Sustainability Assessment in Remanufacturing Companies—Qualitative Approach

  • Paulina Golinska-Dawson
  • Frank Kübler
Part of the EcoProduction book series (ECOPROD)


In the last three decades the concept of sustainability has gained a growing attention. There are different initiatives around the world which aim to provide methods and tools for sustainability assessment at a company level. The majority of existing quantitative methods require extended scope of data to be collected and analyzed. Small and medium size remanufacturing enterprises lack the know-how and technical resources to apply them. For this reason there is still research gap regarding the qualitative, easy applicable methods for sustainability assessment, which might be applied, based on expert’s knowledge. The aim of this chapter is to present a new qualitative method, which provides cross company valid sustainability assessment criteria. The method allows assessing the level of maturity of resources utilization in a company with regards to the three dimensions of sustainability. The chapter presents the research methodology and the results of the application of the method in the companies.


Remanufacturing operations Maturity level Sustainability assessment 



This work refers to the research financed by the Narodowe Centrum Badan i Rozwoju NCBiR (National Centre for Research and Development) and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the framework of the German-Polish cooperation for sustainable development, project “Sustainability in remanufacturing operations (SIRO)”, grant no WPN/2/2012 and (01RS1204A). The authors solemnly are responsible for the content of this publication.


  1. Bebbington J, Brown J, Frame B (2007) Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecol Econ 61:224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gagnon RJ, Morgan SD (2014) Remanufacturing scheduling systems: an exploratory analysis comparing academic research and industry practice. Interna J Rapid Manufact 4(2–4):179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Golińska P (2013) Logistyka zwrotna. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej, PoznańGoogle Scholar
  4. Golinska P, Kübler F (2014) The method for assessment of the sustainability maturity in remanufacturing companies. Procedia CIRP 15:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Golinska-Dawson P, Kosacka M, Nowak A (2015) The survey on the challenges of organization of automotive component remanufacturing in small-sized companies in Poland. Toward sustainable operations of supply chain and logistics systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. GRI—Global Reporting Initiative (2002a) The global reporting initiative—an overview. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, USA, Available at
  7. GRI—Global Reporting Initiative (2002b) Sustainability reporting guidelines 2002 on economic and social performance. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, USA, Available at
  8. Guidat T, Uoti M, Tonteri H, Määttä T (2015) A classification of remanufacturing networks in Europe and their influence on new entrants. Procedia CIRP 26:683–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guide VDR Jr (2000) Production planning and control for remanufacturing. J Operat Manag 18:467–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guide VDR Jr (2003) Matching demand and supply to maximize profits from remanufacturing. Manufact Serv Operat Manag 5(4):303–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO/IEC 15504-1 (2004) Information technology—process assessment—part 1: concepts and vocabularyGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim HJ, Severengiz S, Skerlos SJ, Seliger G (2008) Economic and environmental assessment of remanufacturing in the automotive industry. In: LCE 2008: 15th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering: conference proceedings. Sydney, pp 195–200Google Scholar
  13. Krajnc D, Glavic P (2005) A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Res Conserv Recycl 43:189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nasr N, Thurston M (2006) Remanufacturing: a key enabler to sustainable product systems. Rochester Institute of Technology, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60(3):498–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saavedra YM, Barquet AP, Rozenfeld H, Forcellini FA, Ometto AR (2013) Remanufacturing in Brazil: case studies on the automotive sector. J Clean Prod 53:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seitz MA (2007) A critical assessment of motives for product recovery: the case of engine remanufacturing. J Clean Prod 15(11):1147–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2012) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Ind 15(1):281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sundin E, Dunbäck O (2013) Reverse logistics challenges in remanufacturing of automotive mechatronic devices. J Remanufa 3(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sundin E, Bras B (2005) Making service selling environmentally and economically beneficial through product remanufacturing. J Clean ProdGoogle Scholar
  21. Sundin E, Lee HM (2011) In what way is remanufacturing good for the environment? In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing (EcoDesign-11), 30 Nov–2 Dec, Kyoto, Japan, pp 551–556Google Scholar
  22. Sundin E, Östlin J, Björkman M (2008) Why is remanufacturing more successful in the United States than in Sweden? In: Proceedings of 15th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering. The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 17–19 March, pp 247–251Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering ManagementPoznan University of TechnologyPoznanPoland
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Project Group Process Innovation, Chair for Manufacturing and Remanufacturing TechnologyUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations