Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Industry 4.0 and sustainable development: A systematic mapping of

triple bottom line, Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models
perspectives
Iqra Sadaf Khan a, *, Muhammad Ovais Ahmad b, Jukka Majava a
a
Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Technology, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 4610, 90014, University of Oulu, Finland
b
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Karlstad University, Sweden

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

Article history: Industry 4.0 has been identified as a major contributor to the era of digitalisation. Its implications for
Received 24 July 2020 sustainable development have gained widespread attention from the perspectives of the triple bottom
Received in revised form line, sustainable business models and circular economy. The purpose of this paper is to map the broad
4 March 2021
field of sustainable development and investigate the key research areas which comprises the afore-
Accepted 5 March 2021
Available online 9 March 2021
mentioned perspectives under Industry 4.0 framework. A systematic mapping review was conducted by
searching five databases for relevant literature published between January 1, 2012 and April 17, 2020. The
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s search yielded 4291 papers of which 81 were identified as primary papers relevant to the research
herein. The primary findings are that the majority of sustainability research focuses on conceptual
Keywords: analysis, and the Internet of Things is dominantly cited with an emphasis on achieving the triple bottom
Industry 4.0 line benefits. Sustainable development in the Industry 4.0 context contributes to circular economic
Sustainable development objectives by achieving social, economic, and environmental benefits. Triple bottom line studies mainly
Triple bottom line focus on Industry 4.0 adoption and implementation, sustainable supply chains, smart and sustainable
Circular economy
cities, and smart factories. Circular economy and sustainable business models as emerging research
Sustainable business models
themes that focus on Industry 4.0 adoption and implementation, as well as sustainable supply chains.
Our analysis consolidates emerging research patterns areas in both the Industry 4.0 and sustainability
literature. Furthermore, it identifies salient research gaps and suggests future research.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Conducting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Publication year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Publication channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. High-contributing authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Publication’s country of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Research methods used in primary studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6. Key technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.7. Key sustainable development themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Inter-related themes under sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: iqra.khan@oulu.fi (I.S. Khan), ovais.ahmad@kau.se
(M.O. Ahmad), jukka.majava@oulu.fi (J. Majava).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126655
0959-6526/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655

5.1. I4.0 and TBL sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5.1.1. I4.0 adoption and implementation for TBL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.2. Sustainable smart factories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3. Smart and sustainable cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.4. Sustainable supply chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. I4.0 and CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.1. I4.0 adoption and implementation for CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.2. Sustainable supply chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. I4.0 and SBMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.1. I4.0 adoption and implementation for SBMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.2. Sustainable supply chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Synthesis of the findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Introduction remain underdeveloped (Jabbour et al., 2020; Kiron and Unruh,

2018; Fisher et al., 2018). For instance, some researchers dis-
The modern world is concerned with the emergence and use of cussed I4.0 and its related technologies with respect to TBL and
Industry 4.0 (I4.0); a modern manufacturing system driven by in- circular manoeuvres (Asiimwe and de Kock, 2019; Jabbour et al.,
formation technology (IT) and achieving sustainable society. In 2020; Nobre and Tavares, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2020; Alcayaga
manufacturing, I4.0 has brought new technologies that deliver et al., 2019; Rosa et al., 2020; Odwazny_ et al., 2018) while others
maximum outputs using effective resource utilisation (Kamble discussed its sustainable industrial value creation (Kuo and Smith,
et al., 2018). Cyber-physical systems (CPSs), the Internet of things 2018) by providing ways how societies, businesses and environ-
(IoT) and other recent technologies open pathways for industrial ments interact altogether (Strandhagen et al., 2017) through SBMs
development that enable improved productivity and efficiency in (Machado et al., 2020; Tirabeni et al., 2019). However, the analysis
various organisations. According to Tjahjono et al. (2017), I4.0 in- of these studies reveals that they interact at the interface of only
corporates big data (BD), IoT and artificial intelligence (AI) for two or three out of four topics (I4.0, TBL, CE, SBMs, see Table 1). This
leveraging manufacturing operations. The potential of I4.0 is thus means that extant literature reviews do not present a wider un-
remarkable for achieving sustainable industrial value creation derstanding of I4.0 for SD relating to, the considerable connections
across social, economic, and environmental dimensions by of these inter-related subject areas, along with their magnitude
improving resource efficiency (Sharma et al., 2020). The concept of which requires further attention (Birkel and Müller, 2021). The
sustainability in the I4.0 context challenges traditional approaches reasoning for a further literature review is therefore the broadness
to problem solving and demands more systemic ways of addressing of the topics; I4.0 for SD consisting of TBL, CE and SBMs as most
change. This means that the current progression of sustainability studies lack a broader analysis of the concepts that contribute to SD,
and green economies requires a shift from homogenic systems of and they have not analysed the literature to identify existing and
‘doing things better’ towards holistic systems of ‘doing better emerging interconnected themes or dominant research areas in
things’ (Sterling, 2004; McKibben, 2007). which both I4.0 and SD are studied. Moreover, to characterize the
The definition of sustainable development (SD) has a broad broadness of these topics, we use systematic mapping research to
spectrum characterizing human progress (Brown et al., 1987), review rather than a typical systematic literature review (SLR). We
resource utilisation (Mieg, 2012) and business interactions chose systematic mapping review as it aims to develop wider un-
(Strandhagen et al., 2017). According to Elkington (1998), sustain- derstanding of concepts, general research trends (e.g., publication
ability consists of three pillars: social, economic, and environ- trends over time, research methods and publication outlets),
mental. These pillars constitute the triple bottom line (TBL), the identify knowledge gaps, and classify the sub-sets of knowledge
objective of which is to meet the resource needs of current and clusters (James et al., 2016; Petersen et al., 2015), which fits to the
future generations without hampering the environment. Stock and exact scope of this research.
Seliger (2016) suggested that I4.0 holds great potential in grasping To map the field around mentioned scope, we formulate six
sustainable industrial value creation in the TBL. Furthermore, sus- research questions (RQs), as no analogous SD mapping research
tainable business models (SBMs) encompass the TBL and account exists: (1) Who is working in the I4.0-based SD research field and
for multiple parties alongside the environment and society at large where? (2) What key investigative research methods are being
(Bocken et al., 2014). They are essential in directing and imple- adopted in the field? (3) Which technologies currently address SD
menting innovative business processes for sustainability by needs in an I4.0 context? (4) To what extent are key research
adopting circular economy (CE) strategies such as narrowing, themes in SD and I4.0 studied? (5) What are the interconnecting
slowing and closing the resource loop (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), themes in I4.0-based SD research? and (6) What are the current SD
making them key drivers of competitive advantage (Bocken et al., research gaps and opportunities based on I4.0? To answer these
2014) and overall SD. questions, this paper presents a holistic research approach and
Despite the widespread significance of I4.0 as an enabler of SD positions SD as an umbrella term encompassing TBL, CE and SBMs
(Beier et al., 2017) there are limited reviews that have assessed I4.0 with the aim of providing researchers and practitioners with a
from a sustainability perspective (Sharma et al., 2020). This signal comprehensive understanding of existing and emerging research
that the crossovers between I4.0 and sustainability paradigms trends, as well as highlighting research gaps for future research.

2
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655

Table 1
Comparison of related literature reviews.

Authors Years Sources of Primary Studies Databases Research Purpose I4.0 and Sustainability Focus
Included

Kuo and 1990 Review papers EBSCO, SpringerLink, Wiley Assessing technological progress towards Eco-innovation-based
Smith e2017 Interscience, ScienceDirect, sustainability (particularly environmental technologies targeting TBL
(2018) Emerald Insight, Open Access sustainability, mainly through eco-innovation) sustainability
Journals
Jabbour 2015 Journal articles Scopus Determining the implications of BD on sustainable BD in supply chain
et al. e2019 supply chain management management for TBL
(2020) sustainability
Rosa et al. 2000 Formal and informal Scopus, Web of Science Defining the relationship between I4.0 and CE and I4.0 and CE
(2020) e2018 literature (including books, their reciprocal effects on a company’s overall
scientific reports and performance
industrial reports)
Machado 2008 Journals and conference EBSCO, Web of Science, Analysing how different technologies have been used I4.0 and sustainable
et al. eJan articles Science Direct, Scopus to address sustainable operations while linking them manufacturing/operations
(2020) 2018 to different guidelines driven by government leading to the TBL
programs for I4.0 implementation
Ribeiro 1998 Only journal articles Scopus, Exploring the literature on additive manufacturing andAdditive manufacturing for
et al. e2018 Emerald Insight, EBSCO, its impact on TBL dimensions life cycle analysis resulting in
(2020) Web of Science TBL sustainability
Asiimwe 2014 Scientific literature Scopus Examining the extent to which concepts of I4.0, I4.0 and socio-technical
and de e2019 sustainability, and socio-technical systems have been sustainability
Kock jointly considered in the literature
(2019)
Tirabeni 2011 Journals and conference Scopus, Web of Science, Exploring I4.0 and its recent developments by I4.0 and SBMs for
et al. eJan articles ProQuest, JSTOR investigating the complementarity and organisational and social
(2019) 2018 interconnections among work environments, business sustainability
and organisational models, and educational
approaches
This 1st Jan Scientific literature and Scopus, Web of Science, Systematically analysing the I4.0 research landscape I4.0 and sustainable
study 2012 journal articles ProQuest, IEEE Explore with respect to different aspects of SD, mainly development; a systemic and
e17th concerning the TBL, CE and SBMs synthesised concept of the
April TBL, CE and SBMs
2020

Investigating these inquiries is timely, as doing so will generate an
understanding of what SD concepts are being applied and thereby
support the development of the I4.0 agenda.
This paper is organised as follows: Section 2 introduces a brief
primer on I4.0 and SD, including their definitions and how SD is
framed in this paper. Section 3 outlined the employed review meth-
odologydthat is, systematic mapping. We then present the review
findings in Sections 4 and 5; the former section describes patterns and
trends and later provides a detailed theoretical discussion based on
findings. Section 6 suggests future research directions, while Section 7
concludes the paper and summarises its contributions. Appendix A
lists all primary studies used in the current review.
2. Background
Sustainability in any form can help establish optimal conditions
for tackling 21st-century issues in business and the environment
among others (Greenwood and Holt, 2014; Pearce, 2008). Accord-
ing to the Brundtland Report (1987), ‘the concept of sustainable
development does imply limits e not absolute limits but limitations
imposed by the present state of technology and social organization
on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to
absorb the effects of human activities’. The Brundtland Report
(1987) provides a well-known broad definition of SD as ‘develop-
ment that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’
(Diesendorf, 2000). This means that, in addition to a wide range of
environmental concerns, SD addresses diverse and complex chal-
lenges that change alongside human societies and natural ecosys-
tems around the globe (Robert et al., 2005).
The concepts of sustainability and SD have gained worldwide
attention due to their proposed solutions (Olawumi and Chan,
2018) for problems related to the environment, energy, climate
change and rural development, among other things (Axelsson et al.,
2011). Norton (2005) considers sustainability and SD as synonyms
and uses them interchangeably, while Axelsson et al. (2011) claim
that the two concepts are rather distinct. The latter research stream
describes sustainability as a conceptual term (Ekins et al., 2003) and
as a policy vision to prevent the depletion of natural resources
(Axelsson et al., 2011) and addresses issues pertaining to biodi-
versity, conservation and ecological integrity (Ramakrishnan,
2001). In contrast, Sartori et al. (2014) define SD as a multidimen-
sional collective societal process that involves multiple interested
parties (Axelsson et al., 2011). Our study describes both concepts as
a ‘social learning and steering processes’ (Lee, 1994) where sus-
tainability acts as a discourse or process for achieving SD goals
(Sartori et al., 2014).
The most current and relevant interpretation of SD is the triple
bottom line (TBL) (Elkington, 1998). The TBL entails three pillars:
economic sustainability, which aims to secure liquidity and ensure
profit (Schulz and Flanigan, 2016); social sustainability, which
contributes to the development of human and societal capital; and
environmental sustainability, which refers to the consumption of
those resources that can be reproduced from living and non-living
things (Hubbard, 2009; Norman et al., 2004). Further, there is
growing research about CE as an SD tool for meeting society’s in-
terests at the macro level (Sauve  et al., 2016; Geng and Doberstein,
2008). CE is known as an emerging mindset that aims for the
sustainable use of natural resources (McDowall et al., 2017),
necessitating a shift from the linear model of ‘take, make, use and
dispose/waste’ to the circular model of ‘reduce, reuse, recycle,
recover, remanufacture and redesign’ (Jabbour et al., 2020).
While the concept of a typical business model as an abstract
representation is limited to value flow within an organization, the

3
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
abrupt technological shifts and sustainability paradigms influ-
encing human beings and societies have prioritised SBMs. In this
paper, we follow Machado et al. (2020) and explain SBMs as tools
that maintain a balance between social, environmental and eco-
nomic needs while still preserving value proposition in terms of
creating new jobs, saving costs and reducing adverse environ-
mental impacts (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). The SD process
demands systemic change and innovation in products, lifestyles,
ecologies, processes and structures (Smith et al., 2012), which
suggests that an integrated SD system must include the TBL, a CE
and SBMs correspondingly.
Along with global social, economic, and environmental chal-
lenges, the world faces difficulties related to abrupt technological
advancement, digitalisation and automation. In response to these
challenges, I4.0, a manufacturing system driven by information
technology (Lasi et al., 2014), impacts organisational economic
components such as productivity, efficiency and competitiveness,
as well as social and environmental constraints geared towards
sustainability (Bonilla et al., 2018). The term ‘I4.0’ was coined by
German researchers Kagerman et al. (2011) to help shape the future
of the German economy. I4.0 uses fundamental technologies, such
as CPSs and IoT, to connect humans, machines, and other resources
as well as products and services in real world.
Sustainability is also considered a primary driver of I4.0 (Beier
et al., 2017). I4.0 technologies can be integrated with value chains
by collecting and actively sharing data to provide real-time infor-
mation about machines, productions, operations and component
flows; this helps managers track, monitor and make sustainable
decisions about post-consumption product recoveries. These
recovery-based approaches replace the traditional linear ‘take,
make, use and dispose’ philosophy with a circular one that benefits
organisations and supply chains socially, economically, and envi-
ronmentally (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Some authors anticipated
CE-based business models as the most competitive operational
tools for developing SBMs in I4.0 environments (Bressanelli et al.,
2018; Nascimento et al., 2019). In general, I4.0-based business
models rely on the IoT’s connectivity, whereby ‘companies’ prod-
ucts and processes are interconnected and integrated to achieve
higher value for both customers and the companies’ internal pro-
cesses’ (Frank et al., 2019). While many industries have long been
stuck in unsustainable but financially viable business models
(Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013), I4.0 offers businesses sustain-
able longevity, efficiency and recovery by contributing to their so-
cial, economic and environmental values (de Man and Strandhagen,
2017; Strandhagen et al., 2017). More specifically, for small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), I4.0-based business models can
be facilitated if organisations focus on their absorptive capacity
towards new technological innovations and their respective inno-
vation strategies (Müller et al., 2020).
3. Methodology
We followed the literature mapping review guidelines described
by Kitchenham et al. (2011). Mapping studies apply a methodology
similar to systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, systematic
mapping studies aim to identify and classify all studies related to a
broad topic, whereas typical SLRs tend to focus on questions about
the qualities and applicability of different methods, technologies
and concepts (Kitchenham et al., 2011; James et al., 2016).
Furthermore, Kitchenham et al. (2011) state that usually, a mapping
study aims to classify the relevant literature and aggregates studies
with respect to the defined categories such as (authors’ names,
authors’ affiliations, publication source, publication type, publica-
tion date, etc.) and/or information about their search methods
used. Thus, it suits our research aim to focus on the classification
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
and thematic analysis of literature about a given topic. Our sys-
tematic mapping review process consisted of three phases: plan-
ning, conducting and documenting.
3.1. Planning
The first step was defining and clarifying the object (i.e., domain
topic) and boundaries of the study. This was difficult to apply to the
concept of sustainability not only because the topic is broad, but
also because recent years have seen more and more science and
engineering fields define a number of niche sustainability-related
concepts (e.g., SD, sustainable value, sustainable orientation,
flourishing/strong SBM), leading to semantic confusion. Consid-
ering our goal of exploring and categorising new SD trends and
applications, we decided to only consider studies referring to sus-
tainability in an I4.0 context. Therefore, our review included several
types of sustainability and I4.0 articles related to TBL, CE and SBMs.
The review covered literature concerning these topics that were
published between January 1, 2012 and April 17, 2020. We chose
2012 as the starting year because the term ‘I4.0’ was first publicly
introduced at Hannover Fair in 2011.
3.2. Conducting
To conduct a literature search and obtain relevant articles, we
defined a search strategy and data sources. Search strings were
developed based on the scope of this study and were framed
within an established ‘population’ and ‘intervention’
(Kitchenham et al., 2011). In literature reviews, a population re-
fers to the application area, which in this case is ‘I4.0’, while the
intervention or exposure is ‘sustainability/SD’. We ran a pilot
search on our selected keywords. After piloting, it became clear
which keywords produced noise or irrelevant papers. For
example, most of the articles use ‘I4.0’ as a keyword compared to
‘Fourth industrial revolution’. Based on our pilot search and
consultations with the library information retrieval experts, we
took ‘sustainability’ as the umbrella term covering TBL, among
other things. The piloting also helped exclude the ‘cleaner’ pro-
duction keyword because it yielded many hits related to chem-
istry, chemical processes and other scientific articles, which were
out of this study’s scope. Finally, we obtained the following two
blocks of search strings to collect relevant literature from
prominent digital databases. These two blocks of keywords were
combined with the help of Boolean operators (‘AND’ and ‘OR’) to
encompass multiple facets of I4.0 and sustainability, returning
results that contained keywords related to both concepts.

Block A e Industry 4.0: ‘Industry 4.0’ OR ‘smart manufacturing’
OR ‘smart production’ OR ‘smart factory’ OR ‘cyber-physical
systems’ OR ‘cloud manufacturing’ OR ‘Internet of Things (IoT)’
AND

Block B e Sustainability: ‘sustainable business models’ OR
‘green models’ OR ‘circular economy’ OR ‘sustainable develop-
ment’ OR ‘sustainable value’ OR ‘sustainable orientation’ OR
‘business model for sustainability’ OR ‘sustainability business
models’ OR ‘flourishing/strong sustainable business model’ OR
‘truly sustainable business model’ OR ‘normative sustainable
business model’
Our review search was based on these two blocks of keywords,
although some relevant articles may have been missed; the use of
specific terms in the search strings may have influenced the iden-
tification of primary papers. However, we made the terms broad
and retrieved a relatively large number of papers (n ¼ 4291). Fig. 1
outlines the literature selection process used in this study.
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
Fig. 1. Paper selection process.
Our search keywords targeted paper titles and abstracts with
a view to retrieving as many pieces of relevant literature as
possible related to I4.0 and a combination of sustainability, TBL,
CE and SBMs. We retrieved a total of 4291 articles from four
databases: Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Explore and ProQuest.
The search results were imported into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet and included metadata such as article title, author,
year, publication type and abstract. In phase 1, the retrieved ar-
ticles were filtered based on publication date (1st Jan 2012e17th
April 2020) and publication language (English). By the end of this
process, 1233 papers were excluded and 3058 were ready for
further analysis. In phase 2, we screened these 3058 articles
based on title, abstract, keywords and document type (journal
articles only) thus removing both conference papers and dupli-
cates. Most of the articles were conferences papers and book
chapters, which were excluded. This reduced the number of
publications to 757.
These 757 papers were evaluated based on abstracts, intro-
duction, and conclusion. The inclusion criterion was that all
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
papers had to discuss I4.0 (either as a concept or analysed with
respect to its related technologies) in relation to at least one of the
SD concepts (TBL, CE, and SBMs). This means that articles using
I4.0 as a keyword referring only to technological usages without
having direct implications for SD were removed. In addition, ar-
ticles mentioning SD only as a future research paradigm in a
context out of the scope of current research, such as machine
performance and accuracy, were also excluded. This iterative se-
lection process resulted in to 120 articles. In the final step, 120
papers were analysed by reading full text. These papers were
assessed explicitly based on their study objectives (SD) and de-
scriptions of their contexts (I4.0) and their relationships. This
process resulted in 39 papers being excluded, as they were only
marginally addressing I4.0-based SD relationship in terms of TBL,
CE, and SBMs and would not have been added value to the current
research. Altogether, the final selection resulted in 81 articles (see:
Appendix A) which were assessed based on their properties, such
as publication type and year, methods, contributions, domain, and
publication channel.
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655

4. Results
This section presents the results from the analysis of 81 primary
studies pertaining to I4.0 and sustainability. The results derived
from the research questions (RQs) are presented in Table 2 below.
4.1. Publication year
This attribute was used to establish the number of articles
published annually about I4.0 and sustainability between January 1,
2012 and April 17, 2020. Fig. 2 highlights an increasing publication
trend, but a particularly steep increase is visible from 2018 to 2020.
Of the 81 primary studies, 22 papers were published in 2018, 26 in
2019 and 14 in 2020 (up until 17th April). This growing trend in
publications portrays the significance of I4.0 and its role in sus-
tainability, particularly over the past three years. This trend sug-
gests that scholars increasingly view SD as a vital aspect of I4.0
evolution and a key to finding solutions to industry-related
problems.
4.2. Publication channel
A journal’s credibility is significant in determining its public
perception. This mapping review shows that Sustainability (n ¼ 21)
and Journal of Cleaner Production (n ¼ 9) are the most prominent
publication venues among those under review. Other prominent
journals identified in the primary studies are the International
Journal of Production Research (n ¼ 4), Sustainable Cities and Society
(n ¼ 3), International Journal of Precision Engineering and
Manufacturing-Green Technology (n ¼ 2), IFAC-PapersOnLine (n ¼ 2)
and many others, as shown in Fig. 3. Publications in these journals
outline the importance of I4.0 and its sustainability implications
from a research perspective. Furthermore, the number of publica-
tions in these diverse and well-reputed publications underscore the
multidisciplinary nature of I4.0 and SD in general (Bondar, 2018).
4.3. High-contributing authors
To identify the most prolific authors, primary papers were sor-
ted based on the first author’s contribution. Table 3 highlights that
Watanabe (Brazil) and García-Muin ~ a (Spain) topped the list with 3
publications each, followed by Garrido-Hidalgo (Spain) and Müller
(Germany) with 2 publications each. These authors investigated
topics related to I4.0 technologies and sustainability.
4.4. Publication’s country of origin
Fig. 4 shows that most of the primary studies were published by
authors from Spain (n ¼ 9), India (n ¼ 9), Brazil (n ¼ 8) and Italy
(n ¼ 6), whereas the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of
America (USA) and Germany were represented by four publications
each. It is interesting to note that articles from Germany, the flag-
ship nation of digital development, are fewer than those from Spain
and India written in English. This might indicate that the latter
nations have become increasingly aware of how applying I4.0-
related knowledge and skills can grant them competitive advan-
tage, thereby playing a key role in their industrial survival. How-
ever, despite the rich and dynamic knowledge base about I4.0’s
capabilities, its practical applications remain in their infancy within
many organisations (Bondar, 2018).
4.5. Research methods used in primary studies
The primary studies were analysed to identify applied research
techniques. Fig. 5 shows that a major portion of primary studies
employed conceptual approaches (n ¼ 38) followed by case studies
(n ¼ 15), surveys (n ¼ 15), simulations (n ¼ 6), experiments (n ¼ 5)
and mixed methods (n ¼ 2). Mixed-method studies entail a com-
bination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The results
predominantly show that quantitative research methods, such as
experimentation and simulation, are under-represented and
should be employed in further research.
4.6. Key technologies
The related research question sought to classify the core tech-
nologies that underpin I4.0. Five broad categories were identified in
the I4.0esustainability relationship, namely I4.0 concepts which
encompass leading-edge technologies such as IoT, CPSs, BD, and
cloud computing (CC) and theories (see Fig. 6).
The majority of the primary studies discussed general I4.0
concepts and theories in the context of sustainability (n ¼ 32) and
IoT (n ¼ 27), used as an individual technology for addressing sus-
tainability issues. The remaining primary studies highlight BD
(n ¼ 9), CPSs (n ¼ 5) and CC (n ¼ 5).
Research built on I4.0 concepts as a study environment,
including mixed technologies, is the most common form of SD
research. This makes sense because such studies easily highlight
the theoretical and practical implications of I4.0 for educators and
practitioners. Among individual technologies, IoT is the most
studied SD-related technology. This is because I4.0 uses IoT to
execute a wide range of digital manufacturing involving sensors
and networked technologies. The connectivity offered by IoT links
entire environmental networks, saves resources and minimises
unnecessary expenses on water monitoring, transportation and
smart grid systems. BD, the third most discussed technology
following IoT, is a revolutionary information technology that can
assess environmental risks and optimise resource use by analysing

Table 2
Research questions and their corresponding sections.

ID RQs Corresponding section

RQ1 Who is working in the I4.0-based research field and Descriptive results: Publication year (Section 4.1), publication channel (Section 4.2), high-contributing authors
where? (Section 4.3) and country of origin (Section 4.4)
RQ2 What key investigative research methods are being Research methods used in primary studies (Section 4.5)
adopted in the field?
RQ3 Which technologies currently address SD needs in Key technologies in the field (Section 4.6)
an I4.0 context?
RQ4 To what extent are key research themes in SD and Sustainable development and I4.0 analysis (Section 4.7)
I4.0 studied?
RQ5 What are the interconnecting themes in I4.0-based Themes under each sustainable development element (TBL, CE, SBMs) and I4.0 (Sections 5.1e5.4)
SD research?
RQ6 What are the current SD research gaps and Current research gaps under each research construct (Section 6)
opportunities based on I4.0?

6
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655

Fig. 2. I4.0 and sustainability-related publication trend (from January 1, 2012 until April 17, 2020).

Fig. 3. Publication channels of primary studies, n  2 (n represents the number of publications).

Table 3
Top four authors in I4.0 and sustainability research.

Author(s) (Year) Publication Venue Research Themes Investigated

Watanabe et al.
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Social, economic, environmental, organisational and technical sustainability; I4.0; CPSs;
(2018) Sciences & Engineering dispersed productive systems; cloud systems

Watanabe et al.
IFAC-PapersOnLine
(2017)
IFAC-PapersOnLine

Watanabe et al.
(2016)

García-Muin ~ a et al.
Sustainability Sustainability; CE; circular business models; industrial districts; I4.0
(2020)
Social Sciences

García-Muin ~a
Social Sciences
(2019)

García-Muin ~ a et al.
(2018)

Müller and Voigt
Journal of Precision Engineering and Social, economic and environmental sustainability; IoT; I4.0
(2018) Manufacturing-Green Technology

Müller et al. (2018)
Sustainability

Garrido-Hidalgo
Waste Management Environmental sustainability; CE; I4.0; IoT
et al. (2020)
IEEE Access

Garrido-Hidalgo
et al. (2018)

7
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655

Fig. 4. Publications by country, n > 2 (n represents the number of publications).

Fig. 5. Research methods used in primary studies.

Fig. 6. Key I4.0 technologies.

large data pools. While CPSs can connect digital and physical reactive and proactive decisions, and CC can consolidate large-scale
worlds and promote sustainable solutions by making optimal cloud infrastructure to reduce negative environmental impacts,

8
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
these technologies play a comparatively lesser role than IoT in
developing sustainable solutions and require further research.
Overall, CPS, IoT, smart products and smart processes add to value
proposition and support sustainable business.
4.7. Key sustainable development themes
As evidenced by the primary studies, SD is a multi-dimensional
topic in relation to I4.0. Fig. 7 outlines the four most relevant
themes in the research area on which the current study is based. A
vast proportion of the primary studies address the social, economic,
and environmental pillars of I4.0 technologies with a strong focus
on the latter.
Alongside the TBL, CE represent a novel business mindset that
can lead organisations and societies to SD (McDowall et al., 2017).
Much of the identified literature applied the CE principles of the
3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle) and 6Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle,
recover, remanufacture and redesign) as I4.0 approaches. Only two
primary papers discussed the ReSOLVE (regenerate, share, opti-
mise, loop, virtualise, exchange) framework. ReSOLVE is suggested
by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a principal global foundation
developing CE plans for decision makers across the triple helix
model of innovation, which includes government, business and
academia (MacArthur et al., 2015). The manufacturing world is
changing along with the current industrial revolution, as is sus-
tainable value creation for businesses. Despite the significance of
the subject, few papers have focused on the necessary imple-
mentation of SBMs in operational environments (Ritala et al., 2018).
More research is thus required to link I4.0 practices with strategic
organisational visions to foster the effective exchange of informa-
tion between upper management and operational units and their
interested parts. Recently, few studies have addressed more than
one contributing factor of SD linked to I4.0. For example, Machado
et al. (2020) studied the impact of I4.0 technologies with respect to
TBL sustainability and its implications for designing SBMs.
Strandhagen et al. (2017) proposed a model describing ‘how Lo-
gistics 4.0 changes the business model elements [and] the resulting
sustainability effects, and in turn, [how] that sustainability affects
Logistics 4.0 trends. However, more field research is required to
integrate I4.0 technologies and their practical applications to the
essential elements of SD.
5. Inter-related themes under sustainable development
I4.0 encompasses multiple leading-edge technologies and ad-
dresses many theoretical concepts related to the ongoing 4th in-
dustrial revolution. Its main target is innovating industry,
Fig. 7. Key themes under sustainable development and I4.0. I4.0-based practices leading to CE is an increasingly popular topic among researchers.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
production processes and overall SD at both the organisational and
societal levels (Braccini and Margherita, 2018). Therefore, we
explore and link several aspects of SD-related thinking, including
TBL sustainability, CE and SBMs, that directly and indirectly support
SD.
Sustainability is a multi-dimensional concept that affects the
environment, the economy and society (i.e., the TBL). Economic
sustainability can be obtained by improving productivity, envi-
ronmental sustainability by smart energy consumption and social
sustainability by creating lighter workloads and better job pros-
pects (Braccini and Margherita, 2018). The concept of CE arose from
a contemporary business mindset that seeks to help societies and
organisations attain SD by restoring value to their used resources
(McDowall et al., 2017; Pham et al., 2019). According to
Geissdoerfer et al. (2017), sustainability also supports CE by virtue
of their mutual intra- and intergenerational commitments, global
models, multi-disciplinary scopes and concerns with non-
economic aspects. As a practical example, García-Muin ~ a et al.
(2018) proposed a new type of circular business model that in-
tegrates innovation and sustainability as strategic choices, resulting
in solution-oriented business models. Machado et al. (2020)
extended the debate to business value and suggested that CE
based business models are optimised versions of the TBL that can
be used in developing SBMs. SBMs based on I4.0 maintain a resil-
ient, efficient, and recovery-based infrastructure, resulting in social,
economic and environmental benefits contributing to long-term SD
(de Man and Strandhagen, 2017).
As these subjects are dynamic, the next section provides a
thematic overview of the research areas in which these themes
have predominantly been studied. In doing so, a comprehensive
picture of SD and its many intersecting sub-topics can be obtained.
To identify themes, we followed the model by Gioia et al. (2012) to
systematically analyse our primary papers in three phases. First, we
identified core concepts in primary papers and labelled them as
‘first-order concepts’. We then extracted what we called ‘second-
order themes’ with a focus on emerging research themes. Finally,
‘aggregate dimensions’ were found by connecting second-order
themes and first-order concepts to broader research categories
(see Appendix A).
5.1. I4.0 and TBL sustainability
TBL is the most studied theme under I4.0-based SD research
(Fig. 7) and is thus applicable to several research areas. I4.0 is
predominantly studied from the perspectives of adoption and
implementation to achieve TBL benefits. Furthermore, I4.0 tech-
nologies are widely studied to help create and maintain smart
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
factories, smart cities and sustainable supply chains. I4.0 aims to
achieve certain operational and strategic TBL benefits, such as
resource efficiency, energy efficiency, renewable energy, reduced
workload, competitiveness, awareness, better decision making,
employee well-being and productivity. Key TBL papers and their
respective applications are outlined in Appendix A.
5.1.1. I4.0 adoption and implementation for TBL
The adoption and implementation of I4.0 leading to the TBL
varies based on context. For instance, Braccini and Margherita
(2018) identified two possible trajectories for adopting I4.0 tech-
nologies in their empirical case study, which supported the three
pillars of TBL sustainability (social, economic and environmental)
with a view to achieving organisational sustainability. Beier et al.
(2017) empirically compared manufacturing companies in a high-
ly industrialised economy (Germany) and a growing industrial
economy (China). Their findings suggested that digital trans-
formation leads to environmental sustainability via resource effi-
ciency and renewable energy, while social and technological
sustainability can be achieved with intelligent assistance systems
and reduced workloads. Similarly, Müller and Voigt (2018) elabo-
rated on the concepts of ‘I4.0’ and ‘Made in China (2025)’ (the
Chinese version of the I4.0 concept) to assess industrial IoT-based
value creation considering three dimensions of sustainability in
SMEs. In terms of economic sustainability, the SMEs in a highly
industrialised economy place more emphasis on operational ben-
efits, whereas in a growing industrial economy, SMEs focus more on
strategic benefits (e.g., competitiveness and individualisation). In
terms of environmental sustainability, German SMEs expected high
resource efficiency, whereas Chinese SMEs anticipated energy ef-
ficiency. Regarding the social aspects of sustainability, Chinese
SMEs sought more refined intelligent employee assistance systems
compared to German SMEs. According to Müller et al. (2018),
strategic, operational, environmental and social opportunities drive
the successful implementation of I4.0, whereas competitiveness
and future viability are its primary challenges. Nhamo et al. (2020)
used information communication and technology to measure the
readiness of different countries to implement I4.0 technologies in
pursuit of SD goals.
5.1.2. Sustainable smart factories
I4.0-based autonomous technologies, such as IoT, have trans-
formed traditional manufacturing companies into smart factories.
While smart factories are considered sustainable, IoT is what helps
these factories improve their energy efficiency and address green
sustainability challenges (Wu et al., 2016). For instance, Meng et al.
(2018) explored the intersection between manufacturing and sus-
tainability, presenting sustainability in terms of energy efficiency as
an important goal for smart factories. Wu et al. (2016) established a
correlation between BD and green issues like environmental sus-
tainability. They proposed two metrics, effective energy efficiency
and effective resource efficiency, to meet green challenges through
BD. Mahmood et al. (2020) proposed an IoT-based home automa-
tion approach to reduce energy consumption, optimise costs and
encourage cleaner environments. It is also worth noting that
scholars are identifying I4.0-based sustainable solutions by inte-
grating the efforts of humans and machines to achieve customised
customer-centric solutions. For instance, Casado-Mansilla et al.
(2018) introduced a sensor-based architecture to keep users
informed about their energy consumption. They further assessed
BD-based decision making as a fruitful sustainability technique in
smart manufacturing. Kumar et al. (2018) proposed a large and
robust data-based layout design for manufacturing that considered
all three sustainability aspects, where energy consumption maps
environmental sustainability, material handling maps economic
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
sustainability and maintenance and hazard management maps
social sustainability. Furthermore, Francisco and Taylor (2019)
established a novel community-based energy feedback system
and offered a CPS-oriented framework to link server data to citi-
zens; this way, people’s understanding of their own energy de-
cisions could be improved, thereby leading to greater social and
environmental sustainability.
I4.0 consists of a complex technological architecture (Lee et al.,
2015), which makes the effective application of its technologies a
frequent research topic regarding industrial performance
(Dalenogare et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2015). However, I4.0 alone has a
positive correlation with sustainable business performance. More
specifically, Gupta et al. (2020) investigated the link between
cloud-based enterprise resource planning and organisational sus-
tainability in terms of significant performance, while Raut et al.
(2019) analysed the enablers of sustainable business performance
in the context of BD. Pinzone et al. (2020) introduced another
perspective about fostering social sustainability via human-centric
CPS; they developed a framework defining CPS-based guidelines
for the well-being, learning outcomes and operational performance
of workers by supporting social and operational sustainability.
Corporate social responsibility has also been considered as a sus-
tainability evaluation tool (Park et al., 2019; Scavarda et al., 2019). In
addition, Ghobakhloo and Fathi (2019) demonstrated that digitised
manufacturing can lead to corporate survival and value creation in
the I4.0 era.
5.1.3. Smart and sustainable cities
Smart cities require the sustainable application of modern I4.0
technologies to improve their inhabitants’ lives, including through
increased security, healthier environments and better health care
access. As few papers have built I4.0-based frameworks for smart
and sustainable cities, more smart city research is required. Kang
et al. (2020) designed a smart IoT-based waste collection system
for households in Malaysia, whereas Piramuthu (2017) discussed
network-connected bicycles from an IoT perspective. Deakin and
Reid (2018) also suggested that sustainable and energy-efficient
low-carbon zones adopt IoT-based smart cities as a growth strat-
egy, which could result in social and environmental benefits. Su
et al. (2013) addressed environmental problems associated with
urban development by proposing IoT-based environment moni-
toring, which can sense, process and transfer environmental in-
formation. Expanding this context from cities to countries, Baek
and Park (2015) linked BD and policy issues in Korea’s SD initia-
tives and found that establishing computing platforms will help
share data and generate environmental value. Bibri (2018) also
presented a framework based on IoT-enabled BD applications to
achieve environmental sustainability in future smart cities, while
Moreno et al. (2014) presented an energy-efficient user-centric
management system for building designs using an IoT approach.
5.1.4. Sustainable supply chains
From raw materials to end-of-life, I4.0-based technologies have
changed the entire structure of supply chain management. This has,
in part, changed how suppliers, manufacturers and consumers
contribute to sustainable long-term solutions that benefit society,
the economy and the environment alike. Luthra et al. (2020)
explored the drivers of I4.0 and sustainability as they apply to
supply chains and ranked ‘government supportive policies’ and
‘collaboration and transparency’ as highly significant drivers for
achieving TBL sustainability in supply chains within emerging
economies, such as India’s. Ramirez-Pen ~ a et al. (2020) further
connected key I4.0-enabling technologies with the most significant
supply chain archetypes (e.g., lean, agile, resilient and green) in the
context of shipbuilding supply chains. After identifying the
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
shipbuilding supply chain as green and lean, they concluded that
green supply chain paradigms correlate with social sustainability.
They listed I4.0 technologies like additive manufacturing, cyber-
security, autonomous robots, CC and augmented reality as features
that improve economic and environmental sustainability from a
shipbuilding supply chain perspective (Ramirez-Pen ~ a et al., 2020).
They further categorised BD, IoT and simulation as drivers of social
sustainability. Furthermore, Shokouhyar et al. (2019) made direct
connections between types of IoT and types of smart and sustain-
able supply chains, each one assessed under TBL sustainability as-
pects and classified as either economic, green or social IoT supply
chains. These categorisations, alongside other variables, resulted in
better decision making and organisational sustainability.
Gru
zauskas et al. (2018) identified an I4.0-based competitive
strategy contributing to optimal cost management for a sustainable
supply chain, thus reducing the trade-offs between environmental
sustainability and cost-effective performance.
5.2. I4.0 and CE
Following TBL, CE is gaining popularity in I4.0-based SD research
(Fig. 7). The research trend primarily shows a focus on advancing CE
benefits through I4.0 adoption and implementation. Few studies
explore I4.0-based CE benefits in sustainable supply chains, while
no studies research them in smart and sustainable city or factory
contexts; this topic requires further attention. I4.0-based CE ap-
proaches aim to achieve better decision making, improved cost and
flexibility, eco-designs, business value, reverse logistics and prod-
uct life extensions. Key CE research articles and their respective
applications are defined in Appendix A.
5.2.1. I4.0 adoption and implementation for CE
Criticising the lack of research on the relationship between I4.0
and CE to achieve sustainable operations, de Sousa Jabbour et al.
(2018) proposed a roadmap for successful CE implementation
through I4.0-based technologies aiming for sustainable organisa-
tions and improved decision making. They used the ReSOLVE model
to assess the contributions of I4.0-based technologies to CE
implementation and strategising, which was also used by Dev et al.
(2020) to present a real-time decision model for sustainable reverse
logistics systems. Bi et al. (2015) discussed the 6Rs (reduce, reuse,
recycle, recover, redesign and remanufacture) to reconfigure in-
dustrial robots for sustainable manufacturing in SMEs. The 6Rs
were used here to illustrate how industrial challenges, such as cost
and flexibility, can be lightened by making robots adaptable to new
tasks, increasing their utilisation rates while minimizing their costs.
Being among the pioneering researchers linking I4.0 and CE
paradigms, Rajput and Singh (2019) identified 24 enablers (e.g.,
service, policy frameworks and artificial intelligence) and 15 bar-
riers (e.g., automated synergies and interface modelling) to CEeI4.0
integration. To bridge the gap in empirical evidence detailing
business-related aspects of CE, Rocca et al. (2020) presented a
practical laboratory-based case examining the impact of I4.0 tech-
nologies on CE by testing waste from electrical and electronic
equipment. They proposed that factories should adopt more
service-oriented and event-driven information-based models for
increased optimisation, greater efficiency and better CE support in
an I4.0 era. For successful implementation, researchers have linked
TBL sustainability and CE as drivers of business value. For example,

Avila-Guti rrez et al. (2019) proposed a framework aligned with in
e four keyways: (1) collaborative design; (2) greater automation; (3)
which CE was conceptualised as a sustainability paradigm, and
further linked to the TBL. This framework was then developed to
address digital transformation in the CE implementation process
for creating circular value. The 6Rs were also considered from a CE
perspective in product life cycle design. That said, few studies have
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
linked the effects of specific I4.0 technology implementations on CE
outcomes. For instance, Ingemarsdotter et al. (2019) developed a
framework to understand the practical implementation of IoT for
devising circular strategies. Rosa et al. (2020) evaluated different
I4.0-based technologies, such as BD analytics, CPS and additive
manufacturing as CE supports, highlighting a link between I4.0 and
CE. They introduced the concept of ‘Circular I4.0’ and digital CE,
describing the links between them using the 6Rs. Similarly, García-
Muin~ a et al. (2019) identified eco-design as a tool to stabilise CE
using IoT and I4.0. Some authors also identified specific stages of
product life extension through simulation (Charnley et al., 2019).
5.2.2. Sustainable supply chains
There is limited research on I4.0-based CE models for sustain-
able supply chains. Yadav et al. (2020) developed a sustainable
supply chain management framework to address related challenges
using combined solutions stemming from I4.0 and CE paradigms.
The results show that organisational and economic challenges are
the most crucial ones to address in sustainable supply chain man-
agement, and the researchers proposed the 6Rs and life cycle
analysis as possible solutions. Daú et al. (2019) analysed sustainable
supply chains in health care in current I4.0 environments, pro-
posing a transition to CE through the lens of corporate social re-
sponsibility. They concluded that health care supply chains can
become more sustainable by successfully integrating TBL, I4.0 and
corporate social responsibility.
5.3. I4.0 and SBMs
Based on our findings (Fig. 7), I4.0-related SBM literature exists
but has not yet become mainstream. Few scholars have examined
I4.0 adoption and implementation for developing SBMs. Sustain-
able supply chains, smart cities and factories are potential areas for
further research. I4.0 supports SBMs by enabling or facilitating
interconnected business models, triple-layered business models,
digital twin platforms, product service systems, pay-per-use
models, resource integration, transparency and traceability. Key
SBMs papers and their respective applications are outlined below
(see Appendix A).
5.3.1. I4.0 adoption and implementation for SBMs
SBMs in the I4.0 era demand sustainable practices in line with
companies’ strategic visions for value creation, which creates
complexity in aligning upper management’s goals with operational
business units and all other Interested parts (García-Muin ~ a et al.,
2020). To address this complexity, García-Muin ~ a et al. (2020) ana-
lysed the nature of sustainability transition and proposed corporate
values leading to SBMs. They suggested a triple-layered business
model uniting social, economic and environmental values via water
recycling in the ceramic tile industry. Similarly, Abubakr et al.
(2020) proposed that smart SBMs should be based on decentral-
ised management, advanced technologies for positive environ-
mental impact, transparent information, active resource and
energy management and quality technical assistance. In addition, Li
et al. (2020) proposed how enterprises can build SBMs using digital
twin platforms to achieve TBL benefits. Another concept, cloud
manufacturing, is a service-oriented business model to share
manufacturing capabilities and resources on a cloud platform
(Fisher et al., 2018). Cloud manufacturing increases sustainability in
improved process resilience and (4) enhanced waste reduction,
reuse, and recovery (Fisher et al., 2018).
Charro and Schaefer (2018) contributed to I4.0 and business
model paradigms by underscoring the business implications of
cloud manufacturing, offering novel ideas for product-service
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
systems. Their platform defined ‘use’ and ‘result’-oriented product
service systems that can adapt to customers’ strategic re-
quirements. Such systems persuade customers to trust third-party
platforms to achieve manufacturing quality rather than owning
physical machines. This kind of pay-per-use method motivates the
social aspects of SBMs and results in decreased costs, revenue
generation and competitive advantages for businesses. Watanabe
et al. (2016) proposed a product system evaluation process based
on CPS and CC to monitor TBL in addition to technological sus-
tainability. Sustainable product systems were categorised to pro-
vide new business models based on rational resource/environment
use that are conducive to employee safety and economic profit-
ability, which lend to the technological and social benefits of SBMs.
Regarding I4.0 in business modelling, Watanabe et al. (2017) pro-
posed a framework based on CPS and CC technologies that can lead
to cost-effectiveness, viability, safety and efficiency in sustainable
product service systems. Watanabe et al. (2018) further evaluated
the performance of dispersed production systems, which entail an
integrative process of converting raw materials into finished
products in economically, environmentally, socially, and techno-
logically sustainable ways. They proposed a framework that in-
cludes key sustainability performance indicators. Garrido-Hidalgo
et al. (2018) carried out an experiment by developing an I4.0-
based technological setting that avoided social disruptions by
providing safer working environments and sustainably digitalised
the I4.0 paradigm.
5.3.2. Sustainable supply chains
Jeble et al. (2018) empirically analysed the impact of BD and
predictive analysis on sustainable business development. They
found that integrating organisational capacities and resources can
create competitive advantage, further validating that BD and pre-
dictive analysis positively affect TBL outcomes when moderated by
supply base complexity, which results in technological and organ-
isational SBMs related benefits. Prause (2015) addressed the impact
of I4.0 on sustainable business modelling and discussed how
fractal-based information points (joining the parts around an in-
formation access point) for product life cycles in supply chains can
lead to BD transparency and traceability, thereby creating social
and organisational sustainability. While there is scarce literature on
SBMs for sustainable supply chains, more research about business
models based on environmental and social benefits is needed. They
should not be considered only as the by-products for economic
gains but for actual commercialization of social and environmental
benefits across entire supply chains (Birkel and Müller, 2021).
5.4. Synthesis of the findings
I4.0 for SD highlights numerous opportunities within and across
the individual and combined constructs of TBL, CE and SBMs
(Fig. 8). It is noted that they lead to the development of resource
efficiency, overall improvement of organisational structures, their
skills, employee well-being and improved business value under
sustainable I4.0 paradigm. While TBL align all three pillars of sus-
tainability with respect to social, economic, and environmental
objectives, CE complements by providing tools such as 3Rs and 6Rs
to reach those objectives. However, both the concepts differ in
terms of notion of responsibility (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). TBL
literature focuses more on achieving environmental benefits
whereas CE seems closer to prioritize financial benefits (Birkel and
Müller, 2021). Combining efforts to achieve TBL objectives and
circularity at the same time can outline certain benefits, such as
improved decision making, energy efficiency, fair distribution of
costs (Ghobakhloo, 2020) and eco-design. These kinds of coordi-
nating efforts provide basis to develop sustainability-oriented
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
business models (Ejsmont et al., 2020) based on innovation and
novelty (Ghobakhloo, 2020) in the ecosystem. I4.0 principle of
connectivity, and CE principle of resource integration results into
triple-layered interconnected business models and information-
driven business models which lead to traceable and transparent
product service systems that ultimately bring knowledge for value
creation. This kind of innovative transformation of business models
towards sustainability enables customer lifetime value, corporate
profitability, competitiveness, and digital twin systems for accuracy
by minimizing wastes, inefficiencies, and non-value-added activ-
ities (Ghobakhloo, 2020).
Thus, to benefit from synergies of TBL, CE and SBMs, SD should
be viewed as a policy-driven holistic approach that focuses on the
use of I4.0 to achieve sustainable value through resource efficiency
and co-optimising business and social value, which mutually ben-
efits the environment, the economy and society. A well-planned
I4.0 implementation strategy, followed by innovative policies in a
diffused social and institutional environment, that includes the
quintuple bottom line (social, economic, environmental, techno-
logical and organisational) and the quintuple helix (industry, gov-
ernment, university, environment and society) requires further
consideration.
6. Future research directions
Since I4.0 transition mechanisms are diverse, systematic defi-
nitions of sustainability that encompass all elements of an inte-
grated process are required. This challenges traditional approaches
to problem solving and demands more systemic ways of addressing
I4.0 transitions. Kiel et al. (2017) argued that extending beyond the
traditional TBL explanation of sustainability is critical in sustainable
industrial value creation. They proposed three additional TBL di-
mensions: technical integration, data and information, and public
context. These factors imply the involvement of an integrated
system comprising economic, social, environmental, technological,
and organisational aspects concurrently. It is important to extend
the TBL to a ‘quintuple bottom line’ by including technological and
organisational sustainability, since organisations, societies, envi-
ronments, and technologies are mutually dependent under I4.0.
Researchers can investigate the extent to which organisations can
achieve these sustainability outcomes and their ratio of significance
in relation to I4.0 technologies. In addition, although much atten-
tion has been paid to TBL and I4.0 adoption, more empirical
research is needed to assess outcomes like knowledge production
when organisations design I4.0 adoption exclusively to achieve said
outcomes (Braccini and Margherita, 2018). Similarly, antecedents to
I4.0 adoption and implementation are unclear and require further
attention in terms of management support, environmental uncer-
tainty, absorptive capacity and employee acceptance levels (Müller
et al., 2018).
There is an evident literature gap about I4.0-driven CE and SBMs
and their contributions to smart and sustainable cities, factories
and supply chains. Few papers (Maksimovic, 2018; Garrido-Hidalgo
et al., 2020) have analysed the positive role of IoT-driven waste
management systems in developing smart and green cities by
applying the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) for waste management or
smart SBMs based on decentralised management, advanced tech-
nologies for positive environmental impact, transparent informa-
tion, active resource and energy management and quality technical
assistance (Abubakr et al., 2020). Circularity and sustainability ex-
hibitions create environmental benefits by reusing and recycling,
which maximise material and resource efficiency and create value
from waste. They can also provide energy efficiency and scale up
solutions for smart and sustainable cities and factories; as such,
they merit further consideration. For smart cities, CC as an I4.0
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
Fig. 8. Key research areas and topics studied under I4.0 and SD.
technology could have potential benefits if properly planned and
standardised (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017) and then executed in line
with the neglected aspects of social sustainability, such as human
and community development feedback systems (Moreno et al.,
2014).
In the context of smart factories, more research about I4.0-based
rich data is required to evaluate reverse logistics and better control
remanufacturing and product recycling (Kamble et al., 2019).
Technologies such as additive manufacturing and CC for product
quality management could be evaluated to advance sustainability
using inline sensing and monitoring, real-time evaluation and
sampling inspection (Meng et al., 2018). Furthermore, sustainable
energy-efficient techniques are required for small-share energy
application systems, such as bioenergy, to tackle energy use
reduction and save on maintenance costs (Odwazny _ et al., 2018).
For a sustainable supply chain, it is important to qualitatively and
quantitatively explore topics like resistance to change and supply
chain complexity (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018) using BD predictive
analysis and CC by assessing their respective uses, advantages and
disadvantages (Jabbour et al., 2020).
In business models, organisational capabilities and corporate
social responsibilities are crucial enablers of proper SBMs and CE
frameworks (Daú et al., 2019). Few primary papers have addressed
TBL, CE and SBMs simultaneously under an I4.0 paradigm; instead,
they have mainly focused on value creation for sustainable orga-
nisations (Ghobakhloo and Fathi, 2019; Kiel et al., 2017; Müller and
Voigt, 2018). However, it is crucial to obtain quantified evidence of
the relationships and interplays within I4.0 firm management, in-
dustry performance, customer preferences and sustainability at all
levels (Piccarozzi et al., 2018). Combining the strategy literature
with quantitative and temporal data about I4.0 adoption and
implementation, its tools and issues, skillsets and capabilities,
awareness of new sustainable manufacturing practices and
respective decision making could create effective results in not only
overall firm performance, but also industry performance. In addi-
tion, sustainability reporting on global initiatives and SD goals
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
before and after transitions to I4.0 will serve as a checkpoint for
economies moving towards SD. Rethinking business models for
sustainability and CE includes a complex set of external interest
holders involved in all phases of product lifecycles, which presents
additional challenges and risks in the form of interdependencies. It
would be interesting to study the causal relationships between
socio-economic contexts (Tortorella et al., 2019), such as economic
growth, income and human capital (Beier et al., 2017) and their
complementary or constraining roles in developing digital tech-
nologies through empirical research (Gupta et al., 2020; Kamble
et al., 2019; Rajput and Singh, 2019). Apart from the positive im-
plications of I4.0, further research should also consider its many
context-related risks, such as IT security and stakeholder in-
terdependencies, e.g., in supply chains (Rosa et al., 2020). It should
also establish sustainability-related results based on the interplay
between these risks (Birkel et al., 2019).
7. Conclusion
This systematic mapping study presented current trends and
state-of-the-art SD research studies in an I4.0 context. The existing
SD literature was classified and reviewed through the lens of three
core topics: the TBL, SBMs and CE. The primary studies showed that
in an I4.0 context, SD contributes to CE objectives by developing
SBMs to secure social, economic, and environmental benefits. As
the TBL is the most commonly studied sustainability research
theme, further attention should be given to CE and SBMs and their
synergies. These inter-related themes were further categorised
based on the research areas in which they have been widely
studied. The purpose of this categorisation was not only to unify
diverse research contributions under the common theme of SD, but
also to highlight research gaps to assist concurrent fields in pur-
suing future research. We found that many scholars have used
conceptual analysis to investigate sustainable ways to adopt and
implement I4.0 technologies, mainly IoT. They have also used it to
improve the discourse on economic development, social equality,
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
and environmental fortitude in dominant research areas, such as
supply chains and smart factories. While I4.0 sustainability
research has been widely conducted in the manufacturing sector,
our review found little research in areas such as electronic equip-
ment and waste (Xia et al., 2015), freight systems (Kermanshah
et al., 2020), water production systems (Tomi
cic and Schatten,
2016), agri-food (Miranda et al., 2019), forest protection (Daj,
2016), health care (Islam et al., 2015), accounting and reporting
(Tiwari and Khan, 2020) and transportation (Davidsson et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, assessing I4.0 technologies using CE principles for
sustainable value creation and TBL found in other sectors, such as
agriculture, could elucidate many unseen dimensions for innova-
tion and profitability.
Like other systematic reviews, our study has limitations. There
are other concepts similar to CE in the literature, such as eco-
efficiency (doing more with less) and lean manufacturing (waste
reduction with increased efficiency), that also contribute to SD. The
literature indicates that lean manufacturing, eco-efficiency, and I4.0
complement each other (Mrugalska and Wyrwicka, 2017; Varela
et al., 2019; BCSD, 1993) as they seek to improve product quality,
mass production, sustainable manufacturing and business perfor-
mance. Since the focus of our study is broad and did not include
these topics, future studies should address them. Additionally, we
used a mapping study as a methodology, which established facts
and answered ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions with theoretical and
conceptual constructions instead of defining causes and effects.
However, quantification is significant and necessary in future
research, as it will help identify high-impact variables to be focused
on in future I4.0esustainability research.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126655.
References
Abubakr, M., Abbas, A.T., Tomaz, I., Soliman, M.S., Luqman, M., Hegab, H., 2020.
Sustainable and smart manufacturing: an integrated approach. Sustainability 12
(6), 2280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062280.
Alcayaga, A., Wiener, M., Hansen, E.G., 2019. Towards a framework of smart-circular
systems: an integrative literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 221, 622e634. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.085.
Asiimwe, M.M., de Kock, I.H., 2019. An analysis of the extent to which I4.0 has been
considered in sustainability or socio-technical transitions. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 30
(3), 41e51. https://doi.org/10.7166/30-3-2245.

Avila-Guti rrez, M.J., Martín-Go
e mez, A., Aguayo-Gonz  rdoba-Rold
alez, F., Co an, A.,
2019. Standardization framework for sustainability from circular economy 4.0.
Sustainability 11 (22), 6490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226490.
Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Stryamets, N., Johansson, K.E., 2011.
Sustainable development and sustainability: landscape approach as a practical
interpretation of principles and implementation concepts. J. Landsc. Ecol. 4 (3),
5e30. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10285-012-0040-1.
Baek, H., Park, S.-K., 2015. Sustainable development plan for Korea through
expansion of Green IT: policy issues for the effective utilization of big data.
Sustainability 7 (2), 1308e1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021308.
Bcsd, C.A.T., Fussler, C., 1993. Getting Eco-Efficient: How Can Business Contribute to
Sustainable Development? Business Council for Sustainable Development
(Report).
Beier, G., Niehoff, S., Ziems, T., Xue, B., 2017. Sustainability aspects of a digitalized
industry: a comparative study from China and Germany. Int. J. Pr. Eng. Man-GT.
4 (2), 227e234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-017-0028-8.
Bocken, N.M., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review
to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42e56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
Bi, Z.M., Liu, Y., Baumgartner, B., Culver, E., Sorokin, J.N., Peters, A., Cox, B.,
Hunnicutt, J., Yurek, J., O’Shaughnessey, S., 2015. Reusing industrial robots to
achieve sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Ind.
Robot: Int. J. 42 (3), 264e273. https://doi.org/10.1108/IR-12-2014-0441.
Bibri, S.E., 2018. The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: an analytical
framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustain-
ability. Sustain. Cities. Soc. 38, 230e253. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2017.12.034.
Bibri, S.E., Krogstie, J., 2017. On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable
cities: a study in science, technology, and society. Sustain. Cities. Soc. 29,
219e246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.11.004.
Birkel, H., Veile, J., Müller, J., 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.
Birkel, H., Müller, J., 2021. Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply chain management
within the triple bottom line of sustainabilityeA systematic literature review.
J. Clean. Prod. 289, 125612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612.
Bondar, K., 2018. Challenges and opportunities of Industry 4.0: Spanish experience.
Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol 9 (5), 202e208. https://doi: 10.18178/ijimt.2018.9.
5.814.
Bonilla, S., Silva, H., Terra da Silva, M., Franco Gonçalves, R., Sacomano, J., 2018.
Industry 4.0 and sustainability implications: a scenario-based analysis of the
impacts and challenges. Sustainability 10 (10), 3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10103740.
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation:
state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9e19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007.
Braccini, A., Margherita, E., 2018. Exploring organizational sustainability of Industry
4.0 under the Triple Bottom Line: the case of a manufacturing company. Sus-
tainability 11 (1), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010036.
Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M., Saccani, N., 2018. Exploring how usage-
focused business models enable circular economy through digital technolo-
gies. Sustainability 10 (3), 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030639.
Brown, B.J., Hanson, M.E., Liverman, D.M., Merideth, R.W., 1987. Global sustain-
ability: toward definition. Environ. Manag. 11 (6), 713e719. https://doi: 10.1007/
BF01867238.
Brundtland, G.H., 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future. Brundtland Report. UN Documents, New
York.
Casado-Mansilla, D., Moschos, I., Kamara-Esteban, O., Tsolakis, A.C., Borges, C.E.,
Krinidis, S., Irizar-Arrieta, A., Konstantinos, K., Pijoan, A., Tzovaras, D., Lopez-De-
Ipina, D., 2018. A human-centric and context-aware IoT framework for
enhancing energy efficiency in buildings of public use. IEEE Access 6,
31444e31456. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2837141.
Charnley, F., Tiwari, D., Hutabarat, W., Moreno, M., Okorie, O., Tiwari, A., 2019.
Simulation to enable a data-driven circular economy. Sustainability 11 (12),
3379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123379.
Charro, A., Schaefer, D., 2018. Cloud manufacturing as a new type of product-service
system. Int. J. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 31 (10), 1018e1033. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0951192X.2018.1493228.
Daj, A., 2016. Economic and technological aspects of using IoT for sustainable
environment management: the case of IoT Wildfire Detection Systems. Bulletin
of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Economic Sciences. Series V 9 (2),
171e184.
Dalenogare, L.S., Benitez, G.B., Ayala, N.F., Frank, A.G., 2018. The expected contri-
bution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
204, 383e394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.019.
Daú, G., Scavarda, A., Scavarda, L.F., Portugal, V.J.T., 2019. The healthcare sustainable
supply chain 4.0: the circular economy transition conceptual framework with
the corporate social responsibility mirror. Sustainability 11 (12), 3259. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su11123259.
Davidsson, P., Hajinasab, B., Holmgren, J., Jevinger, Å., Persson, J., 2016. The fourth
wave of digitalization and public transport: opportunities and challenges.
Sustainability 8 (12), 1248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121248.
Diesendorf, M., 2000. Sustainability and sustainable development. In: Dunphy, D.,
Benveniste, J., Griffiths, A., Sutton, P. (Eds.), Sustainability: the Corporate Chal-
lenge of the 21st Century. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 19e37.
de Man, J.C., Strandhagen, J.O., 2017. An Industry 4.0 research agenda for sustainable
business models. Procedia CIRP 63, 721e726. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.procir.2017.03.315.
de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Godinho Filho, M., Roubaud, D., 2018. In-
dustry 4.0 and the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original
roadmap for sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res. 270 (1e2), 273e286.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2772-8.
Deakin, M., Reid, A., 2018. Smart cities: under-gridding the sustainability of city-
districts as energy efficient-low carbon zones. J. Clean. Prod. 173, 39e48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.054.
Dev, N.K., Shankar, R., Qaiser, F.H., 2020. Industry 4.0 and circular economy: oper-
ational excellence for sustainable reverse supply chain performance. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 153, 104583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104583.
Ejsmont, K., Gladysz, B., Kluczek, A., 2020. Impact of industry 4.0 on sustainability-
bibliometric literature review. Sustainability 12 (14), 5650. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su12145650.
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., de Groot, R., 2003. A framework for the
practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 44 (2e3), 165e185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-
8009(02)00272-0.
Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of
21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 8 (1), 37e51.
Fisher, O., Watson, N., Porcu, L., Bacon, D., Rigley, M., Gomes, R.L., 2018. Cloud
manufacturing as a sustainable process manufacturing route. J. Manuf. Syst. 47,
53e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.03.005.
Francisco, A., Taylor, J.E., 2019. Understanding citizen perspectives on open urban
energy data through the development and testing of a community energy
feedback system. Appl. Energy 256, 113804. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2019.113804.
Frank, A.G., Mendes, G.H., Ayala, N.F., Ghezzi, A., 2019. Servitization and Industry 4.0
convergence in the digital transformation of product firms: a business model
innovation perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 141, 341e351.
García-Muin ~ a, F., Gonza
lez-S anchez, R., Ferrari, A., Settembre-Blundo, D., 2018. The
paradigms of Industry 4.0 and circular economy as enabling drivers for the
competitiveness of businesses and territories: the case of an Italian ceramic
tiles manufacturing company. Soc. Sci. 7 (12), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/
socsci7120255.
García-Muin ~ a, F., Gonzalez-Sa nchez, R., Ferrari, A., Volpi, L., Pini, M., Settembre-
Blundo, D., 2019. Identifying the equilibrium point between sustainability goals
and circular economy practices in an Industry 4.0 manufacturing context using
eco-design. Soc. Sci. 8 (8), 241. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8080241.
García-Muin ~ a, F.E., Medina-Salgado, M.S., Ferrari, A.M., Cucchi, M., 2020. Sustain-
ability transition in Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing with the triple-
layered business model canvas. Sustainability 12 (6), 2364. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su12062364.
Garrido-Hidalgo, C., Hortelano, D., Roda-Sanchez, L., Olivares, T., Ruiz, M.C.,
Lopez, V., 2018. IoT heterogeneous mesh network deployment for human-in-
the-loop challenges towards a social and sustainable Industry 4.0. IEEE Access
6, 28417e28437. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2836677.
Garrido-Hidalgo, C., Ramirez, F.J., Olivares, T., Roda-Sanchez, L., 2020. The adoption
of internet of things in a circular supply chain framework for the recovery of
WEEE: the case of lithium-ion electric vehicle battery packs. Waste Manag. 103,
32e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.045.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy:
a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757e768. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Geng, Y., Doberstein, B., 2008. Developing the circular economy in China: challenges
and opportunities for achieving “leapfrog development”. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World.
15, 231e239.
Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., 2019. Corporate survival in Industry 4.0 era: the enabling
role of lean-digitized manufacturing. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 31 (1), 1e30.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-11-2018-0417.
Ghobakhloo, M., 2020. Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustain-
ability. J. Clean. Prod. 252, 119869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119869.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 2012. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive
research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16 (1), 15e31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151.
Greenwood, D.T., Holt, R.P., 2014. Local Economic Development in the 21st Century:
Quality of Life and Sustainability. Routledge.
Gru
zauskas, V., Baskutis, S., Navickas, V., 2018. Minimizing the trade-off between
sustainability and cost-effective performance by using autonomous vehicles.
J. Clean. Prod. 184, 709e717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.302.
Gupta, S., Meissonier, R., Drave, V.A., Roubaud, D., 2020. Examining the impact of
Cloud ERP on sustainable performance: a dynamic capability view. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 51, 102028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10.013.
Hubbard, G., 2009. Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bot-
tom line. Bus. Strat. Environ. 18 (3), 177e191. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.564.
Ingemarsdotter, E., Jamsin, E., Kortuem, G., Balkenende, R., 2019. Circular strategies
enabled by the internet of things: a framework and analysis of current practice.
Sustainability 11 (20), 5689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205689.
Islam, S.M.R., Kwak, D., Kabir, M.H., Hossain, M., Kwak, K.-S., 2015. The Internet of
Things for health care: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access 3, 678e708.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2437951.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Fiorini, P.D.C., Ndubisi, N.O., Queiroz, M.M., Piato, E.L., 2020. Digitally
enabled sustainable supply chains in the 21st century: a review and a research
agenda. Sci. Total Environ. 725, 138177. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.138177.
James, K.L., Randall, N.P., Haddaway, N.R., 2016. A methodology for systematic
mapping in environmental sciences. Environ. Evid. 5, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13750-016-0059-6.
Jeble, S., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Roubaud, D., Prakash, A., 2018.
Impact of big data and predictive analytics capability on supply chain sus-
tainability. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 29 (2), 513e538. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-
05-2017-0134.
Kagermann, H., Lukas, W.D., Wahlster, W., 2011. Industrie 4.0: mit dem Internet der
Dinge auf dem Weg zur 4. industriellen Revolution. VDI Nachr. 13 (1), 2e3.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Gawankar, S.A., 2018. Sustainable Industry 4.0
framework: a systematic literature review identifying the current trends and
future perspectives. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 17, 408e425. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009.
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., Dhone, N.C., 2019. Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing
practices for sustainable organisational performance in Indian manufacturing
companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (5), 1319e1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
00207543.2019.1630772.
Kang, K.D., Kang, H., Ilankoon, I.M.S.K., Chong, C.Y., 2020. Electronic waste collection
systems using Internet of Things (IoT): household electronic waste manage-
ment in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 252, 119801. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.119801.
Kermanshah, A., Baroud, H., Abkowitz, M., 2020. Cyber-physical technologies in
freight operations and sustainability: a case study of smart GPS technology in
trucking. Sustain. Cities. Soc. 55, 102017. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2020.102017.
Kiel, D., Müller, J.M., Arnold, C., Voigt, K.-I., 2017. Sustainable industrial value cre-
ation: benefits and challenges of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. 21,
1740015. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617400151, 08.
Kiron, D., Unruh, G., 2018. The Convergence of Digitalization and Sustainability. MIT
Sloan Management Review, January.
Kitchenham, B.A., Budgen, D., Brereton, O.P., 2011. Using mapping studies as the
basis for further research: a participant-observer case study. Inf. Software
Technol. 53 (6), 638e651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.011.
Kumar, R., Singh, S.P., Lamba, K., 2018. Sustainable robust layout using Big Data
approach: a key towards industry 4.0. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 643e659. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.327.
Kuo, T.-C., Smith, S., 2018. A systematic review of technologies involving eco-
innovation for enterprises moving towards sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 192,
207e220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.212.
Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.G., Feld, T., Hoffmann, M., 2014. Industry 4.0. Bus.
Inform. Syst. Eng. 6 (4), 239e242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4.
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., Kao, H.A., 2015. A cyber-physical systems architecture for in-
dustry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf. Lett. 3, 18e23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001.
Lee, K.N., 1994. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the
Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Li, X., Cao, J., Liu, Z., Luo, X., 2020. Sustainable business model based on digital twin
platform network: the inspiration from Haier’s case study in China. Sustain-
ability 12 (3), 936. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030936.
Luthra, S., Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Mangla, S.K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2020. Industry
4.0 as an enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: an analysis of
influential strength of drivers in an emerging economy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (5),
1505e1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1660828.
MacArthur, D.E., Zumwinkel, K., Stuchtey, M.R., 2015. Growth within: A Circular
Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe. Ellen MacArthur Foundation report.
Machado, C.G., Winroth, M.P., Ribeiro da Silva, E.H.D., 2020. Sustainable
manufacturing in Industry 4.0: an emerging research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Res.
58 (5), 1462e1484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1652777.
Mahmood, Y., Kama, N., Azmi, A., Ya’acob, S., 2020. An IoT based home automation
integrated approach: impact on society in sustainable development perspec-
tive. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 11 (1) https://doi.org/10.14569/
IJACSA.2020.0110131.
Maksimovic, M., 2018. Leveraging internet of things to revolutionize waste man-
agement. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Inf. Syst. 9 (4), 1e13. https://doi: 10.4018/IJAEIS.
2018100101.
McDowall, W., Geng, Y., Huang, B., Bartekov a, E., Bleischwitz, R., Türkeli, S.,
Dome nech, T., 2017. Circular economy policies in China and Europe. J. Ind. Ecol.
21 (3), 651e661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12597.
McKibben, B., 2007. Deep Economy: the Wealth of Communities and the Durable
Future. Times Books, New York, NY.
Meng, Y., Yang, Y., Chung, H., Lee, P.-H., Shao, C., 2018. Enhancing sustainability and
energy efficiency in smart factories: a review. Sustainability 10 (12), 4779.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124779.
Mieg, H.A., 2012. Sustainability and innovation in urban development: concept and
case. Sustain. Dev. 20 (4), 251e263. https://doi: 10.1002/sd.471.
Miranda, J., Ponce, P., Molina, A., Wright, P., 2019. Sensing, smart and sustainable
technologies for Agri-Food 4.0. Comput. For. Ind. 108, 21e36. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compind.2019.02.002.
Moreno, M.V., Zamora, M.A., Skarmeta, A.F., 2014. User-centric smart buildings for
energy sustainable smart cities. T. Emerg. Telecommun. T. 25 (1), 41e55. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ett.2771.
Mrugalska, B., Wyrwicka, M.K., 2017. Towards lean production in Industry 4.0.
Procedia Eng 182, 466e473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.135.
Müller, J.M., Kiel, D., Voigt, K.-I., 2018. What drives the implementation of Industry
4.0? The role of opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability.
Sustainability 10 (1), 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010247.
Müller, J.M., Voigt, K.-I., 2018. Sustainable industrial value creation in SMEs: a
comparison between Industry 4.0 and Made in China 2025. Int. J. Pr. Eng. Man-
GT. 5 (5), 659e670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-018-0056-z.
Müller, J.M., Buliga, O., Voigt, K.I., 2020. The role of absorptive capacity and inno-
vation strategy in the design of industry 4.0 business Models-A comparison
between SMEs and large enterprises. Eur. Manag. J. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.emj.2020.01.002 (in press).
Nascimento, D.L.M., Alencastro, V., Quelhas, O.L.G., Caiado, R.G.G., Garza-Reyes, J.A.,
Rocha-Lona, L., Tortorella, G., 2019. Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to
enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context: a business
model proposal. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 30 (3), 607e627. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0071.
Nhamo, G., Nhemachena, C., Nhamo, S., 2020. Using ICT indicators to measure
readiness of countries to implement Industry 4.0 and the SDGs. Environ. Econ.
Pol. Stud. 22 (2), 315e337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-019-00259-1.
I.S. Khan, M.O. Ahmad and J. Majava
Nobre, G.C., Tavares, E., 2017. Scientific literature analysis on big data and internet of
things applications on circular economy: a bibliometric study. Scientometrics
111 (1), 463e492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2281-6.
Norman, W., MacDonald, C., Arnold, D.G., 2004. Getting to the bottom of “triple
bottom line”. Bus. Ethics Q. 14 (2), 243e262.
Norton, B.G., 2005. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Manage-
ment. University of Chicago Press.
_
Odwazny, F., Wojtkowiak, D., Cyplik, P., Adamczak, M., 2018. Smart factory within
sustainable development and green growth concepts. LogForum 14 (4),
467e477. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2018.301.
Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W., 2018. A scientometric review of global research on
sustainability and sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 231e250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162.
Park, S.H., Shin, W.S., Kim, K.J., 2019. Assessing a social responsibility model for
sustainable company growth in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Int. J. Qual.
Serv. Sci. 11 (3), 334e345. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-11-2017-0108.
Pearce, O., 2008. Holistic assessment of sustainability and its application at Halcrow.
J. Corp. Citizsh. 30, 37e65.
Pham, T.T., Kuo, T.-C., Tseng, M.-L., Tan, R.R., Tan, K., Ika, D.S., Lin, C.J., 2019. Industry
4.0 to accelerate the circular economy: a case study of electric scooter sharing.
Sustainability 11 (23), 6661. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236661.
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., Kuzniarz, L., 2015. Guidelines for conducting systematic
mapping studies in software engineering: an update. Inf. Software Technol. 64,
1e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007.
Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B., Gatti, C., 2018. Industry 4.0 in management studies: a
systematic literature review. Sustainability 10 (10), 3821. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10103821.
Pinzone, M., Albe , F., Orlandelli, D., Barletta, I., Berlin, C., Johansson, B., Taisch, M.,
2020. A framework for operative and social sustainability functionalities in
human-centric cyber-physical production systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 139,
105132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.028.
Piramuthu, O.B., 2017. Connected bicycles: state-of-the-art and adoption decision.
IEEE Internet Things J 4 (4), 987e995. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JIOT.2017.2697203.
Prause, G., 2015. Sustainable business models and structures for Industry 4.0.
J. Secur. Sustain. Issues. 5 (2), 159e169. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2015.5.2(3.
Rajput, S., Singh, S.P., 2019. Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 49, 98e113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.002.
Ramakrishnan, P.S., 2001. Ecology and Sustainable Development. National Book
Trust of India, New Delhi.
Ramirez-Pen ~ a, M., Sanchez Sotano, A.J., Pe rez-Fernandez, V., Abad, F.J., Batista, M.,
2020. Achieving a sustainable shipbuilding supply chain under I4.0 perspective.
J. Clean. Prod. 244, 118789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118789.
Raut, R.D., Mangla, S.K., Narwane, V.S., Gardas, B.B., Priyadarshinee, P.,
Narkhede, B.E., 2019. Linking big data analytics and operational sustainability
practices for sustainable business management. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 10e24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.181.
Ribeiro, I., Matos, F., Jacinto, C., Salman, H., Cardeal, G., Carvalho, H., Godina, R.,
Peças, P., 2020. Framework for life cycle sustainability assessment of additive
manufacturing. Sustainability 12 (3), 929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030929.
Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., Puumalainen, K., 2018. Sustainable
business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: a longitudinal content analysis
study. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 216e226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.159.
Robert, K.W., Parris, T.M., Leiserowitz, A.A., 2005. What is sustainable development?
Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment 47 (3), 8e21.
Rocca, R., Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Fumagalli, L., Terzi, S., 2020. Integrating virtual
reality and digital twin in circular economy practices: a laboratory application
case. Sustainability 12 (6), 2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062286.
Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Terzi, S., 2020. Assessing relations
between circular economy and Industry 4.0: a systematic literature review. Int.
J. Prod. Res. 58 (6), 1662e1687. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2019.1680896.
Sartori, S., Latro ^nico, F., Campos, L.M., 2014. Sustainability and sustainable devel-
opment: a taxonomy in the field of literature. Ambiente Sociedade 17 (1).
https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-44220003491.
Sauve, S., Bernard, S., Sloan, P., 2016. Environmental sciences, sustainable devel-
opment and circular economy: alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary
research. Environ. Dev. 17, 48e56.
Scavarda, A., Daú, G., Scavarda, L.F., Goyannes Gusma ~o Caiado, R., 2019. An analysis
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 297 (2021) 126655
of the corporate social responsibility and the Industry 4.0 with focus on the
youth generation: a sustainable human resource management framework.
Sustainability 11 (18), 5130. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185130.
Schulz, S.A., Flanigan, R.L., 2016. Developing competitive advantage using the triple
bottom line: a conceptual framework. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 31 (4), 449e458.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2014-0150.
Sharma, R., Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., 2020. Sustainable manufacturing
and industry 4.0: what we know and what we don’t. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 34
(1), 230e266. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2020-0024.
Shokouhyar, S., Pahlevani, N., Mir Mohammad Sadeghi, F., 2019. Scenario analysis of
smart, sustainable supply chain on the basis of a fuzzy cognitive map. Manag.
Res. Rev. 43 (4), 463e496. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2019-0002.
Smith, P.A., Wals, A.E., Schwarzin, L., 2012. Fostering organizational sustainability
through dialogic interaction. Learn. Organ. 19 (1), 11e27. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09696471211190338.
Sterling, S., 2004. Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning.
In: Corcoran, P.B., Wals, A.E.J. (Eds.), Higher Education and the Challenge of
Sustainability. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 49e70.
Stock, T., Seliger, G., 2016. Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry
4.0. Procedia CIRP 40, 536e541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129.
Strandhagen, J.O., Vallandingham, L.R., Fragapane, G., Strandhagen, J.W.,
Stangeland, A.B.H., Sharma, N., 2017. Logistics 4.0 and emerging sustainable
business models. Adv. Manuf. 5 (4), 359e369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-
017-0198-1.
Su, X., Shao, G., Vause, J., Tang, L., 2013. An integrated system for urban environ-
mental monitoring and management based on the environmental Internet of
Things. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 20 (3), 205e209. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504509.2013.782580.
Tirabeni, L., de Bernardi, P., Forliano, C., Franco, M., 2019. How can organisations and
business models lead to a more sustainable society? A framework from a sys-
tematic review of the Industry 4.0. Sustainability 11 (22), 6363. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11226363.
Tiwari, K., Khan, M.S., 2020. Sustainability accounting and reporting in the Industry
4.0. J. Clean. Prod. 258, 120783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120783.
Tomi
ci
c, I., Schatten, M., 2016. Agent-based framework for modelling and simula-
tion of resources in self-sustainable human settlements: a case study on water
management in an eco-village community in Croatia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World
Ecol. 23 (6), 504e513. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1153527.
Tortorella, G.L., Giglio, R., van Dun, D.H., 2019. Industry 4.0 adoption as a moderator
of the impact of lean production practices on operational performance
improvement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 39 (6/7/8), 860e886. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJOPM-01-2019-0005.
Tjahjono, B., Esplugues, C., Ares, E., Pelaez, G., 2017. What does industry 4.0 mean to
supply chain? Procedia Manuf 13, 1175e1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.promfg.2017.09.191.

Varela, L., Araújo, A., Avila, P., Castro, H., Putnik, G., 2019. Evaluation of the relation
between lean manufacturing, Industry 4.0, and sustainability. Sustainability 11
(5), 1439. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051439.
Watanabe, E.H., da Silva, R.M., Blos, M.F., Junqueira, F., Santos Filho, D.J., Miyagi, P.E.,
2018. Framework to evaluate the performance and sustainability of a disperse
productive system. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 40 (6), 277. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40430-018-1032-9.
Watanabe, E.H., da Silva, R.M., Junqueira, F., dos Santos Filho, D.J., Miyagi, P.E., 2016.
An emerging industrial business model considering sustainability evaluation
and using cyber physical system technology and modelling techniques. IFAC-
PapersOnLine. 49 (32), 135e140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.12.203.
Watanabe, E.H., da Silva, R.M., Tsuzuki, M.S.G., Junqueira, F., dos Santos Filho, D.J.,
Miyagi, P.E., 2017. Assessment of sustainability for production control based on
Petri net and cyber-physical cloud system. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 50 (1),
12985e12990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1808.
Wu, J., Guo, S., Li, J., Zeng, D., 2016. Big data meet green challenges: greening big
data. IEEE Syst. J. 10 (3), 873e887. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2016.2550538.
Xia, K., Gao, L., Wang, L., Li, W., Chao, K.-M., 2015. A semantic information services
framework for sustainable WEEE management toward cloud-based remanu-
facturing. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 137 (6), 061011 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4030008.
Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Jakhar, S.K., Mangla, S.K., Rai, D.P., 2020. A framework to
overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through solution measures of
Industry 4.0 and circular economy: an automotive case. J. Clean. Prod. 254,
120112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120112.