Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Energy efficiency of manufacturing systems: A review of energy

assessment methods and tools
Roberto Menghi a, *, Alessandra Papetti a, Michele Germani a, Marco Marconi b
a
Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, Ancona, 60131, Italy
Department of Industrial Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Universita
b
degli Studi della Tuscia, Largo dell’Universita
Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, Universita
, Viterbo, 01100, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Industrial manufacturing is the largest end-use sector in terms of both final energy demand and
Received 9 April 2019 greenhouse gas emissions (more than 30% of the total); its increase is rapidly altering the world climate.
Received in revised form The need to mitigate the environmental impacts of manufacturing processes makes energy efficiency a
1 August 2019
key success factor for sustainable production. Accordingly, the scientific community's interest in energy
Accepted 2 September 2019
Available online 5 September 2019
management has grown considerably, resulting in several literature reviews on energy modelling and
production systems analysis, emissions calculation, sustainability tools and benchmarking techniques.
Handling editor: Mingzhou Jin However, a comprehensive analysis of methods and tools aimed at improving energy awareness and
assessing their effects on energy efficiency is lacking. To address this gap, this paper undertakes a sys-
Keywords: tematic literature review of energy assessment methods and tools. From the 1367 papers retrieved by
Energy efficiency searching scientific literature databases, 64 scientific articles met the inclusion criteria and were ana-
Energy assessment tools and methods lysed in detail. The study aims to provide scholars with a picture of the current state of scientific research
Manufacturing processes and to identify the scientific works that could help industry practitioners in energy management.
Industry
Following the ISO 50001 framework, the methods and tools were divided into three main groups (i.e.
Systematic literature review
energy analysis, energy evaluation and energy-saving measures methods) and the specific findings
relating to each group were synthesized. Finally, the paper addresses unresolved issues and challenges
and makes suggestions for future research directions.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Journals and year of publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2. Study methodologies and system boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. Industrial and geographical focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Detailed analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Energy analysis methods and tools (E1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Energy evaluation methods and tools (E2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. Energy-saving measures methods (E3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Unresolved issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Strengths and limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Challenges and suggestions for future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Disclosure statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: r.menghi@univpm.it (R. Menghi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118276
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Introduction et al., 2019), and benchmarking tools and techniques (Rogers

et al., 2018; Boyd et al., 2008). However, a comprehensive anal-
The latest report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ysis of energy assessment methods and tools to improve energy
Change (IPCC) highlights that the increase in global greenhouse gas awareness and assess their effects on energy efficiency is lacking
emissions is rapidly altering the climate. The average global tem- (Schulze et al., 2016).
perature will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5
C above pre- In this context, the aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic
industrial levels as early as 2030, intensifying desertification, review of scientific publications related to the supporting tools and
reducing food production, increasing sea levels and resulting in methods for energy efficiency assessment. The scientific articles of
extreme climatic events (IPCC, 2018). In this context, industrial the last twenty years have been analysed, with a fourfold purpose:
manufacturing is the largest end-use sector (more than 30% of the (i) to identify the state of the art in scientific research and its trends,
total) in terms of both final energy demand and greenhouse gas (ii) to define the relevant concepts, themes and characteristics
emissions (Zhou et al., 2016). Direct industrial CO2 emissions within the literature, (iii) to determine the limits of current scien-
currently represent approximately 25% of the total energy-related tific research and (iv) to identify the possible solution strategies to
and process CO2 emissions and have increased at an average overcome these limitations.
annual rate of 3.4% between 2000 and 2014, much faster than the Assessment methods and tools are essential for energy man-
rate of increase in total CO2 emissions (Hoesly et al., 2018). agement activities as they enable decision-makers to identify
Notwithstanding its great environmental impact on ecosystems, improvement opportunities and to track the effects of their de-
the industrial sector plays a decisive role within the global econ- cisions on energy use (May et al., 2017). These tools can help in-
omy. Manufacturing, in addition to providing the necessary and dustrial companies to cope with the knowledge and organizational
desired goods of the population, employs a significant part of barriers of implementing energy reduction measures (Meyers et al.,
workers (i.e. one-quarter) and contributes to the development of 2016). They allow the monitoring and analysis of the energy con-
community welfare and the economy (United Nations, 2011). For sumption of a factory and its manufacturing processes and repre-
this reason, the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development has sent the first step towards increasing energy efficiency (Bunse et al.,
placed sustainable production among the seventeen goals for 2011). Several studies highlighted how the implementation of these
building a better world (United Nations, 2015). In fact, only through methods and tools have been proven to be cost-effective and have
the development of non-polluting production systems and pro- high implementation rates for energy efficiency improvements
cesses and the consumption of limited quantities of resources, is it (Kannan and Boie, 2003; Kluczek and Olszewski, 2017; Papetti
possible to combine environmental, economic and social sustain- et al., 2019). In addition, energy assessment tools and methods
ability (Seliger et al., 2008). increase the transparency of a system's real-time energy con-
Energy efficiency represents an important measure for miti- sumption and improve energy awareness. They allow analysing
gating the environmental impacts of manufacturing processes, and different aspects of production (e.g., technologies, raw material,
it is the first step towards the implementation of sustainable pro- time, etc.) and assessing their effects on energy efficiency (Schulze
duction (IPCC, 2018). Additionally, from the companies’ points of et al., 2016). Moreover, the assessment methods and tools provide
view, energy efficiency is becoming an important theme in pro- manufacturing enterprises with a complete, pragmatic method of
duction management due to three important drivers: rising energy measuring, controlling and improving energy efficiency in pro-
prices, new environmental regulations (with their associated costs duction systems (Bunse et al., 2011).
for CO2 emissions) and greater customer awareness of sustainable, After the Introduction, Section 2 presents the methodology used
energy-efficient products and services (Bunse et al., 2011). for the systematic review. Section 3 discusses the results of the
In the last decade, the interest of the scientific community in descriptive analysis of the sample papers and the classification
energy management has grown considerably, and several papers according to the typologies of the methods or tools used. A critical
have been published (May et al., 2017). These studies address energy analysis is presented in Section 4, wherein the limitations are also
efficiency from different points of view and involve different pro- described. Finally, conclusions and implications are highlighted in
duction fields. Proper energy management requires an accurate Section 5.
evaluation of the entire production process through a multidisci-
plinary approach involving several departments such as manage-
2. Method
ment, quality, IT, production and the technical office (Johansson and
Thollander, 2018). Therefore, methods and tools aimed at supporting
The research work was conducted between September and
energy assessment and stakeholder collaboration to help managers
November 2018 according to the systematic review approach. This
improve energy efficiency in production are important current
approach, introduced by Tranfield et al. (2003), allows relevant
research areas (Svensson and Paramonova, 2017). These new
existing studies to be identified based on a previously formulated
methods and tools generally support energy-related analysis and
research question. Moreover, this method minimizes the subjec-
decision-making in manufacturing environments and deal with the
tivity of the author as it ensures the transparency of the results and
modelling and analysis of energy-efficient practices.
the repeatability of the study (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). The
Several literature reviews on energy management topics have
research consisted of looking for relevant works within the main
been carried out in recent years. These studies focus on the
online databases of scientific literature that collect academic
modelling and analysis of production systems (Debnath and
studies published in peer-reviewed journals. The databases used
Mourshed, 2018; Garwood et al., 2018; Thiede et al., 2013), emis-
for the present research were Web of Science, Scopus and Science-
sion calculation and sustainability tools (Pohl et al., 2019; Saad
Direct, which collect relevant academic articles in the fields of
 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276
industrial production management and energy, as well as the en-
gineering domains, and allow accurate and customized searches.
The main keywords for the review were identified as “method”,
“manufacturing” and “energy assessment”. They have been selected
to detect the scientific papers focused on energy efficiency applied
to the manufacturing sector and to exclude those ones related to
the topics of energy production and buildings. The keywords were
combined according to the following search string [(“method” OR
“tool”) AND (“manufactur*” OR “factory”) AND (“energy assessment”
OR “energy efficien*”)], where “manufactur*” included both
“manufacturing” and “manufacture” and “energy efficien*” included
“energy efficiency” and “energy efficient”. Boolean search terms (e.g.,
OR, AND) were used to incorporate diverse, but reasonable key-
words in one search string.
Some inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to determine
the most relevant papers from the scientific literature. Specifically,
the research was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed
academic journals. All other publication types (e.g., conference
papers, periodicals and working papers) were excluded as they
usually pass through a less rigorous peer-review process (Podsakoff
et al., 2005). Articles not written in English and articles not digitally
available as full texts were also excluded. No time limitation was
set, and the research focused on the ‘engineering’ and ‘energy’
research disciplines.
The papers were selected based on their relevance with regard
to the theme of the review. Articles that focus only on barriers and
driving forces of energy management were excluded, as well as
papers that address policy questions rather than management
matters. The reason for this choice is that these works consider
investment decisions as an analysing variable and focus on external
drivers for energy efficiency (Thollander and Palm, 2012). As the
focus of this paper is on supporting tools and methods for industrial
energy management, scientific studies involving machine tools
were also excluded. These studies focus only on the energy model
of the machine and analyse the relationship between the operating
parameters and the production process. Methods and tools that
Fig. 1. Workflow of the scientific literature research process.
3
analyse energy efficiency based on the second law of thermody-
namics have been excluded. They are used to analyse only specific
industrial processes (e.g. industrial ammonia synthesis, petroleum
refining) or specific aspects of production process (e.g. HVAC and
cooling system, solar collector systems) where energy trans-
formation is a significant component of the system's energy con-
sumption. Furthermore, some different reviews on energy
consumption models, energy efficiency of machine tools and
exergy analyses have been recently published (e.g. Zhou et al., 2016;
BoroumandJazi et al., 2013).
The modelling and analysis methods were also considered
beyond the review scope. These methods differ from modelling and
analysis methods because they are generic, provide short-term
decision support and allow real-time analysis of production pro-
cesses. Indeed, the modelling and analysis methods are often
developed for specific applications and for occasional use (K'adar
et al., 2010) to predict the effects of intervention strategies on
future scenarios and identify optimal settings through the inte-
gration of simulation and optimization activities (Debnath and
Mourshed, 2018).
Finally, at a later stage of the process, and to ensure a compre-
hensive analysis of the topic, additional academic studies were
identified through manual screening of cross-references. The
methodology of the systematic research process, together with the
main steps and figures, is illustrated in Fig. 1. As a result, 64 sci-
entific articles were selected and analysed in detail (Table A1 in
Appendix A).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive analysis
3.1.1. Journals and year of publication
Fig. 2 shows the time distribution of the selected articles. Most
of the articles are concentrated in the last 7 years (i.e. from 2012 to
2018), highlighting the growing interest in new methods and tools
4 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276

Fig. 2. Distribution of the 64 selected articles across the time period.

for improving the energy efficiency of production processes. In
particular, the attention of the scientific community has grown
since the first release of the ISO 50001 standard in June 2011 (ISO,
2018). This standard strongly contributed to increasing the con-
sciousness towards energy consumption, and stimulated scholars
to look for new methods and tools, with the aims of improving
energy-related performance and identifying energy savings
opportunities.
Most of the articles appeared in the Journal of Cleaner Production
(16 articles), followed by Energy and Applied Energy (6), Energy
Policy (4), and International Journal of Production Economics (3).
Finally, twenty-one journals each provided only one relevant article
(Fig. 3).
3.1.2. Study methodologies and system boundaries
The most widespread study methodology is the mixed approach
(26 articles), which combines the development of a new method
with its validation in a case study. The second-largest portion of
studies focused on the application of already-published method-
ologies to new case studies (20 articles), followed by a group of
articles proposing only a conceptual or theoretical approach (11
articles). Finally, 7 papers focused on the development of tools for
the energy assessment of an industrial process (Fig. 4).
Concerning the level of analysis, the articles focused mainly on
the study of energy efficiency at the factory level (31 total articles).
Then, a large group of articles (13) analysed energy efficiency at the
plant level (without considering the auxiliary facilities), half of
which were analysed through case studies. Ten papers analysed the
multi-machine level (i.e. the organization of equipment into pro-
duction lines that act in series or in parallel to perform a specific
task operation) mainly through a mixed approach. Finally, six ar-
ticles analysed systems composed of multiple factories, one paper
investigated the energy efficiency of a supply chain system and
three articles simultaneously analysed multiple levels of a pro-
duction system (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Distribution of the 64 selected articles in the main journals.

 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276 5

Fig. 4. Distribution of the 64 selected articles considering study methodologies and system boundaries.

3.1.3. Industrial and geographical focus
Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the analysed industrial sectors in
the selected articles (with the exclusion of conceptual and theo-
retical papers that do not contain case studies). With reference to
the International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic
activities (ISIC) (United Nations, 2008), the most investigated sec-
tors are the manufacture of fabricated metal products (13), the
manufacture of food products and beverages (6), the manufacture
of motor vehicles (5) and the manufacture of other non-metallic
mineral products, such as cement (4). These latter sectors are
energy-intensive sectors in the manufacturing industry; thus, en-
ergy efficiency is a crucial topic (Boyd and Zhang, 2013). There are
also scientific papers that analyse different types of industrial
sectors and present multiple case studies (7 articles, e.g., the
manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products and the
manufacture of fabricated metal products (Giacone and Manco
,
2012). Finally, rubber and plastic product manufacturing, textile
manufacturing, paper and paper products manufacturing, high-
tech instrument manufacturing, transportation and
communications, and the mining and quarrying sectors have two
publications each.
The geographical distribution (Fig. 6) shows a global interest in
the topic, although most of the studies have focused on the more
economically developed areas. Specifically, the largest group (20
articles) refers to Europe (Germany, in particular), followed by
Eastern Asia (China, in particular) (9) and North America (8).
3.2. Detailed analysis
This section systematically summarizes the current state of
research. Starting from the analysis of the papers, energy assess-
ment methods and tools have been defined as "the combination of
activities, methodical procedures, standards and tools used to analyse,
assess and suggest corrective actions to reduce energy consumption
and increase the energy efficiency of production systems". According
to this definition, the single articles were classified in terms of the
content and then analysed in relation to each other, allowing for
classification into distinct and homogeneous groups.

Fig. 5. Distribution of the selected articles containing case studies considering the industrial sector focus.
6 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276

Fig. 6. Distribution of the 64 selected articles considering the geographical focus.

Fig. 7. Classification of the energy assessment methods and tools.

The methods and tools were divided into three main groups:
energy analysis (E1), energy evaluation (E2), and energy-saving
measures (E3) (Fig. 7), following the same principle as the ISO
50001 standard (ISO, 2018) on how to undertake an energy review.
The cataloguing was carried out based on the focus of the scientific
work and on the proposed innovation. Only two articles have been
catalogued both in the group E1 and E3, since the presented novelty
concerned both the energy analysis of the production process and
the analysis of the corrective actions. The other scientific works,
where the evaluation of the corrective actions was carried out ac-
cording to a traditional approach (e.g. evaluation of economic
savings or payback period) or the identification of the corrective
actions was carried out in a subjective way, were included only in
group E1 or E2.
The main characteristics and differences between the three
groups of energy assessment methods and tools are described
below.
The E1 group includes the methods and tools used to increase
the transparency of the energy consumption of a production sys-
tem. These tools are mainly based on an energy audit that consists
of the systematic investigation and analysis of the company's en-
ergy consumers. Aggregate consumption data such as energy in-
voices or bills are often used as input, and national benchmarks or
indicators are used to assess company efficiency. The goal is to
clearly show how energy is consumed through a preliminary en-
ergy diagnosis, which is the starting point for further optimization
measures and the implementation of an action plan. Two themes
are prevalent in studies evaluating energy analysis methods and
tools: energy consumption analysis based on energy audits (E1.1)
and energy analysis through benchmarking (E1.2) (Table 1).
The E2 group extends the energy evaluation beyond mere
analysis. Indeed, the aim is to deeply investigate how energy is
consumed within a production process. These methods and tools
often use real-time energy consumption data from Internet of
Things (IoT)-based technologies (e.g., smart meters and sensors).
They study and compare several production-related topics (e.g.,
used technology, manufacturing parameters, use patterns and
production planning) and analyse their effects on energy efficiency
and environmental objectives. These methods enable increased
awareness and transparency of how energy is used, at the machine,
process and factory levels. Energy evaluation methods and tools are
divided into two main groups: the first group analyses production
through new mathematical-statistical approaches and the creation
of appropriate indices (E2.1), while the second group contains
methods and tools developed from the lean methodology and
mainly focuses on waste reduction (E2.2) (Table 2).
The E3 group includes methods and tools that explore energy-
saving measures. The aim is to identify and evaluate improve-
ment opportunities to reduce energy consumption and the envi-
ronmental impacts of production. They allow for the identification
of appropriate energy-saving actions through the collection of
relevant data and the analysis of the correlations among energy
 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276 7

Table 1
Classification of papers belonging to the Energy analysis group (E1).

Paper Study System Group Approach Input Indicator

methodology boundary
E P D

Aguirre et al. (2011) Conceptual Plant E1.2 DEA, linear regression models Aggregate ✓ IAC e
approach
Azadeh et al. (2007) Method þ case Factory E1.2 DEA, principal component analysis, numerical Aggregate e UN industrial e
study taxonomy yearbooks
Boharb et al. (2016) Case study Plant E1.1 e Aggregate e e e
Boyd (2017) Conceptual Factory E1.2 e Aggregate ✓ US Census Bureau Energy Star Epi
approach
Boyd et al. (2008) Tool Factory E1.2 e Aggregate ✓ US Census Bureau Energy Star Epi
Carabalı et al. (2018) Case study Factory E1.1 MEFA, Sankey diagrams Aggregate e e e
Chen et al. (2012) Case study Factory E1.1 Energy flow analysis Aggregate ✓e e
Ghituleasa et al. (2016) Tool Factory E1.2 e Aggregate ✓e SEC
Gopalakrishnan et al. Tool Factory E1.1 ISO 50001 Rated ✓e e
(2014) power
Jeon et al. (2015) Conceptual Mixed E1.2 Distribution fitting Aggregate e IAC e
approach
Kannan and Boie (2003) Case study Factory E1.1 e Rated ✓e SEC
power
Kluczek and Olszewski Case study Multi-machine E1.1 Energy audit tools Real-time e e e
(2017)
Mahamud et al. (2017) Case study Plant E1.2 DEA, regression analysis Aggregate ✓ Company SEC
Meyers et al. (2016) Case study Factory E1.2 e Aggregate ✓ e e
Oh and Hildreth (2014) Method þ case Factory E1.2 SFA, DEA Aggregate ✓ Company Energy Star Epi
study
Richert (2017) Method þ case Factory E1.1 ISO 50001 Real-time e e e
study
Rodrıguez et al. (2011) Case study Plant E1.1 MEFA Aggregate ✓e e
Rogers et al. (2018) Case study Factory E1.2 e Aggregate e Multiple e
Salta et al. (2009) Case study Factory E1.1 e Aggregate ✓ Multiple SEC
Smith and Ball (2012) Method þ case Factory E1.1 MEFA Rated e e e
study power
Taner et al. (2018) Case study Factory E1.1 CUSUM Aggregate e e e
Tunc et al. (2016) Case study Factory l E1.1 e Aggregate e e e
Wang et al. (2016) Method þ case Multi-factory E1.2 e Aggregate ✓ Company Energy eff.
study indicators
Wojdalski et al. (2015) Case study Plant E1.1 e Rated ✓e SECs
power

(Note: E ¼ energy data; P ¼ production data; D ¼ database).

saving opportunities, risks and cost benefits. This group of methods
does not include optimization methods, since they are focused on
system modelling and involve discrete event simulation or the
application of pure mathematical (optimization) models (Ferretti
et al., 2008). Two themes are prevalent in papers analysing
energy-saving measures: methods to identify corrective actions
based on energy analysis (E3.1) and methods to evaluate energy-
saving measures (E3.2) (Table 3).
Based on this categorization, Fig. 8 illustrates the distribution of
the analysed studies by research focus. Approximately one-third of
the papers (19) focused on aspects related to energy studies and
metering, followed in terms of quantity by studies analysing
methods based on energy audits (13) and methods based on energy
benchmarking (11). A significantly smaller portion of studies
focused on methods for the identification of corrective actions (8)
and methods for evaluating energy savings (6).
3.2.1. Energy analysis methods and tools (E1)
The main purpose of methods and tools based on energy audit
(E1.1) is to increase energy consumption transparency through a
systematic investigation and identification of the different energy
consumers within a production system. These methods allowed for
the identification of the most energy-consuming processes and
represented a very significant step to improve the energy efficiency
of production process (Kannan and Boie, 2003; Boharb et al., 2016;
Kluczek and Olszewski, 2017). They used a review of utility bills or
other operating data (e.g., rated power of the equipment and their
number of operating hours) and a walk-through of the facility
(Kannan and Boie, 2003; Tunc et al., 2016).
Methods for the assessment of material and energy flows
(MEFA) within a system have been then developed. These methods
analyse the input/output relationships of processes and systems
and, by their balancing and a visualization with Sankey diagrams,
enable the identification of the critical areas from the energy con-
sumption point of view (Rodrıguez et al., 2011; Smith and Ball,
2012; Carabalı et al., 2018).
To assist an organization with energy analysis, Gopalakrishnan
et al. (2014) developed a tool (i.e. the ISO 50001 Analyzer soft-
ware) that provides a user-friendly guide to energy audits involving
all company stakeholders, without requiring a significant amount
of data processing. It is based on the ISO 50001 methodology (ISO,
2018) and allows for the implementation of an energy management
system. Similarly, Richert (2017) developed a methodological
approach based on the ISO 50001 standard, adapted to small and
medium enterprises (SMEs), for which time, personnel and budget
resources are limited.
In addition, scientific literature includes methods developed
starting from/for particular production sectors and/or specific
geographical contexts. Taner et al. (2018) presented an energy
assessment of a sugar factory. In this case, data evaluation was
carried out through a statistical analysis (i.e. the CUSUM technique)
and enabled the identification of specific energy efficiency indices
for sugar production. Another example was proposed by Chen et al.
(2012), who analysed the energy flow of three mills in Taiwan's
8 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276

Table 2
Classification of paper belonging to the Energy evaluation group (E2).

Paper Study method. System Group Approach Input Indicator

boundary
E P Standard Proposed

Benedetti et al. (2017) Method þ case Multi-factory E2.1 ISO 50006, CUSUM Real-time ✓ EnPIs e
study
Cherrafi et al. (2017) Method þ case Factory E2.2 Lean, Six Sigma Aggregate ✓ Multiple e
study
Cosgrove et al. (2017) Method þ case Factory E2.1 ISO 50001, PDCA Aggregate þ real- ✓ KPI, EnPI e
study time
Darmawan et al. (2014) Case study Supply chain E2.2 VSM Aggregate ✓ e e
Dehning et al. (2017) Method þ case Multi-factory E2.1 Multiple linear regression e ✓ SEC e
study model
Estrada et al. (2018) Method þ case Mixed E2.1 e Real-time ✓ SEC SECn, n-Energy Gap
study
Faulkner and Badurdeen Method þ case Plant E2.2 VSM Not specified ✓ Multiple e
(2014) study
Finnerty et al. (2017) Method þ case Multi-factory E2.1 e Aggregate ✓ KPI Energy management maturity model
study
Fysikopoulos et al. (2014) Method þ case Multi- E2.1 e Not specified e SECs Energy efficiency
study machine
Garza-Reyes et al. (2018) Method þ case Factory E2.2 PDCA, VSM Rated power e e e
study
Gazi et al. (2012) Case study Multi-factory E2.1 e Rated power ✓ e e
Giacone and Manco
(2012) Method þ case Multi- E2.1 Regression analysis Aggregate ✓ SEC Energy efficiency
study machine
Goschel et al. (2012) Method þ case Multi- E2.1 e Not specified ✓ e Energy efficiency
study machine
Hopf and Müller (2015) Tool Plant E2.1 e Real-time ✓ e e
Jia et al. (2017) Method þ case Multi- E2.2 VSM, Therblig Rated power e e Energy efficiency
study machine
Lee et al. (2014) Conceptual Factory E2.2 Six-Sigma Aggregate e e e
approach
Li et al. (2017) Tool Plant E2.1 AHP, Fuzzy evaluation Real-time e e e
May et al. (2015) Conceptual Factory E2.1 e Not specified ✓ KPIs Lean Energy Indicator
approach
Müller et al. (2014) Conceptual Mixed E2.2 VSM Real-time e e e
approach
Mustafaraj et al. (2015) Case study Multi- E2.2 EVSM Real-time e e e
machine
Perroni et al. (2018) Conceptual Factory E2.1 e Not specified e e Energy performance
approach
Posselt et al. (2014) Method þ case Factory E2.2 EVSM Real-time e e e
study
Robinson et al. (2015) Tool Plant E2.1 e Real-time ✓ e e
Savulescu and Kim (2008) Conceptual Plant E2.1 Pinch, water analysis Not specified e e e
approach
Vikhorev et al. (2013) Tool Multi- E2.1 e Real-time ✓ KPIs e
machine
Wang and Ji (2017) Method þ case Multi- E2.1 Rough set, AHM grey Not specified ✓ e Energy Efficiency Quantitative
study machine correlation Analysis Index
Wang et al. (2013) Method þ case Multi- E2.1 e Real-time ✓ SECs Process energy efficiency
study machine
Zhu et al. (2017) Method þ case Multi- E2.1 e Real-time ✓ e Carbon efficiency of process chain
study machine

(Note: E ¼ energy data; P ¼ production data).

pulp and paper industry. Through a five-step method, the authors
identified how energy is used and the amount of energy lost during
the production process. Wojdalski et al. (2015) proposed a novel
method of determining the direct energy consumption and energy
efficiency of a confectionery plant that produces candies. Finally,
Salta et al. (2009) studied the energy consumption of Greek com-
panies in various production sectors. They developed a methodo-
logical framework for evaluating the energy consumption of
different production processes and the evolution of energy
utilization.
The E1.2 category includes all publications related to energy
analyses based on national or international reference values. In this
case, the evaluation of a company's energy efficiency is carried out
through a comparison with benchmark values within the same
production sector. Azadeh et al. (2007) presented an integrated
approach based on data envelopment analysis (DEA), principal
component analysis and numerical taxonomy for energy assess-
ment. The proposed approach eliminates the need for energy data
at the disaggregated operations level for considering the structural
effect. It analyses and compares the performance differentials of
several companies to determine the critical energy carrier and
propose the optimal reductions. Aguirre et al. (2011) presented a
methodology for measuring relative industrial energy efficiency
between different plants within a company. The assessment is
carried out by comparing national data (i.e. US Industrial Assess-
ment Centers - IACs (DOE, 2006)) with plant data processed using a
statistical approach. Specifically, through DEA and linear regression
models, the parameters that influence production and the effi-
ciency curves used to compare the plants are identified. Oh and
Hildreth (2014) analysed the car manufacturing industry and
 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276 9

Table 3
Classification of papers belonging to the Energy-saving measures group (E3).

Paper Study methodology System Group Approach Input Indicator

boundary
E P D

Afkhami et al. (2015) Case study Plant E3.2 ISIRI 7873, CUSUM Aggregate ✓ e SECs
Boyd and Zhang (2013) Case study Factory E3.2 Statistical analysis Aggregate e US Census Bureau Energy Star
Epi
Caldera et al. (2018) Conceptual Factory E3.1 Natural-resource-based view Aggregate e e e
approach theory
Fleiter et al. (2012) Conceptual Factory E3.2 Morphological box Aggregate e e e
approach
Hackl and Harvey (2013) Method þ case Multi-factory E3.1 Pinch analysis Aggregate e e e
study
Hasanbeigi et al. (2010) Case study Plant E3.2 Conservation Supply Curve Aggregate ✓ LLNL e
Kissock and Eger (2008) Method þ case Plant E3.2 Multi-variable least-squares Aggregate e e e
study regression
Kluczek (2014) Case study Factory E3.1 BAT Aggregate e BREF documents e
Lu et al. (2013) Method þ case Factory E3.1 BAT world Best Practice Technology Aggregate e BREF documents, IEA, e
study LLNL
Müller et al. (2013) Method þ case Factory E3.1 e Aggregate e e SECs
study
Rodrıguez et al. (2011) Case study Plant E3.1 BAT Aggregate e BREF documents e
Rogers et al. (2018) Case study Factory E3.1 BAT Aggregate e BREF documents e
Svensson and Paramonova Method þ case Factory E3.1 e Aggregate e e e
(2017) study
Trianni et al. (2014) Conceptual Factory E3.2 e Aggregate e IAC Recommendation e
approach Types

(Note: E ¼ energy data; P ¼ production data; D ¼ database).

Fig. 8. Distribution of the selected articles considering the research focus of studies.

described a benchmarking model based on ENERGY STAR plant
energy performance indicator values. Through stochastic frontier
analysis (SFA) and DEA, the study found frontier lines and
measured their shifts as a proxy for structural technical energy
efficiency improvement. Jeon et al. (2015) suggested a model for
evaluating the energy footprints of manufacturing processes based
on probabilistic techniques (i.e. SFA, probability density function,
ordinary least squares regression) with the goal of benchmarking
plants' energy efficiencies at the industry level. Using specific in-
dicators and the IAC database, it compares the energy efficiency of
plants with peers in the US manufacturing sector. Mahamud et al.
(2017) proposed a generic methodology to characterize energy ef-
ficiency at the factory level and derive benchmarking reference
points. In this case, the benchmark values are not derived from
national databases but are calculated by analysing the production
plant. Through an empirical approach and statistical analysis (i.e.
DEA and regression analysis), this approach identifies the daily
production reference value and the target to be achieved to opti-
mize energy efficiency.
There are also scientific works that analyse specific
manufacturing sectors, such as the paper and pulp industries,
which were studied by Rogers et al. (2018). Their work examined
the benchmarks available in the literature to identify a single
reference value among all those proposed. With a similar approach,
Boyd (2017) compared the statistical distributions of energy effi-
ciency in specific manufacturing sectors. He analysed and
compared the evolution over time of the benchmark distributions
of energy efficiency in cement manufacturing, auto assembly and
wet corn refining. Wang et al. (2016) developed a methodology for
the comparative analysis of coal production energy efficiency. Their
10 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276
method was used to analyse eight coal mines in China and, through
the definition of benchmarking indicators, their process-based
energy efficiency status. Similarly, Meyers et al. (2016) investi-
gated the energy consumption of some European SMEs in the food
and beverage sector. Their method was based on a comparison of
the energy analysis results and the definition of a set of bench-
marking indicators, such as product-specific energy consumption,
which determined the production efficiency.
Finally, there are tools for analysing the energy efficiency of
production plants based on comparison with national databases.
Boyd et al. (2008) developed a tool that provides a “birds-eye view
of sector-specific, plant-level energy use” through a correlation
between the energy consumption, the level and type of various
production activities and the quality of inputs and external factors.
Another example is the Energy Saving and Efficiency Tool devel-
oped by Ghituleasa et al. (2016), a free tool customized for textile
manufacturers. It is based on an internal database and enables the
comparison of a factory's energy performance with those of similar
European companies.
3.2.2. Energy evaluation methods and tools (E2)
The Energy studies and metering group (E2.1) tries to overcome
the lack of an effective index system and quantitative analysis
methods that enable in-depth study of how energy is consumed
within a production process. G€oschel et al. (2012) proposed a
methodology that balances inputs and outputs in terms of the
energy and materials in a production line. The method considers
the assembly line to be a black box, and it is based on a high level of
wide-ranging and transparent data and on the mathematical
description of the phenomena concerning technology and energy.
A structured framework to define and measure energy efficiency
was proposed by Giacone and Manco
(2012). Energy consumption
is represented by a single matrix equation, which expresses the
relationship between imported energies and energy drivers. The
matrix is populated by specific energy consumption (SEC) in-
dicators for each energy-consuming and energy conversion pro-
cess. Benedetti et al. (2017) and Zhu et al. (2017) introduced
methods for controlling the energy performance of manufacturing
plants through the evaluation of specific indicators. The indexes
characterize the various processing phases and identify the oper-
ations with the highest consumption.
Other studies have analysed production on additional levels and
proposed integrated methods for assessing the energy efficiency of
a machining workshop. Fysikopoulos et al. (2014) studied the
manufacturing process in four layers, i.e. process, machine, pro-
duction line and factory, each of which had multiple assessment
indices that combine the effective energy indicators with SEC in-
dicators to completely describe the energy consumption state.
Wang et al. (2013) and Cosgrove et al. (2017) analysed the energy
efficiency of a production process with a hierarchical approach.
They proposed a novel evaluation index system with an interlinked
set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to analyse the overall en-
ergy consumption level of a production system. May et al. (2015)
presented a method of developing production-tailored and
energy-related KPIs that enable the interpretation of cause-effect
relationships. The indicators analyse several aspects of the pro-
duction process, such as consumption for maintenance, consump-
tion for non-conforming parts, and post-holiday start-up
consumption, with the purpose of increasing production efficiency.
Some works introduce other indicators into the evaluation of en-
ergy efficiency of a manufacturing workshop. A novel energy effi-
ciency quantitative analysis method for multi-machine
manufacturing systems was proposed by Wang and Ji (2017). They
presented an energy efficiency evaluation index system that
included ten indices grouped into the following categories:
economic energy efficiency, production energy efficiency, machine
energy efficiency and task-flow energy efficiency. Estrada et al.
(2018) suggested a novel strategic decision methodology to in-
crease energy efficiency in industrial processes. Six different spe-
cific energy consumption levels are proposed, and the differences
between them are calculated in terms of production, quality, pro-
cess, technological, and R&D gaps.
There are also methods developed for particular types of com-
panies or specific manufacturing sectors. Finnerty et al. (2017) and
Perroni et al. (2018) developed new methodologies to measure the
energy performance of a multi-site organizations and an extended
enterprise, respectively. Their methods are based on both quanti-
tative performance evaluation, using KPIs and benchmarking, and
qualitative characterization, using energy management models.
Savulescu and Kim (2008) proposed a method of analysing the
consumption of energy in the food industries, investigating the
cross effects of energy and water systems. Gazi et al. (2012) pre-
sented a systematic approach for assessing the energy efficiency of
a typical European marble quarrying and processing SME. The
method analyses each individual operation to calculate the energy
incorporated by each specific product. Dehning et al. (2017) intro-
duced a statistical approach for identifying and quantifying influ-
encing factors on the energy intensity of an automotive plant.
Some researchers focused on the development of tools for the
energy assessment of a production plant. These tools help to
identify the weaknesses and areas for energy efficiency improve-
ments related to the control of production and operations. Vikhorev
et al. (2013) proposed a framework for energy monitoring and
management in the factory. The tool enables detailed and real-time
analysis of energy data and includes standards for energy data
exchange, performance measurement and display of energy usage.
It increases the awareness of the energy-use patterns of every part
of the manufacturing plant. With a similar approach, Robinson et al.
(2015) developed a tool for monitoring energy efficiency in
manufacturing. Here, the tool uses specific indicators that allow the
user to gain a quick overview of the current state of the system and
provides numeric and graphical output about the history of the
data. Additionally, Hopf and Müller (2015) presented a tool for
gathering and visualizing energy usage data. The tool merges the
energy data of a system with the manufacturing process data. It
creates transparency on the energy-related relationships in the
factory and enables the transfer of energy data, information and
knowledge directly to the shop floor in a structured and clear
manner. Li et al. (2017) constructed a comprehensive model for
monitoring industrial energy consumption. It is based on an index
system for evaluating the operational level of energy-intensive
industrial equipment. Also, it uses an integrated analytic hierar-
chy process and a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to build
a comprehensive evaluation model for measuring the operational
level of energy-intensive industrial equipment.
The E2.2 category includes methods that use lean methodolo-
gies as a starting point for the evaluation of energy consumption
and waste within industrial production. The lean approach pro-
vides structured methods for developing environmental manage-
ment strategies to eliminate waste, simplify procedures and speed
up production. The main pillars of lean philosophy are continuously
and relentlessly improving value and value flow and pulling in
business operations (Hines et al., 2004). Based on this approach and
on several lean tools (e.g., Kaizen events, 5-why-analysis, the plan-
do-check-act cycle (PDCA), the A3 report, value stream mapping
(VSM) and the 5S method), various methods for evaluating energy
consumption have been developed. The purpose of these methods
is to reduce waste and improve energy efficiency by exploiting the
well-established and widely used knowledge and procedures of the
lean philosophy. Lee et al. (2014) presented a six sigma-based
 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276
energy management planning procedure. The method aims to
provide information and a clear understanding for establishing an
equipment management plan and an energy-saving action plan.
Cherrafi et al. (2017) developed a method that drives companies
through a five-stage, sixteen-step process to effectively integrate
and implement the green, lean and six sigma approaches. It helps
enterprises in reducing consumption, increasing efficiency and
minimizing environmental impacts.
There are also publications that propose methods and tools
using the methodology and inner logic of VSM due to its increasing
popularity, effectiveness and relative simplicity. Müller et al. (2014)
developed Energy-VSM, a tool that, in addition to cycle time, cor-
relates energy consumption with value-added and not value-added
activities to quickly evaluate the energetic performance of process
chains. Then, Posselt et al. (2014) and Mustafaraj et al. (2015)
developed methods for analysing the extended energy value
streams, considering all peripheral equipment with a low time
requirement while sustaining an acceptable level of accuracy.
Garza-Reyes et al. (2018) proposed a novel PDCA-based method for
systematically implementing and conducting EVSM analyses.
Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014) proposed a VSM-based method
(Sustainable VSM) to evaluate and visualize the sustainability of the
production process. It assesses the environmental (i.e. energy
consumption with the usage of process water and raw materials)
and social sustainability performance in manufacturing. Similarly,
Darmawan et al. (2014) extended VSM to map and analyse the
green productivity of a natural rubber supply chain and formulate
scenarios for increasing its green productivity level. Finally, Jia et al.
(2017) developed a methodology based on VSM to accurately
analyse the energy efficiency of production lines. Using the Therblig
symbology, the method allows a detailed evaluation of each activity
and the identification of any critical points in the production
process.
3.2.3. Energy-saving measures methods (E3)
The E3.1 category aims to identify opportunities for reducing
energy consumption and the environmental impact of production.
Rodrıguez et al. (2011), Lu et al. (2013), Kluczek (2014) and Rogers
et al. (2018) applied the best available techniques (BAT) approach.
These approaches aim to identify corrective actions through the
selection of the best technology to improve environmental sus-
tainability and energy efficiency. These methods, applied to
different production sectors, are based on the Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control Directive (2008/1/EC) by the European
Commission (Commission et al., 2008) and they enable a significant
reduction in the required energy. Then, there are methods that
systematically identify energy efficiency measures based on qual-
itative information about a process. Müller et al. (2013) developed
the “Energy Efficiency Model”, an approach that decomposes the
problem and describes the underlying causes and parameters for
energy consumption, to define fundamental energy efficiency ap-
proaches. Hackl and Harvey (2013) introduced a framework
methodology for investigating options to increase energy efficiency
in industrial clusters. Svensson and Paramonova (2017) presented a
method for identifying possible energy savings in industrial plants
based on theoretical research. It involves all stakeholders and an-
alyses overall energy efficiency, rather than narrowly focusing on
the simple installation of energy-efficient technologies. Caldera
et al. (2018) analysed the key characteristics of sustainable mea-
sures for SMEs by evaluating the experiences of experts. The pro-
posed method evaluates efficiency practices by establishing nine
characteristics under three themes: environmental stewardship,
process excellence, and a sustainability-oriented culture.
The E3.2 category includes publications that propose methods
and tools that characterize energy efficiency measures. Kissock and
11
Eger (2008) proposed a general method for measuring industrial
energy savings. The method uses multivariable piecewise regres-
sion models to characterize baseline energy use, and it disaggre-
gates savings into weather-dependent, production-dependent and
independent components. Fleiter et al. (2012) presented a method
of classifying energy efficiency measures based on the available
scientific literature. It analyses twelve different characteristics of
energy efficiency measures that are independent of the type and
size of the company and focuses on the relative advantage, tech-
nical context and information context. The classification scheme is
designed to improve the understanding of their adoption by in-
dustrial enterprises and to assist the decision-maker in selecting
and implementing the best energy-saving action. Trianni et al.
(2014) proposed an innovative and comprehensive framework for
characterizing energy-saving actions using 17 attributes grouped
into six categories: economic, energy, environmental, production-
related, implementation-related and possible interaction with
other systems.
There are also papers that focus on specific production sectors,
such as cement production since this industry is considered to be
one of the most energy-intensive industries. Hasanbeigi et al.
(2010) proposed a 5-step methodology for analysing energy effi-
ciency improvement. The method summarizes both engineering
and economic viewpoints, and it is based on the bottomeup con-
servation supply curve, the cumulative cost-effective and the
technical electricity and fuel savings models. Boyd and Zhang
(2013) proposed an approach based on the assessment of the en-
ergy performance indicator defined by the US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Another approach for evaluating the potential of
energy efficiency measures was suggested by Afkhami et al. (2015).
They proposed a statistical approach based on the cumulative sum
of differences technique (CUSUM) to evaluate savings actions at the
time of deployment.
4. Discussion
The analysis of the state of the art has revealed a decisive and
growing interest in methods and tools for reducing energy con-
sumption and making production processes more sustainable. The
selected papers focused mainly on the development of new
methodologies and on experimentation within real application
contexts, involving the most energy-intensive sectors and those
with a still unexploited energy efficiency potential (Backlund et al.,
2012; Wojdalski et al., 2015). An analysis of these papers has
enabled the determination of the limits of current scientific
research and the identification of possible solution strategies to
overcome these limits.
4.1. Unresolved issues
The identification of unresolved issues began with an analysis of
the authors' statements. Only 39 of the 64 analysed articles
explicitly declared limits or open issues to address in future work
(Table 4). Through an aggregation process, five main unresolved
issues were identified:
 Cross-sectoral validation. It represents one of the main unre-
solved issues that arose from the literature review. The methods
and tools are often developed and implemented for specific
production systems or for selected industrial sectors. The vali-
dation in restricted case studies prevents the feasibility evalu-
ation of using the tool and the identification of the necessary
changes for its generalisation. Methods and tools should
therefore be deployed in different companies and sectors. This
would allow their empirical validation and generalization,
12 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276

Table 4
Classification of the unresolved issues declared in the 64 selected articles.

Unresolved issues Papers Group

Cross sectoral validation Benedetti et al. (2017) E2.1

Boyd (2017) E1.2
Boyd et al. (2008) E1.2
Caldera et al. (2018) E3.1
Cherrafi et al. (2017) E2.2
Darmawan et al. (2014) E2.2
Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014) E2.2
Finnerty et al. (2017) E2.1
Garza-Reyes et al. (2018) E2.2
Hopf and Müller (2015) E2.1
Mahamud et al. (2017) E1.2
Richert (2017) E1.1
Rodrıguez et al. (2011) E3.1
Holistic analysis Dehning et al. (2017) E2.1
Gopalakrishnan et al. (2014) E1.1
Goschel et al. (2012) E2.1
Jia et al. (2017) E2.2
Li et al. (2017) E2.1
Oh and Hildreth (2014) E1.2
Smith and Ball (2012) E1.1
Wojdalski et al. (2015) E1.1
Zhu et al. (2017) E2.1
System boundary extension Aguirre et al. (2011) E1.2
Jeon et al. (2015) E1.2
Mustafaraj et al. (2015) E2.2
Trianni et al. (2014) E3.2
Vikhorev et al. (2013) E2.1
Wang et al. (2013) E2.1
Data collection Hackl and Harvey (2013) E3.1
Kluczek (2014) E3.1
May et al. (2015) E2.1
Meyers et al. (2016) E1.2
Perroni et al. (2018) E2.1
Svensson and Paramonova (2017) E3.1
Improvement opportunity identification Estrada et al. (2018) E2.1
Fleiter et al. (2012) E3.2
Kissock and Eger (2008) E3.2
Kluczek and Olszewski (2017) E1.1
Posselt et al. (2014) E2.2

support benchmarking and favour the creation of energy-
related databases. In detail, it emerged that this limitation is
more common in the group of energy evaluation methods and
tools (E2.1 and E2.2). Indeed, these methods allow a detailed
analysis of the energy consumption of production systems, but
they are not applicable to every production context.
 Holistic analysis. In several papers it emerged that methods do
not allow a thorough analysis of the production system. In
particular, the methods do not consider some features (e.g.,
production data, technology data, environmental data and other
resource consumption) that may considerably affect energy ef-
ficiency. These methods should focus on including additional
parameters beyond electricity consumption to better con-
textualise energy-intensive hotspots and create a portfolio of
sustainability metrics. This issue was particularly evident in the
energy studies and metering group (E2.1). Due to the variety and
complexity of industrial processes, methods belonging to this
group analyse only electric energy flows and do not provide a
holistic view of the energy efficiency of the whole production
system.
 System boundary extension. The methods and tools investigated
bounded case studies in which specific aspects of the factory-
wide energy consumption model were analysed. They often
did not examine production processes and technical building
services simultaneously. Moreover, they did not allow to extend
the analysis boundaries in order to adopt a hierarchical
approach. Methods and tools should consider different drivers
to reach the best cost-benefit trade-off and promote industrial
cluster collaboration.
 Data collection. The availability of energy data is another
recurring problem for these methods. Identifying and analysing
processes is not always easy as smart meters and sensors are not
much used in production systems yet. Moreover, the data
collection phase requires intensive research efforts with a high
amount of human capital and involving a large group of experts.
Therefore, it is necessary to streamline the methods' imple-
mentation. Data collection should be supported by new strate-
gies and/or frameworks to increase data availability, reducing
time and resource effort, improving their accuracy, and limiting
results uncertainty. This issue is relevant in the group containing
the methods to identify corrective actions based on energy
analysis (E3.1). In fact, the difficulty in finding information and
the scarcity of data do not allow the full application of such
methods and tools and, thus, the identification of effective
corrective strategies and action plans.
 Improvement opportunity identification. The focus of the
methods is often on the evaluation and visualization of energy
consumption information, while research on how to examine
and use energy data to provide chances for enhancing efficiency
is scant. Methods and tools should integrate decision-making
models able to support results interpretation and selection of
pragmatic, applicable and effective energy efficiency measures.
 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276
4.2. Strengths and limitations
An in-depth analysis of each methods and tools group is sug-
gested hereafter to provide a better understanding of their
strengths and limitations.
The methods and tools based on energy audits (E1.1) provide a
first assessment of energy consumption through a simplified
approach that requires low efforts in terms of time and knowledge
(Schulze et al., 2016). They are often based on normative and
standards (e.g., ISO 50001:2018) and use easy-to-find aggregate
data (e.g., energy bills) (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2014; Kluczek and
Olszewski, 2017). Although easily implemented, they can be used
for only the high-level, strategic implementation of energy man-
agement, as they do not provide an appropriate level of detail to
identify energy flows within a production plant. Attempts have
been made to simplify analysis methodologies for SMEs (Tunc et al.,
2016; Richert, 2017; Wojdalski et al., 2015), where energy con-
sumption is not always considered a critical cost factor within in-
dustrial production (Schulze et al., 2016), but it is still under study.
Energy analyses through benchmarking (E1.2) support the en-
ergy manager in comparing a plant's energy efficiency with other
similar production plants (Bunse et al., 2011). The benchmarking
process is useful for identifying the optimal energy efficiency value
and for highlighting where improvements can be made (Aguirre
et al., 2011). To support the decision-makers, the US Environ-
mental Protection Agency has developed the Energy Star perfor-
mance indicator, a statistical benchmark method for factory-level
comparisons (Rogers et al., 2018). It appears to meet the re-
quirements of industrial companies, but thus far, it is available for
only eleven sectors in the US, including automotive, food, glass,
pharmaceutical, paper and cement production. The main obstacle
to the adoption of such methodologies is the unavailability of data
or the use of inadequate or unrepresentative data, as companies are
reluctant to share their data (Boyd, 2017). To overcome these limits,
some attempts have been made to develop methods using their
own company data instead of national statistical data and allow for
the identification of optimal reference values through appropriate
statistical functions (Mahamud et al., 2017). However, these
methods are still in the research phase and are not ready to be
implemented in real industrial contexts.
Energy evaluation methods and tools (E2.1) mainly use accurate
data provided by production monitoring systems and, through
appropriate indicators, allow the manager to evaluate the energy
efficiency of industrial processes (May et al., 2017). Several methods
and various types of indicators have been developed in recent
years, but a framework that examines the production process in a
holistic and multi-level way is still lacking. Due to the variety and
complexity of industrial processes, the developed methods are
usually specific for a given manufacturing sector and often consider
only production systems by excluding auxiliary facilities (Estrada
et al., 2018).
Then, there are methods (E2.2) that utilize the popularity and
clearness of the lean philosophy for the investigation of energy
consumption. They enable valorisation of energy consumption and
identification of the value-adding efficiency of the process in terms
of energy (Müller et al., 2014). To enable the synergies and inte-
gration among lean and sustainable production, some of the lean
tools have been adapted to improve environmental performance.
For instance, EVSM extended the concept of value stream, looking
at it from the energy perspective, while Sus-VSM extended it from
an environmental perspective (Mustafaraj et al., 2015; Faulkner and
Badurdeen, 2014). The published papers highlight how these
methods and tools can help organizations address sustainability
challenges and comply with government environmental regula-
tions (Garza-Reyes et al., 2018). However, certain issues, such as the
13
inability to cope with a multi-product manufacturing system, the
static nature of the method and the possibility of including more
energy flows, remain unresolved.
The energy-saving measures (E3.1 and E3.2) support the energy
manager in the last step of the manufacturing system evaluation
process. They enable the assessment and identification of the best
intervention approach to reduce the energy and emissions foot-
prints of the production process (Kissock and Eger, 2008). Only a
few studies have been published in this group, and some focus on
only a specific industrial sector, such as cement production
(Hasanbeigi et al., 2010; Boyd and Zhang, 2013; Afkhami et al.,
2015). There is no comprehensive theoretical methodology to
support decision-makers in the implementation of energy effi-
ciency measures in production processes. To overcome these bar-
riers, methodologies for implementing BAT have been developed
(Rodrıguez et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2013; Kluczek, 2014), but they are
still specific to an industrial sector and not applicable in every
production context.
Finally, few tools to support the energy manager in managing
and improving the overall energy performance of an industrial
process have been proposed. They belong to the energy analysis
(E1) and energy evaluation (E2) groups, while there are no tools for
the identification and evaluation of improvement opportunities
(E3). The tools belonging to E1 group provide user-friendly guide to
energy audits: they allow to simplify procedures and data collec-
tion (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2014) and analyse the energy efficiency
of production plants based on comparison with national databases
(Boyd et al., 2008; Ghituleasa et al., 2016). However, such software
tools can only be used for certain industrial sectors. The tools
belonging to E2 group allow to identify weaknesses and in-
efficiencies of the production process (Vikhorev et al., 2013). They
make it possible to increase awareness of the energy consumption
patterns of every part of the manufacturing plant. In addition, they
use specific indicators that allow the user to have a process control
dashboard and provide graphical outputs on the system current
state (Robinson et al., 2015; Hopf and Müller, 2015; Li et al., 2017).
However, software tools are often developed and implemented for
specific production systems and the validation in heterogeneous
production sectors is scarce.
4.3. Challenges and suggestions for future research directions
This section provides further insights into the improvement
potential of energy assessment methods and tools in the
manufacturing context. Although the interest of the scientific
community is constantly growing, the following challenges still
need to be addressed effectively.
One of the main challenges in fulfilling the company's needs and
simplifying energy assessment methods and tools is data collection.
Indeed, industry representatives expressed the need for the inte-
gration of real-time data and knowledge-embedded processes
(Bunse et al., 2011) and the desire to overcome the requirement of
manually collecting aggregated data. The methods and tools need
to be efficiently integrated with enterprise resource planning (ERP)
and manufacturing execution systems (MES) and should be able to
communicate with cyber-physical systems and IoT devices. The
research should therefore focus on implementing and elaborating
the knowledge provided by the new technologies developed for
smart manufacturing, to visualize in real time the energy efficiency
of the production system and to facilitate effective business de-
cisions. An easier data collection will simplify the energy audit
process and the related energy analysis methods (E1), while the
correlation between different data (e.g. energy consumption data,
production data, environmental data, maintenance data) will allow
the energy assessment methods (E2) and energy-saving measures
14 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276
methods (E3) to analyse energy efficiency more thoroughly.
Another challenge to improve the energy assessment methods
and tools is the implementation of standardised procedures and
indicators. It is necessary to develop simple and comprehensive
methods for the energy assessment of production processes that
can be applied to different manufacturing contexts, to different
resource types and at different levels. The development of appro-
priate and standardized metrics would enable the definition of
benchmarks (related to the energy analysis methods e E1) that
could analyse not only production plants in the same country and
for the same manufacturing sector but also production lines or
single processes. In this way, similar processes can be compared for
different manufacturing activities in different countries. Further-
more, the definition of comprehensive KPIs would make energy
evaluation methods and tools (E2) easier to use and implement.
Research should also focus on the development of more energy
assessment tools. At present, the developed tools are few and often
designed mainly for expert users, such as energy or facility man-
agers. It is necessary to develop user-friendly tools that streamline
assessment and improve energy awareness among all the operators
and departments involved. The research should focus on intuitive
visualizations of multiple energy flows to quickly evaluate con-
nected loads, as well as the energy efficiency, in an integrated
manner. The development of user-friendly tools will allow their
dissemination also to SMEs, supporting production managers in the
energy efficiency improvement and overcoming the lack of human
and technical resources.
Finally, the available methods and tools focus on a particular
aspect of evaluation and do not support an integrated analysis of
the problem. Methods and tools should be developed to support,
through a single approach, the analysis, evaluation and identifica-
tion of energy-saving measures, in accordance with the ISO 50001
methodology (ISO, 2018). Indeed, a holistic approach is necessary to
capitalize on the great unexploited energy efficiency potential of
industrial enterprises.
5. Conclusion
After the first release of the ISO 50001 standard, a growing
global interest in new methods and tools aimed at improving the
energy efficiency of production processes was observed. In this
regard, this paper provides a comprehensive literature analysis. The
identified articles have been catalogued in six distinct and homo-
geneous groups and the specific finding relating to each group have
been synthesized.
In general, particular attention is paid to energy-intensive sec-
tors by proposing methods for energy assessment at the factory
level along with their implementation via case studies. However,
Table A.1
Articles included in the systematic review.
Paper Journal Study
methodologies
Afkhami et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies Case study -
(2015) and Assessments Quantitative
Aguirre et al. International Journal of Energy Conceptual or
(2011) Research theoretical
approach
Azadeh et al. Energy Policy Mixed
(2007) (method þ case
study)
Benedetti et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed
(2017) (method þ case
study)
Boharb et al. Energy Case study -
(2016) Quantitative
the need emerged to extend current research boundaries to mul-
tiple industrial sectors, considered parameters, sustainability in-
dicators and energy management steps to develop a structured and
effective approach able to companies in the entire energy man-
agement process, from energy audit to the evaluation of imple-
mented corrective actions. In particular, to support the creation of
energy-efficient factories, four major challenges should be
addressed:
(i) simplify data collection by jointly exploiting current data
management systems and Industry 4.0 opportunities;
(ii) provide standardized methods and metrics to support
effective energy assessment and benchmarking;
(iii) streamline the data elaboration, the results interpretation
and decision-making processes via user-friendly tools;
(iv) adopt a holistic approach to achieve the best trade-off from
economic and environmental points of view.
As with any research work, there are some limitations to this
paper. One constraint concerns the topic of research. The choice to
analyse the methods and tools for evaluating the energy efficiency
of industrial systems has not allowed the achievement of a com-
plete overview of all methods. Our research focused only on
methods and tools useful for energy managers to improve energy
performance and identify behavioural change opportunities by
evaluating current operations and maintenance practices. These
methods are based on the first law of thermodynamics and allow
practitioners in industry to gain a greater understanding of a part or
all of the organisation's energy usage patterns. For this reason,
methods that analyse in detail the energy efficiency of machine
tools and papers that deal with modelling and simulation of in-
dustrial processes have been excluded. Another limitation is related
to the search mode. The review provides an instant picture of the
current state of scientific research, despite it is continually updated.
Moreover, although a rigorous and structured research process has
been adopted, the choice to analyse only papers of scientific jour-
nals might have excluded potentially relevant articles.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. This
research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix A
System Geographical Industry sector focus Research
boundaries focus focus
Plant level Middle-East Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products E3.2
Plant level North America Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E1.2
machinery and equipment
Factory Middle-East Petroleum Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum E1.2
level products and nuclear fuel manufacturing
Multi- European Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing n.e.c. E2.1
factory Union
level
Plant level Northern Manufacture of food products and beverages E1.1
Africa
 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276 15

Table A.1 (continued )

Paper Journal Study System Geographical Industry sector focus Research

methodologies boundaries focus focus

Boyd (2017) Energy Efficiency Conceptual or Factory North America Mixed E1.2
theoretical level
approach
Boyd and Zhang Energy Efficiency Case study - Factory North America Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products E3.2
(2013) Quantitative level
Boyd et al. (2008) Journal of Cleaner Production Tool Factory North America Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi- E1.2
level trailers
Caldera et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Conceptual or Factory e e E3.1
(2018) theoretical level
approach
Carabalı et al. Applied Thermal Engineering Case study - Factory South America Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E1.1
(2018) Quantitative level machinery and equipment
Chen et al. (2012) Energy Policy Case study - Factory Eastern Asia Manufacture of paper and paper products E1.1
Quantitative level
Cherrafi et al. International Journal of Production Mixed Factory Not Specified Manufacture of food products and beverages E2.2
(2017) Research (method þ case level
study)
Cosgrove et al. International Journal of Sustainable Mixed Factory European Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.1
(2017) Engineering (method þ case level Union machinery and equipment
study)
Darmawan et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Case study - Supply Southeastern Manufacture of rubber and plastics products E2.2
(2014) Quantitative chain level Asia
Dehning et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Multi- mixed Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi- E2.1
(2017) (method þ case factory trailers
study) level
Estrada et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Mixed South America Manufacture of rubber and plastics products E2.1
(2018) (method þ case
study)
Faulkner and Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Plant level North America Manufacture of radio, television and communication E2.2
Badurdeen (method þ case equipment and apparatus
(2014) study)
Finnerty et al. Energy Mixed Multi- Not Specified Manufacture of medical, precision and optical E2.1
(2017) (method þ case factory instruments, watches and clocks
study) level
Fleiter et al. Energy Policy Conceptual or Factory e e E3.2
(2012) theoretical level
approach
Fysikopoulos et al. International Journal of Advanced Mixed Multi- Not Specified Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.1
(2014) Manufacturing Technology (method þ case machine machinery and equipment
study) level
Garza-Reyes et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Factory Not Specified Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.2
(2018) (method þ case level machinery and equipment
study)
Gazi et al. (2012) Journal of Cleaner Production Case study - Multi- European Mining and quarrying E2.1
Quantitative factory Union
level
Ghituleasa et al. Industria Textila Tool Factory European Manufacture of textiles E1.2
(2016), level Union
Giacone and Energy Mixed Multi- European Mixed E2.1
Manco
(2012) (method þ case machine Union
study) level
Gopalakrishnan Sustainable Energy Technologies Tool Factory e e E1.1
et al. (2014) and Assessments level
Goschel et al. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Mixed Multi- European Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.1
(2012) Technology (method þ case machine Union machinery and equipment
study) level
Hackl and Harvey Applied Energy Mixed Multi- European Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products E3.1
(2013) (method þ case factory Union
study) level
Hasanbeigi et al. Energy Policy Case study - Plant level Eastern Asia Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products E3.2
(2010) Quantitative
Hopf and Müller Robotics and Computer-Integrated Tool Plant level European Transport, storage and communications E2.1
(2015) Manufacturing Union
Jeon et al. (2015) International Journal of Production Conceptual or Mixed e e E1.2
Research theoretical
approach
Jia et al. (2017) Energy Mixed Multi- Eastern Asia Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.2
(method þ case machine machinery and equipment
study) level
Kannan and Boie Energy Conversion and Case study - Factory European Manufacture of food products and beverages E1.1
(2003) Management Quantitative level Union
Kissock and Eger Applied Energy Mixed Plant level North America Mixed E3.2
(2008) (method þ case
study)
(continued on next page)
16 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276

Table A.1 (continued )

Paper Journal Study System Geographical Industry sector focus Research

methodologies boundaries focus focus

Kluczek (2014) Journal of Cleaner Production Case study - Factory European Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E3.1
Quantitative level Union machinery and equipment
Kluczek and Journal of Cleaner Production Case study - Multi- North America Mixed E1.1
Olszewski Quantitative machine
(2017) level
Lee et al. (2014) Strategic planning for energy and Conceptual or Factory e e E2.2
the environment theoretical level
approach
Li et al. (2017) IEEE Access Tool Plant level Eastern Asia Not Specified E2.1
Lu et al. (2013) Renewable and Sustainable Energy Mixed Factory Eastern Asia Mixed E3.1
Reviews (method þ case level
study)
Mahamud et al. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Case study - Plant level Australia and Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E1.2
(2017) Technology Quantitative New Zealand machinery and equipment
May et al. (2015) Applied Energy Conceptual or Factory e e E2.1
theoretical level
approach
Meyers et al. Energy Case study - Factory European Manufacture of food products and beverages E1.2
(2016) Quantitative level Union
Müller et al. Advances in Sustainable and Mixed Factory European Transport, storage and communications E3.1
(2013) Competitive Manufacturing (method þ case level Union
Systems study)
Müller et al. Production Engineering Conceptual or Mixed e e E2.2
(2014) theoretical
approach
Mustafaraj et al. International Journal of Production Case study - Multi- European Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.2
(2015) Research Quantitative machine Union machinery and equipment
level
Oh and Hildreth Energies Mixed Factory North America Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi- E1.2
(2014) (method þ case level trailers
study)
Perroni et al. Applied Energy Conceptual or Factory e e E2.1
(2018) theoretical level
approach
Posselt et al. Procedia CIRP Mixed Factory European Manufacture of other transport equipment E2.2
(2014) (method þ case level Union
study)
Richert (2017) Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Factory European Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, E1.1
(method þ case level Union motorcycles and personal and household goods
study)
Robinson et al. Assembly Automation Tool Plant level Not Specified Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.1
(2015) machinery and equipment
Rodrıguez et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials Case study - Plant level European Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products E1.1
(2011) Quantitative Union E3.1
Rogers et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Case study - Factory Not Specified Manufacture of paper and paper products E1.2
(2018) Reviews Quantitative level E3.1
Salta et al. (2009) Energy Case study - Factory European Mixed E1.1
Quantitative level Union
Savulescu and Handbook of Water and Energy Conceptual or Plant level e e E2.1
Kim (2008) Management in Food Processing theoretical
approach
Smith and Ball International Journal Production Mixed Factory European Manufacture of medical, precision and optical E1.1
(2012) Economics (method þ case level Union instruments, watches and clocks
study)
Svensson and Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Factory European Mixed E3.1
Paramonova (method þ case level Union
(2017) study)
Taner et al. (2018) Sadhana - Academy Proceedings in Case study - Factory Middle-East Manufacture of food products and beverages E1.1
Engineering Sciences Quantitative level
Trianni et al. Applied Energy Conceptual or Factory e e E3.2
(2014) theoretical level
approach
Tunc et al. (2016) World Journal of Engineering Case study - Factory Middle-East Manufacture of textiles E1.1
Quantitative level
Vikhorev et al. Journal of Cleaner Production Tool Multi- Not Specified Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi- E2.1
(2013) machine trailers
level
Wang and Ji Modern Physics Letters B Mixed Multi- Eastern Asia Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.1
(2017) (method þ case machine machinery and equipment
study) level
Wang et al. (2013) Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Multi- Eastern Asia Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except E2.1
(method þ case machine machinery and equipment
study) level
 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276 17

Table A.1 (continued )

Paper Journal Study System Geographical Industry sector focus Research

methodologies boundaries focus focus

Wang et al. (2016) Applied Energy Mixed Multi- Eastern Asia Mining and quarrying E1.2
(method þ case factory
study) level
Wojdalski et al. Journal of Food Engineering Case study - Plant level European Manufacture of food products and beverages E1.1
(2015) Quantitative Union
Zhu et al. (2017) Journal of Cleaner Production Mixed Multi- Eastern Asia Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi- E2.1
(method þ case machine trailers
study) level

References Ferretti, I., Zanoni, S., Zavanella, L., 2008. Energy efficiency in a steel plant using
optimization-simulation. In: Proceedings of 20th European Modeling& Simu-
lation Symposium.
Afkhami, B., Akbarian, B., Beheshti, N., Kakaee, A., Shabani, B., 2015. Energy con-
Finnerty, N., Sterling, R., Coakley, D., Contreras, S., Coffey, R., Keane, M.M., 2017.
sumption assessment in a cement production plant. Sustain. Energy Technol.
Development of a global energy management system for non-energy intensive
Assessments 10, 84e89.
multi-site industrial organisations: a methodology. Energy 136, 16e31.
Aguirre, F., Villalobos, J.R., Phelan, P.E., Pacheco, R., 2011. Assessing the relative ef-
Fleiter, T., Hirzel, S., Worrell, E., 2012. The characteristics of energy-efficiency
ficiency of energy use among similar manufacturing industries. Int. J. Energy
measuresea neglected dimension. Energy Policy 51, 502e513.
Res. 35, 477e488.
Fysikopoulos, A., Pastras, G., Alexopoulos, T., Chryssolouris, G., 2014. On a general-
Azadeh, A., Amalnick, M., Ghaderi, S., Asadzadeh, S., 2007. An integrated DEA PCA
ized approach to manufacturing energy efficiency. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
numerical taxonomy approach for energy efficiency assessment and con-
73, 1437e1452.
sumption optimization in energy intensive manufacturing sectors. Energy
Garwood, T.L., Hughes, B.R., Oates, M.R., O'Connor, D., Hughes, R., 2018. A review of
Policy 35, 3792e3806.
energy simulation tools for the manufacturing sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Backlund, S., Thollander, P., Palm, J., Ottosson, M., 2012. Extending the energy ef-
Rev. 81, 895e911.
ficiency gap. Energy Policy 51, 392e396.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Romero, J.T., Govindan, K., Cherrafi, A., Ramanathan, U., 2018.
Benedetti, M., Cesarotti, V., Introna, V., 2017. From energy targets setting to energy-
A PDCA-based approach to environmental value stream mapping (E-VSM).
aware operations control and back: an advanced methodology for energy
J. Clean. Prod. 180, 335e348.
efficient manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1518e1533.
Gazi, A., Skevis, G., Founti, M., 2012. Energy efficiency and environmental assess-
Boharb, A., Allouhi, A., Saidur, R., Kousksou, T., Jamil, A., Mourad, Y., Benbassou, A.,
ment of a typical marble quarry and processing plant. J. Clean. Prod. 32, 10e21.
2016. Auditing and analysis of energy consumption of an industrial site in
Ghituleasa, C.P., De Sabbata, P., Scalia, M., Toma, D., Ramos, L., Niculescu, C.C., 2016.
Morocco. Energy 101, 332e342.
Energy saving and efficiency tool for SMEs of the European textile industry/
Boyd, G., Dutrow, E., Tunnessen, W., 2008. The evolution of the ENERGY STAR,
instrument de economisire si de eficientizare a energiei destinat immurilor din
energy performance indicator for benchmarking industrial plant manufacturing
industria europeana de textile. Industria Textila 67, 280.
energy use. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 709e715.
Giacone, E., Manco
, S., 2012. Energy efficiency measurement in industrial processes.
Boyd, G., Zhang, G., 2013. Measuring improvement in energy efficiency of the US
Energy 38, 331e345.
cement industry with the ENERGY STAR energy performance indicator. Energy
Gopalakrishnan, B., Ramamoorthy, K., Crowe, E., Chaudhari, S., Latif, H., 2014.
Effic. 6, 105e116.
A structured approach for facilitating the implementation of iso 50001 standard
Boyd, G.A., 2017. Comparing the statistical distributions of energy efficiency in
in the manufacturing sector. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 7, 154e165.
manufacturing: meta-analysis of 24 case studies to develop industry-specific
Goschel, A., Schieck, F., Schonherr, J., 2012. Method for energy and resource
energy performance indicators (EPI). Energy Effic. 10, 217e238.
balancing demonstrated as an example of the hot sheet metal production
BoroumandJazi, G., Rismanchi, B., Saidur, R., 2013. A review on exergy analysis of
process. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 61, 399e402.
industrial sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27, 198e203.
Hackl, R., Harvey, S., 2013. Framework methodology for increased energy efficiency
Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schonsleben, P., Brulhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integrating
and renewable feedstock integration in industrial clusters. Appl. Energy 112,
energy efficiency performance in production managementegap analysis be-
1500e1509.
tween industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 667e679.
Hasanbeigi, A., Menke, C., Therdyothin, A., 2010. The use of conservation supply
Caldera, H., Desha, C., Dawes, L., 2018. Exploring the characteristics of sustainable
curves in energy policy and economic analysis: the case study of Thai cement
business practice in small and medium-sized enterprises: experiences from the
industry. Energy Policy 38, 392e405.
Australian manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 338e349.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., Rich, N., 2004. Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary
Carabalì, D.M., Forero, C.R., Cadavid, Y., 2018. Energy diagnosis and structuring an
lean thinking. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 24, 994e1011.
energy saving proposal for the metal casting industry: an experience in
Hoesly, R.M., Smith, S.J., Feng, L., Klimont, Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Pitkanen, T.,
Colombia. Appl. Therm. Eng. 137, 767e773.
Seibert, J.J., Vu, L., Andres, R.J., Bolt, R.M., et al., 2018. Historical (1750e2014)
Chen, H.W., Hsu, C.H., Hong, G.B., 2012. The case study of energy flow analysis and
anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the community
strategy in pulp and paper industry. Energy Policy 43, 448e455.
emissions data system (ceds). Geosci. Model Dev. (GMD) 11, 369e408.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K., Mokhlis, A.,
Hopf, H., Müller, E., 2015. Providing energy data and information for sustainable
2017. A framework for the integration of green and lean six sigma for superior
manufacturing systems by energy cards. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 36,
sustainability performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 4481e4515.
76e83.
Commission, E., et al., 2008. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive.
IPCC, 2018. Global warming of 1.5
C - an IPCC special report on the impacts of global
Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media Effects.
warming of 1.5◦C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas
Cosgrove, J., Doyle, F., Littlewood, J., Wilgeroth, P., 2017. A methodology for elec-
emission pathways. In: The Context of Strengthening the Global Response to
tricity monitoring and targeting (M&T) in an Irish precision engineering SME.
the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradi-
Int. J. Substain. Eng. 10, 233e240.
cate Poverty. Summary for Policymakers.
Darmawan, M.A., Putra, M.P.I.F., Wiguna, B., et al., 2014. Value chain analysis for
ISO, 2018. ISO 50001:2018 e Energy Management System.
green productivity improvement in the natural rubber supply chain: a case
Jeon, H.W., Taisch, M., Prabhu, V.V., 2015. Modelling and analysis of energy footprint
study. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 201e211.
of manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53, 7049e7059.
Debnath, K.B., Mourshed, M., 2018. Forecasting methods in energy planning models.
Jia, S., Yuan, Q., Lv, J., Liu, Y., Ren, D., Zhang, Z., 2017. Therblig-embedded value
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 88, 297e325.
stream mapping method for lean energy machining. Energy 138, 1081e1098.
Dehning, P., Thiede, S., Mennenga, M., Herrmann, C., 2017. Factors influencing the
Johansson, M.T., Thollander, P., 2018. A review of barriers to and driving forces for
energy intensity of automotive manufacturing plants. J. Clean. Prod. 142,
improved energy efficiency in Swedish industryerecommendations for suc-
2305e2314.
cessful in-house energy management. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82,
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., 2009. Producing a Systematic Review. The Sage handbook
618e628.
of organizational research methods, pp. 671e689.
Kadar, B., Lengyel, A., Monostori, L., Suginishi, Y., Pfeiffer, A., Nonaka, Y., 2010.
DOE, U., 2006. Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) Database. department of energy,
Enhanced control of complex production structures by tight coupling of the
washington, dc, usa.
digital and the physical worlds. CIRP Ann. 59, 437e440.
Estrada, O., Lopez, I.D., Hernandez, A., Ortız, J.C., 2018. Energy gap method (EGM) to
Kannan, R., Boie, W., 2003. Energy management practices in SME-case study of a
increase energy efficiency in industrial processes: successful cases in polymer
bakery in Germany. Energy Convers. Manag. 44, 945e959.
processing. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 7e25.
Kissock, J.K., Eger, C., 2008. Measuring industrial energy savings. Appl. Energy 85,
Faulkner, W., Badurdeen, F., 2014. Sustainable value stream mapping (sus-VSM):
347e361.
methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance.
Kluczek, A., 2014. Application of best available techniques in an enterprise
J. Clean. Prod. 85, 8e18.
18 R. Menghi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118276
producing heating devices. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 444e453.
Kluczek, A., Olszewski, P., 2017. Energy audits in industrial processes. J. Clean. Prod.
142, 3437e3453.
Lee, J., Yuvamitra, K., Guiberteau, K., Kozman, T.A., 2014. Six-sigma approach to
energy management planning. Strateg. Plan. Energy Environ. 33, 23e40.
Li, Y., Sun, Z., Han, L., Mei, N., 2017. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for
energy management systems based on an internet of things. IEEE Access 5,
21312e21322.
Lu, S.M., Lu, C., Tseng, K.T., Chen, F., Chen, C.L., 2013. Energy-saving potential of the
industrial sector of Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 674e683.
Mahamud, R., Li, W., Kara, S., 2017. Energy characterisation and benchmarking of
factories. CIRP Annals 66, 457e460.
May, G., Barletta, I., Stahl, B., Taisch, M., 2015. Energy management in production: a
novel method to develop key performance indicators for improving energy
efficiency. Appl. Energy 149, 46e61.
May, G., Stahl, B., Taisch, M., Kiritsis, D., 2017. Energy management in
manufacturing: from literature review to a conceptual framework. J. Clean.
Prod. 167, 1464e1489.
Meyers, S., Schmitt, B., Chester-Jones, M., Sturm, B., 2016. Energy efficiency, carbon
emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage
sector for six European countries. Energy 104, 266e283.
Müller, E., Krones, M., Strauch, J., 2013. Methodical approach to identify energy
efficiency measures in factory planning based on qualitative analysis. In: Ad-
vances in Sustainable and Competitive Manufacturing Systems. Springer,
pp. 1627e1637.
Müller, E., Stock, T., Schillig, R., 2014. A method to generate energy value-streams in
production and logistics in respect of time-and energy- consumption. Prod.
Eng. 8, 243e251.
Mustafaraj, G., Cosgrove, J., Rivas-Duarte, M.J., Hardiman, F., Harrington, J., 2015.
A methodology for determining auxiliary and value-added electricity in
manufacturing machines. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53, 5265e5277.
Oh, S.C., Hildreth, A.J., 2014. Estimating the technical improvement of energy effi-
ciency in the automotive industrydstochastic and deterministic frontier
benchmarking approaches. Energies 7, 6196e6222.
Papetti, A., Menghi, R., Di Domizio, G., Germani, M., Marconi, M., 2019. Resources
value mapping: a method to assess the resource efficiency of manufacturing
systems. Appl. Energy 249, 326e342.
Perroni, M.G., da Costa, S.E.G., de Lima, E.P., da Silva, W.V., Tortato, U., 2018.
Measuring energy performance: a process-based approach. Appl. Energy 222,
540e553.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G., Podsakoff, N.P., 2005. The influence
of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strateg. Manag. J. 26, 473e488.
Pohl, J., Hilty, L.M., Finkbeiner, M., 2019. How LCA contributes to the environmental
assessment of higher order effects of ICT application: a review of different
approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 698e712.
Posselt, G., Fischer, J., Heinemann, T., Thiede, S., Alvandi, S., Weinert, N., Kara, S.,
Herrmann, C., 2014. Extending energy value stream models by the TBS
dimensioneapplied on a multi-product process chain in the railway industry.
Procedia CIRP 15, 80e85.
Richert, M., 2017. An energy management framework tailor-made for SMEs: case
study of a German car company. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 221e229.
Robinson, D.C., Sanders, D.A., Mazharsolook, E., 2015. Ambient intelligence for
optimal manufacturing and energy efficiency. Assemb. Autom. 35, 234e248.
Rodrıguez, M.T., Andrade, L.C., Bugallo, P.B., Long, J.C., 2011. Combining LCT tools for
the optimization of an industrial process: material and energy flow analysis and
best available techniques. J. Hazard Mater. 192, 1705e1719.
Rogers, J.G., Cooper, S.J., Norman, J.B., 2018. Uses of industrial energy benchmarking
with reference to the pulp and paper industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 95,
23e37.
Saad, M.H., Nazzal, M.A., Darras, B.M., 2019. A general framework for sustainability
assessment of manufacturing processes. Ecol. Indicat. 97, 211e224.
Salta, M., Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D., 2009. Energy use in the Greek
manufacturing sector: a methodological framework based on physical in-
dicators with aggregation and decomposition analysis. Energy 34, 90e111.
Savulescu, L., Kim, J.K., 2008. Novel methods for combined energy and water
minimisation in the food industry. In: Handbook of Water and Energy Man-
agement in Food Processing. Elsevier, pp. 304e331.
Schulze, M., Nehler, H., Ottosson, M., Thollander, P., 2016. Energy management in
industryea systematic review of previous findings and an integrative concep-
tual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3692e3708.
Seliger, G., Kim, H., Kernbaum, S., Zettl, M., 2008. Approaches to sustainable
manufacturing. Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 1, 58e77.
Smith, L., Ball, P., 2012. Steps towards sustainable manufacturing through modelling
material, energy and waste flows. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 227e238.
Svensson, A., Paramonova, S., 2017. An analytical model for identifying and
addressing energy efficiency improvement opportunities in industrial produc-
tion systemsemodel development and testing experiences from Sweden.
J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2407e2422.
Taner, T., Sivrioglu, M., Topal, H., Dalkılıc, A.S., Wongwises, S., 2018. A model of
energy management analysis, case study of a sugar factory in Turkey. Sadhana
43, 42.
Thiede, S., Seow, Y., Andersson, J., Johansson, B., 2013. Environmental aspects in
manufacturing system modelling and simulationdstate of the art and research
perspectives. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 6, 78e87.
Thollander, P., Palm, J., 2012. Improving Energy Efficiency in Industrial Energy
Systems: an Interdisciplinary Perspective on Barriers, Energy Audits, Energy
Management, Policies, and Programs. Springer Science & Business Media.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14, 207e222.
Trianni, A., Cagno, E., De Donatis, A., 2014. A framework to characterize energy
efficiency measures. Appl. Energy 118, 207e220.
Tunc, M., Kaplan, K., Sisbot, S., Camdali, U., 2016. Energy management and opti-
mization: case study of a textile plant in Istanbul, Turkey. World J. Eng. 13,
348e355.
United Nations, S.O., 2008. International standard industrial classification of all
economic activities. ReVision 4.
United Nations, 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Devel-
opment and Poverty Eradication. United Nations Development Programme.
United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly.
Vikhorev, K., Greenough, R., Brown, N., 2013. An advanced energy management
framework to promote energy awareness. J. Clean. Prod. 43, 103e112.
Wang, N., Wen, Z., Liu, M., Guo, J., 2016. Constructing an energy efficiency bench-
marking system for coal production. Appl. Energy 169, 301e308.
Wang, Q., Liu, F., Li, C., 2013. An integrated method for assessing the energy effi-
ciency of machining workshop. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 122e133.
Wang, Y., Ji, Z., 2017. Energy efficiency quantitative analysis method of discrete
manufacturing system. Mod. Phys. Lett. B 31, 1740071.
Wojdalski, J., Grochowicz, J., Drozdz, B., Bartoszewska, K., Zdanowska, P.,
Kupczyk, A., Ekielski, A., Florczak, I., Hasny, A., Wojcik, G., 2015. Energy effi-
ciency of a confectionery plantecase study. J. Food Eng. 146, 182e191.
Zhou, L., Li, J., Li, F., Meng, Q., Li, J., Xu, X., 2016. Energy consumption model and
energy efficiency of machine tools: a comprehensive literature review. J. Clean.
Prod. 112, 3721e3734.
Zhu, S., Jiang, Z., Zhang, H., Tian, G., Wang, Y., 2017. A carbon efficiency evaluation
method for manufacturing process chain decision-making. J. Clean. Prod. 148,
665e680.