Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Review article

Energy efficiency in the manufacturing industry — A tertiary review

and a conceptual knowledge-based framework
∗
Kawtar Ibn Batouta , Sarah Aouhassi, Khalifa Mansouri
Laboratory of Modelling and simulation of intelligent industrial systems (M2S2I), École Normale Supérieure de l’Enseignement Technique (ENSET),
Mohammedia, Hassan II University, 20000, Casablanca, Morocco

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the context of scarce primary resources and rising energy prices, the scientific community is
Received 29 December 2022 becoming all the more engrossed in finding innovative solutions liable to increase energy efficiency.
Received in revised form 11 March 2023 The industrial sector, and in particular the manufacturing industry, have a significant share of
Accepted 21 March 2023
global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, energy efficiency has come to
Available online xxxx
acquire a prominent position in the research literature related to managerial decision making in the
Keywords: manufacturer sector. This is evident in the constant progress in lines of research of primary (original
Energy efficiency articles) and secondary (review articles) grade on the topic. Taking into consideration this rich body of
Manufacturing industry literature, the objective of this study consists in surveying the recent systematic literature reviews
Conceptual framework published on energy efficiency in the manufacturing industry between 2016 and 2022. Following
Systematic literature review
descriptive and content analysis, the present study generates and schematizes six categories that
Tertiary study
represent the current status of research in the area: Energy Diagnostic, Energy Metering, Energy
Optimization, Energy and Technology, Energy Efficiency Strategic paradigms, and Energy Efficiency
Drivers and barriers. Subsequently, we elaborate an integrative conceptual framework of energy
efficiency that illustrates the classification of the six identified categories in terms of three overarching
forms of knowledge (Process, Technical, and Leadership Knowledge). This tertiary review offers, thus,
a comprehensive overview of the studied field for academia, industry, and policymakers.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4636
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4637
3. Results.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4637
3.1. Descriptive analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4637
3.1.1. Journals and countries ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4637
3.1.2. Period covered .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4637
3.1.3. Number of covered articles............................................................................................................................................................... 4639
3.2. Formal review features .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4639
3.3. Content analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4639
3.3.1. Energy diagnostic ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4640
3.3.2. Energy metering ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4643
3.3.3. EE optimization .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4644
3.3.4. EE and technology (a cross-category).............................................................................................................................................. 4646
3.3.5. EE strategic paradigms ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4646
3.3.6. EE drivers and barriers ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4647
3.4. Conceptualization of an integrative knowledge-based EE framework ........................................................................................................ 4647
4. Discussion and perspectives.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4648
5. Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4649
Declaration of competing interest................................................................................................................................................................................ 4649
Data availability .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4649

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ibnbatouta.kawtar@gmail.com (K. Ibn Batouta), haouhassi@gmail.com (S. Aouhassi), khmansouri@hotmail.com (K. Mansouri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.03.107
2352-4847/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4649

Appendix A. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4650
Appendix B. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4651
References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4651

List of abbreviations TEC Total Energy Consumption

Technē Technical knowledge
AES Applied Energy Source
VSM Value Stream Mapping
ANN Artificial Neural Network
WSN Wireless Sensor Network
BAT Best Available Techniques
BTU British Thermal Units
CBAM Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
DEA Data Envelopment Analysis strongly solicited to satisfy the need for goods manufacturing,
DEACM DEA-Cross Model and, therefore its share in overall energy consumption has been
eCS External Conversion Systems spiking, with industry energy consumption representing more
EE Energy Efficiency than 40% of total final international consumption : ‘‘It is the
EEMI Energy efficiency in Manufacturing In- second largest emitting sector after power generation’’ (IEA, In-
dustry ternational Energy Agency, 2021). Likewise, this sector accounts
EEPP Energy-Efficient Production Planning for the greatest final electricity consumption in the world. Being
dominated by coal and fossil fuels, it generates approximately
EIA Energy Information Administration
20% of total carbon emissions (Qin et al., 2017). According to U.S.
Epistēmē Process knowledge
Energy Information Administration projections, this share follows
ERC Energy-Related Cost an ascending trend by 2050: global industrial Energy consump-
EU European Union tion will grow by more than 40%, from lower than 250 British
FES Final Energy Source thermal units (BTUs) in 2020 to greater than 350 BTUs by 2050
FLNN Functional Link Neural Network (Energy Information Administration EIA, US., 2021). In this con-
GA Genetic Algorithm text, many countries around the world have realized the need for
GHS GreenHouse Gas sustainable development. In fact, rising energy prices and limited
GOA Genetic Optimization Algorithm resources go hand in hand with an equally increasing aware-
iCS Internal Conversion Systems ness that development should meet ‘‘the needs of the present
IEA International Energy Agency generation without compromising the ability of future genera-
tions to meet their own’’ (World commission on environment and
IEEP Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
development, 1987). To this end, governments worldwide have
IoT Internet of Things
launched several programs to reduce energy consumption in in-
ISM Interpretative Structural Model
dustrial energy-intensive sectors, commonly known as Industrial
ISO International Organization for Standard- Energy Efficiency programs (IEEPs) (Safarzadeh et al., 2020). EU
ization countries, for instance, have set Energy Efficiency (EE) objectives
KPI Key Performance Indicators for 2020 and 2030 to decrease energy consumption as part of
LM Load Management their 2050 decarbonization new deal. We cite the Energy Effi-
LR Linear Regression ciency Directive ((EU) 2018/2002) (The European Parliament, The
LSSVM Least-Squares Support Vector Machine Council, 2018), which updated the 2012 directive (27/2012/EU)
LT Load Tracking (International Energy Agency, 2012) and set an overall EU energy
MEM Ministry of Energy and Mines efficiency objective for 2030 of at least 32.5%, with a clause for
ML Machine Learning a possible upgrade by 2023. Another example is the Kingdom
MNN Merged Neural Network of Morocco, which introduced a new energy strategy in 2009,
founded mainly on reinforcing the use of clean energy, boosting
PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act
energy efficiency and deepening regional integration (Slimani
PES Primary Energy Source
et al., 2021). In addition to these programs, it is worth mentioning
Phronēsis Leadership knowledge the appearance of the ISO 50001 standard in 2011 (ISO - ISO
PS Production System 50001, 2018) for the implementation of energy management
QES Quadratic Exponential Smoothing systems (El Majaty et al., 2022; Rampasso et al., 2019). In parallel
RES Renewable Energy Source with these developments, the number of scientific papers related
SEC Specific Energy Consumption to Energy efficiency in the Manufacturing Industry (EEMI) has
SES Secondary Energy Source been steadily growing, embracing a diversity of research streams.
SFA Stochastic Frontier Analysis This work aims to provide an energy efficiency integrated
SLR Systematic Literature Reviews conceptual framework. With this goal in mind, we analyze a
representative sample of systematic literature reviews on EEMI
in order to identify the main categories to be integrated in a
conceptual framework based on the three forms of knowledge
as delineated by Aristotle. Therefore, the study is of tertiary
1. Introduction nature. As a review of secondary studies, its objective is to pro-
vide a ‘‘compact and comprehensive overview of the state-of-
Due to increasing living standards, demand for goods has been knowledge in a specific research area’’ (Abedinnia et al., 2017;
constantly rising. Consequently, the industrial sector has been Batouta et al., 2016). To the best knowledge of the authors, no
4636
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Fig. 1. Literature search strategy.
tertiary study has so far been published on the topic. The present
work attempts to fill up this gap in the literature.
Before proceeding to the analysis, it is worth defining the
fundamental concepts of this study, namely energy efficiency
and manufacturing industry. The field of EE is a multidisciplinary
research endeavor covering purely technical to social or economic
aspects (Sorrell, 2015). Stricto sensu, the concept of EE is used
to ‘‘to express a ratio between a delivered useful output and a
form of required energy input’’ (Narciso and Martins, 2020). The
manufacturing industry, as a subset of the industrial sector, refers
to the process by which a tangible output is produced through a
physical transformation of input (Gahm et al., 2016). The scope of
this article strives to cover a representative sample of systematic
literature reviews dealing with energy efficiency in the enclosure
of the manufacturing industry.
The objectives of the study are as follows:
• Research objective 1: Identify relevant systematic literature
reviews (SLRs) addressing the subject of EEMI
• Research objective 2: Examine the formal review features
of the selected SLRs
• Research objective 3: Define EE themes and elaborate the
aggregate categories
• Research objective 4: Establish a knowledge-based frame-
work to map the defined categories
Thus, this tertiary study offers a comprehensive overview of
the EEMI field on three levels: First, for academia, providing an
overall view of literature findings will quickly help to detect the
research status and point out literature gaps, opening the way
for future contributions. Second, for the manufacturing industry,
this article will support managerial decision-making. Third, for
policymakers, the drivers and the barriers schematized in the
framework could be taken into consideration in the process of
policy making to promote the adoption the EE measures in the
manufacturing sector.
The article is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the
methodology adopted in this tertiary study. Section 3 reports the
results from the literature search, descriptive analysis, content
analysis, and the knowledge-based framework. Finally, Sections 4
and 5 presents the discussion and conclusions, respectively.
2. Methodology
A research literature review is ‘‘a systematic, explicit, and
reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing
the existing body of completed and recorded work produced
4637
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
by researchers, scholars, and practitioners’’ (Fink, 2019). System-
atic reviews present advantages compared to traditional narra-
tive reviews which lack a formal methodology (Mardani et al.,
2016). Although they are the result of bibliographic work far from
laboratory work, the systematic literature reviews must follow
scientific approach towards literature review to be unbiased,
reproducible and exhaustive. The proposed tertiary review is
adopted from Briner and Denyer (2012), Seuring and Gold (2012)
and Tranfield et al. (2003) for identifying, collecting and synthe-
sizing papers in a systematic way. The detailed search protocol
is presented in Table A.1 (Appendix A). This section describes the
methodology of this literature review, the proposed architecture
is presented in Fig. 1, and each step is deeply presented in
sequence in Appendix B.
Fig. 2 illustrates the methodology used to screen pertinent
articles, adopted from Narciso and Martins (2020).
3. Results
This section englobes the results of this study. First, it presents
the outcomes of the literature search. Then the descriptive anal-
ysis is detailed, followed by the content analysis where the cat-
egories are elaborated. Finally, the conceptualization of the in-
tegrated framework is elucidated. Fig. 3 synthesizes the results
from the search stage, applying research strings (D.1 to D.6) as
detailed in Table A.1 in Appendix A. The sum total amounts to 15
SLRs.
3.1. Descriptive analysis
3.1.1. Journals and countries
The literature reviews selected for this tertiary review are pub-
lished in seven different journals, renowned in the energy sector
such as: Energy reports, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
and Journal of Cleaner Production.
The reviewed material originates from 9 countries. Germany is
the leader in contributions with 06 reviews. This is not surprising
because the country, as the world leader in renewable energy, has
put energy efficiency at the heart of its energy policy since 2010
and has adopted a strategy for an energy pathway to 2050 (IEA,
2023). Brazil follows Germany with 02 reviews, and the rest is
spread across Australia and European countries.
3.1.2. Period covered
Each SLR from the selected sample delineates the chronologi-
cal scope of the primary articles it reviews. The oldest reviewed
primary studies date back to 1977 – the 1970s constituted a turn-
ing point period marked by the oil crisis which led to concerns
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653

Fig. 2. Methodology used for selection of pertinent articles.

Source: Adopted from Narciso and Martins (2020).

Fig. 3. Tertiary review screening results.

about energy security and efficiency (Kaya and Keyes IV, 1980)
– and the most recent ones date back to 2021. Therefore, the
scope of this tertiary study covers 15 secondary reviews with a
43 years chronological amplitude in terms of primary research
publication. Moreover, coverage intensity increases starting from
the year 2011, possibly due to the introduction of the ISO 50001
4638
in that year and the update of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive
in 2012. We define coverage intensity as the degree of inter-
est of secondary reviewers in a given year of primary research
publication.
Fig. 4 depicts the coverage intensity relevant to the review of
primary research publication.
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Fig. 4. SLRs coverage intensity per year.
Fig. 5. Number of covered articles per SLR.
3.1.3. Number of covered articles
The total of primary studies covered by the dataset reviews
of the tertiary study at hand amounts to 1758. The number of
papers reviewed per source varies between 17-(Rampasso et al.,
2019), which focuses on challenges presented in the Implementa-
tion of Sustainable Energy Management via ISO 50001:2011 and
375-(May et al., 2017) that deals with energy management in
manufacturing. The Pareto graph in Fig. 5 shows the number of
covered articles per SLR. The average number of source reviewed
papers is 117, with a large standard deviation of 111.
3.2. Formal review features
All the 15 dataset articles are SLRs with a transparent protocol-
driven search methodology. It is worth to mention that we
adopted a strict classification to select systematic reviews. The
objective of all the selected articles is to provide a state-of-the-
art review, which is often accompanied by the proposal of a
conceptual framework (9 of these reviews). Nevertheless, few
SLRs have focused on gaps and directions for future researches.
Concerning the material synthesis classification, nearly all the
selected reviews adopt a descriptive approach to their respective
source material (13 reviews). They are based on formal identi-
fication: year, journal, geographical context, country of authors,
4639
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
etc. Furthermore, to synthesize the source material, thematic
classification (9 reviews) is preferred to category classification (6
reviews). In fact, if the review synthesis is guided by predefined
analytic categories, then classification is category based. How-
ever, an inductive literature review usually gives way to thematic
synthesis (Martins and Pato, 2019).
Concerning the methodology of the studied SLRs, there are two
main weaknesses to mention. First, none of them have assessed
the reliability to reflect the agreement between the reviewers
during the articles selection process. Some statistical measures
commonly used for this end are Fleiss’ kappa and Krippendorff’s
alfa. Second, only one SLR (Tesch da Silva et al., 2020) have evalu-
ated the quality of the papers used to conduct the research using
criteria such as the clear goals of the study, the research method-
ology of primary works and, if the articles present pertinent
results to their research questions.
The data extraction form which summarizes the descriptive
analysis and the formal review features of the selected SLRs is
shown in Table 1.
3.3. Content analysis
Throughout an iterative process based on the inductive ap-
proach presented in Mayring (2004), themes related to EE in
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653

Table 1
Literature reviews—Data extraction form.
Réf Author (year) Descriptive analysis Formal features
Journal Country Period N◦ of Objective Material synthesis
covered articles
SAa GDb FRc DS d CT e TH f
1 Andrei et al. (2022) Renewable and Sweden 2010–2020 157 × × × ×
Sustainable Energy
Reviews
2 Bänsch et al. (2021) Computers and Industrial Germany 2016–2020 192 × × × ×
Engineering
3 Biel and Glock (2016) Computers and Industrial Germany 1983–2015 89 × × × ×
Engineering
4 Gahm et al. (2016) European Journal of Germany 1990–2015 87 × × × ×
Operational Research
5 Hasan and Trianni Energies Australia 1977–2020 92 × ×
(2020)
6 May et al. (2017) Journal of Cleaner Switzer- 1995–2015 365 × × × ×
Production land
7 Menghi et al. (2019) Journal of Cleaner Italy 2003–2018 64 × × ×
Production
8 Mickovic and Wouters Journal of Cleaner Nether- 1995–2020 51 × × × ×
(2020) Production lands
9 Narciso and Martins Energy Reports Portugal 2008–2020 42 × × × ×
(2020)
10 Rampasso et al. (2019) Sustainability Brazil 2012–2019 17 × × × ×
(Switzerland)
11 Schulze et al. (2016) Journal of Cleaner Germany 1979–2014 44 × × × ×
Production
12 Solnørdal and Foss Energies Norway 1979–2018 58 × × × ×
(2018)
13 Terbrack et al. (2021) Sustainability Germany 1983–2021 375 × × ×
(Switzerland)
14 Tesch da Silva et al. Computers and Industrial Brazil 2013–2020 53 × × × ×
(2020) Engineering
15 Walther and Weigold Energies Germany 2009–2020 72 × × ×
(2021)
a
SA—State-of-the-art.
b
GD—Gaps and directions.
c
FR—Framework.
d
DS—Descriptive.
e
CT—Category.
f
TH—Thematic.

the manufacturing environment were extracted from the 15 re-
viewed Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs), analyzed, and then
grouped under general categories. Thus, we applied the con-
stant comparison technique to synthesize the results from articles
(Glaser and Strauss, 2009). This resulted in six key topics:
• Energy Diagnostic
• Energy Metering
• EE Optimization
• Energy and Technology (Cross-cutting category)
• EE Strategic Paradigms
• EE Drivers and Barriers
Each of the six aggregated dimensions is mapped in a schem-
atic figure (figs 6, 7,8, 10, 11 and Table 3).
The classification of the 15 SLRs according to the categories
and subcategories is addressed in Table 2. Moreover, a detailed
overview of all categories is outlined in the next subsections and
interactions between them are highlighted. The category ‘‘Energy
and Technology’’ has been treated as a cross-cutting category.
4640
3.3.1. Energy diagnostic
This category includes tools and methods to diagnose and in-
vestigate energy use and consumption within the manufacturing
industry. It is mainly based on energy audits, benchmarking tools
and techniques, and energy use analysis. This is the beginning of
further optimization measures and an action plan (Menghi et al.,
2019).
Fig. 6 shows the category ‘‘Energy Diagnostic’’ and its main
subcategories.
The first subcategory is ‘‘Energy audits’’. It provided an ex-
cellent starting point for understanding internal energy flows,
energy consumption, and losses to control a company’s energy
use (Rohdin and Thollander, 2006; Sandberg, 2003). In this regard,
the authors (Abdelaziz et al., 2011; Schulze et al., 2016) have
divided energy audit into three types: preliminary, general, and
detailed. The preliminary audit is the most basic option, requiring
limited contact with the facility’s operating staff, a quick veri-
fication of the site’s bills and operational data, and a physical
walk-through of the plant to uncover any obvious energy waste.
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653

Table 2
Literature reviews—Categories classification.
Knowledge Category SLR
form

Mickovic and Wouters (2020)

Walther and Weigold (2021)

Narciso and Martins (2020)

Tesch da Silva et al. (2020)

Solnørdal and Foss (2018)
Hasan and Trianni (2020)

Rampasso et al. (2019)

Biel and Glock (2016)

Terbrack et al. (2021)

Schulze et al. (2016)
Menghi et al. (2019)
Bänsch et al. (2021)

Gahm et al. (2016)

Andrei et al. (2022)

May et al. (2017)

Energy diagnostic
Energy audit G
# # # # G
# # G
# #
G # # #
Benchmarking tools & techniques G
# # # # G
# #
G #
G # # # # # #
Energy use analysis # # # # G
# G
# # # G
# # #
Energy metering

Process Operational energy metering # # # # # G

# # # # # #
Prediction/Forecasting G
# # # # # # # # # # # #
Energy saving evaluation G
# # # G
# # G
# #
G # G
# G
# # G
# #
Energy optimization
Energy aware planning/ Scheduling approaches G
# # G
# # # # # # # G
# #
Optimal control and process setting # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Lean methodology # # # # # G
# # # # # # # # #
Energy and technology
Technical Industry 4.0 # # # G
# G
# G
# # # # # # #
Manufacturing technologies # # # # G
# # # # # G
# # # #
EE strategic paradigms
Policy G
# # # # G
# # # G
# # # #
Leadership Organization G
# # # # G
# # G
# # # # # #
Strategic decisions G
# # # G
# # # # # # # #
Human factor G
# # # # # G
# # # # G
# # # #
EE Drivers and barriers G
# # # # # # G
# # G
# # #

Fully covered, G
# Partially covered, Not covered.

Fig. 6. Energy diagnostic category.

The general audit, for its part, provides further details on the In most cases, an energy audit is conducted based on the
plant’s operation through additional metering in view of diagnos- methodology of the ISO 50002 standard (ISO - ISO 50002, 2014).
ing the machine’s consumption. Finally, detailed audit consists Specifically, energy efficiency analysis is carried out in accordance
in generating a dynamic model of the existing facility’s energy- with standards such as ISO 50001 and ISO 14955 (May et al.,
use characteristics, thus allowing the identification of short and 2017). In this regard, the study of Thollander et al. (2013) cited in
long-term load profile variations. SLR of Mickovic and Wouters (2020), concerning the correlation
4641
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653

Fig. 7. Energy metering category.

Fig. 8. Energy optimization category.

between energy audits and company size, reveals that energy
efficiency is primarily of concern to large companies and, more
specifically, to energy-intensive industries. However, energy au-
dits have become mandatory in several countries worldwide due
to increasingly severe environmental restrictions. In Morocco, for
example, the decree on mandatory energy audits and auditing
bodies was adopted in May 2019 to institute a periodic system to
4642
rationalize energy use in energy-intensive companies and estab-
lishments (MEM: Ministery of Energy and Mines, Morocco, 2019).
In fact, thanks to energy audits, the manufacturing industry can
achieve considerable energy and financial savings as testified by
the papers (Boharb et al., 2016; Kluczek and Olszewski, 2017).
The second subcategory of ‘‘Energy Diagnostic’’ is Benchmark-
ing tools and techniques. It covers all papers regarding energy
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Table 3
Drivers and Barriers category.
Drivers
Economic/Market-related
Operational cost reduction
Finance (Access to capital, investment cost and pay-back time)
Higher productivity in processes
Treat of rising energy prices
Competition-customer demand
Industrial network and information share synergy
Foreign ownership and foreign investments
Organizational-behavioral
Organizational structure
Company’s environmental management
Internal Competence
Employee’s knowledge acquisition and awareness
People with real ambition
Technico-structural
Technological solutions and production enhancement
Large amount of data
Coordination mechanisms (Sell–buy options)
Politico-institutional
Governmental programs
Incentives
External Subsidies
Voluntary agreements
Policy intervention and taxes
analyses on the basis of national or international reference values.
To clarify this point, the authors (Schulze et al., 2016) explain that
three types of energy efficiency benchmarking exist: industrial,
historical, and company-wide. Industrial benchmarks are com-
parisons between a company’s own facilities or processes and
those of other companies. Alternatively, a historical benchmark
compares the current energy consumption of a particular facility
or process with itself at a previous period of time. Finally, as
part of a company-wide benchmark, several facilities and similar
processes within the same company are competed.
The last subcategory corresponds to energy use. The first
theme here consists in identifying and classifying the operat-
ing modes. The SLR (Narciso and Martins, 2020) reflects the
recurrence of this topic in industries where multiple production
steps are identified in view of collecting essential information for
process analysis and corrective action support. The second subject
is related to the allocation of energy costs. The paper (Mickovic
and Wouters, 2020) has detailed this point, where a differenti-
ation is made between first-stage and second-stage allocations.
The first refers to the attribution of costs between departments,
workstations or processes and, more broadly, to production cost
pools. Knowing each production pool’s energy share and cost
increases transparency in the manufacturing industry. Second-
stage allocation classifies the energy costs of the production pools
by products. For homogeneous products, it can be done using
Specific Energy Consumption (SEC). Otherwise, cost allocation is
done using cost indexes.
3.3.2. Energy metering
The ‘‘Energy Metering’’ category includes methods and tools
used to measure energy-related quantities. This can be done di-
rectly by operational measurements or by modeling approaches.
Fig. 7 illustrates the category ‘‘Energy Metering’’ and its identified
subcategories.
The first subtopic is operational energy metering. It contains
operational calculations, usually based on a parameter that is
easy to measure combined with other parameters indicated by
4643
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
Barriers
Hidden costs
Risks
Access to capital
Low learning capacity
Culture
Attitudes towards EE Internal
Values
Lack of infrastructure
Difficulties in technical management and control
Difficulty in integrating rechargeable batteries in power grid
Lack of energy harvesting field
Power grid incapacity
Political rules
Governmental regulations
Industrial norms External
Lack of information
the equipment manufacturer. It also includes sub-metering, us-
ing traditional or online advanced meters and sensors (Mickovic
and Wouters, 2020), the emission calculation based on life cycle
assessment, emissions values, and carbon footprint. Operational
energy metering encompasses as well Key Performance Indicators
(KPI), which are categorized into physical, economic, thermo-
dynamic, and hybrid indicators (May et al., 2017). Some of the
reviewed SLRs suggest a reference document called ‘‘Best Avail-
able Techniques (BAT)’’ as a way of measuring, calculating, and
controlling the companies’ energy properties. This is based on the
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (2008/1/EC)
(Menghi et al., 2019; Mickovic and Wouters, 2020; The European
Parliament, 2008). The ‘‘operational energy metering’’ subcate-
gory supplies other subcategories from the ‘‘energy diagnostic’’
category: it gives information to ‘‘energy audits’’ subcategory to
measure energy losses as well as to ‘‘benchmarking tools and
techniques’’ subcategory to evaluate the energy maturity level.
The second subcategory of energy metering emphasizes en-
ergy prediction/forecasting, often necessary to quantify energy
efficiency or flexibility potentials. Prediction is different from
forecasting in term of the modeling horizon. The first is the
process of predicting an unknown value from known inputs,
while the second is a procedure that makes statements about the
future. The SLR (Walther and Weigold, 2021) gave an informa-
tive overview on predicting and forecasting the electrical energy
consumption in the manufacturing industry and gave a seven-
dimensions classification scheme: System Boundary, Modeling
Technique, Modeling Focus, Modeling Horizon, Modeling Per-
spective, Modeling Purpose and Model Output. For the modeling
technique, the previous SLR distinguishes between model-driven
approaches, based on analytical, physical, empirical, and simula-
tion techniques, and data-driven approaches, based on artificial
intelligence, which englobes machine learning and deep learning
tools. The prediction of energy consumption is a key element for a
future optimization, which justifies the relationship between this
theme and the category discussed in the following Section 3.3.3.
The third subcategory of the energy metering category deals
with energy-saving evaluation. It concerns the results of imple-
menting energy-efficient practices in manufacturing industries.
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Fig. 9. Energy flow and conversion systems.
Source: Modified from Bänsch et al. (2021)
and Gahm et al. (2016).
First of all, and before implementing the EE action plan, an
energy savings analysis compares the current energy consump-
tion baseline with the projected scenario. It is about quantifying
the current excess of energy consumption, which is a driving
force for improvement. In addition, the authors (Menghi et al.,
2019) refer to qualitative methods, theoretical research, and the
previously cited Best Available Techniques (BAT) approach to
find out the right corrective actions to decrease the production’s
energy consumption and environmental impact. The other point
is the energy-saving evaluation after the implementation of cor-
rective actions. It includes economic evaluation of EE measures,
productivity benefits calculation, computable general equilibrium
framework, total performance analysis, and conventional perfor-
mance measures (May et al., 2017). In this context, the ‘‘energy
saving evaluation’’ supplies the ‘‘energy audit’’ subcategory by
calculating the energy saving after the audit’s action plan imple-
mentation. It goes without saying that the EE measures should
not compromise other manufacturing performances targets in the
trade-off (e.g., cost, quality, delivery time, and flexibility).
3.3.3. EE optimization
The energy optimization category contains five primordial
categories: Energy-aware planning/scheduling approaches, lean
methodology, optimal control and process settings, and robust-
ness. Fig. 8 spread out the energy optimization category.
In the SLR (Gahm et al., 2016), dedicated to scheduling ap-
proaches leading to increased energy efficiency in the energy
conversion chain, scheduling is defined as ‘‘the allocation of pro-
duction orders (jobs) to production units (machines) and the
associated sequencing and timing on the machine’’. Based on
the energetic coverage and the energy supply referred to by
(Gahm et al., 2016) and supported by the manufacturing system
boundary explained in the SLR of Bänsch et al. (2021), the tertiary
review at hand dressed an explanatory diagram, Fig. 9, that sum-
marizes the energy flow along the energy conversion chain. The
Primary Energy Source (PES) is converted into a Secondary Energy
Source (SES) by external Conversion Systems (eCS) within the
perimeter of the energy provider. This energy is then transmitted
to ‘‘the grid’’ energy market. After that, the energy ejected, which
may be an SES or a Renewable Energy Source (RES), is distributed
4644
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
to the energy user as a Final Energy Source (FES). Finally, the
FES is converted by internal Conversion Systems (iCS) to become
an Applied Energy Source (AES) used directly by the Production
System (PS), which is the final energy demander. In addition,
energy could be supplied by onsite generation or energy storage
systems.
In the light of the foregoing, and to classify the literature
in this field, (Gahm et al., 2016) used the energy coverage re-
ferring to positions in the conversion chain where the effects
of energy scheduling resulted in an effective increase in energy
efficiency. Therefore, the precited study used three non-exclusive
attributes similar to the three systems outlined earlier: PS, iCS,
and eCS. Scheduling approaches with the PS attribute directly
reduce AES demand. Some examples are: turning idle machines
off, sequencing of production orders to prevent energy-intensive
settings, by assigning tasks to machines according to their en-
ergy requirements, adjusting a machine’s processing speed, or
exploiting energy recovery potential. However, the attributes iCS
and eCS refer to approaches for which the scheduling decision
influences the temporal course of the AES or FES demand. In this
case, interdependencies and coordination mechanisms between
the iCs or the eCS and the PS must be considered when using
the scheduling approach. It should be remembered that pro-
duction system scheduling approaches refer to studies aimed at
reducing energy consumption by adjusting production processes’
management parameters.
Furthermore, energy-efficient production planning (EEPP)
models attempt to calculate production plans that consider not
only conventional production planning considerations, but also
energy-related objectives. For example, minimizing energy con-
sumption, energy cost, energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and energy-related restrictions, such as meeting max-
imum contracted energy demand or limiting GHG emissions. In
contrast to approaches to reducing energy consumption through
technological advancements in production processes, EEPP mod-
els have become increasingly popular because their adoption is
generally not associated with substantial investments (Biel and
Glock, 2016). In this perspective, the latter SLR is interested
in mid-term and short-term planning horizons since it looks
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Fig. 10. Energy efficiency & technology category.
Fig. 11. Strategic paradigms category.
at the available production equipment and avoids long-term
investments in new production devices.
The first horizon (mid-term) contains EE master production
scheduling and capacity planning, while the second (short-term)
englobes EE lot-sizing and EE machine scheduling. For the mid-
term horizon, master production scheduling calculates produc-
tion quantities, inventory levels, and related workforce levels to
meet the demand during a given time span. It is about managing
the capacity utilization by aligning production and distribution
planning with energy costs, more effectively accounting for time-
varying energy prices that involve consumption and demand
charges. Manufacturing industries must decide whether to op-
erate consistently throughout the year or at higher levels in
some periods and lower levels in others. Power consumption
should be at most the maximum contracted, and penalty to the
energy-related cost (ERC) must be avoided.
Regarding the short-term horizon, lot-sizing determines ‘‘a
production lot size in a batch production process that balances
4645
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
setup or ordering cost and inventory carrying cost’’ (Fleischmann
et al., 2005) as cited by (Biel and Glock, 2016). Thus, integrating
energy efficiency considerations such as the minimization of en-
ergy cost used for setting up the machines. In relation to machine
scheduling, three emergent tasks are discussed: EE job allocation
and sequencing, load management (LM), and load tracking (LT).
The first task assigns jobs to machines and establishes the
sequence of jobs assigned to the same machine while minimizing
the total energy consumption (TEC). In some cases, it is a question
to state whether the machine should be left idle or switched off
between two jobs, based on the concept of break-even duration.
The authors in Biel and Glock (2016) clarified this point by consid-
ering the machine model, i.e., single machine, parallel machine,
flow shop, job shop, and special cases.
The other two tasks in managing the power demand are load
management and load tracking. They were specifically developed
for energy efficiency purposes in manufacturing industries. In-
deed, to adjust the power demand of their customers, power
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
utilities apply energy supply contracts that penalize peak con-
sumption in the case of an LM contract or that penalize any
deviation from a predetermined load curve in the case of an LT
contract (Nolde and Morari, 2010). Another relevant SLR found
within this tertiary study’s scope about energy-oriented produc-
tion planning is the one of Terbrack et al. (2021). It has identified
three key topics: energy consumption (in a given period of time),
load management (the demand at a single point of time), and
energy supply, generation, and storage. Furthermore, the SLR of
Bänsch et al. (2021) is considered as a combination and an update
of two used SLRs in our study, namely Biel and Glock (2016)
and Gahm et al. (2016). The review proposed a ten-dimensional
classification scheme referring to energy-related scope and the
modeling approach.
The second theme of the optimization category is the lean
methodology. The lean approach offers formal ways to imple-
ment environmental management programs aimed at eliminating
waste, simplifying procedures and speeding up production. On
the basis of this approach and several lean tools (e.g., Kaizen
events, 5-why analysis, Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, A3 re-
port, Value Stream Mapping (VSM), 5S, and 6σ analysis), dif-
ferent methods for evaluating energy consumption have been
developed. It helps enterprises reduce consumption, increase ef-
ficiency, and minimize environmental impacts (May et al., 2017;
Menghi et al., 2019). Other themes under the optimization cat-
egory are related to optimal control and process setting, based
on formal optimization tools or database assessment to look for
optimal process inputs that minimize energy consumption.
3.3.4. EE and technology (a cross-category)
The category ‘‘EE and technology’’ is considered as a cross-
category theme for the previous three ones. It highlights the
use of technology to improve energy efficiency in the industrial
environment. This could be applied to a specific technology, in-
stallation, machine, or tool. Under this category, there are two
main axes: manufacturing technologies and industry 4.0. Fig. 10
shows the EE and technology category.
The first subcategory is manufacturing technologies. It incor-
porates the technological tools used to improve energy efficiency,
or to measure energy consumption and prevent losses through-
out the manufacturing process. The SLR of May et al. (2017)
includes energy-efficient and innovative manufacturing technolo-
gies, energy-efficient equipment and materials, and energy-
efficient components. It is about improving the design and energy
efficiency of equipment within the manufacturing industry by in-
troducing technologies such as variable speed drive, economizer,
high-efficiency motors, and leak prevention in air compressors
(Abdelaziz et al., 2011). In interaction with the categories dis-
cussed above, the precited energy saving technologies are used
as input tools to feed the lean methodology (energy optimization
category), whose goal is to reduce energy losses. In addition,
the manufacturing technologies subcategory includes as well the
metering tools which supplies the operational energy metering
(energy metering category), such as current and voltage metering
sensors or infrared cameras.
The second subcategory is industry 4.0. It has the largest
share in terms of manufacturing technologies publications in the
literature (Andrei et al., 2022). In this regard, the authors in
Tesch da Silva et al. (2020) identified in their SLR items related
to improving the energy efficiency of IoT (Internet of Things)
devices and optimizing the energy consumption of the power grid
on a large scale. For instance, it is a question of improving the
energy consumption performance of mobile equipment as they
stay connected to industrial WSN (Wireless Sensor Network) or
automatically reducing power peaks in connected machine tools
by developing a software framework. The precited SLR explains
4646
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
the approaches used to track electric consumption of an Industry
4.0 as well as the main used technologies: Internet of Things
(Fog Computing, network systems, Radio Frequency and wire-
less technology), Big Data (Cloud, Databases, Machine learning,
Data Mining, Mathematical Methods, and Artificial Intelligence),
Cyber–Physical Systems (CPS: Sensors, Actuators, Frameworks,
Microcontrollers, Control, Automation, and Supervisory Systems
and Web Applications). In the same perspective, the paper (Mick-
ovic and Wouters, 2020) talks about advanced metering systems
which collect energy data online and in granular time intervals. It
is noteworthy that the industry 4.0 subcategory is a cross-cutting
point for many of the above treated thematic. Indeed, CPS and
smart meters are increasingly used for operational energy me-
tering (energy metering category). Moreover, IoT solutions offer
real-time energy monitoring and contribute to optimal control
and process settings (Energy optimization category). Regarding
the Big Data field, machine learning tools are mainly used on a
large scale and thus supply many categories. Among the meth-
ods commonly used in benchmarking tools and technics (energy
diagnostic category), there are data envelopment analysis (DEA),
linear regression models (LR), and stochastic frontier analysis
(SFA) (Menghi et al., 2019). For energy use analysis (energy diag-
nostic category), operating modes classification and identification
mainly use Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and K-mean ML
tools.
In relation with energy prediction/forecasting (energy meter-
ing category), an interesting SLR of Narciso and Martins (2020)
addressed the energy consumption forecast to classify the ap-
plication of ML tools for energy efficiency in the industry. In
the precited review, the results emphasize used models such as
Least-squares support vector machine (LSSVM), Quadratic Expo-
nential Smoothing (QES), Functional Link Neural Network (FLNN),
Merged Neural Network (MNN), Genetic Algorithm (GA), and
data pre-processing techniques. According to the result of the
authors in Bahij et al. (2021), the MLR approach is the best
forecasting method. Furthermore, for energy saving evaluation
(energy metering category), ANN, Fuzzy logic, DEA, DEA-Cross
Model (DEACM), Genetic Optimization Algorithm (GOA), and In-
terpretative Structural Model (ISM) are principally used tools.
Finally, ANN and GOA are some machine learning tools used for
optimal control and process setting (energy optimization cate-
gory). In the ML field, the focus should be more on robustness
to address the challenges related to uncertainty or disruptive
events in optimization to achieve feasible optimization solutions
(Narciso and Martins, 2020).
3.3.5. EE strategic paradigms
This category includes strategic measures that may regulate or
influence the implementation of energy efficiency in the manu-
facturing industry. The main subcategories are policy, organiza-
tion, strategic decisions, and human factors. Fig. 11 illustrates EE
strategic paradigms category.
The first subcategory is policy. At the company level, energy
policy is interested in long-term energy strategy, energy planning,
and energy-use risk management (Schulze et al., 2016). At the
government level, energy policy is about fiscal policies such as
taxes imposition and rebates, investment tax credits, investment
bank lending, and specific energy consumption levels (Abdelaziz
et al., 2011). It brings to mind the Carbon Border Adjustment
Mechanism (CBAM) that the European Union is taking to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions (EU, 2021). The policy also includes
voluntary initiatives, which are a commitment between the gov-
ernment and industry to improve energy efficiency or reduce
carbon emissions (May et al., 2017). Regulations are also part
of that subcategory. For example, it could be specific equipment
oriented or based on energy use taxonomy to classify sustainable
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
investments in the context of the green deal. Furthermore, the
energy audit obligation in many countries is to mention.
The second subcategory is organization. It covers creating
models for implementing energy management in companies,
such as the ISO standards and energy management assessment
represented by the maturity models (Andrei et al., 2022).
Standardization is crucial to increase the transparency of a com-
pany’s processes; with this in mind, the research of Rampasso
et al. (2019) focuses on eleven challenges that hinder the
implementation of ISO 50001. The main ones are resources
limitations, difficulties in baseline and energy performance in-
dicators, human resource challenges and limited management
support/commitment. In addition, after implementing ISO 50001,
organizations need to be aware of their energy systems maturity
level. In that wake, The SLR of Hasan and Trianni (2020) reviews
the energy management assessment models and discusses the
minimum requirements, maturity, and energy management ma-
trix models. Under this organizational subcategory, the authors in
Schulze et al. (2016) conclude that the existence of environmental
or energy manager close to the CEO is crucial for adopting energy
efficiency practices, all the more so if the management of energy
is combined with the management of the environment within the
company.
The strategic decisions category discusses coordination mech-
anisms and international comparisons of strategic management
practices. The authors (Bänsch et al., 2021) emphasize coordi-
nation mechanisms as measures to determine demand response
such as the timing of energy consumption. A distinction is made
between price-driven and event-driven demand responses (Bän-
sch et al., 2021; Gahm et al., 2016).
In the human factor subcategory, lights are on human re-
sources education/training, staff motivation, and internal com-
munication as decisive factors of energy management. The paper
of Schulze et al. (2016) confirms that the hired profiles must
match the need for energy management skills. In addition, an
ongoing energy-saving training program must be maintained to
ensure the staff involvement. Training should be for the benefit
of all employees, including senior company executives. Besides,
incentives and rewards for staff to motivate them to improve
energy efficiency need to be systematic.
3.3.6. EE drivers and barriers
This category classifies Drivers for and Barriers to energy effi-
ciency in the manufacturing industry. Drivers are the incentives
that encourage the adoption of EE practices by the company,
while Barriers are the obstacles that discourage the industry
from engaging in EE. It should be noted that these two opposing
strands can emanate from both inside and outside the manufac-
turing arena. The authors (Solnørdal and Foss, 2018) have detailed
this point by classifying the drivers into five main categories:
economic, organizational, market, policy instruments, and control
drivers. For its part, the review of May et al. (2017) divided
drivers and barriers into three and five sub-sets, respectively.
The article (Rampasso et al., 2019) cited the main limitations to
implementing ISO 50001 for EE. The paper (Tesch da Silva et al.,
2020) highlighted the issues found when implementing strategies
to save power in an intelligent factory environment. Table 3
classifies and consolidates the significant findings in this category,
sorted by type and position in relation to the manufacturing
industry boundary (internal/external).
3.4. Conceptualization of an integrative knowledge-based EE frame-
work
Unlike most of the studied SLRs, whose objective is to con-
solidate dispersed research results in the form of emerging cat-
egories, this tertiary review aims to analyze and map the max-
imum number of research axes related to the theme of energy
4647
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
efficiency in the industrial environment, in a clear and hierarchi-
cal manner. To this end, we have elaborated a conceptual frame-
work based on three forms of knowledge: technical, process, and
leadership.
The knowledge forms are built on the Aristotelian notions
Technē, Epistēmē, and Phronēsis. In their article ‘‘Knowledge de-
mands for energy management in manufacturing industry - A
systematic literature review’’, Andrei et al. (2022) were the first
to apply this Aristotelian conceptual classification to the field of
energy efficiency in the manufacturing industry, explaining their
type, mode, and features. In this specific context, process knowl-
edge (Epistēmē) represents the methods and tools for improving
EE by acting on the process. It is an explicit (formal, systematic,
and easily documented), procedural, and theoretical know-how.
Technical knowledge (Technē), for its part, can be associated with
EE improvement through the use of technology. It is a tacit
(gained from experience), descriptive, and practical know-how/
know-what. Finally, leadership knowledge (Phronēsis) refers to
practical wisdom and to the art of being a leader. This is a know-
why involving ‘‘the practical wisdom specifying the appropriate
actions for a certain situation and the expected results and valid
conclusions’’ (Allard, 2004) as cited by (Andrei et al., 2022).
Fig. 12 illustrates the integrative conceptual energy efficiency
framework comprising the previously identified six categories
projected on three forms of knowledge: technical, process, and
leadership. In this figure, the three forms of knowledge are rep-
resented graphically in a hierarchical way. At the cusp of the
hierarchical structure figures ‘‘Leadership Knowledge’’. In fact,
‘‘Leadership Knowledge’’ develops the strategic objectives and
policy that influence the decision-making process of the other
two forms of knowledge. ‘‘Process and Technical Knowledge’’
are presented on the framework on the same level, acting on
the managerial aspect of the process parameters and on the
technological side of the production tools, respectively.
‘‘EE strategic paradigms’’ and ‘‘EE drivers and barriers’’, con-
ceived as categories, can be connected to the leadership form
of knowledge. Likewise, the three categories (‘‘energy optimiza-
tion’’, ‘‘energy metering’’ and ‘‘energy diagnostic’’) belong to the
process knowledge form since they allow to directly act on the
industrial process to improve the energy efficiency by optimizing
the process parameters, by measuring the process data or by
diagnosing the process itself. The ‘‘EE and technology’’ thematic
stands in the technical knowledge as it includes technical and
technological tools that contribute to EE enhancement. This latter
is highlighted in the conceptual framework as a cross-cutting
category for the three process knowledge categories. Indeed, this
technical knowledge feeds almost all their subcategories. Further-
more, the categories of the process knowledge are not totally
isolated from each other. This is why the schematization empha-
sizes the logical interactions between the subcategories of the
precited knowledge.
The process knowledge is assumed in 100% of the treated SLRs.
Indeed, a considerable part of the reviews is dedicated to the
theme of energy diagnostic and energy metering, given that they
are the basis of energy efficiency improvement. However, the
aspects of energy optimization, which is the ultimate goal of the
energy management process, are still insufficiently presented in
the literature reviews, namely the lean methodology and opti-
mal process setting. As for leadership knowledge, it appears in
60% of the surveyed reviews. Nevertheless, research must focus
more on the human factor, as individuals are the drivers for im-
plementing energy efficiency practices through their continuous
awareness and motivation. Surprisingly, in the era of industry
4.0, the least reported form of knowledge in the reviews is the
technical knowledge which accounting for 50%. In this regard,
more light must be shed on using artificial intelligence tools in
the service of industrial energy efficiency, through a critical anal-
ysis of their robustness and application to diversified industrial
sectors.
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Fig. 12. Knowledge-based EE categories framework.
4. Discussion and perspectives
Primary and secondary research on energy efficiency in the
manufacturing industry is equally broad and varied. Our ter-
tiary review article has attempted to analyze and classify the
results of systematic literature reviews conducted in this area
to gain an overall view of the field while answering the re-
search questions. Initially, six categories emerged from this study:
Energy diagnostic, Energy metering, Energy optimization, En-
ergy and Technology, EE Strategic paradigms, and EE Drivers and
barriers. Then our paper presents an integrative conceptual EE
framework that enables a comprehensive approach to energy
efficiency defined categories based on three forms of knowledge:
technical, process, and leadership. From our point of view, this
approach provides a holistic view that will help practitioners
and researchers understand the dimensions of the studied field,
and contribute to filling up the EE gap. By the same token,
implementing the framework in the manufacturing industry will
4648
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
contribute to EE improvement. However, it should be mentioned
that the study at hand is applicable to any industry. Indeed, it
does not take into consideration manufacturing industry type,
company size, production system level, and energy intensity level.
These variables may influence the practical implementation of
each category of the framework.
Furthermore, each form of knowledge plays an important role
in adopting EE measures. Leadership knowledge occupies the up-
permost position in the framework with its subsumed categories
‘‘strategic paradigms’’ and ‘‘drivers and barriers’’. In fact, it estab-
lishes the political programs and regulations which are the basis
for energy policy and planning to invest in EE measures. Then
an action plan is made to feed both the process and technical
knowledge categories. In this regard, the manufacturing industry
could reduce energy consumption by improving the production
process in technological terms or by adjusting managerial param-
eters of the production process (Abdelaziz et al., 2011; Biel and
Glock, 2016). In the context of energy efficiency improvement,
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
it is necessary to carry out initial audits to classify the company
in terms of EE maturity. Further follow-up audits need to be
conducted on a periodic basis to keep in line with energy policy
targets. Besides, throughout the EE improvement process, the
human factor is of utmost important. Indeed, the success of the
energy strategy depends on the involvement of employees from
top management to operators.
Several research gaps provide opportunities for future re-
search. Overall, most of the sampled SLRs deal with energy audits,
energy use analysis, energy scheduling approaches, energy policy,
as well as energy drivers and barriers. To illustrate this point, Ta-
ble 2 differentiates between SLRs that cover the concerned theme
closely and those that only touch on it partially. However, some
issues could have been sufficiently addressed in the reviewed
SLRs. For example, a quick search on Scopus using the strings
‘‘Lean methodology’’ AND ‘‘Energy efficiency’’ returned 02 results
falling withing the chronological scope covered by the reviewed
SLRs, namely (Bush et al., 2014) and (Salah and Mustafa, 2021),
and not mentioned in any of the reviewed SLRs dealing with
the thematic of lean methodology. This may be due to the use
of general keywords in their search protocol. Moreover, other
subcategories such as optimal control and process setting, the
robustness of machine learning tools, and manufacturing tech-
nologies turn out to be emerging research lines whose share at
the level of primary studies remains at best limited. No won-
der, then, that the reviewed SLRs provide little room for those
categories.
In a context marked by the concern for decarbonization of
industry, and in addition to studying EE within the strict bound-
aries of manufacturing industry, it makes sense to focus on this
topic from a different perspective. The aim is to improve the EE
of self-generating energy tools, which are often based on solar
or wind energy (see Bellat et al. (2022), Charhouni et al. (2018)
and Tyass et al. (2022)). In addition, studies should focus on the
intermittency of this source type and integrate them into the pro-
duction planning models and the ability to exchange energy with
the grid. On the other hand, there is a need for more studies that
address the optimization of energy consumption and emissions
simultaneously. Also, we need to dig deeper into Industry 4.0, a
topical area, with its machine learning component by improving
the robustness and accuracy of algorithms and using CPS tools to
match energy consumption to production needs. Finally, primary
research should study the synergy between several production
units cohabiting in the same industrial zone and see how to take
advantage of their proximity to improve energy efficiency in sus-
tainable industrial zones. In the following section, we summarize
the contributions of the present work.
5. Conclusions
This study provides a comprehensive tertiary review of the
current status of energy efficiency in manufacturing industry
research. It is a fashionable area of research that has generated a
rapidly growing amount of primary and secondary publications.
This said, a well-structured tertiary review is required to consoli-
date the fragmented research findings in a systematic way. To the
authors’ best knowledge, the article at hand is the first tertiary
review in this field of research. In this study, we performed
a descriptive, formal and, content analysis of 15 SLR dealing
with energy efficiency in the manufacturing industry, published
between 2016 and 2022. In response to research question 1, the
SLRs were selected following a rigorous and systematic research
methodology, including cross-reference checks. The source mate-
rial was classified based on a pre-defined data extraction form
to supply the descriptive and formal analysis. It represents a
total coverage of 43 years of 1758 primary research articles. The
4649
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
SLR’s formal features purport to map the state of knowledge,
often offering a conceptual framework based on an inductive
analysis in most cases (answer to research question 2). Following
a thorough content analysis of the selected body of literature, we
have identified general categories of energy efficiency in the man-
ufacturing industry (Energy diagnostic, Energy metering, Energy
optimization, Energy and Technology, EE Strategic paradigms and
EE Drivers and barriers). The SLRs have been classified into the-
matic categories and their contribution discussed in terms of
each category. Besides, we highlighted the interactions between
categories and treated the ‘‘EE and Technology’’ as a cross-cutting
category (answer to research question 3). We subsequently pro-
vided a conceptual framework to summarize the six categories
and critically analyze them through an Aristotelian knowledge-
based prism (technical, process and leadership). To this end, each
thematic has been linked to its adequate form of knowledge
(answer to the last research question 4).
In conclusion, to optimize its energy efficiency policy, the
manufacturing industry must take into consideration the three
forms of knowledge to improve the technical, procedural and
managerial factors intervening in the dynamic of energy flow and
consumption. Taking advantage of the synergy among the three
forms of knowledge, the manufacturing industry could gain ac-
cess to: motivated, competent, and committed human resources
in energy policy, from top management to operational level, a
deep understanding of the energy flow throughout the process,
and a watch on energy-efficient technologies.
Given the rapid evolution of the studied field of research, it
goes without saying that our study still faces some limitations.
With regard to the search protocol, including other keywords
in the search, for example, could have resulted in a different
sample of articles. Moreover, restricting the search parameters to
English SLRs published only in peer-reviewed journals in a limited
period of time (2016–2022) and dealing with a protocol-driven
systematic review might have excluded other relevant articles.
Further, the SLRs focusing on a specific manufacturing industry
(such as textile or petrochemical industries), local geographies,
or a specific process/machine level that we have excluded could
have further enriched the study.
Finally, we hope that this study’s contributions will help schol-
ars and practitioners gain a clear and comprehensive overview of
the field of energy efficiency in the manufacturing industry and
its various branches.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for
their many valuable comments and suggestions in the prepara-
tion of this manuscript. Moreover, the authors give thanks to our
colleagues Kamal EL Hachimi, Jabrane Slimani and, Zouhair Ibn
Batouta for proofreading the manuscript and language help.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653

Table A.1
Search protocol.
A. Research question(s)
A.1 Which are the literature reviews on energy efficiency in the manufacturing industry?
A.2 What are their formal review features?
A.3 What are the EE themes and subjects covered in the reviews?
A.4 How can these subjects be categorized and integrated into a framework?
B. Database Scopus
C. Search criteria
C.1 Language: English
C.2 Subject areas(s): All
C.3 Journal(s): All
C.4 Document type(s): Review
C.5 Source type: Journal
C.6 Search field(s): Title, abstract and keywords
C.7 Date of publication: 2016–2022
C.8 Date of search: 08-June-2022
D. Search terms
Keywords combinations Scopus hits
D.1 ‘‘energy efficiency’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’ 23
D.2 ‘‘energy saving’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’ 7
D.3 ‘‘energy awareness’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’ 0
D.4 ‘‘energy management’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’ 6
D.5 ‘‘energy consumption’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’ 21
D.6 ‘‘energy analysis’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’ 4
Total 61
E. Inclusion criteria
E.1 Article is a literature review AND
E.2 Subject has one or more energy efficiency function AND
E.3 Subject is in the context of manufacturing industry AND
E.4 The article follows a protocol-driven systematic review
F. Exclusion criteria
F.1 Editorials or conference proceedings OR
F.2 Not energy efficiency focused OR
F.3 Focus on a specific manufacturing industry OR
F.4 Focus on local geographies OR
F.5 Focus on a specific process/machine level OR
F.6 Not available online as a full text
G. Search results
G.1 From D.1 keyword search 23
G.2 After titles, abstracts, keywords and methodology screen 4
G.3 From crossreferences 1st round 8 new relevant reviews
G.4 From crossreferences 2nd round 3 new relevant reviews
G.5 From crossreferences 3rd round No new relevant reviews
G.6 From D.2, D.3, D.4, D.5 and D.6 keywords combination searches 7 + 0 + 6 + 21 + 4 = 38
G.7 From titles screen No new relevant reviews
Total relevant articles 15

Appendix A occurrences obtained in the first half of 2022 amounts to 731,

Search protocol
The amount of published research on energy efficiency in the
manufacturing industry has substantially increased over the last
20 years. Since the late 1990s, this research area has generated a
broad body of literature on various themes and forms of knowl-
edge studied from different angles. A quick search on the Science
Direct database (ScienceDirect.com, 2023) for the terms ‘‘energy
efficiency’’ and ‘‘energy management’’ on June 13th, 2022, re-
turned 171,053 and 38,856 results, respectively. These number
jump to 1,754,706 and 805,280 for the request without quotation
marks in the search words. The amount of results reached when
the manufacturing industry sector has been taken into account
(search (‘‘energy efficiency’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’) and
search (‘‘energy management’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’))
amounted to 6134 and 1545, respectively. Nearly 85% of the
publications have appeared in the last ten years (since 2012).
Based on the results of the last 03 years, the trend of publi-
cations is linearly increasing (+15% per year). The number of
4650
slightly surpassing the total occurrences of 2019.
Likewise, the number of literature reviews, has been on the
rise. Indeed, 509 and 1969 results are obtained for the searches
(‘‘energy efficiency’’ AND ‘‘manufacturing industry’’ AND ‘‘litera-
ture review’’), on the one hand, and (‘‘energy management’’ AND
‘‘manufacturing industry’’ AND ‘‘literature review’’), on the other
hand.
Table A.1 lists the research questions that drive this study.
We intend to identify existing literature reviews on energy ef-
ficiency in the manufacturing industry (research question A.1),
distinguish their methodological reviewing approach (research
question A.2), then identify the energy efficiency themes and sub-
jects (research question A.3), afterwards, elaborate an integrated
conceptual framework of EEMI (research question A.4). To that
end, we carried out a search protocol, inspired from Martins and
Pato (2019), with the characteristics detailed in Table A.1. The
search protocol comprises the steps for gathering the input mate-
rial (steps A through D) and the criteria followed to identify and
examine the pertinent works to answer the research questions
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
(steps E and F). Finally, the outcome of the search protocol is
presented (step G).
Appendix B
Search keywords definition
The first stage of the literature search strategy (Fig. 1 in Sec-
tion 2) determines the scope. Only those review papers using both
of the following terms are considered in this tertiary review:
• Energy Efficiency;
• Manufacturing Industry.
After conducting a preliminary search on Scopus, and on the basis
of keywords from a sample of highly cited articles in the current
research area, it was found that using the combination of these
two keywords exclusively was quite restrictive. Indeed, some
articles use terms with a similar objective to energy efficiency,
for example, ‘‘energy saving’’ or ‘‘energy awareness’’. This said,
to collect more relevant work in this field, the definition of the
keywords has been extended. Indeed, the context of this research
was determined, and other words were associated with the term
‘‘energy’’ to match the recurrent keywords used in the literature
to designate energy efficiency. The keywords combinations are
listed in the search terms (D) on Table A.1.
Acceptance criteria and search workflow
The second stage of the literature search strategy (Fig. 1 in Sec-
tion 2) is about the search activity itself. The literature search was
realized using Scopus search engine. Elsevier’s Scopus database
includes over 84 million records from more than 25,800 journals
(Scopus, 2023).
The search was limited to returning English-speaking peer-
reviewed articles registered as ‘‘review’’ and, as the majority of
high-quality scientific contributions are published in journals,
it was restricted to journals articles, published between 2016
and 2022 (a seven-year period) without limitation to scientific
areas or journals. Conference proceedings, e.g., Bahij et al. (2021),
reviews with a specific manufacturing industry or local geography
or machine tool focus, e.g., Oliveira et al. (2020), Johansson and
Thollander (2018) and Li et al. (2017), were not included due
to exclusion criteria F.1, F.3, F.4 and F5, respectively. Moreover,
literature reviews that address energy efficiency from a level be-
yond the boundaries of this study are excluded from the final list,
e.g. Marchi and Zanoni (2017), which addresses energy efficiency
from a global supply chain viewpoint instead of a manufacturing
level.
The search was executed on the title, abstract, and keyword
fields. It was broken down into six literature searches using the
combination of keywords cited previously. Numerous screenings
and cross-reference check steps were carried out in order to se-
lect relevant publications. The screening methodology, explained
below, is adopted from Narciso and Martins (2020) schematically
described in Fig. 2.
Once the initial keyword combination search is complete (step
1 in Fig. 2), all titles of articles identified by the search are
read (step 2), and only those implying a meaningful contribution
in accordance with the research goals (i.e., the inclusion and
exclusion criteria) are kept. The rest of the articles are excluded
from any further analysis. In Step 3, the abstracts and keywords
of all articles from Step 2 are read to more closely assess the im-
portance and contents of each paper. Only articles directly related
to EE in the manufacturing industry are included in the relevant
articles list. The rest of the articles are removed from the search.
In step 4, the research methodology for all papers identified in
4651
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
step 3 is reviewed, and only those dealing with a clear protocol-
driven systematic review are saved. The first iteration is thus
achieved. Due to possible imperfections in step 1 of the search
methodology, the risk of missing any relevant works is reduced
in step 5, which focuses on screening cross-references, taking into
account citations to and from papers selected in step 4. Each of
these additional articles is subjected to the same screening strat-
egy (steps 2–4) to identify relevant and not previously identified
papers. Steps 2 − 3 − 4 − 5 are reiterated as often as necessary such
that all newly identified articles in step 4 no longer comprise new
cross-references to previously identified articles, thus completing
the process of selecting relevant articles from the first keyword
combination. After that, the research methodology is repeated
for the other keyword combinations to identify any new relevant
articles.
Descriptive and content analysis
In the third stage of the proposed literature search method-
ology (Fig. 1), papers selected in stage 2 are thoroughly read. To
organize the descriptive and content analysis, a data extraction
form was created in a Microsoft Excel worksheet, consisting of
two essential parts. First, it is filled out using the elements that
will form the basis of the descriptive analysis, namely: pub-
lication year, journal, country, period covered and, number of
articles. Second, it contains the formal features analysis which
includes both objective and material synthesis. Finally, the com-
plete content analysis of the reviews is carried out to extract the
technical data, and more specifically, the aspects related to energy
efficiency in the manufacturing industry. This collected material
will be, subsequently, the basis for categories elaboration.
Category elaboration and framework conceptualization
The category identification process can be deductive or induc-
tive. The former determines the categories before examining the
articles, which are then analyzed on the basis of the categories.
In the inductive method, articles are read again and again, and
categories are developed during the coding process (May et al.,
2017).
The paper at hand is based on an inductive approach. After
a thorough and recurrent reading of the review articles, the key
aspects related to EE in the context of the manufacturing industry
have been identified. Subsequently, themes with commonalities
were grouped into general titles. This forms the categories that
will be detailed in the content analysis section. Finally, Section 3.4
dresses a conceptual framework through a critical analysis to
classify the categories according to their knowledge forms.
References
Abdelaziz, E.A., Saidur, R., Mekhilef, S., 2011. A review on energy saving strategies
in industrial sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (1), 150–168. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.003.
Abedinnia, H., Glock, C.H., Grosse, E.H., Schneider, M., 2017. Machine scheduling
problems in production: A tertiary study keywords: Systematic literature re-
view review of reviews scheduling in production. Mach. Scheduling Tertiary
Study http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.026.
Allard, S., 2004. Knowledge creation. Handb. Knowl. Manage. 1, 367–379. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24746-3_18.
Andrei, M., Thollander, P., Sannö, A., 2022. Knowledge demands for energy man-
agement in manufacturing industry - A systematic literature review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112168.
Bahij, M., Labbadi, M., Cherkaoui, M., Chatri, C., Elkhatiri, A., Elouerghi, A.,
2021. A review on the prediction of energy consumption in the industry
sector based on machine learning approaches. In: 2021 4th International
Symposium on Advanced Electrical and Communication Technologies, ISAECT
2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISAECT53699.2021.9668559.
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Bänsch, K., Busse, J., Meisel, F., Rieck, J., Scholz, S., Volling, T., Wichmann, M.G.,
2021. Energy-aware decision support models in production environments:
A systematic literature review. Comput. Ind. Eng. 159. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cie.2021.107456.
Batouta, Z.I., Dehbi, R., Talea, M., Hajoui, O., 2016. Automation in code genera-
tion: Tertiary and systematic mapping review. Colloq. Inf. Sci. Technol. CIST
200–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CIST.2016.7805042.
Bellat, A., Tyass, I., Mansouri, K., Raihani, A., 2022. New approach to optimize
the cost and interconnections of wind turbines using the PSO algorithm. E3S
Web Conf. 336, 00013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/E3SCONF/202233600013.
Biel, K., Glock, C.H., 2016. Systematic literature review of decision support
models for energy-efficient production planning. Comput. Ind. Eng. 101,
243–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.08.021.
Boharb, A., Allouhi, A., Saidur, R., Kousksou, T., Jamil, A., Mourad, Y., Benbas-
sou, A., 2016. Auditing and analysis of energy consumption of an industrial
site in Morocco. Energy 101, 332–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2016.02.035.
Briner, R.B., Denyer, D., 2012. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a
practice and scholarship tool. In: The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based
Management. Oxford University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199763986.013.0007.
Bush, A., Palasciano, C., Staudacher, A.P., Taisch, M., Vitali, S., 2014. Investigating
lean methodology for energy efficient manufacturing. In: Advances in Pro-
duction Management Systems. Innovative and Knowledge-Based Production
Management in a Global-Local World: IFIP WG 5.7 International Conference,
APMS 2014, Ajaccio, France, September 20-24, 2014, Proceedings, Part II,
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 508–517.
Charhouni, N., Sallaou, M., Mansouri, K., 2018. Design analysis of critical concepts
influence wind farm production and efficiency. Int. J. Eng. Res. Afr. 40,
136–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/WWW.SCIENTIFIC.NET/JERA.40.136.
El Majaty, S., Touzani, A., Kasseh, Y., 2022. Results and perspectives of the
application of an energy management system based on ISO 50001 in
administrative buildings - case of Morocco. Mater. Today: Proc. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.07.094.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), US., 2021. International Energy Outlook
narrative. From www.eia.gov, Retrieved March 11, 2023.
European Union, 2021. Carbon border adjustment mechanism. (n.d.), from
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/green-taxation-0/carbon-border-
adjustment-mechanism_en, Retrieved March 11, 2023.
Fink, A., 2019. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to
Paper. Sage publications.
Fleischmann, B., Meyr, H., Wagner, M., 2005. Advanced planning. supply chain
management and advanced planning. In: Concepts, Models, Software and
Case Studies, third ed. pp. 81–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-24814-
5_5/COVER.
Gahm, C., Denz, F., Dirr, M., Tuma, A., 2016. Energy-efficient scheduling in
manufacturing companies: A review and research framework. European J.
Oper. Res. 248 (3), 744–757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.017.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 2009. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. https://books.google.com/bookshl=fr&lr=&id=rtiNK68Xt
08C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=UXAZXh2FWJ&sig=Yz4WvMcMNjjSXFwHLG-5jhSH
yyA.
Hasan, A.S.M.M., Trianni, A., 2020. A review of energy management assessment
models for industrial energy efficiency. Energies 13 (21), http://dx.doi.org/
10.3390/en13215713.
IEA, International Energy Agency, 2023. Germany - Countries & Regions -
IEA. (n.d.), from https://www.iea.org/countries/germany, Retrieved March 11,
2023.
IEA, International Energy Agency, 2021. Industry – topics. From https://www.
iea.org/topics/industryv. Retrieved March 11, 2023.
International Energy Agency, 2012. The EU energy efficiency directive
(2012/27/EU) – policies - IEA. From https://www.iea.org/policies/1118-the-
eu-energy-efficiency-directive-201227eu. Retrieved March 11, 2023.
ISO - ISO 50001, 2018. Energy management. From https://www.iso.org/fr/iso-
50001-energy-management.html. Retrieved March 11, 2023.
ISO - ISO 50002, 2014. Energy audits – Requirements with guidance for use.
from https://www.iso.org/standard/60088.html, Retrieved March 11, 2023.
Johansson, M.T., Thollander, P., 2018. A review of barriers to and driving forces
for improved energy efficiency in Swedish industry– Recommendations for
successful in-house energy management. In: Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Vol. 82. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 618–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.09.052.
Kaya, A., Keyes IV, M.A., 1980. Energy management technology in pulp, paper
and allied industries. IFAC Proc. Vol. 13 (12), 609–622.
Kluczek, A., Olszewski, P., 2017. Energy audits in industrial processes. J. Clean.
Prod. 142, 3437–3453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.123.
Li, L., Li, C., Tang, Y., Yi, Q., 2017. Influence factors and operational strategies
for energy efficiency improvement of CNC machining. In: Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 161. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 220–238). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.05.084.
4652
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
Marchi, B., Zanoni, S., 2017. Supply chain management for improved energy
efficiency: Review and opportunities. Energies 10 (10), http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/en10101618.
Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Govindan, K., Senin, A.Amat., Jusoh, A., 2016.
VIKOR technique: A systematic review of the state of the art literature on
methodologies and applications. Sustainability 8 (1), 37.
Martins, C.L., Pato, M.V., 2019. Supply chain sustainability: A tertiary litera-
ture review. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 225. Elsevier Ltd, pp.
995–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.250.
May, G., Stahl, B., Taisch, M., Kiritsis, D., 2017. Energy management in manu-
facturing: From literature review to a conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod.
167, 1464–1489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.191.
Mayring, P., 2004. Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative
research 1 (2), 159–176.
MEM: Ministery of Energy and Mines, Morocco, (2019). Audit
Énergétique Obligatoire. From https://www.mem.gov.ma/Lists/Lst_Textes_
Reglementaires/Attachments/201/AEO-RecueilJuridique201120.pdf. Retrieved
March 11, 2023.
Menghi, R., Papetti, A., Germani, M., Marconi, M., 2019. Energy efficiency of
manufacturing systems: A review of energy assessment methods and tools.
J. Clean. Prod. 240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118276.
Mickovic, A., Wouters, M., 2020. Energy costs information in manufacturing
companies: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 254. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119927.
Narciso, D.A.C., Martins, F.G., 2020. Application of machine learning tools for
energy efficiency in industry: A review. Energy Rep. 6, 1181–1199. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.04.035.
Nolde, K., Morari, M., 2010. Electrical load tracking scheduling of a steel
plant. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34 (11), 1899–1903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compchemeng.2010.01.011.
Oliveira, M.C., Iten, M., Cruz, P.L., Monteiro, H., 2020. Review on energy efficiency
progresses, technologies and strategies in the ceramic sector focusing on
waste heat recovery. Energies 13 (22), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13226096.
Qin, J., Liu, Y., Grosvenor, R., 2017. A framework of energy consumption
modelling for additive manufacturing using internet of things. Proc. CIRP
63, 307–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.02.036.
Rampasso, I.S., Filho, G.P.M., Anholon, R., de Araujo, R.A., Lima, G.B.A., Zotes, L.P.,
Filho, W.L., 2019. Challenges presented in the implementation of sustainable
energy management via ISO 50001:2011. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11
(22), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11226321.
Rohdin, P., Thollander, P., 2006. Barriers to and driving forces for energy
efficiency in the non-energy intensive manufacturing industry in Sweden.
Energy 31 (12), 1836–1844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.10.010.
Safarzadeh, S., Rasti-Barzoki, M., Hejazi, S.R., 2020. A review of optimal energy
policy instruments on industrial energy efficiency programs, rebound ef-
fects, and government policies. Energy Policy 139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2020.111342.
Salah, S.A., Mustafa, A., 2021. Specific energy consumption integration of energy
saving with lean production in a food processing company. J. Mach. Eng. 21
(4), 118–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.36897/jme/142394.
Sandberg, P., 2003. Industrial energy efficiency: the need for investment decision
support from a manager perspective. Energy policy 31 (15), 1623–1634.
Schulze, M., Nehler, H., Ottosson, M., Thollander, P., 2016. Energy management
in industry - A systematic review of previous findings and an integrative
conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3692–3708. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.060.
2023. ScienceDirect.com v ert science, health and medical journals, full text
articles and books. (n.d.). from https://www.sciencedirect.com/, Retrieved
March 11, 2023.
Scopus, 2023. Content Policy and Selection - Content - Solutions |. Elsevier,
(n.d.). from https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/
content/content-policy-and-selection, Retrieved March 11, 2023.
Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2012. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews
in supply chain management. Supply Chain Manage. 17 (5), 544–555. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609.
Slimani, J., Kadrani, A., El Harraki, I., Ezzahid, E.H., 2021. Renewable en-
ergy development in Morocco: Reflections on optimal choices through
long-term bottom-up modeling. In: International Conference on Electrical,
Computer, and Energy Technologies, ICECET 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
ICECET52533.2021.9698630.
Solnørdal, M.T., Foss, L., 2018. Closing the energy efficiency gap-a systematic
review of empirical articles on drivers to energy efficiency in manufacturing
firms. Energies 11 (3), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en11030518.
Sorrell, S., 2015. Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and
approaches. In: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 47. Elsevier
Ltd, pp. 74–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.002.
K. Ibn Batouta, S. Aouhassi and K. Mansouri
Terbrack, H., Claus, T., Herrmann, F., 2021. Energy-oriented production plan-
ning in industry: A systematic literature review and classification scheme.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (23), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132313317.
Tesch da Silva, F.S., da Costa, C.A., Paredes Crovato, C.D., da Rosa Righi, R.,
2020. Looking at energy through the lens of industry 4.0: A systematic
literature review of concerns and challenges. Comput. Ind. Eng. 143, 106426.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CIE.2020.106426.
The European Parliament, 2008. Directive 2008/1/EC of the european parliament
and of the council of 15 2008 concerning integrated pollution preven-
tion and control. From https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/{u}ri=
CELEX:32008L0001. Retrieved March 11, 2023.
The European Parliament, The Council, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/ 2002
of the European parliament and of the council - of 11 December
2018 - amending directive 2012/ 27/ EU on energy efficiency. Off. J.
Eur. Union. From https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=
CELEX:32018L2002&from=EN. Retrieved March 11, 2023.
4653
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 4635–4653
Thollander, P., Backlund, S., Trianni, A., Cagno, E., 2013. Beyond barriers - A
case study on driving forces for improved energy efficiency in the foundry
industries in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden.
Appl. Energy 111, 636–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.036.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review*.
Br. J. Manage. 14.
Tyass, I., Bellat, A., Raihani, A., Mansouri, K., Khalili, T., 2022. Wind speed
prediction based on seasonal ARIMA model. E3S Web Conf. 336, 00034.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/E3SCONF/202233600034.
Walther, J., Weigold, M., 2021. A systematic review on predicting and forecasting
the electrical energy consumption in the manufacturing industry. Energies
14 (4), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14040968.
World commission on environment and development, 1987. Our com-
mon future. http://www.ask-force.org/web/Sustainability/Brundtl{and}-Our-
Common-Future-1987-2008.pdf, ask-force.org.