Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Exploring industrial waste management challenges and smart solutions: An

integrated hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach
Zahra Khoshsepehr , Saeed Alinejad *, Moslem Alimohammadlou
Department of Management, Economic, Management and Social Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Zhen Leng Industrial waste encompasses all types of waste generated from industrial, manufacturing, and mining activities.
To minimize adverse environmental impacts, industrial waste can be effectively managed through imple­
Keywords: mentingsmart technologies. The present study aimed to identify the challenges of industrial waste management
industrial waste management challenges and propose smart solutions to effectively manage these challenges. The findings derived from a systematic
Smart industrial waste management
literature review indicate that the challenges of industrial waste management can be classified into five di­
HF-BWM
mensions within the STEEGO model. By evaluating the weights of each dimension using the HF-BWM method,
TISM
HF-DEMATEL the “organizational” dimension, with a weight of 0.27, was found to be the severest challenge, while the
HF-QFD “technological” dimension, with a weight of 0.347, was considered to be the most probable challenge.
Furthermore, the findings from conceptual modeling, using the TISM method, show that the primary challenges
in industrial waste management include: “a lack of culture for effective waste management”, “insufficient
training on legal waste drainage and proper waste digestion”, and “a lack of specific technical instructions for
refining and recycling." To overcome these challenges, smart solutions have been proposed. The result of the HF-
QFD method indicate that the most important solution is “constructing smart infrastructure for proper waste
management”, with a score of 0.27.
The novelty of this study lies in the theoretical development of the model for the challenges of industrial waste
management by applying the “organizational” dimension, considering both biological and physical aspects in the
“environmental” dimension, identifying smart solutions to overcome the challenges for cleaner industrial waste
systems, as well as using smart industrial waste management technologies in different industries.
Our results emphasize that, given the type of waste, industry managers should employ specific smart tech­
nologies for disposing and recycling industrial waste. This approach can prevent the loss of raw materials and
protect the environment from various types of waste.

1. Introduction
The global population growth and development of new technologies
have accelerated the production rates of many products; thereby stim­
ulating industrial activities. Such transformations have changed the
consumption patterns of many products in developing countries, where
consumer needs and demands are rapidly changing (Adar et al., 2022).
Expanding manufacturing activities and establishing industrial units on
a global scale in different industries (e.g., petrochemical, food, oil,
steel), as well as diverse products with various applications, have
increased the volume of industrial hazardous waste (Shahbaz et al.,
2023). In 2016, global waste generation reached 2010 Tgy − 1 and is
predicted to be 3400 Tgy − 1 by 2025 (Chaudhary et al., 2021). Cities are
expanding all around the world, requiring massive amounts of various
resources (e.g., cement for construction, food, clean water, oil, elec­
tricity). Because cities are thermodynamic systems, constant resource
consumption has led to irreparable outcomes such as waste generation,
contaminated water pools, and air pollution (Awasthi et al., 2021). Most
industries generate huge amounts of waste to respond to requirements of
technology development as well as consumer demands. These types of
waste are called industrial waste.
As cited in Schoeman et al. (2021a), industrial waste, an inevitable
byproduct of manufacturing processes, encompasses all types of waste
resulting either from industrial and manufacturing operations or pro­
cesses. Industrial waste usually includes different types of waste such as
garbage produced in cities, wastewater, hazardous materials,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.khoshsepehr@rose.shirazu.ac.ir (Z. Khoshsepehr), Saeed.Alinejad@shirazu.ac.ir (S. Alinejad), mslmaml@shirazu.ac.ir (M. Alimohammadlou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138327
Received 14 February 2023; Received in revised form 21 July 2023; Accepted 2 August 2023
Available online 4 August 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
construction and demolition waste, slags, sewage sludge, and other
types of waste associated with non-flammable, workshop, and greasy
substances/materials (Schoeman et al., 2021b). Industrial waste may
include different forms of hazardous and non-hazardous components.
Industrial activities, account for generating manufacturing, mining, and
agriculture wastes. Hazardous industrial waste mostly contains sub­
stances detrimental to human health and the environment such as sol­
vents, heavy metals, and chemicals (e.g. lead, mercury, chromium,
arsenic) (American Public Health Association, 2023). On the other hand,
non-hazardous industrial waste include non-harmful but still problem­
atic materials (e.g. tires, electronics, and furniture), construction debris,
food waste (Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). In addition to
industrial waste, other forms of waste may include:
Sewage carrying disease-causing pathogens (wastewater originating
from homes and businesses such as food particles, human waste, soap,
detergent). Agricultural waste from farms and harvest, poultry houses,
and slaughterhouses (a variety of materials that appear as a result of
diverse agricultural processes) as well as fertilizer runoff, pesticides left
in water, air and soil, drainage of salt and silt (Duodu et al., 2022); and
municipal solid waste or MSW generated in homes and businesses such
as furniture, glass, electronics, paper, plastic, metal and food scraps
(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022). Although
various types of waste are generated worldwide, our focus in the present
study is on industrial solid and liquid waste.
The pollutants generated through industrial production processes
appear in both liquid (industrial wastewater) and solid (industrial solid
waste) forms (Tian et al., 2022). Industries usually generate waste in
solid forms. Industrial waste produced as a result of industrial produc­
tion is divided into two general types: solid waste and industrial solid
waste (Zhao et al., 2022). Wastewater generated from industrial pro­
cesses contains infectious pathogens, and is often oxidizing, corrosive,
harmful, toxic, carcinogenic, and ecotoxic. For example, wastewater
containing pharmaceuticals, chemicals, or dyes is toxic to humans and
other animals (Adar et al., 2022). Contaminations caused by industrial
waste lead to problems that are more complex than those arising from
other types of waste. Pollutants generated by industrial development
impose a huge amount of stress on the environment. Among these, in­
dustrial wastewater involves complex pollution components and a high
pollution concentration, which will not only pollute water bodies but
also threaten human health and safety (Tian et al., 2022).
One of the most pressing challenges in the face of rapid industriali­
zation is environmental sustainability. Untreated or non-refined waste
can emit toxic and hazardous materials to the environment, contributing
to the growth of pathogenic microorganisms (Sharma et al., 2022).
Inadequate waste management or segregation can give rise to the gen­
eration of hazardous materials that can impose major costs on organi­
zations (Chaudhary et al., 2021). One could argue that contamination
and massive amounts of unmanaged waste will represent one of the most
serious threats facing humanity. It will be extremely important for so­
cieties to implement effective waste management (Mukherjee et al.,
2021). Waste management involves a complex process that, besides
disposal activities, involves such mechanisms as collection, trans­
portation, temporary storage, processing, and dumping. This process is
concerned with properly managing and disposing waste or recycling and
reusing (Fatimah et al., 2020).
In most middle-income or third-world countries, factory managers
often dump their waste, without any supervision, along roads or in open
spaces so that it may be naturally disintegrated or incinerated. They may
even leave waste in sea water (Adar et al., 2022). Such unjustifiable
actions can lead to serious health and safety issues, insanitary condi­
tions, and contaminations. Insanitary conditions and poor management
can give rise to various problems such as a growing number of pests,
contaminated runoff water and leachate discharge, and social unrest due
to disgusting landfill odors (Schoeman et al., 2021b). Also, collected
wastecan pose major health issues to individuals. Waste disposal
through the traditional waste management system, which operates on a
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
daily basis, is extremely impractical and costly. Recycling bins have also
proven to be widely ineffective (Shah et al., 2019).
Such observations underscore the urgent importance of using smart
technologies in industrial sectors. Recently, novel ways of waste man­
agement through Industry 4.0 (I4.0) smart technologies have come to
the fore. Such technologies can serve such processes as reusing, recy­
cling, and repairing industrial waste (Wilts et al., 2021). Smart tech­
nologies can help replace the traditional waste management systems
with new systems equipped with smart sensors, and to provide a
real-time supervision mechanism and a more advanced management
structure (Sheng et al., 2020). Using smart technologies (either in
combination or separately in some cases) in industrial waste manage­
ment can enhance disposal or recycling operations. However, if such
technologies are implemented in organizations without specifically and
scientifically formulated plans and without considering types of waste,
they will fail to be helpful and can even impose huge costs on organi­
zations (Fatimah et al., 2020).
Many studies have explored industrial waste and challenges to waste
management, although they have mostly focused on solid industrial
waste (e.g. de Azevedo et al., 2022). However, industrial waste also
includes leachate and wastewater (e.g. Shahbaz et al., 2023), which are
usually poured into water bodies by organizations, and thus damage
aquatic ecosystems. To the best of our knowledge, no study has ever
explored all industrial wastes simultaneously or investigated their
challenges comprehensively. Similarly, no study has handled proper
industrial waste management by focusing on indicators and solutions
offered by smart technologies. Probing into the challenges of industrial
waste management and selecting appropriate smart technologies to
respond to such challenges are activities that face a huge degree of un­
certainty, which has remained unaddressed in the literature.
The purpose of this study is to identify the challenges of industrial
waste management by considering all types of industrial waste and to
propose solutions to such challenges based on a smart waste manage­
ment mechanism in a fuzzy environment. Firstly, the challenges of waste
management are identified through a systematic literature review. Next,
the total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) method is used to
structure the relationships between the challenges. The hesitant fuzzy
best-worst method (HF-BWM) identifies the most severe and most
probable challenges, and the hesitant fuzzy decision-making trial and
evaluation (HF-DEMATEL) method determines the causal relationships
between the challenges identified. The hesitant fuzzy quality function
deployment (HF-QFD) method helps to prioritize smart solutions for
waste management.
The main contributions of this study can be summarized as follows:
(a) the development of theoretical concepts in smart waste management;
(b) proposing the “STEEGO” model to handle the challenges of waste
management and offering smart solutions for the management of in­
dustrial waste; and (c) most notably, suggesting various decision-
making methods in a hesitant fuzzy (HF) environment. The HF
methods are applied in this study to address the uncertainty of expert
opinions in relation to the most severe and probable challenges to waste
management as well as the most significant Smart solutions for indus­
trial waste management.
2. Literature review
This section of the study explains such concepts as waste, waste
management, and smart industrial waste management by reviewing all
studies on waste management and highlighting the research gap.
2.1. Waste
“Waste” is an abandoned mass or unwanted surplus volume of a
substance generated by different anthropogenic and/or biological ac­
tivities. It can be divided into several types based on the source of
generation, hazardous properties, disposal techniques, and degradation
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
properties (Srivastava, et al., 2023). Societies face two major challenges,
namely declining fossils fuel resources and increasing waste generation.
Wastes are composed of different compounds, most of which are
economically valuable or contain energy. Wastes are divided into three
types: commercial and industrial waste, construction and demolition
waste, and municipal solid waste (Kabirifar et al., 2021). Abdel-Shafy
and Mansour (2018) state that organic products, produced by factories,
workshops, and companies, are all types of industrial waste including
fruits and vegetables, meat, sugar, poultry, dairy products, paper, pulp,
etc. Most of these wastes can be used as sources or supplements for the
fermentation process that creates valuable products.
2.2. Waste management
Waste management involves all activities necessary for supervising
waste from the time it is generated until it is collected, transported, and
positioned in its final destination (disposal, incineration, or recycling).
In recent years, the proper management of this process has proven to be
a global challenge (Pardini et al., 2020). Waste management involves
three beneficiaries: the government, industries, and society. Schoeman
et al. (2021a) believe that although steel is the most recyclable entity in
the world, the current approaches rely on operational practices and
unstable waste management that result in environmental contamination
over the lifespan of steel. If such biodegrading and indecomposable
wastes are dumped into the ground, they can seriously threaten the
environment and people (Nanda and Berruti, 2021). Shah et al. (2019)
also point out that collected waste could endanger human health and
give rise to such diseases as malaria and cholera, although such waste is
usually dumped into puddles, pools, rivers, and agricultural lands.
In the absence of an effective and efficient waste management plan,
wastes generated as a result of municipal activities, whether industrial
or residential, can lead to health risks and degrade the environment.
Aazam et al. (2016) mentioned that all of these risks occur due to a lack
of standard operational procedures for waste management. It is neces­
sary for countries worldwide to move toward smart waste management.
2.3. Smart industrial waste management
Smart technologies in waste management mostly concentrate on
positioning systems (e.g., GPS, GIS), data collection tools (e.g., sensors,
imaging), identification systems (e.g., barcode, RFID), and data in
general. Data transfer mechanisms (e.g., Bluetooth, WIFI, GSM) can be
highly effective (Esmaeilizadeh et al., 2020). According to the UN,
digital tools contribute to the efficiency of waste management. Smart
technologies can reduce CO2 emissions as much as 60% in cities. With
the emergence of a new paradigm called the Internet of Things (IoT), the
global industry has been undergoing massive transformations (Lenkie­
wicz, 2016). IoT advancements can enhance the waste management
system. Installing sensors in dustbins, coupled with IoT connections, can
make real-time supervision possible. These technologies have not been
properly implemented in waste management systems yet.
Employing these technologies can help gather data from such factors
as fill-level, humidity, temperature, and other related variables through
sensors. Such data can then be transferred to the processing system for
storage and analysis. Through investigations of processed data, the
limitations of existing waste management systems can be revealed and
as a result the functionality of the system can be improved. Imple­
menting IoT in dustbins represents one step toward having a smart city.
Smart management, of course, requires a combination of unified smart
technologies that together facilitate the waste management process
(Sheng et al., 2020).
Shayesteh et al. (2020) observed that most industrial townships
faced waste management problems to select proper disposal practices.
Although such townships consume large amounts of resources, they
generate a huge volume of solid waste that is responsible for many
pollutants, and irreparably damage the environment. Various ways of
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
managing industrial waste, such as sanitary disposal, incineration,
thermal decomposition, and recycling, involve specific advantages and
disadvantages (Naveen et al., 2017). I4.0 technologies can contribute to
this process. Waste management is one of the most important industrial
processes that can be enhanced by digital transformations, such as
sensors and software algorithms (e.g., IoT). Employing existing and
real-time data captured through sensors can make it possible to cut costs,
increase productivity, improve quality, and use resources efficiently
(Vafeiadis et al., 2018). The proper management of waste is a critical
challenge that remains to be answered. Table 1 lists the studies inves­
tigating industrial waste management (Fig. 3 shows how these studies
were selected).
2.4. Research gap
As Table 1 shows, over the years, researchers tried to identify the
challenges to waste management and propose methods that could
properly manage different types of waste. Because the quality of urban
waste is considerably different from that of industrial waste, no
researcher ever managed to propose a consistent and comprehensive
model for proper industrial waste management. One of the most
important studies was conducted by Iacovidou and Zorpas (2022), who
identified six dimensions of challenges to waste management: economic,
social, environmental, technological, legal, and political (the STEEGO
model). Nonetheless, they identified a limited number of challenges in
each dimension, failing to provide a comprehensive outline of the
existing challenges in industrial waste management. The challenges
were left unassessed and no solution was proposed to overcome them. In
response to these gaps, the present study seeks to develop a substantial
model by considering all challenges to industrial waste management. It
also tries to solve these obstacles by proposing smart solutions. Such
contributions could further expand the theoretical domains of industrial
waste management in the light of smart technologies, offering practical
solutions that organizations can adopt in the face of such impediments.
Researchers in most of these studies relied on statistical methods to
identify, evaluate, and manage industrial waste. The only study that
used multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods for industrial
waste management was conducted by Adar et al. (2022), who drew on
the AHP-COCOSO approach in a crisp environment. It must, however, be
noted that because the value of each challenge to industrial waste
management and that of each smart solution to the challenges involve a
high degree of uncertainty, which is exasperated by the uncertainty in
expert opinions, this study employs various modern fuzzy logic tech­
niques to handle this uncertainty.
3. Research method
This section consists of two parts: Hesitant Fuzzy Sets and Research
Phases. Because the study conducted its analyses in a hesitant fuzzy
environment, the concept of hesitant fuzzy sets is briefly explained
below, before explaining the research steps.
3.1. Hesitant fuzzy sets
As an extension of fuzzy sets, an HFS performs the complex function
of determining the membership of an element in a set. This task can be
specifically difficult when values show a degree of ambiguity (Xu,
2014). Proposed by Torra (2010), the HFS displays hesitance in the face
of an uncertain environment. An HFS provides an effective function in
cases that the membership of an element to a set is complex because
there is some doubt about the values assigned.
Definition 1. Consider X to be a fixed set.An HFS A on X is constructed
according to the function hA (x). If applied to X, this function returns a
finite subset of [0, 1]. Offering a simplified version, Xia and Xu formu­
late HFS using a mathematical symbol (Xia and Xu, 2011):
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Table 1
The literature on waste and industrial waste management.
Authors Purpose of the study
Kumar et al. Challenges and opportunities
(2017) associated with waste
management in India.
Ghosh and Di Comparing the challenges,
Maria (2018) issues, and strategies related
to bio-waste management in
India and Italy.
Van Tuan et al. Exploring construction waste
(2018) management
Zorpas et al. Constructing a waste
(2018) prevention strategy
framework.
Menegaki and Evaluating the challenges of
Damigos waste management in
(2018) construction and demolition
projects.
Bundhoo (2018) Investigating solid waste
management in less
developed countries.
Piadeh et al. Assessing the sustainability of
(2018) hybrid advanced treatment
processes for recycling
industrial wastewater.
Al Lahou and Evaluating solid waste
Alsabbagh management in Kuwait.
(2019)
Demichelis et al. Exploring the challenges to
(2019) bio-waste management in
Italy.
Tiwary et al. Evaluating the capacity of a
(2019) renewable energy system
through bio-waste and solid
waste.
Breitenmoser Probing into opportunities
et al. (2019) and challenges related to
anaerobic digestion of bio-
waste.
Table 1 (continued )
Study results
Failure to employ proper
waste collection,
transportation, and storage
methods; a reduced rate of
fossil fuels; increasing waste
generation.
Waste recycling conducted by
the informal sector without an
economic plan; a lack of an
inefficient collection scheme
with segregation capacity;
rapid and unplanned urban
development; a lack of
practical planning;
infrastructural challenges; a
shortage of financial
resources and technical skills.
A lack of specific technical
instructions regarding
refining and recycling;
unformulated standards and
criteria for using recycled
materials.
The absence of a waste
management plan; a lack of
government supervision;
delegating responsibilities to
the private sector; failure in
active participation;
inefficient bio-waste
information tracking abilities.
The failure of the public and
private sectors to support
waste refineries.
A shortage of financial
resources and poor
infrastructure; insufficient
laws; public knowledge and
awareness of waste
management.
Economic and technological
criteria can have a major role
in assessing the challenges
caused by industrial
wastewater, when
organizations face
shortcomings in properly
disposing waste. Yet,
aftertransition to the “ideal”
state, they should focus on
social and environmental
factors.
Unawareness of consumption
patterns; limited database
information about waste
generation.
Identifying landfill sites;
assessing bio-waste in terms
of quality and quantity with
the purpose of localizing and
determining the dimensions
of bio-refineries; optimizing
the supply chain and
transportation.
Costs arising from the newly
improved technology; a lack
of planning and supervisory
instructions for waste
management.
Technical, operational,
economic, and supervisory
challenges; landfill
limitations; cost of
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
Authors Purpose of the study
Ahmad et al. Investigating the types and
(2019) compositions of wastes
generated by diary industries
and (proper) refining
procedures.
Kamali et al. Exploring the sustainability of
(2019) treatment processes for
industrial biowaste effluents.
Shahedi et al. Reviewing the literature on
(2020) the EC technique for
eliminating different types of
pollutants including organic/
mineral ones in industrial
wastewater.
Soliman and Looking into the factors that
Moustafa affect heavy metal adsorption
(2020) onto industrial solid waste,
such as contact time,
temperature, pH, and
adsorbent dose.
Fatimah et al. Exploring the issues and main
(2020) opportunities while
developing a sustainable and
smart waste management
system in Indonesia.
Kwon et al. Identifying the impacts of
(2020) biomass feedstock on the
properties of biochar and the
utilization of industrial
wastes in the fabrication of
engineered biochar.
Schoeman et al. The use of Value Stream
(2020) Mapping for industrial waste
in iron and steel industry.
Awasthi et al. Investigating the key
(2021) challenges to the
implementation of
sustainable waste
management.
Glivin et al. Probing into technological
(2021) challenges to the successful
implementation of channels
for using bio-waste.
Doneva et al. Implementing innovative
(2021) technologies in bio-waste
management.
Loizia et al. Assessing environmental
(2021) performance by formulating a
Study results
establishing refineries for
anaerobic digestion;
organizational capacities; a
lack of supervision,
maintenance, and repairs in
factories dealing with
anaerobic digestion.
The safe disposal of large
amounts of industrial waste is
a serious challenge.
Although the efficiency of
treatment processes is the
most pressing challenge in the
evaluation of industrial
biowaste, if environmental
and economic challenges are
ignored, the organization will
face problems in disposing
such waste.
The main challenges to the EC
process are electrode
deactivation and energy
consumption.
Heavy metal adsorption onto
industrial solid waste
represents a complex and
challenging process, which is
affected by numerous factors.
Currently unified waste
management systems;
organizations’ rare
participation in waste
management; limited social
awareness of environmental
sanitation; a non-optimal
implementation of
government policies.
The overall performance of
as-prepared biochar in
treating soil and water
contaminants is generally
inferior to activated carbon
due to its lower surface area
and limited functionalities.
The use of Value Stream
Mapping of industrial waste
can contribute to cost savings,
reduced waste flow,
identification of the
opportunities and challenges
of waste management
processes, promotion of lean
manufacturing and achieving
zero waste.
Financial approaches
A shortage of knowledge in
properly applying bio-waste
through smart technologies.
A lack of a technological level
that could overcome obstacles
such as changing people’s
habits and raising their
awareness.
The absence of relevant
technologies for managing bio
waste with mid-term and
(continued on next page)
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Table 1 (continued )
Authors Purpose of the study
waste management strategy
framework.
Kabirifar et al. Exploring the challenges to
(2021) the waste management of
construction and demolition
projects in Australia.
Lim et al. (2021) Investigating the current state
of technology, scalability, and
analyzing socioeconomic
factors involved in converting
bio-waste into energy in
Malaysia.
Shindhal et al. Reviewing and discussing
(2021) technological and scientific
advancements in terms of
industrial dye wastewater
treatment.
Schoeman et al. Providing a decision-making
(2021a) framework for industrial
waste management in steel
and iron industry
Schoeman et al. Developing a zero-waste
(2021b) multi-criteria decision
support model for iron and
steel industry
Iacovidou and Studying political, economic,
Zorpas (2022) social, technological,
environmental, and legal
obstacles.
Friege and Eger Proposing the best method for
(2022) biowaste collection.
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
Table 1 (continued )
Study results Authors Purpose of the study Study results
long-term capacity; a lack of a unawareness of how to
national strategy and proper categorize wastes.
place identification for Tian et al. (2022) Integrating input-output Failure to segregate ordinary
installations. analysis and ecological industrial waste and
A lack of awareness, network analysis to construct hazardous industrial solid
education, and public an industrial waste metabolic waste, ignoring
understanding; imprecise input–output (IWMIO) model. environmental factors.
waste management Adar et al. Identifying the priorities for The main challenge is how to
instructions; the nascent (2022) the industrial wastewater manage industrial wastewater
nature of waste management; management processes based dangerous for people,
the absence of unified on multiple contradictory animals, and the
regulations; wrong approach criteria. environment.
of beneficiaries toward waste Shahbaz et al. Studying the treatment and Ignoring the concepts
management; a limited (2023) safe management of waste in associated with resource
number of facilities for the oil industry. recycling and re-use, with
recycling; social, economic, circular economy.
political, and attitudinal
problems.
Poor laws and incentive E = {〈χ, hE (χ)〉|χ ∈ X}, (1)
schemes; weak refining
mechanisms and poor
where hE (χ) includes a set of values within the range [0, 1], displaying
segregation before refining;
costly and time-consuming the possible membership degrees of the element χ ∈ X to the set E.
refining stages; insufficient
financial resources; a
Definition 2. As two HFEs, h1 and h2 , can undergo the operations
tendency to incinerate wastes; below:
inexperienced staff members.
⋃
Controlling the generation of
hc = {1 − γ} (2)
wastewater composed of
γεh
hazardous chemicals, and
making efforts to extract these ⋃ ⋃
resources from industrial h1 h2 = max{γ1 , γ2 } (3)
wastewater. γ1 εh1 ,γ 2 εh2
The global average of waste
⋂ ⋂
generated per ton of steel has h1 h2 = min{γ1 , γ2 } (4)
increased by 0.3 most of γ1 εh1 ,γ 2 εh2
which is related to general
waste, followed by process ⋃{ }
waste. More than half are hλ = γλ , λ > 0 (5)
hazardous wastes. γ εh
Given the hazardous wastes
{ }
generated from the steel
hλ = 1 − (1 − r)λ (6)
industry due to the high rate
of energy consumption,
identification, prioritization h1 ⊕ h2 = {γ1 + γ 1 − γ 1 γ 2 } (7)
and management of these
wastes can contribute to h1 ⨂h2 = {γ1 γ2 } (8)
achieving zero waste and
sustainable development
through the circular ⋃
economy. Definition 3. Let h = {γ} be a sort of hesitant fuzzy element (HFE).
A lack of investment in r∈h
The score function of h is decided as follows:
infrastructure associated with
bio-waste; adopting low-cost
methods while ignoring 1 ∑
S(h) = ∗ γ, (9)
technical standards; #h r∈h
prioritizing political
concerns; failure to track
The notations list can be seen in (Table 11).
revenue; a lack of waste
segregation scheme; the
absence of a well-defined
3.2. The research phases
organizational structure;
expansive compost
production technologies; This study aimed to investigate the challenges of industrial waste
people’s unawareness of the management and to propose solutions to overcome these challenges
benefits of using biowaste; through smart technologies. To do so, the study followed several phases.
insufficiently trained workers
responsible for biowaste
In phase 1, the challenges of industrial waste management were iden­
disposal. tified and analyzed as a model. In phase 2, the indicators identified were
Impurities in biowaste; a lack weighted, and in phase 3, smart solutions were suggested for industrial
of technical, mechanical, or waste management (Fig. 1). The population included all industries
digital support in case of
active in Iran’s industrial townships. Among these organizations, those
waste collection;
unawareness of waste producing solid or liquid wastes were selected as the samples (industrial
categories; individuals’ dye manufacturers, pharmacological companies, cleaning chemical
companies, petrochemical companies, auto parts manufacturing com­
panies, etc.). For data collection, we relied on the opinions of professors
5
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Fig. 1. The research phases.
specialized in industries and smart technologies as well as industry
managers. The data were collected through interviews with six experts
(professors and industry managers) in such fields as industrial waste
management, smart technologies, and I4.0.
Phase 1. Modeling the challenges of industrial waste manage­
ment (STEEGO model)
This phase primarily identified the challenges of industrial waste
management and then used the TISM method to develop a conceptual
model.
Part 1. Identifying the challenges of industrial waste management
trough a systematic literature review.
The study relied on the systematic literature review method to
identify the challenges of industrial waste management and design
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
SEEGO model. Okoli and Schabram (2010) proposed a framework for
systematic literature reviews as described below (Okoli and Schabram,
2010).
1. Planning: Determining clearly expressed goals for the research.
2. Selection: Finding publications indexed in authentic scientific data­
bases based on the titles, abstracts, introduction sections, and
conclusion sections.
3. Extraction: Evaluating the quality of the publications and recording
the relevant information of each publication.
4. Execution: Finding and categorizing the indictors, and finally pre­
paring the research report.
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Part 2. Designing the conceptual model via TISM.
As a soft operations research technique, the TISM method addresses
problems involving complexity and vague structures. The method clar­
ifies the relationships among a number of variables by putting them into
a structure. The steps of the TISM method are briefly mentioned below
(Sushil, 2012).
5. Identifying and specifying the elements: The elements were initially
identified and determined and their interrelationships were
modeled.
6. Defining contextual relationships: To construct the model, the
contextual relationships existing among the indicators were
specified.
7. Interpreting the relationships: The classical vision of ISM seeks to
provide an interpretation how the factors in a model are associ­
ated with each other. Nonetheless, ISM cannot offer an explana­ min ξ
tory scheme that could clarify the relationships and their
functions. TISM, however, offers a vivid interpretation of the s.t.
existing relationships. ⃒ ⃒
⃒w B
8. Using the interpretive logic of pairwise comparison: The study used ⃒ − aBj ⃒ ≤ ξ, for all js
⃒w
the “interpretive matrix” to apply the TISM method. The matrix j
15. Computing the preferences: First, the preference of the best crite­
rion over all the other criteria was decided using a number
ranging from 1 to 9. AB = (aB1 , aB2 , …, aBn ) ultimately repre­
sented the best-to-others vector value. Meanwhile, the preference
of all the criteria over the worst criterion was decided through a
number falling between 1 and 9; AW = (a1W , a2W , …, anW )T for­
mulates the final others-to-worst values.
16. Calculating the importance (severity) of challenges: A criterion’s
optimal weight was established when wB /wj = aBj and wj /ww =
ajw for each pair of wB /wj and wj /ww . To realize these conditions
for all js, a solution was needed that included the maximum ab­
⃒
⃒
⃒
⃒
⃒
⃒w
⃒
⃒
solute differences ⃒wwBj − aBj ⃒ and ⃒wwj − ajW ⃒. As such, the BWM-
based model was constructed according to the following
equation:
(10)
⃒
⃒

made it possible to construe pairwise comparisons in the light of ⃒ ⃒

⃒ wj ⃒
the directional relationships existing in the system. In pairwise ⃒ − ajW ⃒ ≤ ξ, for all js
⃒ww ⃒
comparisons, the i-th element was individually compared with all
elements from i + 1 to the n-th one. The entry of the i–j links were ∑
either “Y(Yes)” or “N(No)”. If the response was “Y”, the link in wj = 1
question would be further interpreted.
j

9. Creating the reachability matrix and conducting transitivity check:

The reachability matrix was created for the enterprise perspec­
tive. Following the interpretive logic-knowledge base, the values
of the entries for “Y” responses were set 1, while for “N” responses
they were set 0.
10. Conducting level partition on the reachability matrix: Level parti­
tioning, according to ISM, was conducted to specify the positions
of the elements in regarding their levels.
11. Building the digraph: The elements, in the light of their levels, were
structured into a graph. Next, the directed links were configured
based on the relationships obtained in the reachability matrix.
12. Creating the interaction matrix: The final digraph configuration
was used to create the interaction matrix. In doing so, the digraph
was converted into a binary matrix containing the interactions
marked as “1”. The entries exhibiting the value of “1” were then
further investigated in line with the knowledge base obtained
from the interpretive matrix.
13. Constructing the total interpretive structural model: The TISM
method was ultimately operationalized through the datasets ob­
wj ≥ 0, for all j
When BWM is employed in uncertain conditions, HF-BWM can solve
problems with multiple criteria and decision-making groups by drawing
on hesitant fuzzy multiplicative preference relations. In this study, the
hesitant fuzzy elements (HFEs) in HF-BWM reflected the best-to-others
and other-to-worst vectors. This strategy yielded a set of possible pref­
erence degrees in each element. The hBj value represented the hesitant
preference degrees of the best criterion CB over the criterion Cj . hjW , in
contrast, displayed the hesitant preference intensities of the criterion Cj
over the worst criterion CW . In the light of these formulas, the following
equations were established (Mi and Liao, 2019):
HFBO = (hB1 , hB2 , …, hBn ), HFOW = (h1w , h2w , …, hnw )T (11)
where hBB = hWW = {0.5}.
To denote length, l was incorporated into a normalized hesitant fuzzy
preference value. The hesitant fuzzy weight of the criterion Cj was
computed through ωj = (ωj , ωj , …, ωj ),j = 1, 2,…, n. The concept of
(1) (2) (l)

tained from the digraph and from the interaction matrix. multiplicative consistency suggested that normalized hesitant fuzzy
evaluations, along with their corresponding hesitant fuzzy weights,
Phase 2. Evaluating the weights of challenges of industrial would have to satisfy the following formulation:
waste management.
Phase 2 primarily used HF-BWM to decide about the importance ω(1) ω(2) ω(l)
B
= h(1)
Bj , (2)
B
= h(2)
Bj , …, (l)
B
= h(l)
Bj (12)
(severity) and probability of the challenges identified. Then, it relied on
(1) (1) (2)
ω + ωj
B ωB + ωj ωB + ω(l)j
the HF-DEMATEL method to compute the relationships between the
Employing slack variables, one could compute the consistency of
challenges. As such, by aggregating the weights of the challenges and
criteria representing normalized hesitant fuzzy preferences:
relationships, the analysis in this phase adjusted weights of the severity
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
and probability measures of the challenges. ⃒ ω(1)
⃒
⃒ ⃒ ω(2) ⃒ ⃒ ω(l) ⃒
B (1) ⃒ 1 ⃒ B (2) ⃒ ⃒ j (l) ⃒
Part 3. Determining the important of challenges (HF-BWM)
2
⃒ (1) (1)
− hBj ⃒ ≤ ψ , ⃒ (2) (2)
− hBj ⃒ ≤ ψ , …, and⃒ (l) (l)
− hjw ⃒
⃒ωB + ωj ⃒ ⃒ωB + ωj ⃒ ⃒ωw + ωj ⃒
In this part, HF-BWM helped to evaluate the importance (severity) of
the challenges. The following steps explain the BWM (Rezaei, 2015). ≤ ψ (l)
(13)
14. Determining the most important and worst challenges: The most
The analysis mentioned above helped to create a normalization-
important and least important challenges were determined by the
based model that could decide the weights for computing the hesitant
experts. The decision-makers just determined the most important
fuzzy weights of criteria:
and least important challenges, although they did not make
comparisons here. Min ψ (l) (14)

7
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

s.t.: Table 2
The HF-DEMATEL linguistic terms.
⃒ ( ) ⃒
⃒ (l) (l) (l) (l) ⃒
⃒ωB − ωB + ωj ×hBj ⃒ ≤ ψ (l) linguistic terms Symbol HF number

No Influence NI [0,0]
⃒ ( ) ⃒
⃒ (l) (l) ⃒ Very Low Influence VLI [0.25,0.35]
⃒ωj − ω(l)
w + ωj × h(l)
jw ⃒ ≤ ψ
(l)
Low influence LI [0.45,0.55]
High Influence HI [0.65,0.75]
∑
n Very High Influence VHI [0.85,0.95]
ωσj (1) + ωσt (l) ≤ 1 + ωσt (1)
j=1

dij refers to the ij-th entry of the matrix D

for the decision maker k, and ̃ ̃
∑
n
ωjσ (l)
+ ωt σ(1)
≤ 1 + ωt σ (l) was calculated belo
j=1
0 ̃
̃… ̃
d12
d1n ⎤
⎡
ωj ≥ 0. j.t = 1.2, …, #ω ̃ ̃ ̃
d21 0 … d2n ⎥
̃ =⎢
D ⎣ ⎦ (17)
Part 4. Identifying the probable challenges (HF-BWM) ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮
Through the outputs of steps 17–19, similar to earlier steps (14–16),
̃ ̃ … ̃
the study revealed the probability of the challenges. dn1 dn2 0
Part 5. Specifying the relationships between the indicators (HF-
DEMATEL) 24. Constructing the normalized group direct-relation hesitant fuzzy
This part investigated the relationships between the challenges (Asan matrices: Conventionally, one can calculate the normalized group
et al., 2018).
direct-relation HF matrix (̃
S) by dividing the endpoints of ̃dij =
L U
20. Determining the decision goal and formed a committee of experts: A dij , ̃
{[̃ dij ]} by the maximum value of all row sums (d):
group of experts determined the decision goal of the problem { }
under investigation. Their opinions and judgments help delegate ∑ n ( U)
d = max score ̃dij (18)
and analyze the problem. 1≤i≤n
j=1
21. Deciding about the relevant factors: The opinions of several experts,
as well as the studies in the literature, must be used to provide a {[ ]}
{[ L U ]}
̃
dij ̃dij
sufficient representation of the system under study and its factors. ̃
Sij = ̃sLij ,̃sUij = , (19)
22. Creating the initial direct-relation HF matrix: The linguistic terms d d
mentioned in Table 2 served as the basis for experts to express
Next, the matrix ̃ S was broken into two detached hesitant fuzzy
their opinions.
matrices. The first matrix included the lower limits of the HF values ̃
Sij ,
The following construct is the HF relation matrix, which shows the whereas second one involved the upper HF values ̃ Sij :
relationships between factors F = {Fi |i = 1, 2, …, n} for the expert k: ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
L L U U
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ̃0 ̃ S12 … ̃ S1n ⎥ ⎢ ̃
0 ̃ S12 … ̃ S1n ⎥
̃ ̃k k ⎢ L ⎥ ⎢ U ⎥
⎢ 0 h12 … ̃ h1n ⎥ ⎢ ̃
⎢ S21 ̃ 0 … ̃
L ⎥
⎥
⎢ ̃
⎢ S ̃
0 ̃ U ⎥
⎥
⎢ k
⎢ ̃ k
⎥
⎥
L
S =⎢ S U
2n ⎥, S = ⎢ 21 … S 2n ⎥ (20)
⎢ h21 ̃0 … ̃ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
(15)
k
̃
H =⎢ h 2n ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥ ⎣ L L ⎦ ⎣ U U ⎦
⎢ ⎥ ̃
Sn1 ̃ Sn2 … ̃ 0 ̃
S ̃
S … 0 ̃
⎣ k k
⎦ n1 n2
̃
hn1 ̃hn2 … ̃ 0
⌊
k
hij = [ ̃γLij ,
The HFEs in the matrix are single intervals structured as ̃ 25. Creating the total-relation hesitant fuzzy matrix: The matrix T
̃ shows
⌋ the sum of both direct and indirect relationships between each
̃γ Uij ], where i shows the rows, j refers to the columns, and k signifies the pair of factors in relation to HFEs. Eq. (21) provides an approxi­
experts. mate calculation of the matrix T: ̃

(21)
2 m
23. Constructing the group direct-relation HF matrix: The membership ̃ =̃
T S⨁ ̃
S ⨁⋯⨁̃
S
degrees decided by the experts were integrated into a single HFE Meanwhile, the total-relation hesitant fuzzy matrices T L and T U ,
through the following interval-valued hesitant fuzzy weighted
which contained the lower and upper limits of T̃ were calculated as
averaging operator:
follows, respectively:
( )2 ( )m
T L = SL ⨁ SL ⨁⋯⨁ SL (22)

{[ ] }
( ) K (
∏ ( )L )Wk K (
∏ ( )U )Wk ⃒
k ⃒ 1 ̃1 1
(16)
̃ p
dij = ⨁k=1 wk ̃
hij = 1− 1 − ̃γ kij ,1− 1 − ̃γkij ⃒̃γij ∈ hij , …, ̃γij ∈ ̃
1
hij
k=1 k=1

( )2 ( )m
L U T U = SU ⨁ SU ⨁⋯⨁ SU (23)
where (̃γkij ) and (̃γ kij ) represent the lower and upper limits of HFE (̃
γ kij )

8
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Next, through the combination of T L and TU , the limit of the matrix T

̃
was calculated:
⎡ ⎤
{[ L U ]} {[ L U ]} {[ L U ]}
⎢ ̃t , ̃t ̃t , ̃t … ̃ ̃
t1n , t1n ⎥
⎢ {[ 11 11 12 12
{[ L U ]} ⎥
⎢ ̃tL , ̃tU ]} {[̃tL , ̃tU ]} ̃ ̃ ⎥
⎢ … t , t ⎥
̃=⎢
T 21 11 22 22 2n 2n
⎥ (24)
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ {[ L U ]} {[ L U ]} {[ L U ]} ⎦
̃tn1 , ̃tn1 ̃tn2 , ̃tn2 … ̃tnn , ̃tnn

m
Eq. (25) represents a theorem that makes it possible to compute ̃
S by
calculating the mth power of the matrices SL and SU :
⎡ ⎤
(m) (m) (m)
̃
S ̃
S … ̃
S
⎢ 11 12 1n ⎥
⎢ (m) ⎥
⎢ ̃ ̃ (m)
̃ (m) ⎥
⎢ S S … S2n ⎥ (25)
m
̃
S = ⎢ 21 22
⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ (m) (m)
⎦
̃ (m)
Sn1 ̃ Sn2 … ̃ Snn

where,
{[( (m) )L ( (m) )U ]} Fig. 2. The influence-dependence chart.
(26)
(m)
̃
Sij = ̃
Sij , ̃
Sij
28. Calculating the “prominence” and “relation” values: Eqs. (30) and
L U
In this formulation, (̃ Sij ) and (̃
(m)
Sij ) reflect the lower and upper
(m) (31) show how the “prominence” (PRp ) and “relation” (REp )
values were calculated:
limits of the elements of the mth power of ̃
S, respectively. These matrices
were constructed as follows: PRp = r + c (30)
⎡ ⎤
REp = r − c (31)
⎢ ( ̃sL )(m) ( ̃sL )(m) ( )(m) ⎥
⎢ 11 12 ⋯ ̃sL1n ⎥
⎢( ) ( L )(m) ⎥
( L )m ⎢ (m) ( L )(m) ⎥
S
⎢ ̃sL21
=⎢ ̃s 22 ⋯ ̃s2n ⎥
⎥ (27) 29. Determining influence-importance values: The influence-importance
⎢
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮
⎥
⎥ values were computed through the “prominence” and “relation”
⎢ ( L )(m) ( L )(m)
⎣ ̃s ⋯
( L )(m) ⎥ ⎦ values, according to the following equation:
n1 ̃sn2 ̃snn
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
FI ωj = PR2j + RE2j (32)
⎡ ⎤
The normalized influence-importance FIωj was obtained through:
⎢ ( ̃sU )(m) (
̃sU12
)(m) ( )(m) ⎥
⎢ 11 ⋯ ̃sU1n ⎥
⎢( ) ⎥ FI ωj
( U )m ⎢⎢ U
(m) (
̃sU22
)(m) ( U )(m) ⎥
⎥ FIWj = ∑ (33)
= ⎢ ̃s21 ⋯ ̃s2n (28)
m
S ⎥ FI ωj
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥ j=1
⎢ ( U )(m) ( )(m) ( )(m) ⎥
⎣ ̃s ̃sUn2 ⋯ ̃sUnn ⎦
n1

30. Determining the final importance values: The final importance

26. Computing the sum of rows ̃ri and the sum of columns ̃ci : r̃i signifies values were computed based on the weighted sum of initial
the sum of influence imposed by factor i on other factors. In importance and the influence-importance values:
contrast, ̃ci shows the sum of influence that factor i receives from
Wj = αFIWj + βWj (34)
other factors.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
{[ ]} {[ ]} where α + β = 1, α and β are the relative weights of initial importance
⎢ ̃rL1 ,̃rU1
⎢ {[
⎥
⎥
⎢ ̃cL1 , ̃
⎢ {[
cU1 ⎥ and influence-importance, respectively. Experts in the field under
⎢ ̃rL ,̃rU ]} ⎥ ]} ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ̃cL , ̃
⎢ 2 c2
U ⎥
⎥ investigation decided the values of α and β.
̃r = ⎢ 2 2
⎥, ̃c = ⎢ ⎥ (29) Part 7. Determining the adjusted weights of the most probable
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ {[ ⋮ ]} ⎥ ⎢ {[ ⋮ ]} ⎥
⎣ ̃rL U ⎦ ⎣ ̃cL U ⎦ challenges.
n ,̃rn n,̃ cn
The same procedures conducted in steps 31–33 were followed for
steps 28–30 so that the weights of the most probable industrial waste
management challenges were normalized.
27. Building the influence-dependence chart: These values denote the Phase 3. Providing Smart industrial waste management solu­
vertical axis and horizontal axis, respectively (Fig. 2): tions and prioritizing the solutions.
In phase 3, some solutions were suggested that relied on smart
Part 6. Determining the adjusted weights of the most importance technologies to manage waste. The solutions were then prioritized
challenges. through the HF-QFD method.
This part aggregated the weights of the challenges obtained through Part 8. Identifying Smart industrial waste management solutions.
HF-BWM with the calculation outputs of the HF-DEMATEL method. The
adjusted weights of the severest challenges were obtained through the 34. Identifying solutions for industrial waste management based on smart
steps below (He et al., 2021). technologies: In this step of the research, some solutions were

9
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

identified for smart waste management by investigating the 4.1. Finding

literature on I4.0, smart technologies, and waste management
and by interviewing experts in such areas.
Part 9. Prioritizing the solution based on the HF-QFD method.
Each solution proposed in response to each industrial waste man­
agement challenge was evaluated based on the QFD method. The steps
in this method are mentioned below (Kaya and Erginel, 2020).
35. Specifying the criteria and indicators: The expert opinions and the
literature review findings were used to determine the indicators
(the indicators were decided in phases 1 and 8).
36. Calculating the relative importance values: Each indicator was
evaluated based on weighting methods (as mentioned above, this
study drew on the HF-BWM).
37. Specifying the design attributes: Experts pointed out the technical
preferences and requirements. This step addressed the operations
that needed to be done to realize positive change (this step is also
called the “HOWs” section of the HF-QFD matrix).
38. Creating and evaluating correlation matrix: Symbols signified
potentially positive or negative correlations in the matrix. There
were three states that described an interrelationship: It was pos­
itive, (+), negative (− ), or non-existent (designated by a blank
box).
39. Determining the relationship matrices by using hesitant fuzzy number:
Relying on triangular fuzzy hesitant fuzzy numbers, experts
shared their judgments by considering the correlation matrix (see
Table 3). The scale provided a finite subset of HF linguistic terms
represented as S0 , S1 , S2 , S3 , S4 in the relationship matrix.
40. Computing the hesitant fuzzy weights: A combination of the HF
weights and the relationships matrix helped to calculate the ab­
solute HF weights, as follows:
∑ and “insufficient training in relation to legal waste drainage and proper
̃j =
TW w ̃ ij
̃i × R (35)
i
In the research findings section, the four main phases of the research,
along with the corresponding sections, are followed to achieve the stated
objectives of the study. Subsequently, each of these four phases is
examined.
Phase 1. Modelling the challenges of industrial waste
management.
This phase of the research involved two steps: identifying the chal­
lenges of industrial waste management and building the hierarchy of the
challenges. The steps pursued in this phase are detailed below.
Part 1. Reviewing the literature and identifying the challenges
of industrial waste management.
The key terms “waste management, industrial waste, industrial
waste management, industrial solid waste management, industrial water
waste management” were searched on the most authentic academic
publication databases, as a result of which 8112 publications were found
between 2016 and 2023. After the publications were screened, 37 were
selected, as described in Fig. 3.
After the publications were investigated and analyzed, the chal­
lenges of industrial waste management were identified. The experts then
divided the challenges into six dimensions (Table 4).
Fig. 4 provides an overview of the model of industrial waste man­
agement challenges proposed in this research.
Part 2. Designing the conceptual model via TISM.
In this part of the study, the levels of the challenges of industrial
waste management were partitioned and their relationships at different
levels were decided. This part of phase 1 included steps 2–10 (evalua­
tions and calculations are mentioned in a supplementary file). Fig. 5
shows the results of the calculations.
As Fig. 5 depicts, the most fundamental challenges were “a lack of
specific technical instructions regarding refining and recycling”
(Ch213), “a lack of culture for effective waste management” (Ch212),
waste digestion” (Ch44). Affecting other levels, these challenges could
give rise to “wrong approach of beneficiaries toward waste manage­

ment” (Ch43), lead to “a tendency to incinerate wastes” (Ch53) or to

41. Calculating the normalized HF weights: All HF weights were divided “disposing waste in small sites” (Ch54), and encourage people to “dump
by the total HF weight. This way, the normalized HF weight were wastes in the soil without any standards or pour them into water”
obtained according to the following equation: (Ch52). Such responses could increase “impurities existing in bio-wastes
and segregation systems” (Ch55) and environmental pollution.
( ) ̃
̃j = TW j
N TW (36) Phase 2. Evaluating the weights of the challenges of industrial
∑ waste management.
J
̃j
TW
j=1 In this phase, primarily the weights of the most severe and most
probable challenges were evaluated. Next, the interrelationships be­
42. Deffuzzifying and ranking the values: Because each normalized tween the challenges were calculated. The hybrid HF-DEMATEL method
weight represented a triangular HF number (α, β, γ), they were then helped to adjust the weighs of the most important (severity) and
deffuzzified as crisp values via the following formula: most probable challenges.
Part 3. Determining the importance of the challenges through
( )
̃j (crisp) = α + 2 ∗ β + γ
N TW (37) HF-BWM.
4 In this part, BWM (steps 11–13) was used to evaluate the weights of
the most important challenges (evaluations and calculations appear in
4. Results and discussion the supplementary file). Table 5 shows the results of the evaluation of
the most important (severity) challenges. Next, HF-BWM (14–16) was
In this section of the research, the research findings and the results utilized to evaluate the weighs of the most probable challenges.
obtained from these findings are discussed and examined. Part 5. Specifying the relationships between the factors (HF-
DEMATEL)
The HF-DEMATEL method (steps 17–24) clarified the relationships
Table 3
between the indicators (for the calculative operations and detailed re­
The HF linguistic scale representing the relationships.
sults, see the supplementary file). Table 6 shows the results of C and R
Linguistic term Abb HF number Scale
calculations.
Very high VH (8, 9, 10) S4 In the light of the results obtained, Fig. 6 was constructed as a geo­
High H (6, 7, 8) S3 metric representation of the points in relation to each other.
Medium M (4, 5, 6) S2 As Fig. 6 clarifies, the causal relationships involved four types of
Low LI (2, 3, 4) S1 factors: independent, influential, dependent, and critical. Given the re­
Very Low VL (0, 1, 2) S0
sults of the calculations, the most independent indicators were “limited

10
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Fig. 3. Systematic literature review.
database information about waste generation” (Ch29), “failure to locate
proper places for constructing waste management installations” (Ch27),
and “insufficient training in relation to legal waste drainage and proper
waste digestion” (Ch44). The most influential indicators were “a lack of
specific technical instructions regarding refining and recycling”
(Ch213), “mismatches between violations of standard waste disposal
procedures and related publishments” (Ch14), and “inefficient collec­
tion systems” (Ch61). Meanwhile, the most critical indicator was “a lack
of effective technologies processing different types of bio-waste” (Ch62),
whereas “dumping wastes in the soil without any standards or pouring
them into water” was the most dependent indicator (Ch52).
Part 6. Determining the adjusted weights of the most important
(the severest) challenges.
In this part, steps 25–27 were followed to compute the adjusted
weights of the challenges through the HF-DEMATEL and HF-BWM
methods (for more details, see the supplementary file). Table 7 shows
the adjusted weights of the most important indicators.
Part 7. Determining the adjusted weights of the most probable
challenges.
To evaluate the weights of the most probable indicators, steps 28–30
(just like steps 25–27) were followed. Table 7 lists the normalized
weights of the most probable challenges.
Given the results obtained from weight calculations, one can observe
that the severest indicators were “unspecified regulations and laws
regarding waste recycling and disposal” (Ch12) (“governmental”
dimension), “poor infrastructure” (Ch22) (“organizational” dimension),
“waste recycling without an economic plan” (Ch32) (“economic”
dimension), “people’s unawareness of the benefits of using organiza­
tional wastes” (Ch42) (“social” dimension), “disposing waste in small
sites” (“environmental” dimension), and “the unavailability of func­
tional refinery technologies” (Ch67) (“technological” dimension). The
most probable challenges were “waste recycling conducted by the
informal sector” (Ch11) (“organizational” dimension), “impractical
planning and accountability on the part of organizations” (Ch21)
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
(“organizational” dimension), “waste recycling without an economic
plan” (Ch32) (“economic” dimension), “insufficient training in relation
to legal waste drainage and proper waste digestion” (Ch44) (“social”
dimension), “a tendency to incinerate wastes” (Ch53) (“environmental”
dimension), and “inefficient collection systems” (Ch61) (“technological”
dimension).
Phase 3. Providing Smart industrial waste management solu­
tions and prioritizing the solutions.
Finally, some solutions for industrial waste management were pro­
posed based on the applications of smart technologies. The solutions
were then prioritized and the most effective ones were highlighted. The
whole procedure was accomplished through the following steps.
Part 8. Identifying Smart industrial waste management
solutions.
In this part of phase 3, all of the existing publications exploring smart
technologies employed by industrial waste management organizations
were investigated. Six experts expressed their opinions about smart in­
dustrial waste management solutions. Table 8 shows the extracted
findings.
Part 9. Prioritizing the solution based on the HF-QFD method.
After the identification of smart industrial waste management solu­
tions, the score for each solution was computed as per steps 28–35 (for
more details, see the supplementary file). Table 9 lists the prioritization
results of the solutions found.
As Table 9 clarifies, the most prioritized solutions among the smart
waste management solutions were: “constructing smart infrastructure
for proper waste management” (S32), “formulating smart planning to
properly dispose wastes” (S34), “training employees and developing
their skills in terms of smart systems and waste control/collection”
(S13), and “employing circular economy to reduce the exposure of the
environment to waste” (S25).
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Table 4
Model for the challenges of industrial waste management.
Dimensions Codes Indicators Codes References

Governmental Ch1 Waste recycling conducted by the informal sector Ch11 Aleluia and Ferrão (2016); Ghosh and Di Maria (2018); Gold et al. (2018);
Unspecified regulations and laws regarding waste Ch12 Menegaki and Damigos (2018); Zorpas et al. (2018); Fatimah et al. (2020);
recycling and disposal Kazawadi et al. (2021); Kabirifar et al. (2021); Lim et al. (2021); Iacovidou
Unaccountability on the part of organizations, Ch13 and Zorpas (2022)
institutions, and ministries for non-standard
recycling
Mismatches between violations of standard waste Ch14
disposal procedures and related publishments
A lack of performance guarantees ensuring a proper Ch15
observation of the laws regarding waste management
The absence or a shortage of regulations inhibiting Ch16
waste generation or relevant incentive schemes
Poor systems dealing with the digestion of wastes Ch17
especially bio-wastes
A lack of government supervision over waste Ch18
recycling or disposal
Organizational Ch2 Impractical planning and accountability on the part Ch21 Bundhoo (2018); Van Tuan et al. (2018); Zorpas et al. (2018); Breitenmoser
of organizations et al. (2019); Demichelis et al. (2019); Slavík et al. (2019); Tiwary et al.
Poor infrastructure Ch22 (2019); Zeller et al. (2020); Loizia et al. (2021); Chaudhary et al. (2021);
Unqualified managerial and executive decision- Ch23 Lim et al. (2021); Morone et al. (2021); Friege and Eger (2022); Iacovidou
making in terms of waste management and Zorpas (2022); Walk et al. (2022)
Unscientific and unsystematic waste management Ch24
patterns
Unauthorized waste management activities Ch25
The absence of an efficient collection scheme Ch26
Failure to locate proper places for constructing waste Ch27
management installations
Failure to segregate wastes in the place of origin Ch28
Limited database information about waste Ch29
generation
Inefficient bio-waste information tracking abilities Ch210
Uncodified standards and criteria in relation to Ch211
recycled materials
A lack of culture for effective waste management Ch212
A lack of specific technical instructions regarding Ch213
refining and recycling
Rare participation of organization staff in waste Ch214
management
Economic Ch3 A shortage of financial resources devoted to waste Ch31 Ghosh and Di Maria (2018); Menegaki and Damigos (2018); Breitenmoser
management et al. (2019); Tiwary et al. (2019); Matassa et al. (2020); Awasthi et al.
Waste recycling without an economic plan Ch32 (2021); Kabirifar et al. (2021); Kazawadi et al. (2021); Iacovidou and
High costs of implementation, supervision, Ch33 Zorpas (2022)
maintenance, and repairs in factories dealing with
anaerobic digestion
Expensive recycling technologies Ch34
Social Ch4 A lack of technical skills Ch41 Bundhoo (2018); Ghosh and Di Maria (2018); Fatimah et al. (2020);
People’s unawareness of the benefits of using Ch42 Kabirifar et al. (2021); Kazawadi et al. (2021); Lim et al. (2021); Friege and
organizational wastes Eger (2022); Iacovidou and Zorpas (2022);
Wrong approach of Beneficiaries toward waste Ch43
management
Insufficient training in relation to legal waste Ch44
drainage and proper waste digestion
Environmental Ch5 A lack of waste collection scheduling guided by Ch51 Bhatia et al. (2018); Breitenmoser et al. (2019); Demichelis et al. (2019);
(biological and weather and seasonal conditions Kazawadi et al. (2021); Lim et al. (2021); Friege and Eger (2022)
physical) Dumping wastes in the soil without any standards or Ch52
pouring them into water
A tendency to incinerate wastes Ch53
Disposing waste in small sites Ch54
Impurities existing in bio-wastes and segregation Ch55
systems
Technological Ch6 Inefficient collection systems Ch61 Ghosh and Di Maria (2018); Gold et al. (2018); Breitenmoser et al. (2019);
A lack of effective technologies processing different Ch62 Tiwary et al. (2019); Fatimah et al. (2020); Matassa et al. (2020); Loizia
types of bio-waste et al. (2021); Kabirifar et al. (2021); Kazawadi et al. (2021); Friege and Eger
Failure to supervise, maintain, and repair waste Ch63 (2022); Iacovidou and Zorpas (2022);
digestion instruments
Currently unified waste management systems Ch64
The poor functionality of existing technologies and Ch65
deteriorating refinery machinery
Using substandard transportation methods Ch66
The unavailability of functional refinery Ch67
technologies

12
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Fig. 4. Industrial waste management challenges.
4.2. Discussion and general observations
The findings observed in this part are further discussed here. Because
disposing or recycling industrial waste is a serious challenge that could
increase uncertainty in industries and complicate the adoption of smart
technologies for waste recycling, it would be necessary to rely on the
science of fuzzy logic in dealing with environmental uncertainty and
identifying/ranking challenges for the sake of strategic decisions. The
major research gap in the extant literature is associated with a lack of
precise techniques that could identify the challenges or inappropriately
qualitative approaches. There are some shortcomings in the literature
about employing smart technologies in effective industrial waste man­
agement. For instance, Shayesteh et al. (2020) categorized the compo­
nents of the industrial environment into physical/chemical,
economic/operational, biological/ecologic, and social/cultural ele­
ments. Using the rapid impact assessment matrix method, the authors
identified the factors affecting the environment and made a quantitative
comparison that revealed pyrolysis left the highest degree of detrimental
impact, and that recycling had the highest level of positive impact. The
authors removed incineration as a waste management option, finding
recycling and a sanitary disposal site the best options for industrial waste
management. Their study did not mention the use of smart technologies
in overcoming existing challenges. Employing MCDM techniques could
have improved the accuracy of their findings.
Schoeman et al. (2021b) examined a framework for industrial waste
management in the iron and steel industry. Their framework consisted of
a four-phased decision support qualitative methodology that was meant
to direct industrial waste management in the South African iron and
steel industry towards circular economy. The authors did not mention
smart technologies. The main challenges were unspecified industrial
waste audit guidelines in developing countries, a lack of industrial waste
audit instructions guiding the review of existing waste management
systems, and the unavailability of a basic DSF to direct industrial waste
management decision-making, especially in industrial sites with legacy
waste challenges.
In a practical study, Vafeiadis et al. (2018) sought to gather data
from factors and analyze them to improve waste management. Using the
IoT and sensors, they investigated smart fill-level sensors installed in
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
industrial bins to operate monitoring and handle significant fill-level
notifications based on the slope statistic profile methodology. Also,
this study only focused on the IoT, without promoting a comprehensive
approach to other smart technologies.
Ismail et al. (2019) conducted a systematic literature review,
investigating the role of the IoT in solid waste management. Like other
studies, the researchers did not directly address the challenges to waste
management or their ranking. They exclusively explored an IoT-based
technology. Adar et al. (2022) drew on the AHP-CoCoso technique to
prioritize industrial wastewater processes. They introduced industrial
waste management alternatives as divided into four groups: physical,
chemical, biological, and thermal. Among the alternatives, bioreactor
and electrochemical oxidation were the best options. The authors did
not mention smart technologies, although they used crisp MCDM tech­
niques to handle environmental uncertainty (as a methodological
advantage).
A review of the literature clearly shows that no model or research
project has yet: (a) investigate the challenges of industrial waste man­
agement and possible solutions through smart technologies; and (b) rank
the challenges of industrial waste management through accurate
ranking techniques equipped with fuzzy logic. The present study aimed
to fill these gaps and further contribute to this area of research.
This study explored the notion of smart industrial waste management
to respond to the challenges of industrial waste management. Notably,
the present study considered all types of industrial waste (solid and
liquid). To do so, we primarily extracted the challenges of industrial
waste management through a literature review. As shown in Table 4,
organizations would encounter numerous obstacles to manage their
waste. Given the results observed, the challenges were divided into six
dimensions: governmental, organizational, economic, social, environ­
mental, and technological (STEEGO model). Then, TISM was used to
develop a conceptual model of the challenges. As the results revealed
(Fig. 5), the adjusted challenges were “insufficient training”, “a lack of
specific technical instructions”, “a lack of culture for effective waste
management”, and “employing outdated machinery and information”
(Awasthi et al., 2021).
A lack of an culture for effective waste management in organizations
may discourage employees and managers from reducing waste genera­
tion or segregating waste. This challenge may dissuade managers and
experts either from formulating specific technical guidelines for waste
refining and recycling or sufficiently training employees to identify and
segregate different types of waste (Ahmad et al., 2019). Under such
circumstances, one can expect organizational infrastructure to be tech­
nologically and technically underdeveloped. Originations will have to
incinerate or dispose waste or outsource the whole process, which can
hugely damage the environment and increase recycling costs (Tian et al.,
2022). Such organizations do not follow specific waste recycling
standards/principles which can lead to an unscientific waste manage­
ment style. The failure to separate wastes in the place of origin increases
segregation and recycling costs. In such a situation, managers tend to
make poor decisions, fail to allocate sufficient funds to disposal pro­
cesses, and resort to unauthorized disposal activities conducted by the
informal sector (Adar et al., 2022). Because waste recycling in the or­
ganization may go unsupervised or may not be consistent with specific
controlling guidelines, the organization may rely on substandard pro­
cedures for waste disposal (e.g., dumping waste in water bodies, incin­
erating, dumping in small spaces), which can endanger human health
and the environment (Shindhal et al., 2021).
This study used the HF-DEMATEL method to evaluate the in­
terrelationships between the criteria. According to Fig. 6, the indicators
could be broken into four categories in the light of their in­
terconnections: influential, dependent, critical, and independent. Given
the results observed in Table 6 and Fig. 6, one could argue that a “a lack
of effective technologies for processing different types of biowaste” was
the most critical challenge. To do so, it would be necessary to employ
smart technologies in the industrial waste management cycle so that it
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Fig. 5. The Structural model for the challenges of industrial waste management.
can be improved it terms of processing time, accuracy, and efficiency.
Meanwhile, the critical state of the indicator “people’s unawareness of
the benefits of using organizational wastes” revealed how organizations
and society at large had failed to train people and build a culture
contributing to industrial waste management.
The present study also relied on HF-BWM to identify the most
important and probable indicators. As shown in Table 7, the “organi­
zational” dimension was the most important dimension in the STEEGO
model. This could be explained due to a lack of practical planning and a
strategically holistic outlook to industrial waste management, which
was a problem arising from the cultural approach to environmental
pollution as well as organizational managers’ failure to take future
concerns into account. If decision-making organizations do not have any
specific technical instructions, do not pursue practical standards, and
fail to have active participation, they tend to make poor decisions, resort
to unscientific and unsystematic industrial waste management practices,
and ignore defects in the infrastructure (for instance, a lack of a
comprehensive plan for waste collection) (Kabirifar et al., 2021).
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
Following the “organizational” dimension, the “technological”,
“governmental”, “environmental”, “social”, and “economic” dimensions
were severe, respectively.
Once the severe challenges were identified, the study explored the
most probable ones. Our results revealed that the “technological”
dimension was not the severest challenge; it was the most probable one.
This observation can be explained by considering the fact that a lack of
smart technologies implemented in the collection stage, as the first stage
of industrial waste management, could accordingly lead to the loss of a
huge amount of useful waste. Such types of waste cannot enter the
recycling, digestion, and refining cycle (Mukherjee et al., 2021).
Meanwhile, collected waste can be lost, if ineffectively tracked, illegally
disposed, or informally used by people who do not have official au­
thority. Due to defects in waste refining systems, which are outdated,
turning waste back to the natural cycle would face even more challenges
(Fatimah et al., 2020).
Following an investigation of the challenges of industrial waste
management, the study identified smart solutions for industrial waste
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Table 5 2017). To realize such goals, developing and training skilled human
Probability and severity of the challenges of industrial waste management. resources by means of updated knowledge about technology applica­
Severity of Severity of Probability of Probability of tions could considerably contribute to a successful implementation of
industrial industrial industrial industrial smart industrial waste management (Tseng et al., 2020). In the light of
waste waste waste waste circular economy concepts and such technologies as blockchain and IoT,
management management management management
industrial waste management can facilitate the process of returning
challenges challenges challenges challenges
(local) (overall) (local) (overall) waste to the production cycle.
By installing vibration measuring devices in manufacturing factories,
Ch1 0.23 0.079
Ch11 0.196 0.032 0.207 0.035
a connection is established between the motors of a machine and IoT
Ch12 0.24 0.039 0.112 0.019 devices, which in turn provides the possibility of wireless transmission
Ch13 0.033 0.005 0.084 0.014 of data to decision support systems and data analytics tools. Advanced
Ch14 0.059 0.01 0.188 0.031 newely-developed sensors help monitor the level of contents in indus­
Ch15 0.082 0.013 0.182 0.03
trial bins in order tolinks bins with supply chain management system
Ch16 0.098 0.016 0.151 0.025
Ch17 0.138 0.023 0.03 0.005 (Vafeiadis et al., 2018). Nowadays, more affordable solutions are sug­
Ch18 0.154 0.025 0.046 0.0077 gested for machine monitoring due to the development of intelligent IoT
Ch2 0.27 0.248
systems and innovative sensor technologies (e.g.
Ch21 0.066 0.011 0.161 0.027 micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) sensors that have been
Ch22 0.172 0.028 0.149 0.025 extensively investigated to be used in condition-based maintenance
Ch23 0.049 0.008 0.125 0.021 applications). Also, certain smart decentralized data analytics ap­
Ch24 0.031 0.005 0.031 0.005
proaches have been recently introduced that support low-cost MEMS
Ch25 0.059 0.01 0.085 0.014
Ch26 0.131 0.021 0.077 0.013 vibration sensors and classification techniques. To estimate the content,
Ch27 0.09 0.015 0.062 0.01 shape, area, height, and weight of objects, industrial waste management
Ch28 0.125 0.02 0.11 0.018 solutions has incorporated ultrasonic distance sensors, small cameras,
Ch29 0.028 0.004 0.01 0.002 and cost-effective strain gauge systems. An efficient and dynamic
Ch210 0.026 0.005 0.021 0.0035
Ch211 0.047 0.008 0.042 0.007
fill-level sensing system entails an automated system with real-time in­
Ch212 0.081 0.013 0.053 0.009 formation on bin status using lid, waste level, and weight sensors
Ch213 0.042 0.007 0.025 0.0042 (Zonzini et al., 2020).
Ch214 0.053 0.009 0.049 0.0082 The increasing use of AI can be attributed to effectiveness in handling
Ch3 0.075 0.086 complex and noisy multidimensional data. AI has been widely applied in
Ch31 0.15 0.025 0.19 0.032 environmental engineering to address a variety of challenges, which
Ch32 0.42 0.069 0.39 0.065 mostly include solid waste management, air pollution, water and
Ch33 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.0083
Ch34 0.42 0.069 0.37 0.062
wastewater treatment, groundwater contamination, and soil remedia­
tion, . In order to predict pollutant concentrations, waste generation
Ch4 0.076 0.113
patterns and particulate matter levels, AI-based risk management tools
Ch41 0.35 0.057 0.13 0.022
Ch42 0.49 0.08 0.39 0.065 (ANNs, MLPs, and ANFIS models) are applied. MLPs are efficient tools
Ch43 0.065 0.011 0.06 0.01 for predicting the levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Ch44 0.095 0.0155 0.42 0.07 ANFIS predicts and optimizes processes in water and wastewater treat­
Ch5 0.095 0.13 ment plants (accurate prediction of methane and effluent volatile solids,
Ch51 0.1 0.0164 0.16 0.027 and optimization of coagulant dosages for removing turbidity). At pre­
Ch52 0.22 0.036 0.23 0.038 sent, AI is extensively applied in industrial solid waste management to
Ch53 0.17 0.028 0.35 0.058
optimize waste collection truck routes, identify suitable locations for
Ch54 0.39 0.064 0.14 0.023
Ch55 0.12 0.02 0.12 0.02 industrial waste management facilities, and simulate waste conversion
processes (Abdallah et al., 2020).
Ch6 0.25 0.343
Ch61 0.121 0.02 0.37 0.062
To sum up, organizations can use smart technologies (like the ones
Ch62 0.162 0.027 0.22 0.037 used in the circular economy) to convert different types of waste into
Ch63 0.03 0.005 0.045 0.008 biomass or energy. This process can reduce both the consumption of raw
Ch64 0.101 0.017 0.033 0.0055 materials and fossil fuels, and the cost of slash waste disposal. They can
Ch65 0.181 0.03 0.075 0.013
also install smart sensors in recycling tanks to obtain waste-related in­
Ch66 0.094 0.015 0.112 0.019
Ch67 0.311 0.051 0.145 0.024 formation online. By analyzing the information stored in big databases,
employees can improve their decision-making process. Making timely
*The weights were analyzed according to their normalized weights.
decisions on waste disposal or recycling may prevent waste accumula­
tion, accelerate recycling, and reduce the costs of maintenance and
management through a literature review. The HF-QFD method helped transportation. As a result, organizations should take the responsibility
prioritize the solutions. As the data listed in Table 9 suggest, the tran­ to be less likely to dispose or incinerate waste, and finding it less
sition from the traditional industrial waste management system to a necessary to use raw materials or fuels. These changes will, in turn,
smart one would demand the construction of smart infrastructure, as a improve the economic performance of such organizations.
highly prioritized measure. Without paying attention to various aspects
of information technology, it would be extremely difficult to train 5. Conclusion, contributions, implications, limitations and
competent human resources who could properly apply technology, future research
create big data hubs, and overcome implementation obstacles. Other­
wise, the transition would most definitely fail and lead to a huge loss of The purpose of this study was to propose solutions to the challenges
time and monetary resources (Chaudhary et al., 2021). of industrial waste management by focusing on the capacities of smart
Yet, if high-ranking managers in industries and organizations began technologies. In this study, the challenges of industrial waste manage­
to rely on smart technologies for long-term industrial waste manage­ ment in the STEEGO model were divided intosix dimensions: govern­
ment practices, such a measure would require less energy and cost, and mental, organizational, economic, social, biological and physical, and
could result in more sustainable outcomes (de Souza Melaré et al., technological. Among these dimensions, the organizational dimension,

15
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Table 6
The causal relationships.
Governmental (Ch1) C R nC nR

0.885 0.997 0.926 0.999 0.392 0.737 0.451 0.796

Ch11 0.995 1 0.847 0.91 0.987 1 0.576 0.608

Ch12 0.922 0.988 0.888 0.897 0.458 0.654 0.409 0.42
Ch13 0.825 0.874 0.552 0.654 0.56 0.64 0.34 0.46
Ch14 0.359 0.43 0.745 0.777 0.223 0.238 0.85 0.98
Ch15 0.42 0.55 0.625 0.742 0.44 0.63 0.077 0.105
Ch16 0.754 0.85 0.845 0.921 0.128 0.17 0.167 0.22
Ch17 0.698 0.77 0.598 0.759 0.325 0.412 0.523 0.6
Ch18 0.628 0.731 0.412 0.519 0.25 0.266 0.293 0.287

Organizational (Ch2) 0.920 0.998 0.881 0.996 0.494 0.813 0.437 0.775

Ch21 0.35 0.44 0.52 0.58 0.087 0.114 0.119 0.14

Ch22 0.88 0.923 0.873 0.894 0.306 0.357 0.299 0.32
Ch23 0.84 0.867 0.912 0.946 0.15 0.23 0.31 0.37
Ch24 0.52 0.612 0.735 0.795 0.22 0.29 0.4 0.48
Ch25 0.867 0.95 0.65 0.71 0.238 0.325 0.07 0.1
Ch26 0.85 0.91 0.883 0.894 0.32 0.371 0.455 0.501
Ch27 0.78 0.795 0.846 0.866 0.127 0.133 0.155 0.165
Ch28 0.99 0.1 0.55 0.647 0.395 0.438 0.122 0.213
Ch29 0.45 0.54 0.622 0.631 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.026
Ch210 0.44 0.51 0.555 0.725 0.016 0.02 0.22 0.36
Ch211 0.71 0.85 0.84 0.514 0.057 0.085 0.14 0.3
Ch212 0.95 0.99 0.587 0.761 0.215 0.311 0.565 0.69
Ch213 0.87 0.964 0.899 0.977 0.082 0.13 0.847 0.92
Ch214 0.89 0.963 0.621 0.766 0.512 0.64 0.198 0.219

Economic (Ch3) 0.911 0.998 0.898 0.997 0.166 0.373 0.157 0.353

Ch31 0.984 0.933 0.752 0.923 0.462 0.333 0.189 0.319

Ch32 0.989 0.999 0.928 0.936 0.945 0.957 0.669 0.685
Ch33 0.398 0.439 0.425 0.565 0.175 0.197 0.189 0.229
Ch34 0.895 0.869 0.876 0.891 0.612 0.574 0.584 0.606

Social (Ch4) 0.906 0.998 0.9 0.998 0.164 0.376 0.161 0.376

Ch41 0.995 0.995 0.895 0.862 0.843 0.943 0.5 0.546

Ch42 0.987 0.99 0.925 0.956 0.881 0.895 0.719 0.784
Ch43 0.804 0.877 0.811 0.876 0.227 0.311 0.103 0.19
Ch44 0.897 0.901 0.825 0.853 0.194 0.197 0.07 0.019

Biological and Physical Environment (Ch5) 0.903 0.998 0.918 0.998 0.199 0.446 0.211 0.446

Ch51 0.654 0.724 0.512 0.596 0.175 0.227 0.154 0.203

Ch52 0.998 0.999 0.859 0.878 0.745 0.781 0.35 0.37
Ch53 0.978 0.98 0.925 0.932 0.477 0.486 0.256 0.267
Ch54 0.964 0.979 0.976 0.982 0.726 0.778 0.767 0.791
Ch55 0.866 0.897 0.859 0.881 0.214 0.239 0.209 0.225

Technological (Ch6) 0.916 0.998 0.914 0.998 0.462 0.789 0.458 0.789

Ch61 0.978 0.990 0.960 0.960 0.37 0.427 0.793 0.821

Ch62 0.984 0.988 0.980 0.988 0.812 0.888 0.912 0.969
Ch63 0.854 0.862 0.941 0.953 0.56 0.58 0.48 0.51
Ch64 0.891 0.899 0.874 0.888 0.201 0.207 0.689 0.698
Ch65 0.970 0.981 0.82 0.865 0.47 0.512 0.504 0.567
Ch66 0.823 0.844 0.845 0.897 0.56 0.65 0.692 0.661
Ch67 0.964 0.973 0.825 0.890 0.644 0.675 0.418 0.497

with a weight of 0.27, showed the highest degree of importance,
although technological challenges, with a weight of 0.343, were more
likely to occur in organizations. Therefore, organizations lacking the
necessary infrastructure, an efficient collection scheme, and effective
industrial waste refining/recycling technologies would not be able to
properly segregate wastes in the place of origin. This failure could lead
to the contamination of soil and agricultural products, while threatening
aquatic animals and people (Hantoko et al., 2021).
In order to properly manage these wastes, 36 smart solutions were
presented (Table 9). The top-three solutions for smart waste manage­
ment, namely “constructing smart infrastructure for proper industrial
waste management” (importance measure: 0.68), “formulating smart
planning to properly dispose industrial waste” (importance measure:
0.67), and “training employees and developing their skills in terms of
smart systems and waste control/collection” (importance measure:
0.51). Organizations can identify their existing challenges, thus
improving their organizational performance and reducing environ­
mental impacts (Schoeman et al., 202.
The circular economy is a system of production and exchange,
allowing increased efficiency and resource productivity and reduced
environmental impacts in all stages of the product’s life cycle; thus, the
circular economy is not limited to industrial waste management and
recycling waste output of organizations. It also seeks to reduce waste in
the design, production and recycling processes (Takacs et al., 2022).
Therefore, the development of smart infrastructures and use of smart
circular economy can reduce manufacturing waste through source sep­
aration of the waste and prevent cross-contamination in production line
by smart planning in all stages of the product life cycle (Fatimah et al.,
2020).
This study contributes to research and practice, as it can be
encouraging organization managers to reduce the amount of generated
waste by properly recycling it and help to reduce waste disposal or

16
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Fig. 6. Causal relationships.
incineration. Such a measure can decrease environmental pollution,
reduce the consumption of natural resources, help to return waste to the
production cycle, reduce production costs, and protect Earth from
pollution.
Table 10 shows the waste generated by different industries and the
smart waste management technologies used. However, it should be
noted that the waste materials under investigation in Table 10 include
both solid and liquid waste, and gas emissions have not been considered.
The major criterion considered for the selection of waste manage­
ment technology and system configuration is the type of waste being
processed. For example, the design of hazardous waste processing plants
differs from that of food waste processing plants. On the other hand, the
plant location affects the transportation costs and the resource avail­
ability. For instance, transportation costs will be reduced if the plant is
located near the waste generation sources. Moreover, managers should
allocate available funds to meet the cost of the construction and oper­
ation of a recycling facility. As we know, the more waste a factory
produces, the higher its waste disposal cost. Larger industries that
generate more waste can save money by reducing the amount of waste
they produce. The present study can provide such industries with some
information on how to reduce waste generation, such as best practices
for waste reduction, the cost-effectiveness of various waste management
technologies, and government funding for waste management. By
implementing the suggested solutions, larger industries can reduce their
waste generation, cut costs and improve their environmental perfor­
mance. Recycling can reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills
resulting in reduced disposal costs and environmental impacts of waste
disposal. On the other hand, industries can reduce methane emissions by
organic waste composting. Methane, as a greenhouse gas and significant
air pollutant, is 25 times as potent as CO2. Furthermore, energy recovery
from waste contributes to industries reducing their reliance on fossil
fuels, cutting energy costs and reducing the environmental impacts of
energy production.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
Theoretically, the present study built a compressive model for the
challenges to waste management by considering governmental, orga­
nizational, economic, social, biological and physical, and technological
dimensions. Categorizing the challenges can expand the conceptual
17
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
boundaries of, providing a profound vision to researchers and managers
concerned with waste managementso that they can trace such chal­
lenges in their organizational departments. The study proposed the
notion of smart industrial waste management, which involves solutions
that could undo the challenges and further develop the literature on
waste management challenges. This approach sought to find ways to
best manage industrial waste by employing Industry 4.0 technologies
and by returning waste to the production cycle to reduce disposal/
incineration activities.
Smart technologies are used to address waste management chal­
lenges because they can increase the speed of processing and accuracy of
waste collection and proper disposal, thereby enhancing organizational
performance and reduce environmental impacts. To realize smart in­
dustrial waste management goals, the study also tried to find out which
challenge could be resolved by which technology. Such a goal could
expand the understanding of researchers and managers on the concepts
explored and clarify which technologies can best respond to a specific
problem.
5.2. Managerial contributions
From a practical perspective, the present study can help industry
managers to conveniently identify waste management challenges and
detect infrastructural issues affecting a proper waste management plan.
Knowledge of such challenges will encourage managers to codify rele­
vant organizational laws of waste recycling and to enhance waste
recycling technologies (Aazam et al., 2016). Such changes can improve
organizational culture of employees regarding proper waste recycling,
urge the organization to offer training to employees, and account for a
precise formulation of technical guidelines in waste management. Using
smart technologies, the organization can control its waste, separate
waste in the place of origin, and recycle waste (which will prevent waste
incineration or disposal in the ground or water resources) (Bhatia et al.,
2018).
To actualize these goals, managers must have a clear understanding
of smart recycling technologies to find the most effective tool for waste
recycling. If managers fail to identify waste management challenges or
properly analyze the technology dimention they need for waste recy­
cling/disposal, they may neither be able to improve their performance
nor reduce organizational costs, besides contributing to environmental
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Table 7 Table 8
The adjusted weights of the challenges of industrial waste management. Smart industrial waste management solutions.
Challenges FIWj Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Smart solutions Symbol Reference
weights of final weights of final
Equipping traditional waste S1 Uhlmann et al. (2017); Vafeiadis
the severest weights of the most weights of
management systems with smart et al. (2018); Birkel et al. (2019);
challenges the severest probable the most
IoT sensors and AI Islam et al. (2020);
challenges challenges probable
Implementing real-time S2 Blömeke et al. (2020);
challenges
supervision and enhancing waste Phuyal et al. (2020);
(Ch1) 0.022 0.126 0.051 management Sheng et al. (2020);
Ch11 0.025 0.111 0.031 0.116 0.033 Using smart blockchain contracts S3 Sousa et al. (2020);
Ch12 0.025 0.132 0.037 0.068 0.019 in industrial waste management Ahmad et al. (2021);
Ch13 0.02 0.026 0.007 0.052 0.015 Constructing cybernetic S4 Chiarini (2021);
Ch14 0.016 0.038 0.011 0.102 0.029 infrastructure and I4.0 Sen Gupta et al. (2021);
Ch15 0.016 0.049 0.014 0.099 0.028 technologies to achieve Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz and
Ch16 0.023 0.06 0.017 0.087 0.025 sustainable development in Zdonek (2021);
Ch17 0.019 0.079 0.022 0.025 0.007 industrial waste management Vereycken et al. (2021);
Ch18 0.016 0.085 0.024 0.031 0.009 Employing GIS and GPS S5
technologies in locating proper
(Ch2) 0.029 0.15 0.139
dumping sites
Ch21 0.013 0.039 0.011 0.087 0.025
Utilizing data collection S6
Ch22 0.024 0.098 0.028 0.087 0.025
technologies (e.g., sensors,
Ch23 0.024 0.037 0.01 0.075 0.021
imaging) to extract information
Ch24 0.018 0.025 0.007 0.025 0.007
about waste
Ch25 0.022 0.04 0.011 0.053 0.015
Implementing smart sensors for S7
Ch26 0.024 0.077 0.022 0.05 0.014
data collection
Ch27 0.022 0.056 0.016 0.042 0.012
Using identification and data S8
Ch28 0.015 0.07 0.02 0.063 0.018
transfer technologies (e.g.,
Ch29 0.015 0.022 0.006 0.013 0.004
Bluetooth, WIFI, GSM, RFID) for
Ch210 0.015 0.021 0.006 0.018 0.005
information exchange
Ch211 0.02 0.033 0.009 0.031 0.009
Relying on big data analytics and S9
Ch212 0.023 0.052 0.015 0.038 0.011
cloud computing to process
Ch213 0.025 0.034 0.01 0.025 0.007
information about waste
Ch214 0.022 0.038 0.011 0.036 0.01
Installing smart sensors in S10
(Ch3) 0.026 0.051 0.056 industrial waste containers
Ch31 0.024 0.087 0.024 0.107 0.03 recycling bins to properly and
Ch32 0.026 0.223 0.063 0.208 0.059 timely segregate wastes,
Ch33 0.012 0.066 0.019 0.031 0.009 especially in steel, food, and
Ch34 0.024 0.222 0.063 0.197 0.056 chemical industries
Establishing remote S11
(Ch4) 0.026 0.052 0.069
communication as required by
Ch41 0.025 0.188 0.053 0.078 0.022
the industrial waste
Ch42 0.026 0.258 0.073 0.208 0.059
management system via smart
Ch43 0.023 0.044 0.012 0.041 0.012
mechanisms
Ch44 0.023 0.059 0.017 0.222 0.063
Using smart technologies to render S12
(Ch5) 0.024 0.06 0.077 industrial waste management
Ch51 0.017 0.058 0.016 0.088 0.025 more sustainable
Ch52 0.025 0.123 0.035 0.128 0.036 Training employees and S13
Ch53 0.026 0.098 0.025 0.188 0.053 developing their skills in terms of
Ch54 0.026 0.208 0.059 0.083 0.024 smart systems and waste
Ch55 0.024 0.072 0.02 0.072 0.02 control/collection
Making decisions based on big data S14
(Ch6) 0.028 0.139 0.186 and real-time information for
Ch61 0.026 0.074 0.021 0.198 0.056 waste collection and digestion
Ch62 0.027 0.094 0.026 0.123 0.035 Reducing waste management costs, S15
Ch63 0.024 0.027 0.008 0.035 0.01 increasing productivity, and
Ch64 0.024 0.062 0.017 0.028 0.008 optimizing resources through
Ch65 0.014 0.097 0.027 0.044 0.013 real-time data
Ch66 0.017 0.056 0.016 0.065 0.018 Offering automatically processed S16
Ch67 0.015 0.163 0.046 0.08 0.023 online information about the
state of wastes
Increasing waste tracking and S17
pollution (Ismail et al., 2019). management transparency in a
Plausibly, people must try to protect the environment and ecosys­ decentralized fashion through
tems for the future generations. Business owners, however, have to secure blockchain technologies
Using real-time tracking of wastes S18
protect the expectations of beneficiaries, transporters, and waste
through smart technologies
disposal employees. Although some disposal practices may not impose Constructing reliable channels and S19
large costs on organizations, such practices are unacceptable from the observing waste refining laws
viewpoint of sustainable development. Presumably, smart technologies through blockchain technologies
Protecting waste management S20
can help people to reduce detrimental environmental impacts (by using
documents on big databases
smart technologies such as blockchain or the IoT, they can reduce the Analyzing decentralized smart data S21
volume of (non)hazardous waste loads and prevent the illegal disposal of using vibration sensors in
wastes in the environment or in water bodies, rivers, or seas) (Ahmad microelectronic and mechanical
et al., 2021). Nonetheless, it is absolutely important to acknowledge that systems in the waste digestion
process
smart technologies and AI should not replace human thinking. In some
(continued on next page)
cases, technologies may challenge the ethical principles of industrial
waste management or endanger beneficiaries’ interests, although

18
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Table 8 (continued ) Table 9

Smart solutions Symbol Reference
Smart industrial waste management solutions.
The fuzzy scores of the The normalized scores of The crisp scores of
Reducing the consumption of fossil S22
solutions the solutions the solutions
fuels by replacing them with bio-
mass fuels and increasing smart S1 [8.36,9.67,11] [0.029,0.038,0.05] 0.039
transportation S2 [7.28,8.57,9.86] [0.025,0.034,0.044] 0.034
Establishing regulations S23 S3 [5.33,6.24,7.16] [0.018,0.024,0.032] 0.025
compatible with technological S4 [5.82,6.81,7.79] [0.02,0.028,0.035] 0.28
advancements, upgrading such S5 [5.74,6.74,7.73] [0.02,0.026,0.035] 0.027
regulations, and controlling S6 [7.58,8.79,10] [0.026,0.034,0.045] 0.035
people in society via smart S7 [7.03,8.103,9.17] [0.024,0.032,0.041] 0.032
technologies S8 [3.17,3.7,4.22] [0.011,0.014,0.019] 0.015
Using IT (e.g., websites, social S24 S9 [5.46,6.32,7.17] [0.019,0.025,0.032] 0.025
media, cell phones, and S10 [4.73,5.44,6.15] [0.016,0.021,0.028] 0.022
clubhouses) to train people S11 [2.6,2.98,3.35] [0.009,0.012,0.015] 0.012
Employing circular economy to S25 S12 [4.99,5.87,6.74] [0.017,0.023,0.03] 0.023
reduce the exposure of the S13 [11.2,12.9,14.5] [0.039,0.05,0.065] 0.051
environment to waste S14 [9.02,10.5,12] [0.031,0.041,0.054] 0.042
Increasing productivity by S26 S15 [4.35,5,5.64] [0.015,0.02,0.025] 0.02
simultaneously utilizing smart S16 [3.29,3.76,4.23] [0.011,0.015,0.019] 0.015
machinery, smart tools, smart S17 [2.92,3.34,3.75] [0.01,0.013,0.017] 0.013
operators, and smart repairs/ S18 [3.47,4,4.53] [0.012,0.016,0.02] 0.016
maintenance mechanisms S19 [2.1,2.4,2.7] [0.007,0.009,0.012] 0.01
Internalizing a culture of S27 S20 [1.68,1.94,2.21] [0.006,0.008,0.01] 0.008
sustainability (a sustainable S21 [3.87,4.43,4.99] [0.013,0.017,0.023] 0.018
development culture coupled S22 [4.46,5.22,5.97] [0.015,0.02,0.027] 0.021
with a circular economy culture) S23 [10.4,12,13.6] [0.036,0.047,0.061] 0.048
Managing and supervising S28 S24 [4.73,5.5,6.27] [0.016,0.022,0.028] 0.022
mechanisms through smart S25 [10.7,12.3,13.9] [0.037,0.048,0.063] 0.049
technologies S26 [8.06,9.2,10.4] [0.028,0.036,0.047] 0.037
Creating channels for online S29 S27 [6.52,7.48,8.44] [0.022,0.029,0.038] 0.03
interaction between industry and S28 [8.88,10.19,11.5] [0.031,0.04,0.052] 0.041
society S29 [6.14,7.16,8.17] [0.021,0.028,0.037] 0.028
Reducing electronic waste and S30 S30 [4.46,5.1,5.73] [0.015,0.02,0.026] 0.02
using energy efficiently and S31 [4.07,4.69,5.31] [0.014,0.018,0.024] 0.019
effectively S32 [14.6,16.7,18.9] [0.05,0.065,0.085] 0.068
Integrating knowledge about S31 S33 [3.74,4.27,4.81] [0.013,0.017,0.022] 0.017
products, the environment, and S34 [15,17.1,19.3] [0.052,0.067,0.087] 0.067
users S35 [7.53,8.64,9.75] [0.026,0.034,0.044] 0.034
Constructing smart infrastructure S32 S36 [2.29,2.66,3.03] [0.008,0.01,0.014] 0.011
for proper industrial waste
management
Using smart machinery to reduce S33 - Organizations can formulate laws and regulations for waste disposal,
defects in products
motivating their employees to use smart technologies to dispose
Formulating smart planning to S34
properly dispose industrial waste waste, improve waste management performance, and refrain from
Relying on circular economy to S35 resorting to substandard ways of waste disposal.
reduce electronic waste and - Through building proper or smart waste recycling infrastructure,
prevent energy loss organizations can prevent the outsourcing of waste recycling to the
Using smart micro-networks for the S36
sake of reducing energy
private sector.
consumption - By changing their production methods and using smart technologies
in the production process, organizations can prevent the
manufacturing of defective products, thereby reducing waste.
technologies will ultimately contribute to human communities (Fatimah - Organizations can install online smart sensors in recycling bins in
et al., 2020). order to transfer the waste-related information to the relevant
Smart waste management solutions, as proposed in this study, can department. Employees may analyze the information and store it on
help industry managers to identify and discern technologies compatible big databases, improving their decision-making processes.
with proper waste management.

5.4. Limitations and future research

5.3. Implications
Given the study findings, the implications of the study are as follows.
- By investigating the six dimensions (governmental, organizational,
economic, social, environmental, and technological) proposed, or­
ganizations can simply identify their waste management challenges.
- Organizations can use smart technologies to properly manage waste,
thus separating their waste into distinct tanks as a primary step.
- Relying on concepts such as circular economy, organizations can
convert many of their wastes into biomass or energy they need for
their operations. In doing so, they not only reduce the consumption
of raw materials or fossil fuels, but also they can decrease their waste
disposal costs.
Given the existing dimensions, the study tried to provide a compre­
hensive image of waste management challenges and smart industrial
waste management. However, researchers and industry owners should
not assume that the indicators in the two models are necessarily
exhaustive. Especially, smart industrial waste management may include
solutions unaddressed in this study. Future investigations can propose
more solutions or different categorizations, offering a broader perspec­
tive. The model proposed here provides a general approach and may not
be fully compatible with a small number of industries. Future studies can
apply the model to different industry contexts. The approach pursued
here mostly adopted an intra-organizational stance. Further surveys can
also examine inter-organizational approaches and how organizations
can collaborate. Another limitation is that the TISM-based model

19
Z. Khoshsepehr et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327

Tabel 10 Table 11
Different wastes in different industries. Notations list.
Industry wastes technology References symbol meaning

Iron and steel Sewage sludge, AI, IOT, machine Schoeman et al. hE (χ) Hesitant Fuzzy Sets
Oil drums, Oil learning, CE (2021a); Chiarini ⊕ The sum of two hesitant fuzzy sets
drums, Steel (2021); (Zhang et al. ⊗ Multiplication of two fuzzy sets
slimes (2013) ∪ Union of two hesitant fuzzy sets
Automotive Engine parts, 3D, IoT, big data, Lacerda et al. ∩ Intersection of two hesitant fuzzy sets
brake pads, cyber security, cloud (2016); Rzelewska γ Hesitant fuzzy element
Plastic, Metal, computing, cyber- and Regel-Rosocka λ Scalar number
Hazardous physical systems, (2018); de Mattos S(h) Score function
Materials, glass advanced robotics, Nascimento et al. wj Weight
virtual reality, (2022) k HF relation matrix
H
̃
augmented reality,
dij
̃ Direct-relation HF matrix
artificial
intelligence, Sij
̃ Normalized group direct-relation HF matrix
autonomous T
̃ Total-relation hesitant fuzzy matrix
vehicles, additive ̃ri Sum of rows
manufacturing (AM) ̃ci Sum of columns
and blockchain PRp Prominence
Paper and pulp Wood chips, IOT, AI, CE, Digital Zhang et al. (2020); REp Relation
bark, Twin Gupta and Shukla FIWj Normalized influence-importance
chemicals, (2020); Branco et al.
sludge (2018); Zhang et al.
(2020);Rapati et al. ample information from other domains in their studies. Moreover, the
(2023)
Pharmaceutical Hazardous IOT, AI, CPS Ali et al. (2023); Ata
issue of which capacities of processing plants, technologies, and system
chemicals, et al. (2023); Joshi configurations are most justified for deployment requires further
solvents, and Patel (2023) research and will be addressed in later stages of the application when a
radioactive larger number of industries are considered.
waste
plastics resins, solvents, AI, BLOCKCHAIN, Öncel et al. (2017);
pigments MULTI SENSORS Chidepatil et al. CRediT authorship contribution statement
(2020)
Textile Dyes, solvents, Digital Twin, IIOT Behera et al. (2021); Zahra Khoshsepehr: Investigation, Formal analysis, Software,
acids Sivaram et al. Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Saeed Alinejad: writing,
(2019); Wu et al.
Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Software, Writing – review
(2023)
mining Rock, tailings, Digital Twin, IOT, Jamieson et al. & editing. Moslem Alimohammadlou: Writing – review & editing.
heavy metals, CPS (2015); Zhang et al.
acid mine (2020); El Bazi et al. Declaration of competing interest
drainage (2023)
Oil and gas drilling mud, AI Al-Hameedi et al.
wastewater (2020); Mazzoni The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
et al. (2017); interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Sharma et al. (2022) the work reported in this paper.
Electronic Batteries, IoT, Cloud Platform, Ghulam and
Plastic, Metal, GIS, RFID Abushammala
Data availability
Hazardous (2023); Ramesh
materials et al. (2023);
Madkhali et al. Data will be made available on request.
(2023)); Ramya
et al. (2023)
Appendix A. Supplementary data

proposed here is a conceptual model and future studies can construct
related measurement and structural models as well. Researchers are
advised to conduct a large-scale survey, collecting data for the indicators
and build and validate the measurement and structural models through
methods such as confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation
modeling. In the present study, multi-criteria decision-making methods
in the hesitant fuzzy environment were employed to evaluate the criteria
weights and assess the internal relationships among the criteria. Re­
searchers can use other hesitant fuzzy methods, such as hesitant fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process (HFAHP), to evaluate criteria weights or
explore various fuzzy approaches like intuitionistic fuzzy, spherical
fuzzy, etc., to assess the criteria weights and internal relationships. They
can then compare the obtained results with the findings of this study to
gain an intersubjectivity regarding the conceptual challenges of indus­
trial waste management and intelligent industrial waste management.
Although the present study has mentioned the difference between in­
dustrial and general waste, due to limitations in accessing sufficient
data, these differences have not been fully covered. Therefore, it is
suggested that future researchers address this limitation by collecting
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138327.
References
Aazam, M., St-Hilaire, M., Lung, C.H., Lambadaris, I., 2016. Cloud-based smart waste
management for smart cities. In: 2016 IEEE 21st International Workshop on
Computer Aided Modelling and Design of Communication Links and Networks
(CAMAD), pp. 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAMAD.2016.7790356.
Abdallah, M., Talib, M.A., Feroz, S., Nasir, Q., Abdalla, H., Mahfood, B., 2020. Artificial
intelligence applications in solid waste management: a systematic research review.
Waste Manag. 109, 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.057.
Abdel-Shafy, H.I., Mansour, M.S., 2018. Solid waste issue: sources, composition, disposal,
recycling, and valorization. Egypt. J.Petrol. 27 (4), 1275–1290. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.07.003.
Adar, E., Delice, E.K., Adar, T., 2022. Prioritizing of industrial wastewater management
processes using an integrated AHP–CoCoSo model: comparative and sensitivity
analyses. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19 (6), 4691–4712. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13762-021-03511-y.
Ahmad, R.W., Salah, K., Jayaraman, R., Yaqoob, I., Omar, M., 2021. Blockchain for waste
management in smart cities: a survey. IEEE Access 9, 131520–131541. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3113380.

20
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Ahmad, T., Aadil, R.M., Ahmed, H., ur Rahman, U., Soares, B.C., Souza, S.L., et al., 2019.
Treatment and utilization of dairy industrial waste: a review. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 88, 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.04.003.
Al Lahou, A., Alsabbagh, M., 2019. Assessment of municipal solid waste management in
the state of Kuwait. Int J Environ Sci Dev 10 (2).
Aleluia, J., Ferrão, P., 2016. Characterization of urban waste management practices in
developing Asian countries: a new analytical framework based on waste
characteristics and urban dimension. Waste Manag. 58, 415–429. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.008.
Al-Hameedi, A.T.T., Alkinani, H.H., Albazzaz, H.W., Dunn-Norman, S., Alkhamis, M.M.,
2020. Insights into the applications of waste materials in the oil and gas industry:
state of the art review, availability, cost analysis, and classification. J. Pet. Explor.
Prod. Technol. 10, 2137–2151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-020-00865-w.
Ali, S.S., Sabry, R., Ali, H.M., Gadallah, H., Mansor, E.S., Abdallah, H., et al., 2023.
Integrated system of anoxic/activated sludge and ultrafiltration membrane for zero
liquid discharge of pharmaceutical industrial wastewater treatment. J. Environ.
Chem. Eng. 11 (1), 109068 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.109068.
American Public Health Association (APHA), 2023. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association.
Asan, U., Kadaifci, C., Bozdag, E., Soyer, A., Serdarasan, S., 2018. A new approach to
DEMATEL based on interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets. Appl. Soft Comput. 66,
34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.01.018.
Ata, R., Merdan, G., Tore, G.Y., 2023. Emerging biotechnologies for treatment of
antibiotic residues from pharmaceutical waste waters for sustainable environment A
case study under visible light with NFC-doped titania. Waste Manag. 218–244.
Awasthi, A.K., Cheela, V.S., D’Adamo, I., Iacovidou, E., Islam, M.R., Johnson, M., et al.,
2021. Zero waste approach towards a sustainable waste management. Resour.
Environ. Sustain. 3, 100014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100014.
Behera, M., Nayak, J., Banerjee, S., Chakrabortty, S., Tripathy, S.K., 2021. A review on
the treatment of textile industry waste effluents towards the development of efficient
mitigation strategy: an integrated system design approach. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9
(4), 105277 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105277.
Bhatia, S.K., Joo, H.S., Yang, Y.H., 2018. Biowaste-to-bioenergy using biological
methods–a mini-review. Energy Convers. Manag. 177, 640–660. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.090.
Birkel, H.S., Veile, J.W., Müller, J.M., Hartmann, E., Voigt, K.I., 2019. Development of a
risk framework for Industry 4.0 in the context of sustainability for established
manufacturers. Sustainability 11 (2), 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020384.
Blömeke, S., Rickert, J., Mennenga, M., Thiede, S., Spengler, T.S., Herrmann, C., 2020.
Recycling 4.0–Mapping smart manufacturing solutions to remanufacturing and
recycling operations. Proced. CIRP 90, 600–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2020.02.045.
Branco, R.H., Serafim, L.S., Xavier, A.M., 2018. Second generation bioethanol
production: on the use of pulp and paper industry wastes as feedstock. Fermentation
5 (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122496.
Breitenmoser, L., Gross, T., Huesch, R., Rau, J., Dhar, H., Kumar, S., et al., 2019.
Anaerobic digestion of biowastes in India: opportunities, challenges and research
needs. J. Environ. Manag. 236, 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2018.12.014.
Bundhoo, Z., 2018. Solid waste management in least developed countries: current status
and challenges faced. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 20 (3), 1867–1877. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10163-018-0728-3.
Chaudhary, P., Garg, S., George, T., Shabin, M., Saha, S., Subodh, S., Sinha, B., 2021.
Underreporting and open burning–the two largest challenges for sustainable waste
management in India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 175, 105865 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105865.
Chiarini, A., 2021. Industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: are we sure
they are all relevant for environmental performance? Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (7),
3194–3207. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2797.
Chidepatil, A., Bindra, P., Kulkarni, D., Qazi, M., Kshirsagar, M., Sankaran, K., 2020.
From trash to cash: how blockchain and multi-sensor-driven artificial intelligence
can transform circular economy of plastic waste? Adm. Sci. 10 (2), 23. https://doi.
org/10.3390/admsci10020023.
de Azevedo, A.R., Costa, A.M., Cecchin, D., Pereira, C.R., Marvila, M.T., Adesina, A.,
2022. Economic potential comparative of reusing different industrial solid wastes in
cementitious composites: a case study in Brazil. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1–24. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01630-7.
De Mattos Nascimento, Mury Nepomuceno, R., Caiado, R.G.G., Maqueira, J.M., Moyano-
Fuentes, J., Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2022. A sustainable circular 3D printing model for
recycling metal scrap in the automotive industry. J. Manufact. Technol. Manag. 33
(5), 876–892. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2021-0391.
de Souza Melaré, A.V., González, S.M., Faceli, K., Casadei, V., 2017. Technologies and
decision support systems to aid solid-waste management: a systematic review. Waste
Manag. 59, 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.045.
Demichelis, F., Piovano, F., Fiore, S., 2019. Biowaste management in Italy: challenges
and perspectives. Sustainability 11 (15), 4213. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11154213.
Doneva, N., Zendelska, A., Hadzi-Nikolova, M., Mirakovski, D., Dimov, G., 2021.
Implementation of innovative technologies pay-as-you-throw and autonomous
composting units for biowaste management. Scaling up the biowaste project in the
municipality of Probishtip, Republic of North Macedonia. Environ. Protect. Eng. 47
(3), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.37190/epe210305.
Duodu, M.G., Singh, B., Christina, E., 2022. Waste management through bioremediation
technology: an eco-friendly and sustainable solution. Relationship Microb. Environ.
Sustain.Ecosyst.Serv. 2, 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89937-
6.00007-3.
21
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
El Bazi, N., Mabrouki, M., Laayati, O., Ouhabi, N., El Hadraoui, H., Hammouch, F.E.,
Chebak, A., 2023. Generic multi-layered digital-twin-framework-enabled asset
lifecycle management for the sustainable mining industry. Sustainability 15 (4),
3470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043470.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2023. Industrial Waste Management. EPA.
Esmaeilizadeh, S., Shaghaghi, A., Taghipour, H., 2020. Key informants’ perspectives on
the challenges of municipal solid waste management in Iran: a mixed method study.
J. Mater. Cycl. Waste Manag. 22 (4), 1284–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-
020-01005-6.
Fatimah, Y.A., Govindan, K., Murniningsih, R., Setiawan, A., 2020. Industry 4.0 based
sustainable circular economy approach for smart waste management system to
achieve sustainable development goals: a case study of Indonesia. J. Clean. Prod.
269, 122263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122263.
Friege, H., Eger, Y., 2022. Best practice for bio-waste collection as a prerequisite for high-
quality compost. Waste Manag. Res. 40 (1), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242x211033714.
Ghosh, S.K., Di Maria, F., 2018. A comparative study of issues, challenges and strategies
of bio-waste management in India and Italy. Detritus 1 (1), 8. https://doi.org/
10.26403/detritus/2018.8.
Ghulam, S.T., Abushammala, H., 2023. Challenges and opportunities in the management
of electronic waste and its impact on human health and environment. Sustainability
15 (3), 1837. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031837.
Glivin, G., Kalaiselvan, N., Mariappan, V., Premalatha, M., Murugan, P.C., Sekhar, J.,
2021. Conversion of biowaste to biogas: a review of current status on techno-
economic challenges, policies, technologies and mitigation to environmental
impacts. Fuel 302, 121153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121153.
Gold, M., Tomberlin, J.K., Diener, S., Zurbrügg, C., Mathys, A., 2018. Decomposition of
biowaste macronutrients, microbes, and chemicals in black soldier fly larval
treatment: a review. Waste Manag. 82, 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.10.022.
Gupta, G.K., Shukla, P., 2020. Insights into the resources generation from pulp and paper
industry wastes: challenges, perspectives and innovations. Bioresour. Technol. 297,
122496 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122496.
Hantoko, D., Li, X., Pariatamby, A., Yoshikawa, K., Horttanainen, M., Yan, M., 2021.
Challenges and practices on waste management and disposal during COVID-19
pandemic. J. Environ. Manag. 286, 112140 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2021.112140.
He, L., Wu, Z., Xiang, W., Goh, M., Xu, Z., Song, W., et al., 2021. A novel Kano-QFD-
DEMATEL approach to optimise the risk resilience solution for sustainable supply
chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 59 (6), 1714–1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2020.1724343.
Iacovidou, E., Zorpas, A.A., 2022. Exploratory research on the adoption of composting
for the management of biowaste in the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. Clean. Cir.
Bioecon. 1, 100007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100007.
Islam, A., Ahmed, T., Awual, M.R., Rahman, A., Sultana, M., Abd Aziz, A., et al., 2020.
Advances in sustainable approaches to recover metals from e-waste-A review.
J. Clean. Prod. 244, 118815 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118815.
Ismail, N.A., Majid, N.A.A., Hassan, S.A., 2019. IoT-based smart solid waste management
system a systematic literature review. Int. J. Innovative Technol. Explor. Eng. 8 (8),
1456–1462.
Jamieson, H.E., Walker, S.R., Parsons, M.B., 2015. Mineralogical characterization of
mine waste. Appl. Geochem. 57, 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeochem.2014.12.014.
Joshi, H., Patel, J., 2023. A Literature Review on Emerging Trends in Adopting Industry
4.0 within Pharmaceutical Industry. Technology, Agility and Transformation:
Emergent Business Practices 115.
Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., Wang, C.C., 2021. A systematic review of construction and
demolition waste management in Australia: current practices and challenges.
Recycling 6 (2), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6020034.
Kamali, M., Costa, M.E., Aminabhavi, T.M., Capela, I., 2019. Sustainability of treatment
technologies for industrial biowastes effluents. Chem. Eng. J. 370, 1511–1521.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.04.010.
Kaya, S.K., Erginel, N., 2020. Futuristic airport: a sustainable airport design by
integrating hesitant fuzzy SWARA and hesitant fuzzy sustainable quality function
deployment. J. Clean. Prod. 275, 123880 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123880.
Kazawadi, D., Ntalikwa, J., Kombe, G., 2021. Biowastes as a potential energy source in
africa. Recent Perspect. Pyrol. Res. 10 https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99992.
Kumar, S., Smith, S.R., Fowler, G., Velis, C., Kumar, S.J., Arya, S., et al., 2017. Challenges
and opportunities associated with waste management in India. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4
(3), 160764 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160764.
Kwon, G., Bhatnagar, A., Wang, H., Kwon, E.E., Song, H., 2020. A review of recent
advancements in utilization of biomass and industrial wastes into engineered
biochar. J. Hazard Mater. 400, 123242 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2020.123242.
Lacerda, A.P., Xambre, A.R., Alvelos, H.M., 2016. Applying Value Stream Mapping to
eliminate waste: a case study of an original equipment manufacturer for the
automotive industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (6), 1708–1720. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2015.1055349.
Lenkiewicz, Z., 2016. Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals. Wasteaid, Ashford,
UK.
Lim, Y.F., Chan, Y.J., Abakr, Y.A., Sethu, V., Selvarajoo, A., Singh, A., et al., 2021.
Review of biowastes to energy in Malaysia: current technology, scalability and
socioeconomic analysis. Clean. Eng. Technol. 4, 100257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clet.2021.100257.
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Loizia, P., Voukkali, I., Zorpas, A.A., Pedreno, J.N., Chatziparaskeva, G., Inglezakis, V.J.,
et al., 2021. Measuring the level of environmental performance in insular areas,
through key performed indicators, in the framework of waste strategy development.
Sci. Total Environ. 753, 141974 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141974.
Madkhali, H., Duraib, S., Nguyen, L., Prasad, M., Sharma, M., Joshi, S., 2023.
A comprehensive review on e-waste management strategies and prediction methods:
a Saudi Srabia perspective. Knowledge 3 (2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.3390/
knowledge3020012.
Matassa, S., Papirio, S., Pikaar, I., Hülsen, T., Leijenhorst, E., Esposito, G., Verstraete, W.,
2020. Upcycling of biowaste carbon and nutrients in line with consumer confidence:
the “full gas” route to single cell protein. Green Chem. 22 (15), 4912–4929. https://
doi.org/10.1039/D0GC01382J.
Mazzoni, L., Ahmed, R., Janajreh, I., 2017. Plasma gasification of two waste streams:
municipal solid waste and hazardous waste from the oil and gas industry. Energy
Proc. 105, 4159–4166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.882.
Menegaki, M., Damigos, D., 2018. A review on current situation and challenges of
construction and demolition waste management. Curr. Opin. Green Sustainable
Chem. 13, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.02.010.
Mi, X., Liao, H., 2019. An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based
on the averagesolution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant
fuzzy best worst method. Comput. Ind. Eng. 133, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2019.05.004.
Morone, P., Caferra, R., D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P.M., Imbert, E., Morone, A., 2021.
Consumer willingness to pay for bio-based products: do certifications matter? Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 240, 108248 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108248.
Mukherjee, A.G., Wanjari, U.R., Chakraborty, R., Renu, K., Vellingiri, B., George, A.,
et al., 2021. A review on modern and smart technologies for efficient waste disposal
and management. J. Environ. Manag. 297, 113347 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2021.113347.
Nanda, S., Berruti, F., 2021. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling
technologies: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 19 (2), 1433–1456. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10311-020-01100-y.
Naveen, B.P., Mahapatra, D.M., Sitharam, T.G., Sivapullaiah, P.V., Ramachandra, T.V.,
2017. Physico-chemical and biological characterization of urban municipal landfill
leachate. Environ. Pollut. 220, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.09.002.
Okoli, C., Schabram, K., 2010. A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of
Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824.
Öncel, M.S., Bektaş, N., Bayar, S., Engin, G., Çalışkan, Y., Salar, L., Yetiş, Ü., 2017.
Hazardous wastes and waste generation factors for plastic products manufacturing
industries in Turkey. Sustain. Environ.Res. 27 (4), 188–194. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.serj.2017.03.006.
Pardini, K., Rodrigues, J.J., Diallo, O., Das, A.K., de Albuquerque, V.H.C., Kozlov, S.A.,
2020. A smart waste management solution geared towards citizens. Sensors 20 (8),
2380. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082380.
Phuyal, S., Bista, D., Bista, R., 2020. Challenges, opportunities and future directions of
smart manufacturing: a state of art review. Sustain. Futures 2, 100023. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100023.
Piadeh, F., Alavi-Moghaddam, M.R., Mardan, S., 2018. Assessment of sustainability of a
hybrid of advanced treatment technologies for recycling industrial wastewater in
developing countries: case study of Iranian industrial parks. J. Clean. Prod. 170,
1136–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep ro.2017.09.174.
Ramesh, M.V., Paramasivan, M., Akshay, P., Jarin, T., 2023. A review on electric and
electronic waste material management in 21st century. Mater. Today: Proc. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.057.
Ramya, P., Ramya, V., Rao, M.B., 2023. IoT-Based Household Electronic Waste
Management Systems for Electronic Waste Collection. In: In 2023 International
Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT), pp. 1371–1376. https://d
oi.org/10.1109/ICICT57646.2023.10134184.
Rapati, R.C., Victor, A., Raharjo, A.R., Nuraisyah, A., 2023. lastic waste management to
support the circular economy in the pulp and paper industry. Bus. Rev. Case Stud. 4
(1) https://doi.org/10.17358/brcs.4.1.1, 1–1.
Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
Rzelewska, M., Regel-Rosocka, M., 2018. Wastes generated by automotive
industry–spent automotive catalysts. Phys.Sci. Rev. 3 (8) https://doi.org/10.1515/
psr-2018-0021.
Schoeman, Y., Oberholster, P., Somerset, V., 2020. Value stream mapping as a supporting
management tool to identify the flow of industrial waste: a case study. Sustainability
13 (1), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010091.
Schoeman, Y., Oberholster, P., Somerset, V., 2021a. A decision-support framework for
industrial waste management in the iron and steel industry: a case study in Southern
Africa. Case Stud.Chem.Environ.Eng. 3, 100097 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscee.2021.100097.
Schoeman, Y., Oberholster, P., Somerset, V., 2021b. A zero-waste multi-criteria decision-
support model for the iron and steel industry in developing countries: a case study.
Sustainability 13 (5), 2832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052832.
Sen Gupta, Y., Mukherjee, S., Dutta, R., Bhattacharya, S., 2021. A blockchain-based
approach using smart contracts to develop a smart waste management system. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03507-8.
Shah, S.Z.A., Nawaz, Z., Nawaz, S., Carder, G., Ali, M., Soomro, N., Compston, P.C.,
2019. The role and welfare of cart donkeys used in waste management in Karachi,
Pakistan. Animals 9 (4), 159.
Shahbaz, M., Rashid, N., Saleem, J., Mackey, H., McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2023. A review
of waste management approaches to maximise sustainable value of waste from the
22
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
oil and gas industry and potential for the State of Qatar. Fuel 332, 126220. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126220.
Shahedi, A., Darban, A.K., Taghipour, F., Jamshidi-Zanjani, A., 2020. A review on
industrial wastewater treatment via electrocoagulation processes. Curr. Opin.
Electrochem. 22, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2020.05.009.
Sharma, P., Gaur, V.K., Gupta, S., Varjani, S., Pandey, A., Gnansounou, E., et al., 2022.
Trends in mitigation of industrial waste: global health hazards, environmental
implications and waste derived economy for environmental sustainability. Sci. Total
Environ. 811, 152357 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152357.
Shayesteh, A.A., Koohshekan, O., Khadivpour, F., Kian, M., Ghasemzadeh, R., Pazoki, M.,
2020. Industrial waste management using the rapid impact assessment matrix
method for an industrial park. Glob. J.Environ.Sci.Manag. 6 (2), 261–274.
Sheng, T.J., Islam, M.S., Misran, N., Baharuddin, M.H., Arshad, H., Islam, M.R., et al.,
2020. An internet of things based smart waste management system using LoRa and
tensorflow deep learning model. IEEE Access 8, 148793–148811. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3016255.
Shindhal, T., Rakholiya, P., Varjani, S., Pandey, A., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., et al., 2021.
A critical review on advances in the practices and perspectives for the treatment of
dye industry wastewater. Bioengineered 12 (1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21655979.2020.1863034.
Sivaram, N.M., Gopal, P.M., Barik, D., 2019. Toxic waste from textile industries. In:
Energy from Toxic Organic Waste for Heat and Power Generation, pp. 43–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102528-4.00004-3.
Slavík, J., Rybová, K., Dolejš, M., 2019. Biowaste separation at source and its limitations
based on spatial conditions. Detritus 5, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.31025/2611-
4135/2019.13787.
Soliman, N.K., Moustafa, A.F., 2020. Industrial solid waste for heavy metals adsorption
features and challenges; a review. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (5), 10235–10253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.07.045.
Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz, A., Zdonek, I., 2021. How society 5.0 and industry 4.0 ideas
shape the open data performance expectancy. Sustainability 13, 917. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su13020917, 2021.
Sousa, M.J., Mercadé Melé, P., Molina Gómez, J., 2020. Technology, governance, and a
sustainability model for small and medium-sized towns in Europe. Sustainability 12
(3), 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030884.
Srivastava, R.R., Rajak, D.K., Ilyas, S., Kim, H., Pathak, P., 2023. Challenges, regulations,
and case studies on sustainable management of industrial waste. Minerals 13 (1), 51.
https://doi.org/10.3390/min13010051.
Sushil, 2012. Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global J. Flex. Syst. Manag.
13 (2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-012-0008-3.
Takacs, F., Brunner, D., Frankenberger, K., 2022. Barriers to a circular economy in small-
and medium-sized enterprises and their integration in a sustainable strategic
management framework. J. Clean. Prod. 362, 132227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.132227.
Tian, G., Xia, Q., Wu, Z., Fu, T., 2022. Ecological network analysis of industrial wastes
metabolism based on input-output model for Jiangsu, China. Waste Manag. 143,
23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.02.011.
Tiwary, A., Spasova, S., Williams, I.D., 2019. A community-scale hybrid energy system
integrating biomass for localised solid waste and renewable energy solution:
evaluations in UK and Bulgaria. Renew. Energy 139, 960–967. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.129.
Torra, V., 2010. Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25 (6), 529–539. https://doi.org/
10.1002/int.20418.
Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S., Liu, G., Jantaralolica, T., 2020. Circular economy enables
sustainable consumption and production in multi-level supply chain system. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 154, 104601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104601.
Uhlmann, E., Laghmouchi, A., Geisert, C., Hohwieler, E., 2017. Decentralized data
analytics for maintenance in industrie 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 11, 1120–1126. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.233.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2022. Municipal Solid Waste
Management. USEPA.
Vafeiadis, T., Nizamis, A., Alexopoulos, N., Ntinas, C., Mastos, T., Papadopoulos, A.,
et al., 2018. Data analytics and data modeling for predictive maintenance and
automated waste management: an integrated (IoT-Industry 4.0) sensor based
solution to improve factory procedures. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Internet of Things and Smart Manufacturing, pp. 5–6. London, UK.
Van Tuan, N., Kien, T.T., Huyen, D.T.T., Nga, T.T.V., Giang, N.H., Dung, N.T., et al.,
2018. Current status of construction and demolition waste management in Vietnam:
challenges and opportunities. GEOMATE J. 15 (52), 23–29.
Vereycken, Y., Ramioul, M., Desiere, S., Bal, M., 2021. Human resource practices
accompanying industry 4.0 in European manufacturing industry. J. Manuf. Technol.
Manag. 32 (5), 1016–1036. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2020-0331.
Walk, S., Schermuly, J., Körner, I., 2022. Scenarios for Decentralised Bio-Waste
Collection Chains with a Waste Collection Database for Representative Situations:
DECISIVE Deliverable D3. 7: a Decentralised Management Scheme for Innovative
Valorisation of Urban Biowaste. https://doi.org/10.15480/882.4103.
Wilts, H., Garcia, B.R., Garlito, R.G., Gómez, L.S., Prieto, E.G., 2021. Artificial
intelligence in the sorting of municipal waste as an enabler of the circular economy.
Resources 10, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10040028, 2021.
Wu, Z., Zong, F., Zhang, F., Wang, J., Zhu, Z., Guo, X., Cao, P., 2023. Investigation of the
customized furniture industry’s production management systems. J. Eng. Res.
100072 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.100072.
Xia, M.M., Xu, Z.S., 2011. Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making.
Int. J. Approx. Reason. 52 (3), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijar.2010.09.002.
Z. Khoshsepehr et al.
Xu, Z., 2014. Hesitant Fuzzy Sets Theory, vol. 314. Springer International Publishing,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04711-9.
Zeller, V., Lavigne, C., D’Ans, P., Towa, E., Achten, W.M.J., 2020. Assessing the
environmental performance for more local and more circular biowaste management
options at city-region level. Sci. Total Environ. 745, 140690 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140690.
Zhang, Q., Khan, M.U., Lin, X., Yi, W., Lei, H., 2020. Green-composites produced from
waste residue in pulp and paper industry: a sustainable way to manage industrial
wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 262, 121251 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121251.
Zhang, H., Wang, H., Zhu, X., Qiu, Y.J., Li, K., Chen, R., Liao, Q., 2013. A review of waste
heat recovery technologies towards molten slag in steel industry. Appl. Energy 112,
956–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.019.
23
Journal of Cleaner Production 420 (2023) 138327
Zhao, H.X., Zhou, F.S., Lm, A.E., Liu, J.L., Zhou, Y., 2022. A review on the industrial solid
waste application in pelletizing additives: composition, mechanism and process
characteristics. J. Hazard Mater. 423, 127056 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2021.127056.
Zonzini, F., Malatesta, M.M., Bogomolov, D., Testoni, N., Marzani, A., De Marchi, L.,
2020. Vibration-based SHM with upscalable and low-cost sensor networks. IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas. 69 (10), 7990–7998. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TIM.2020.2982814.
Zorpas, A.A., Lasaridi, K., Pociovalisteanu, D.M., Loizia, P., 2018. Monitoring and
evaluation of prevention activities regarding household organics waste from insular
communities. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3567–3577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.03.155.