in the UK. The case study has involved exploring the

role of Pinch analysis in food factories in maximising energy

efficiency and the implementation challenges of LCA for

environmental hot spotting.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to gratefully acknowledge and thank the EPSRC and

Nestlé UK Ltd for their assistance and support in funding this

research

8 REFERENCES

[1]

Seliger, G. Kim, H-J. Kernbaum, S. Zettl, M. 2008.

Approaches to sustainable manufacturing. International

Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing. Vol 1. pp. 58-77G

[2]

Arena, M. Ciceri, N.C. Terzi, S. Bengo, I. Azzone, G.

Garetti, M. 2009. A state-of-the-art of industrial

sustainability: definitions, tools and metrics. International

Journal of Product Lifecycle Management. Vol 4. pp.

207-250

[3]

Jawahir, I.S. Badurdeen, F. Goldsby, T. Iyengar, D.

2009.

Assessment

Product

and

Process

Sustainability:

Towards

Developing

Metrics

for

Sustainable

Manufacturing.

NIST

Workshop

Sustainable Manufacturing.

[4]

OECD.

2011.

Sustainable

Manufacturing

Toolkit.

[Online] [Accessed: 05/01/2012] Available from World

Wide

Web:

http://www.oecd.org/document/55/0,3746,en_21571361_

47075996_47076535_1_1_1_1,00.html

[5]

Jayal, A.D. Badurdeen, F. Dillon, O.W. Jawahir, I.S.

2010.

Sustainable

manufacturing:

Modeling

and

optimisation challenges at the product, process and

system levels. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science

and Technology. Vol 2. pp 144

–

152.

[6]

UNEP. 2011. Towards a green economy: pathways to

sustainable development and poverty eradication.

[Online] [Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available from World

Wide

Web:

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documen

ts/ger/ger_final_dec_2011/Green%

[7]

EC. 2011. Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe.

[Online] [Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available from World

Wide

Web:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/

com2011_571.pdf

[8]

FDF. 2013. Our core ambitions: five-fold environmental

ambition

–

progress report 2012. [Online] [Accessed:

01/08/2013]

available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.fdf.org.uk/environment_progress_report-

2012-ambitions.aspx

[9]

Greenpeace. 2013. Ecological farming and food

campaign. [Online] [Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available

from

world

Wide

Web:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/a

griculture/

[10] Foresight. 2011. The Future of Food and Farming

–

Final Project Report. [Online] [Accessed: 25/01/2012]

Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/food-and-

farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report

[11] DEFRA. 2006. Food Industry Sustainability Strategy

(FISS). [Online] [Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available from

World

wide

Web:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads

234

J.H. Miah et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 ( 2015 ) 229 – 234

/attachment_data/file/69283/pb11649-fiss2006-

060411.pdf

[12]

Econlib. 2008. Prisioners’dillema. [Online] [Accessed:

16/04/2014]

Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PrisonersDilemma.ht

[13] Pepsico. 2012. Pepsico performance with purpose

–

Sustainability report 2011/2012. [Online] [Accessed:

29/08/2013]

Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.pepsico.com/Download/PEP_CSR12_2011-

2012_Sustainability_Report_v8.pdf

[14] Kraft. 2011. Our progress in 2011

–

Creating a more

delicious

world.

[Online]

[Accessed:

29/08/2013]

Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.mondelezinternational.com/SiteCollectionDoc

uments/pdf/kraftfoods_deliciousworld2011.pdf

[15] Cargill. 2012. 2012 Corporate Sustainability Report

–

Our responsibility in a changing world. [Online]

[Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.cargill.co.uk/wcm/groups/public/@ccom/docu

ments/document/na3066211.pdf

[16] Associated British Food plc. 2010. Measuring our

responsibility

–

Corporate Responsibility Report 2010.

[Online] [Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available from World

Wide

Web:

http://www.abf.co.uk/documents/pdfs/2010/2010_corpor

ate_responsibility_report.pdf

[17] Nestlé SA. 2013. Nestlé in society. Creating Shared

Value and meeting our commitments 2013 Full report.

[Online] [Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available from World

Wide

Web:

http://www.nestle.com/asset-

library/documents/library/documents/corporate_social_re

sponsibility/nestle-csv-full-report-2013-en.pdf

[18] UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK

National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key

Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

[19] The

Dow

Chemical

Company.

2011.

Valuing

Ecosystems 2011 Global Conservation Report. [Online]

[Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.dow.com/sustainability/pdf/2011-

Conservation-Report-COMBINED.pdf

[20] Duflou, J.R. Sutherland, J.W. Dornfield, D. Hermann, C.

Jeswiet, j. Kara, S. Hauschild, M. Kellens, K. 2012.

Towards energy and resource efficient manufacturing: A

processes and systems approach. CIRP Annals

–

Manufacturing Technology. Vol 61. pp 587

–

609.

[21] Geels,

F.W.

2002.

Technological

transitions

evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level

perspective and a case study. Research Policy. Vol 31.

pp 1257

–

1274.

[22] Geels, F.W. 2005. Processes and patterns in transitions

and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary

multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting &

Social Change. Vol 72. pp 681

–

696.

[23] Frito-Lay. 2011. Frito-

Lay Unveils ‘near net zero’

manufacturing facility. [Online] [Accessed: 16/04/2014]

Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.fritolay.com/about-us/press-release-

20111005.html

[24] ECOVER. 2013. Facts about our Factory. [Online]

[Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.the-splash.co.uk/articles/factory-facts

[25] Foodprocessing-technology.com. 2014. Arla Foods Zero

Carbon Dairy, United Kingdom. [Online] [Accessed:

16/04/2014]

Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.foodprocessing-technology.com/projects/arla-

foods-zero-carbon-dairy/

[26] Theguardian. 2011. Building a greener future. [Online]

[Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.theguardian.com/honda-dream-

factory/vidhura-ralapanawe-cultural-engineer-winner

[27] Middle East online. 2012. Renault to inaugurate giant

Tangier plant. [Online] [Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.middle-east-

online.com/english/?id=50527

[28] Nestlé UK Ltd. 2013. Nestlé UK & Ireland Creating

Shared

Value

Plan

Update.

[Online]

[Accessed:

16/04/2014]

Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://www.nestle.co.uk/asset-

library/documents/creatingsharedvalue/csv2013-

brochure_linked.pdf

[29] DECC.

2012.

Energy

Price

Statistics.

[Online]

[Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy

_stats/prices/prices.aspx

[30] DEFRA. 2013. Food Statistics Pocketbook 2013.

[Online] [Accessed: 01/08/2013] Available from World

Wide

Web:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads

/attachment_data/file/243770/foodpocketbook-

2013report-19sep13.pdf

[31] Linnhoff, B. Townsend, D.W. Boland, D. Hewitt, G.F.

Thomas, B.E.A. Guy, A.R. Marshland, R.H. 1982. A user

guide on process integration for the efficient use of

energy. Rugby, UK.

[32] Kemp, I.C. 2007. Pinch analysis and process integration.

A user guide on process integration for efficient use of

energy. Amsterdam: Elsevier

[33] Sadre-Kazemi, N. Polley, G.T. 1996. Design of energy

storage systems for batch process plants. Trans

IChemE. Vol. 74. Part A.

[34] Klemes, J. Friedler, F. Bulatove, I. Varbanov, P. 2011.

Sustainability in the process industry

–

Integration and

Optimisation. McGraw

–

Hill. USA

[35] Miah, J.H. Griffiths, A. McNeill, R. Poonaji, I. Martin, R.

Yang, A. Morse, S. 2014. Heat integration in processes

with

diverse

production

lines:

comprehensive

framework and an application in food industry. Applied

Energy. Vol 132. pp 452

–

464.

[36] ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO

14041

environmental

management

–

life

cycle

assessment

–

goal and scope definition and inventory

analysis; 1998.

[37] EC. 2012. Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide.

[Online] [Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available from World

Wide

Web:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/footprint/PEF

%20methodology%20final%20draft.pdf

[38] Quantis. 2014. World Food LCA Database. [Online]

[Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.quantis-intl.com/wfldb/

[39] ISO. 2012. ISO 14001 revision is underway. [Online]

[Accessed: 16/04/2014] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_lindex/news_archive/

news.htm?refid=Ref1547

[40] The International EPD System. 2014. What are Product

Nestle Sustainability Report

Prompt to Clone This Nestle Sustainability Report

Apply this example's core structure, strategic pacing, and structural hierarchy directly to your own topic.

What are you generating today?

More Examples