992424

research-article2021
WMR0010.1177/0734242X21992424Waste Management & ResearchKanojia and Visvanathan

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Assessment of urban solid waste

2021, Vol. 39(11) 1414­–1426
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
management systems for Industry sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X21992424
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X21992424

4.0 technology interventions and the journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

circular economy

Abhishek Kanojia and Chettiyappan Visvanathan

Abstract
The ongoing fourth industrial revolution, Industry 4.0 (I4.0), is transforming various industries across the globe. At the same time,
resource scarcity with high consumption rates has led to the development of the circular economy. Both concepts advocate for
sustainable growth and waste minimization. In developing countries, the integrated solid waste management framework is undergoing
modification under I4.0 and the circular economy. Urban local bodies are often unable to measure the readiness of their waste
management systems to transform under I4.0 and the circular economy. Here the novel concept of Waste 4.0 is developed. ‘Waste
4.0’ is a readiness assessment tool to promote the comprehensive transformation of municipal solid waste management under I4.0
and circular economy. This tool has eight determinants for assessing the municipal solid waste management of urban local bodies.
To validate Waste 4.0 the urban local bodies of Indore and Sagar, India were used as case studies. The readiness index for I4.0 in
the municipal solid waste management system in Indore and Sagar was 0.72 and 0.14, respectively. The readiness index for circular
economy focus in Indore and Sagar was 0.65 and 0.13, respectively. The Indore urban local body was classified as an ‘Experienced’
player for I4.0 Intervention and a ‘circular economy fast adopter’ for circular economy focus under I4.0 readiness. The Sagar urban
local body was classified as a ‘Hesitator’ player for I4.0 Intervention and achieved the ‘Business as usual’ tag for circular economy
focus under I4.0 readiness. With the Waste 4.0 assessment results urban local bodies can better plan and thus transform their municipal
solid waste management systems under I4.0 and the circular economy.

Keywords
Industry 4.0, circular economy, municipal solid waste management, urban local body

Received 29th September 2020, accepted 13th January 2021 by Associate Editor Mario Grosso.

Introduction With the growth of digital technologies, intelligent robotics

In the era of rapid urbanization, large population sizes and eco-
nomic growth, municipal solid waste management (MSWM) has
become a globally important issue. In 2016, the world produced
2 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW). According to
the estimates of the World Bank, global MSW production is pre-
dicted to be as high as 2.59 billion tonnes annually by 2030 and
will peak at 3.40 billion tonnes by 2050 (Kaza et al., 2018). To
address this serious problem, European Union (EU) countries
have focused on the circular economy (CE). The EU CE package
2018 defines the required recycling rates and landfilling rates for
municipal waste. Specifically, it stipulates that EU member states
will ensure that MSW reaching landfills should be reduced by
10% or less of the total amount of MSW generated (by weight) by
2035. To achieve this target, all of the member states have devel-
oped a plan to transform their MSWM systems under CE. The
goal was to optimize the operations and performance of MSWM
under the CE approach (European Union, 2018).
with Internet of Things (IoT) have emerged as a modern tool for
the development of various industrial and service sectors. To
achieve resource efficiency in waste management the EU has
decided to follow the CE concept. The novel Industry 4.0 (I4.0)
technologies are used to establish such a transformation. The
details of I4.0 are discussed in the later part of this paper.
An innovative K-project, Recycling and Recovery of Waste
4.0 – ‘ReWaste4.0’, was developed at Montanuniversitaet Leoben,
Austria. New I4.0 approaches were elaborated for the urban waste
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Asian
Institute of Technology, Thailand
Corresponding author:
Chettiyappan Visvanathan, Department of Energy, Environment
and Climate Change, School of Environment, Resources and
Development, Asian Institute of Technology, PO Box 4, Khlong Luang,
Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Email: visuvaru@gmail.com
Kanojia and Visvanathan 1415
Figure 1.  Components of Waste 4.0.
ISWM: integrated solid waste management; MSWM: municipal solid waste management.
management sector to further develop waste management towards
CE. Furthermore, the digital readiness of the waste management
industry was discussed in detail for the first time (Sarc and
Pomberger, 2018). ReWaste4.0 investigates the scope of digitiza-
tion and the use of robotic technologies in different aspects of the
urban waste management system in the context of CE
(Mavropoulos and Nilsen, 2020).
CE and I4.0 were discussed to upgrade waste management in
the EU, and such efforts are also needed in developing countries. In
developing countries, the most popular approach for handling
MSWM is the integrated solid waste management (ISWM) frame-
work, which is enhanced under I4.0 and CE transformation. The
urban administration commonly known as urban local body (ULB)
is the key stakeholder for MSWM in developing countries. I4.0 and
CE are the most recent and promising developments at the technol-
ogy and policy level, respectively. There is a large gap in the
MSWM of developing countries that can be filled by these concepts
(Anbumozhi and Kimura, 2018). The ULBs use ISWM framework,
which aids the transformation of waste management into resource
management. The ISWM approach was proposed by UN-Habitat in
2010; now there are efforts to upgrade the ISWM framework
(Esmaeilian et al., 2018; Modak et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2015).
I4.0 and CE interventions are the key for enhancing waste data
management for efficient ISWM planning, monitoring and execu-
tion. High resource efficiency in MSWM systems can be achieved
through the ULBs of developing countries by incorporating the
modern trends of I4.0 and CE. Waste 4.0 is the combination of I4.0
technologies with CE initiatives for the advancement of the
MSWM system. The Waste 4.0 concept is developed and discussed
in this research paper as a tool for assessing the readiness of ULBs
for both I4.0 technologies and a CE perspective in MSWM.
Studies have shown that I4.0 technologies have the potential
to stimulate CE interventions in the MSWM of developing coun-
tries, as both I4.0 and CE provide a ‘leap-frog’ opportunity for
the MSWM system (International Solid Waste Association
(ISWA), 2017; Rajput and Singh, 2020). The global survey con-
ducted by the ISWA, ‘Impact of I4.0 in MSWM’, highlights that
only 14% of the participating experts consider themselves knowl-
edgeable about I4.0 opportunities.
The key challenge for the development of the ‘Waste 4.0
assessment tool’ was the scarcity of relevant supporting litera-
ture. One of the key discussions of the study shared in the
K-Project was that there were only 85 relevant publications with
keywords such as ‘digitalization’, ‘robotics’, ‘smart waste’,
‘smart factory’, ‘Industry 4.0’, ‘internet of things’, ‘waste man-
agement’ and ‘circular economy’ from 2001 to 2019. Furthermore,
most references with these terms have been published in the last
three years (2017–2019). Among the 85 relevant literature refer-
ences, only 18 publications had been peer-reviewed. The infor-
mation provided in the project document of ReWaste4.0 indicates
the reason for the lack of supporting literature for the develop-
ment of the Waste 4.0 concept (Sarc et al., 2019).
There is a general lack of understanding on how to incorporate
new technologies with improved resource efficiency policies in the
MSWM system (ISWA, 2019). This research paper develops an
assessment tool, Waste 4.0, to overcome these shortcomings. This
tool aims to aid the ability of ULBs to comprehensively upgrade
their MSWM system. The results of the research of the EU project
ReWaste4.0, as indicated by the ERIA publication, Assessing the
Readiness for Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy, are the basis
for the selection of I4.0 technologies under Waste 4.0 (Anbumozhi
et al., 2020; Sarc et al., 2019). Figure 1 explains the components of
I4.0 and CE in the ISWM framework that contribute to the devel-
opment of the Waste 4.0 system.
The Waste 4.0 assessment tool is validated for the MSWM sys-
tem of the Indore and Sagar ULBs of India. Both cities vary in
demography and economic status based on official government
information. These two ULBs are working to transform their waste
management system under the Smart City Initiative of the
Government of India. The Waste 4.0 tool is developed to determine
1416 Waste Management & Research 39(11)
Figure 2.  Abstract of the research work and its application.
the following: (a) the readiness index of ULB, for I4.0 interven-
tions; (b) the readiness index of ULB, for CE interventions; and (c)
the readiness rating of ULBs for CE focus in I4.0 readiness
(Anbumozhi et al., 2020; Rosa et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2018).
These objectives are established for ULBs to upgrade their
MSWM systems. Furthermore, the scores obtained for various
determinants of the Waste 4.0 analysis assist the ULBs with
developing specific strategies to aid transformations. As a case
study, the Waste 4.0 tool is applied to Indore and Sagar ULBs to
evaluate the readiness of ULBs for the interventions of I4.0 and
CE. Figure 2 provides a summary of Waste 4.0 and the flow of
research development.
Assessment of the status of Industry
4.0 readiness
The Industry 4.0 concept was originally proposed by The Federal
Ministry of Education and Research, Germany in 2011, and involves
the transformation of systems based on digital technological plat-
forms. Among the various digital technologies that contribute to the
establishment of I4.0, the development of the cyber-physical system
plays a key role (Forschungsunion and Acatech, 2013), as it connects
the physical world with the virtual world. Other important technolo-
gies include IoT, cloud computing, radio frequency identification, big
data analysis, artificial intelligence, enterprise resource planning,
mobile-based internet applications and robotics. Any organization
that transforms its system by internet-based digital technology is
known as an I4.0 enabler. This creates the necessity for a readiness
scale that predicts or analyses the level of the organization required
for adopting digital technologies.
I4.0 involves the connection and integration of the virtual and
physical world through cyber-physical systems and IoT through
smart objects, which continuously communicate and interact
with each other (Öberg and Graham, 2016) to achieve the
predefined objectives. Thus, before making a crucial strategic
decision, organizations need to assess the readiness of the system
for implementing I4.0 (Rajnai, 2018; Schumacher et al., 2016).
The analysis of such models indicates that although there are
more research conducted on I4.0, still there is a research gap for
the use of maturity model while implementing I4.0. (Gökalp
et al., 2017). The evaluation criteria, dimensions and items differ
for various models. At the same time, no standard and well-
accepted model has been developed to date (Akdil et al., 2018;
Schumacher et al., 2016). The domain of the determinants of
most models is focused exclusively on IT readiness. There is thus
a need to understand the key determinants for assessing the readi-
ness factor for implementing I4.0 from a holistic perspective
(Ramanathan, 2020). Table 1 shows the various I4.0 maturity
models and their assessment approach.
The maturity models for measuring the I4.0 mentioned in Table
1 have been primarily developed for the production and supply
chain management industries. These models only focus on the tech-
nological intervention of I4.0 and do not cover CE intervention nor
its assessment. These models also do not focus on the MSWM sec-
tor of urban administration. Nevertheless, these maturity models
provide rudimentary insights into the assessment of I4.0.
Organizations should design their strategy based on antici-
pated changes in various relationships stemming from the imple-
mentation of I4.0. The six key ingredients required for the
organizations to assess their readiness for I4.0 (Sony and Naik,
2019) are: (a) top management involvement; (b) employee adapt-
ability with I4.0; (c) smart product and services; (d) extent of
digitization in supply chain; (e) level of digitization of the organi-
zation; and (f) the readiness of organizational strategy.
One of the earliest studies on Industry 4.0 readiness (I4R) was
that of Berger (2014). This study examined I4R in Europe and
highlighted challenges faced not only at the firm level but also
within the business ecosystem. The analysis of this study
Kanojia and Visvanathan 1417

Table 1.  Industry 4.0 maturity models and their assessment approach.

Model name Assessment approach Source

The connected enterprise
maturity model (2014)
IMPULS: Industrie 4.0
Readiness (2015)
Empowered and
implementation Strategy for
Industry 4.0 (2016)
Industry 4.0/ Digital
Operations Self-Assessment
(2016)
Industry 4.0 readiness and
maturity of manufacturing
enterprises
Maturity model for Industrial
Internet
SIMMI 4.0
Maturity and Readiness Model
for Industry 4.0 Strategy
It has five stage processes for I4.0 implementation. Rockwell Automation,
In this model technology assessments have been 2014: 12
conducted for four determinants. There are few detailed
illustrations about item and development.
It has 6 determinants for assessment. It has 18 items Lichtblau et al., 2015
which measure the readiness in five levels. It discusses
the obstacles and provides recommendations to
overcome them.
A process model for realization. It is also used for Lanza et al., 2016
gap analyses. There are no details about items and
development process.
An online self-assessment in six dimensions. The PricewaterhouseCoopers,
emphasis is on the digital maturity in four levels in each 2016
phase. The application as a consulting tool required in
three of the six dimensions. There are no details about
the items and development process offered.
This model defines nine dimensions. The emphasis was Schumacher et al., 2016
on the extension of existing models and tools through its
strong focus on organizational aspects.
A preliminary study of assessing industrial internet Menon et al., 2016
maturity.
The model has five maturity stages and three Leyh et al., 2016
determinants of integration.
Proposes a model which considers the principles Akdil et al., 2018
of real-time data management, interoperability,
decentralized and service-oriented.

suggested that the different European nations could be classified
as ‘Frontrunners’, ‘Potentialists’, ‘Traditionalists’ and ‘Hesitators’,
concerning their transformation under I4.0.
The IMPULS-Industrie 4.0 Readiness study by Lichtblau
et al. (2015) proposed six dimensions: Strategy and Organization,
Smart Factory, Smart Operations, Smart Products, Data-driven
Services, and Employees. These core dimensions are further sub-
divided. This model also provides the rating level for assessing
the status of I4R. These levels are L0: Outsider, L1: Beginner,
L2: Intermediate, L3: Experienced, L4: Expert, and L5: Top
Performer. Although insightful to experienced practitioners, this
approach is not nearly as useful as a self-assessment tool.
Similarly, the WMG, University of Warwick (2017) proposed
an I4R assessment tool that has six dimensions: (a) Strategy and
Organization, (b) Manufacturing and Operations, (c) Supply
Chain, (d) Products and Services, (e) Business Model, and (f)
Legal Considerations.
It has four rating levels associated with these six determinants
for assessing the state of I4R. These levels are L1: Beginner, L2:
Intermediate, L3: Experienced and L4: Expert. This can be used
as a self-assessment tool by the firms. The limitation is that the
Manufacturing and Operations determinant is specifically for the
manufacturing technology perspective. A few aspects such as
quality and energy consumption are not included in this tool.
Furthermore, the dimension of human resources is also not effec-
tively considered.
The Yanez Maturity Index Framework (Yanez, 2017) has
eight determinants (Table 2). The missing determinants of this
framework include ‘Strategy and Organization’ and ‘Information
Technology Systems’. Akdil et al. (2018) discuss ten core deter-
minants to measure I4R in the firm. This model uses four stages
to determine the maturity level of the firm: ‘Absence’, ‘Existence’,
‘Survival’ and ‘Maturity’. Table 2 presents the selected four
frameworks with their core determinants used for measuring I4R
in the firm or organization.
Based on the analysis of the various frameworks mentioned in
Tables 1 and 2 it is concluded that these assessment determinants
are focusing on manufacturing industries. There is a lack of such
determinants that analyse the various segments of MSWM sys-
tems. To develop the Waste 4.0 determinants which align with the
MSWM sector, the research follows the key elements of the ana-
lytical tool used in Global Waste Management Outlook (GWMO)
(Wilson et al., 2015).
Under the GWMO approach, there are three major segments
that are considered for the development and analysis of a sustain-
able waste management system in the city. These segments fur-
ther consist of sub-segments as shown in Table 3.
Considering the ULBs as a firm that manages the MSWM
system of the city and seeking to perform readiness assessment
for I4.0 and CE interventions into the MSWM system. The ULB
is analysed under the proposed assessment framework of Waste
4.0. The determinants of Waste 4.0 are selected on behalf of
Tables 2 and 3. The key determinants considered for Waste 4.0
assessment are shared in Table 4. This table also mentions the
specific evaluating authority/ section of ULBs that should com-
plete the survey for Waste 4.0 assessment. The third key piece of
1418 Waste Management & Research 39(11)

Table 2.  Core determinants of the selected I4.0 Readiness Assessment Frameworks.

IMPULSE Industrie 4.0
Readiness Framework
(2015)
Strategy and organization
Smart factory
Smart operations
Smart products
Data-driven services
Employees
WMG-The University of Warwick.
An Industry 4.0 Readiness
Assessment Tool (2017)
Strategy and organization
Manufacturing and operations
Supply chain
Product and services
Business model
Legal considerations
Yanez Maturity Index Akdil et al., 2018, Maturity and
Framework (2017) readiness model for Industry 4.0
strategy
Operational processes Smart products and services
Industrial assets Smart business processes:
production, logistics and
procurement
Energy Smart business processes: R&D
and product development
People Smart business processes: after
sales services
Internal logistics and Smart business processes:
supply chain human resources
Quality Smart business processes:
pricing/promotion
Supply-demand Smart business processes: sales
synchronization and distribution channels
Time to market Smart business processes:
information technology
  Smart business processes: smart
finance
  Strategy and organization

Table 3.  Major and sub-segments for sustainable waste management system.

(Major segments for sustainable Physical elements Stakeholders Strategic aspects

waste management)
Sub-segments Waste generation Municipalities/ Urban Political
and storage local body
Collection Regional and national Health
government
Transportation Formal and informal Institutional
service provider
Recycling Local organizations Social
Recovery material International agencies Financial
Treatment process Environmental
Disposal Technical

information shared in Table 4 is about the significance of each of
the determinants used in Waste 4.0.
The eight determinants (Table 4) are taken from the segments
proposed for sustainable MSWM in the GWMO analytical frame-
work. These are also consistent with the determinants shown in
Table 2. Each of these determinants for Waste 4.0 assessment pro-
vides a key criterion for developing a sustainable waste manage-
ment system according to the GWMO. These eight determinants
are further associated with the 32 assessment criteria for assessing
the ULB status for I4.0 readiness in MSWM. The details of these
assessment criteria for I4.0 and for CE are provided in Table 5.
Assessing the extent of circular
economy focus in Industry 4.0
readiness
I4.0 has the potential to stimulate the CE and recycling markets.
The concept of CE can be effectively employed in different
organizations and systems with the help of I4.0. In the MSWM
system, the measure of CE reduces the quantity of MSW requir-
ing treatment at the end. In addition, it has the potential to reduce
the overall financial expenses of ULBs. The data produced by the
I4.0 technologies help the ULBs establish a robust CE measure
(Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2016).
The I4.0 technologies aid CE establishment in the MSWM sys-
tem of ULBs. The development of a plan that explicitly incorporates
CE principles in I4.0 approaches has been suggested to be particu-
larly useful (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018). In addition, examination
of the six business actions proposed by the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, known as the ReSOLVE Framework, has also been
suggested to be useful (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). The six
principles of the ReSOLVE Framework are guided by the 18 spe-
cific components supporting CE establishment. The components
associated with each of the six principles are as follows:
1. Regenerate. (a) Shift to renewable energy and materials, (b)
reclaim, retain and restore the health of ecosystems, and (c)
return recovered biological resources to the biosphere;
Kanojia and Visvanathan 1419

Table 4.  Determinants for the proposed framework of assessment of Waste 4.0.

Sr. No. Determinants Evaluating authority/ Significance

section of ULBs
D1 Strategy and organization Decision-making This determinant assists the investigator to find out what
authority measures are taken at the decision-making level of ULB
for implementing I4.0 and CE. These determinants will also
measure the knowledge of decision-making authority for an
improved MSWM system.
D2 MSWM plants and MRF centre and officials This determinant focuses on analysing the various facility
equipment who handle it plants/units under MSWM system of the ULB. The status
of equipment and machines employed for MSWM, its
maintenance, and operations are also analysed on behalf of
I4.0 and CE.
D3 IT system and data Back-office IT support IT system and data management have a crucial role in the
management system for MSWM efficient working of MSWM operations. This leads the Waste
4.0 assessment to analyse the readiness of IT system and
data management in terms of digital infrastructure available
in the ULB.
D4 Human resources Both on-field and off- This determinant assesses the stakeholders who execute
field human resources the MSWM system both in the front and back offices of the
ULB. The awareness towards I4.0 and CE among the on-
field and off-field officials are measured with the help of this
determinant.
D5 Resource material Staff processing This determinant is selected for Waste 4.0 assessment
recovery secondary material from to find out the ULB administration approach of handling
MSW secondary resource material in context of I4.0 and CE. The
waste material which is produced daily comprises secondary
materials in both an organic and inorganic form. The status
of ULB applying I4.0 and CE perspectives for such material is
the key finding of this determinant.
D6 Managing operations: Staff handling material The ULB consumes huge energy for efficient operation and
energy consumption recovery facility centre maintenance of its MSWM system. This led the research to
management (MRF) and WtE (Waste to incorporate this determinant which eventually finds the ULB
Energy) unit status in context of I4.0 and CE.
D7 Managing operations: Collection and Both determinants (D7 and D8) represent the most crucial
waste collection transportation officials and expensive operation of the MSWM system. These are
D8 Managing operations: Collection and included for Waste 4.0 assessment, to understand how ULBs
reverse logistics transportation officials use I4.0 and CE for the efficient operation of collection and
transportation of MSW in the city.

ULB: urban local body; CE: circular economy; MSWM: municipal solid waste management; MRF: materials recovery facility.

2. Share. (a) Share assets, (b) reuse/second-hand, and (c) pro-
long life through maintenance, design for durability,
upgradability;
3. Optimize. (a) Increase performance/efficiency of product, (b)
remove waste in production and supply chain, and (c) lever-
age big data, automation, remote sensing and steering;
4. Loop. (a) Remanufacture products or components, (b) recycle
materials, (c) digest anaerobically, and (d) extract biochemi-
cals from organic waste;
5. Virtualize. (a) dematerialize directly; (b) dematerialize
indirectly;
6. Exchange. (a) Replace old with advanced non-renewable
materials, (b) apply new technologies, and (c) choose new
product/service.
The above-mentioned sub-components associated with the
six principles of the ReSOLVE Framework are linked with
the eight determinants of the proposed concept of Waste 4.0
assessment. The assessment framework Waste 4.0 is specifi-
cally developed to measure the readiness of the ULB of
developing countries to adopt I4.0 technologies and CE pros-
pects in the MSWM system. This indicates that all of the
determinants and assessment criteria selected under Waste
4.0 are associated with MSW. At the same time, the emphasis
is on retaining all of the factors that play a crucial role in the
MSWM. Determinants such as D1 (Strategy and organiza-
tion), D3 (IT system and data management) and D4 (Human
resources) are not directly related to the common waste man-
agement hierarchy yet still play an important role in the effi-
cient handling of MSW.
These principles are incorporated into the eight determi-
nants in the proposed Waste 4.0 framework which is the
framework for assessing the extent of the CE focus in I4R.
The eight determinants are the same as in the I4R framework
(Table 4) for ensuring compatibility between the two frame-
works. Each of these determinants consists of 13 assessment
1420 Waste Management & Research 39(11)

Table 5.  Assessment criteria associated with determinants used under Waste 4.0.

For I4R in MSWM

D1 Extent of Industry 4.0 emphasis Interdepartmental Critical Measuring Leadership Innovation
in strategy formulation and collaboration allocation the impact of orientation
implementation of funds for Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0 implementation
investment
D2 Plant and equipment readiness Machine Maintenance of plant and equipment
for Industry 4.0 and system
infrastructure
D3 Seamless system –integrated Cloud computing IT and data Operations data Operations data collection
information sharing usage security usage for internal process
improvement
D4 IT capabilities Industry 4.0 digital Human-machine Skills for people – system collaboration
training interface
D5 Detail record of raw waste Processing of bio Valuation and reselling of recovered resources from the MSW
production and its monitoring waste
D6 Monitoring energy Managing energy Energy systems
consumption consumption
D7 Extent of use of Smart bins and Collection Feedback and grievance handling for waste collection
monitoring system frequency
monitoring
D8 Waste generation information Development Waste collection Maintenance and Management of collected
and integration of the data of daily waste from the monitoring of waste
for the waste collection collection route common public collection fleet
and transportation route places and
development market area

For CE focus in MSWM

D1 Extent to which the secondary Extent to which ULB requires the citizens to follow source Extent to which ULB
material is utilized by ULB segregation has developed methods
sharing models and
incentives to encourage
partners to work with the
firm to adopt CE principles
and ensure the principle
of ‘multiple cycles of
disassembly and reuse’
D2 Capability of MSWM plant and equipment and facilities layout for sorting, cleaning, washing, processing of waste
material to reintroduce it into manufacturing sector as a raw material
D3 Extent of design of the information technology system and data management to quickly generate information needed for
incorporating CE principles explicitly into the ULB’s operations (e.g. reverse logistics information needed for collection,
sorting, remanufacturing and refurbishment; tracking the location and condition of used devices and components
D4 Extent to which CE value networks have been built among stakeholders
D5 How to handle bio waste Measures taken by ULB to reduce the fresh waste Measure taken by
generation quantity at the source ULB for setting up
maximum circularity
of waste material
recovered followed by the
development of market
for the secondary raw
material
D6 Extent to which waste-to-energy (WtE) approaches such as thermochemical conversion (combustion, gasification,
pyrolysis and refuse derived fuel), physicochemical conversion (transesterification) and biochemical conversion
(fermentation and anaerobic digestion) are used as a secondary resource to reduce the carbon footprint
D7 Extent to which MSW of the city is collected following the circular economy perspective
D8 Installation of reverse vending machines at commercial establishments. Status of any such initiatives for the reverse
logistic of the waste materials

MSWM: municipal solid waste management; CE: circular economy; ULB: urban local body.

criteria (Table 5) which collectively determine the extent of Jesus et al. (2018), DeSousa et al. (2018), Jovanović et al.
CE focus concerning each determinant. The CE-based ele- (2017), Lieder and Rashid (2016), Malinauskaite et al. (2017)
ments for each of these determinants are synthesized from De and SITRA (2016).
Kanojia and Visvanathan 1421

Table 6.  Interpretation of the score obtained by the ULB for I4.0 readiness in MSWM.

Score Status of I4R Description

00–32 Hesitators ULB which is at the bottom level to transform into Waste 4.0
33–64 Potentials ULB which can achieve success in the transformation of Waste 4.0
65–96 Experienced ULB which is already having partial transformation towards Waste 4.0
97–128 Expert ULB is already holistically transformed into Waste 4.0

MSWM: municipal solid waste management; ULB: urban local body.

Procedure for assessing the I4R and
CE focus
This research developed frameworks that aim to determine the
I4R and CE focus under the I4R of ULBs for the MSWM system.
Both of these frameworks together form the Waste 4.0 assess-
ment tool for the ULB. To execute this framework tool, the ULB
administration first needs to appoint a ‘chief investigator’ who
has access to all of the direct and indirect contacts of the city
MSWM system. The assessment has the following steps:
Step 1: Obtaining background information
for the selected ULB and its MSWM
system
Before assessing the MSWM, general information first needs to
be obtained via a discussion. This should be done with the admin-
istrative authorities of the ULB of the city, particularly those who
handle the MSWM section. This initial exercise will help the
chief investigator plan the meetings and visits at various sections
of the MSWM of the selected city. The formal discussion should
comprise introductory information regarding the current proce-
dure of MSWM, the hierarchy of the concerns of officials, the
general facts and figures for urban waste collection and disposal,
administrative hierarchy of the ULB, future strategies for
MSWM, and problems and challenges of the system.
Step 2: Assessing Industry 4.0 readiness
This step aims to rate the assessment criteria associated with the
proposed determinants, for both I4.0 and CE readiness. Thus, the
information collected at step 1 helps guide the investigators when
meeting with the appropriate officials and addressing the con-
cerns of the ULB. The officials should provide rationale for their
rating, which may be in the form of field visits, audio-video
recordings or authentic data provided to the investigator.
Once all of the assessment criteria of the determinants are
addressed along with the evidence, the final scores of the assess-
ment should be filled in a separate sheet. The number of participants
needed for the interviews and assessment feedback may vary
depending on the size of the ULB of the city and the number of
officials engaged in the MSWM system. Decisions relating to the
selection of participants should be made by the chief investigator.
One concern of this assessment requiring consideration is that
the managers and officials participating in the assessment provide
a biased perspective, which would be reflected in the rating that
they provided. If there is dramatic variation among the ratings
provided by different officials for a particular determinant, then
the chief investigator should flag this and determine the cause of
such variation.
Step 3: Assessing the CE focus in
Industry 4.0 readiness
In this step, the chief investigator collects the inputs from the
same officials that participated in step 2. The same procedure is
followed as in step 2, but the difference is that the focus of the
investigation is on the CE intervention in the MSWM system of
the city. After collecting the ratings, they are properly organized
in a separate sheet, which helps the investigator assess the data
for every element of the respective determinants.
Step 4: Interpretation of the findings and
data analysis
There are a total of 32 assessment criteria associated with the
eight determinants of the I4R framework; each of the assessment
criteria is associated with five levels for rating, and each level is
assigned a score. Thus, the maximum and minimum score achiev-
able by 32 elements are 128 and 0.
Because there are 32 elements used for assessing I4R in the
MSWM system of the city, the scores obtained based on these
elements are assigned the statuses as shown in Table 6.
For the CE focus under the I4R rating framework, there are a
total of 13 assessment criteria associated with eight determinants,
and each criterion has five levels. The maximum and minimum
scores for this framework analysis are 52 and 0, respectively. The
interpretation of the obtained score is assigned the status as pro-
vided in Table 7. This status indicates the CE focus under I4R
rating in the MSWM of the ULB.
Step 5: Development of the readiness
index and managerial implications
The calculation of the readiness index for I4.0 and the CE focus
in I4.0 in the MSWM system and the position of the ULBs con-
cerning Waste 4.0 are presented in the case study below. The
managerial implications based on the result of Waste 4.0 assess-
ment are further developed by considering the following
suggestions:
1422 Waste Management & Research 39(11)

Table 7.  Interpretation of the score obtained by the ULB for CE focus in I4R in MSWM.

Score Status of CE focus in I4R Description

00–13 Business as usual ULB which has no concern for CE and transformation towards Waste 4.0
14–26 CE beginners ULB at the initial level of CE implementation for Waste 4.0
27–39 CE fast adopters ULB is establishing the CE at a rapid pace
40–52 CE leaders ULB pioneer in CE measures and well-established Waste 4.0

MSWM: municipal solid waste management; CE: circular economy; ULB: urban local body.

Table 8.  The score obtained for I4.0 readiness index for MSWM system of the selected ULBs.

Determinant (i) Assessment Criteria Max. score of the Average score Average score
elements for I4R determinant (D) obtained by IMC (I) obtained by SMC (S)
D1 (Strategy and organization) 6 24 14.625 5.25
D2 (MSWM Plants and equipment) 3 12 7.375 1.25
D3 (IT system and data mgmt.) 5 20 17 2.50
D4 (Human resources) 4 16 10.875 1.50
D5 (Resource material recovery) 3 12 8.255 1.25
D6 (Managing operations: energy 3 12 9 0.75
consumption mngmt.)
D7 (Managing operations: waste collection) 3 12 10 1.50
D8 (Managing operations: reverse logistics) 5 20 15 4
Total 32 ∑Di =128 ∑Ii=92.13 ∑Si=18

MSWM: municipal solid waste management; ULB: urban local body; IMC: Indore Municipal Corporation; SMC: Sagar Municipal Corporation.

•• The outcomes of both assessments (i.e. I4.0 and CE focus in
I4.0) should be used to reach a consensus on immediate fea-
sible actions that can be taken.
•• The Waste 4.0 assessment results should be used to develop
the long-term and short-term vision of ULBs for their MSWM
system.
•• The key sectors of the MSWM for transformation should be
identified with the aid of scores obtained by ULBs for each
determinant. A strategy for both prospective waste products
and waste handlers should be developed.
•• A steering committee should be created to implement the
actions and initiatives for Waste 4.0.
•• The infrastructure required for establishing Waste 4.0 should
be prioritized based on the scores obtained for different
determinants.
•• Efforts should be made to grow Waste 4.0 through continuous
improvements supported by policies and public participation.
Case studies: Application of Waste 4.0
in Indore and Sagar ULBs of India
Two case studies were performed to validate the developed Waste
4.0 assessment tool. Specifically, two cities in India were selected:
Indore and Sagar. Both of the cities are governed by the ULBs.
These cities were selected for two reasons. First, both cities are
already undergoing ‘Smart City’ transformation; second, these cit-
ies are working on developing an ISWM framework to handle the
urban solid waste produced within their boundaries. Data collec-
tion and field visits were conducted from April to June 2019. The
ULBs, which are also known as ‘Municipal Corporations’ in these
cities, are the agencies that manage the MSWM system. The
demography and economic status of both of the cities were also
reasons why they were used as case studies. Indore is a modern city
with a population above 2 million, whereas Sagar is a relatively
small city with population of 0.4 million. Similarly, the economic
status of Indore and Sagar differ (Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs, 2019, 2020). Because the demography and the economy of
these cities differ, the results would be useful for applying Waste
4.0 assessment in all cities that fall between the demographic and
economic status of Indore and Sagar.
After collecting the initial basic details of the ULBs the
meetings and visits were conducted with the MSWM officials.
These officials were asked to provide their feedback on the
MSWM system in the form of rating. Indore is the larger of the
two cities because of its demography and the quantity of waste
generation.
There were a total of 40 feedback surveys collected from the
concerned officials of the ULBs. During this discussion, officials
were asked to provide evidence for their rating. There were
scheduled meetings and field visits with the ULB officials of
Indore and Sagar. Indore produces an average of 1150 tonnes per
day (TPD) of MSW whereas Sagar produces an average of 200
TPD of MSW. The officials of each ULB mentioned that they
were already working on the ISWM framework for the handling
and disposal of the MSW in the city. The concept of Waste 4.0
and the constituent components (i.e. I4.0 and CE) were not famil-
iar to the ULB officials. Consequently, the concept of I4.0 and
CE was presented and explained to the officials. The final scores
obtained by the Indore and Sagar ULBs under the Waste 4.0
assessment are shown in Tables 8 and 9.
Kanojia and Visvanathan 1423

Table 9.  Score obtained for the extent of CE focus in I4R, for MSWM system of the selected ULBs.

Determinant (i) Assessment criteria Max. score of the Average score Average score
elements for CE focus I4R determinant (G) obtained by IMC (C) obtained by SMC (T)
D1 (Strategy and organization) 3 12 8.00 2.25
D2 (MSWM Plants and equipment) 1 4 3.375 0.75
D3 (IT system and data mgmt.) 1 4 2.375 0
D4 (Human resources) 1 4 0.50 0
D5 (Resource material recovery) 3 12 9.25 1.75
D6 (Managing operations: energy 1 4 2.00 0.50
consumption mgmt.)
D7 (Managing operations: waste 1 4 2.25 0.50
collection)
D8 (Managing operations: reverse 2 8 6.125 1.00
logistics)
Total 13 ∑Gi=52 ∑Ci=33.87 ∑Ti=6.75

CE: circular economy; MSWM: municipal solid waste management; ULB: urban local body; IMC: Indore Municipal Corporation; SMC: Sagar
Municipal Corporation.

The scores obtained for I4R in the MSWM in both of the
ULBs are shown in Table 8. Table 9 depicts the CE focus in I4R,
for the MSWM system of the selected ULBs.
The scores obtained for each of the determinants by the ULBs
are presented in Figures 3 and 4. The radar graphs shown in these
figures explain the maximum score assigned to each of the determi-
nants and the performance of the ULBs for each determinant. These
radar graphs shed light on the section-wise performance of ULBs
with the goal of aiding the transformation of their MSWM systems.
These graphs aid the development of strategies for increasing the
involvement of I4.0 and CE in the MSWM system of the selected
ULBs. Figure 3 shows the scores obtained by Indore and Sagar for
I4R in MSWM, and Figure 4 shows the score obtained by Indore
and Sagar for the CE focus in the MSWM system.
Readiness index calculations for I4R and
the CE focus in I4R:
(a) Indore
I4R score ∑Ii = 92.13 out of the total assign score ∑Di= 128
Thus, the I4R index = ∑Ii / ∑Di = 92.13/128 = 0.72
CE readiness score ∑Ci = 33.87 out of the total assign score
∑Gi= 52
Thus, the CE readiness index = ∑Ci / ∑Gi = 33.87/52 =
0.65
Circular economy focused Industry 4.0 readiness rating
for Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC) = 0.72*0.65 =
0.47
(b) Sagar
I4R score ∑Si = 18 out of the total assign score ∑Di= 128
Thus, the I4R index = ∑Si / ∑Di = 18/128 = 0.14
CE readiness score ∑Ti = 6.75 out of the total assign score
∑Gi = 52
Thus, the CE readiness index = ∑Ti / ∑Gi = 6.75/52 = 0.13
Circular economy focused Industry 4.0 readiness rating
for Sagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) = 0.14*0.13 =
0.018
Here, ∑Ii and ∑Si are the sums of the scores that are obtained in
the survey for assessing the I4.0 readiness in IMC and SMC,
respectively. ∑Di is the sum of the maximum marks associated
with each of the determinants for I4.0 assessment. Similarly, ∑Ci
and ∑Ti are the sums of the scores that are obtained in the survey
for assessing the CE readiness in IMC and SMC, respectively. ∑Gi
is the sum of maximum marks associated with each of the determi-
nants for CE readiness assessment in IMC and SMC.
The readiness index for I4.0 and CE in MSWM, for both of
the cities, indicates that the situation in Indore is better than the
situation in Sagar. Nevertheless, there is still an opportunity for
Indore to improve its status for both of the interventions. A higher
readiness rating was obtained for Indore for transformation into
Waste 4.0. Indore has been the cleanest city in India for four con-
secutive years (2017–2020) and this fact is verified by the score
obtained by Indore in the Waste 4.0 assessment (Ministry of
Housing and Urban Affairs, 2019, 2020).
However, Sagar has a long way to go to mediate the transfor-
mation based on the Waste 4.0 assessment. With the help of the
individual scores obtained for different determinants, Sagar can
develop more holistic plans to make improvements.
The matrix shown in Figure 5 is based on the final result of the
Waste 4.0 assessment of the proposed research. The scores
obtained from the eight determinants provide opportunities for
the ULBs to conduct self-analyses to promote improvement.
Indore was classified as an ‘Experienced’ player for I4.0 inter-
vention and a ‘CE fast adopter’ for CE focus under I4.0 readi-
ness; by contrast Sagar was classified as a ‘Hesitator’ player for
I4.0 intervention and ‘Business as usual’ for CE focus under I4.0
readiness.
Among the eight determinants, Indore had the maximum
score for D3 and D7 (above 80% of the total allotted score) for
I4R. The Indore readiness for I4.0 intervention is high for both of
these determinants, and little improvement is required compared
with Sagar city. Indore also had the maximum score in determi-
nant D2 for the CE readiness assessment, but there is much room
1424 Waste Management & Research 39(11)
Figure 3.  I4R in MSWM performance of Indore and Sagar
ULBs for each of the determinants.
for improvement based on the comparatively lower scores for the
remaining determinants. The scores obtained by Sagar confirm
that the city requires serious efforts to improve the readiness for
I4.0 technologies and CE interventions in its MSWM system.
The assessment tool application in both of the ULBs can be used
to assess I4.0 and CE in their MSWM systems. The outcome of
the assessment provides detailed information regarding areas of
improvement, which can be used by the ULBs to promote trans-
formation into Waste 4.0.
For example, Sagar ULB officials are willing to implement
novel interventions, but a lack of digital infrastructure hinders
transformation efforts. The CE readiness score is null for the IT
system and data management determinant and the human
resource determinant in the Sagar ULB; this shortcoming needs
to be addressed. However, the overall score of CE intervention in
MSWM in the Sagar ULB is not as satisfactory as that of the
Indore ULB.
Conclusion
This study measures the readiness of ULBs to transform their
MSWM systems under the I4.0 and CE concepts. An assess-
ment tool (Waste 4.0) was developed for measuring the readi-
ness of ULBs for incorporating I4.0 technologies and CE
measures in MSWM. The Waste 4.0 assessment tool is designed
to harmonize the internal communication between the various
segments of MSWM. Automation of the operational elements
Figure 4.  CE focus in MSWM, performance of Indore and
Sagar ULBs for each of the determinants.
Table 10.  Readiness index and readiness rating of Indore and
Sagar Municipal Corporations.
Indore Sagar
Industry 4.0 readiness index 0.72 0.14
Circular economy readiness index 0.65 0.13
Circular economy focused Industry 4.0 0.47 0.018
readiness rating
of waste management is already in practice based on integrated
policies. The Waste 4.0 assessment focuses on connecting dif-
ferent hierarchies of governing bodies to plan, execute and
monitor the MSWM segments under I4.0 and CE.
This research proposes the concept of Waste 4.0 by consider-
ing the MSWM system as a specific industry run by the ULBs of
the cities. The assessment of this research includes the physical
and governance factors of the MSWM system. Both readiness
and application for I4.0 and CE are simultaneously monitored in
the planning as well as in the operational functions of urban
waste management. This model provides a framework under
which the ULBs can evaluate their abilities to adopt the new
technologies of I4.0 along with the measures of CE in eight dif-
ferent sections of MSWM.
The data collected for this assessment cover the qualitative
inputs provided by the local authority for its MSWM. The quan-
titative inputs and field inspections were taken into consideration
Kanojia and Visvanathan 1425
Figure 5.  CE focused Industry 4.0 readiness matrix of MSWM for Indore and Sagar ULBs.
to verify the inputs. The Waste 4.0 assessment helps the ULBs
upgrade their planning, execution and monitoring process for
I4.0 and CE. With the score analysis, the ULBs using Waste 4.0
can integrate sustainability into their MSWM systems under a
‘business as usual’ approach.
Opportunities and future scope
The proposed research model targets both I4.0 and CE factors asso-
ciated with MSWM. Nevertheless, additional elements could be
integrated into the analysis for future work. One important addition
will be the inclusion of inputs from waste generators regarding I4.0
and CE in their MSWM. There is also an opportunity for software
development based on the assessment model proposed in this
research. One of the most important factors for MSWM in the cities
of developing countries is financial feasibility. Thus, future research
work should consider financial factors associated with the Waste
4.0 system of urban waste management.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the various officials of Indore and Sagar
municipal corporations for their unconditional support and time for
research data collection and field visits. We would like to express our
deep gratitude towards the Indore municipal commissioner Mr
Ashish Singh for his support and interest.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
research is partly funded by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India.
ORCID iD
Chettiyappan Visvanathan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8167-7256
References
Akdil KL, Ustundag A and Cevikcan E (2018) Maturity and readiness model
for Industry 4.0 strategy. In: Ustundag A and Cevikcan E (eds) Industry
4.0: Managing the Digital Transformation. Cham: Springer International
Publishing, 61–94.
Anbumozhi V and Kimura F (2018) Industry 4.0: Empowering ASEAN for
the Circular Economy. Jakarta: ERIA, 307–324.
Anbumozhi V, Ramanathan K and Wyes H (2020) Assessing the Readiness
for Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy. Jakarta: ERIA, 190–233.
De Jesus A, Antunes P, Santos R, et al. (2018) Eco-innovation in the transi-
tion to a circular economy: An analytical literature review. Journal of
Cleaner Production 172: 2999–3018.
de Sousa Jabbour ABL, Jabbour CJC, Filho MG et al. (2018) Industry 4.0 and
the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap
for sustainable operations. Annals of Operations Research 270: 273–286.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Delivering the Circular Economy: A
Toolkit for Policymakers. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoun-
dation.org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthurFoundation_
PolicymakerToolkit.pdf (accessed 10 May 2020).
Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2016) Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the Circular
Economy Potential. Available at: http://www.ellenmacarthurfounda-
tion.org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthurFoundation_
Intelligent_Assets_080216.pdf (accessed 15 April 2020).
Esmaeilian B, Wang B, Lewis K, et al. (2018) The future of waste manage-
ment in smart and sustainable cities: A review and concept paper. Waste
Management 81: 177–195.
European Union (2018) Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 1999/31/EC on
the landfill of waste (14.6.2018). Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/
dir/2018/850/oj (accessed 20 November 2020).
Forschungsunion and Acatech (2013) Recommendations for implementing the
strategic initiative Industrie 4.0. Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working
Group. Available at: https://en.acatech.de/publication/recommendations-
for-implementing-the-strategic-initiative-ind ustrie-4-0-final-report-of-
the-industrie-4-0-working-group/ (accessed 25 May 2020).
Gökalp E, Şener U and Eren PE (2017) Development of an assessment model
for Industry 4.0: Industry 4.0-MM. In: International Conference on
1426 Waste Management & Research 39(11)
Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, pp.128–
142. Cham: Springer.
International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) (2017) The impact of the 4th
industrial revolution on the waste management sector. Study report pre-
sented at the ISWA World Congress, Baltimore, September 2017. Available
at: http://www.iswa.org/index.php?id=1549 (accessed 20 April 2020).
International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) (2019) How Industry 4.0 trans-
forms the waste sector. Report presented at the ISWA World Congress,
Bilbao, Spain, October 2019. Available at: https://www.iswa.org/media/
publication/knowledge-base/ (accessed 25 April 2020).
Jovanović B, Filipović J and Bakić V (2017) Energy management system
implementation in Serbian manufacturing: Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle
approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 162: 1144–1156.
Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, et al. (2018) What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot
of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Lanza G, Nyhuis P, Ansari SM, et al. (2016) Empowerment and implemen-
tation strategies for Industry 4.0. ZWF Journal for Economic Factory
Operation 111: 76–79.
Leyh C, Bley K, Schäffer T, et al. (2016) SIMMI 4.0: A maturity model
for classifying the enterprise-wide IT and software landscape focusing
on Industry 4.0. In: 2016 federated conference on computer science and
information systems (FEDCSIS), Gdansk, Poland, 11–14 September
2016, pp. 1297–1302. Baltimore, MA: IEEE.
Lichtblau K, Stich V, Bertenrath R, et al. (2015) IMPULS: Industrie 4.0
Readiness. Aachen-Köln: Impuls-Stiftung des VDMA.
Lieder M and Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy implementation:
A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of
Cleaner Production 115: 36–51.
Malinauskaite J, Jouhara H, Czajczyńska D, et al. (2017) Municipal solid
waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular econ-
omy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 141: 2013–2044.
Mavropoulos A and Nilsen AW (2020) Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy:
Towards a Wasteless Future or a Wasteful Planet? John Wiley & Sons.
Menon K, Kärkkäinen H and Lasrado LA (2016) Towards a maturity modeling
approach for the implementation of industrial internet. In: Proceeding of
the 20th Pacific Asia conference on information systems (PACIS 2016), 27
June–1 July 2016, p. 38. Taiwan: Association for Information Systems AIS.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, GOI (2019) Swachh Survekshan
2019. Available at: https://www.swachhsurvekshan2020.org/Images/
SS2019%20Report.pdf (accessed 28 November 2020).
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, GOI (2020) Swachh Survekshan 2020.
Available at: http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/ (accessed 20 August 2020).
Modak P, Pariatamby A, Seadon J, et al. (2017) Asia Waste Management
Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.
Öberg C and Graham G (2016) How smart cities will change supply chain manage-
ment: A technical viewpoint. Production Planning & Control 27: 529–538.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2016) Industry 4.0 – Enabling Digital Operations Self-
Assessment. Available at: https://i40-self-assessment.pwc.de/i40/landing/
Rajnai Z and Kocsis I (2018) Assessing Industry 4.0 readiness of enterprises.
In: 2018 IEEE 16th world symposium on applied machine intelligence
and informatics (SAMI). Kosice, Herl'any, Slovakia, pp.000225–000230.
IEEE. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/SAMI.2018.8324844
Rajput S and Singh SP (2020) Industry 4.0 model for circular economy and
cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 277: 123853.
Ramanathan K (2020) Industry 4.0 readiness with a circular economy focus:
An integrated assessment approach. In: Anbumozhi V, Ramanathan
K and Wyes H (eds) Assessing the Readiness of Industry 4.0 and the
Circular Economy. Thailand: ERIA, 56–78.
Roland Berger (2014) Industry 4.0: The New Industrial Revolution. Brussels:
Roland Berger.
Rong H and Automation R (2014) The-connected-enterprise-maturity model
(Doctoral dissertation).
Rosa P, Sassanelli C, Urbinati A, et al. (2020) Assessing relations between
Circular Economy and Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review.
International Journal of Production Research 58: 1662–1687.
Sarc R and Pomberger R (2018) Recycling and recovery of waste 4.0 –
ReWaste4.0. In: Pomberger R, Adam J, Aldrian A, et al. (eds) Recy &
DepoTech 2018, Leoben, pp.S693–S694. Austria: Recy & DepoTech.
Schumacher A, Erol S and Sihn W (2016) A maturity model for assess-
ing Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises.
Procedia Cirp 52: 161–166.
Shah PJ, Anagnostopoulos T, Zaslavsky A, et al. (2018) A stochastic optimiza-
tion framework for planning of waste collection and value recovery opera-
tions in smart and sustainable cities. Waste Management 78: 104–114.
SITRA (2016) Leading the cycle: Finnish road map to a circular economy
2016–2025. Available at: https://media.sitra.fi/2017/02/28142644/
Selvityksia121.pdf (accessed 15 May 2020).
Sony M and Naik S (2019) Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0
readiness for organizations: A literature review. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 27: 2213–2232.
Wilson DC, Rodic L, Modak P, et al. (2015) Global Waste Management
Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.
WMG-The University of Warwick (2017) An Industry 4.0 Readiness
Assessment Tool. Available at: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/
research/scip/reports/final_version_of_i4_report_for_use_on_websites.
pdf (accessed 15 May 2020).
Yanez F (2017) The Goal is Industry 4.0:Technologies and Trends of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution. San Bernardino.