Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Scrutinizing state-of-the-art I4.0 technologies toward sustainable products

development under fuzzy environment
Hamed Gholami a, b, *, Ahmad Hashemi c, Jocelyn Ke Yin Lee a, Georges Abdul-Nour d,
Anas A. Salameh e
a
Department of Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru,
81310, Malaysia
b
Mines Saint-Etienne, Univ Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, UMR 6158 LIMOS, Institut Henri Fayol, 42023, Saint-Etienne, France
c
Department of Management and Accounting, University of Zanjan, University Blvd., 45371-38791 Zanjan, Iran
d
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Quebec in Trois-Rivieres, Trois- Rivieres, QC G8Z 4M3, Canada
e
Department of Management Information Systems, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 165, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia

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

Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas de To contribute to a growing global research interest that has evolved toward augmenting the economic, envi­
Almeida ronmental, and societal values of Industry 4.0 in the manufacturing context, this study is intended to (1) survey
the applicability of Industry 4.0 technologies in each of the triple bottom lines at the product level and (2)
Keywords: scrutinize the technologies based on product sustainability criteria using the application of the fuzzy Technique
Industry 4.0 technologies
for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. Yet, there is a significant paucity of knowledge and
Sustainable manufacturing 4.0
uncertainty about the applicability of these technologies to developing sustainable products, hence providing an
Sustainable product indicators
Techno-sustainability assessment opportunity for innovative research. To be a sound assessment, this study investigates the perceptions of pro­
Fuzzy TOPSIS fessional technologists, who play an important role as both internal and external stakeholders in addressing
Automotive circular economy technological issues within organizations including multinationals. The findings obtained by the survey indicated
the applicability level of six major technologies in contributing to product-level sustainability. The findings
obtained by the fuzzy-based application revealed that ‘Big Data Analytics’ has the highest performance for
developing sustainable products. Such an assessment, which is of critical importance to sustainable development,
would be beneficial to policy-and decision-makers seeking to get a better understanding of the technologies and
their applicability to sustainable products development.

1. Introduction great opportunity to develop this sustainable paradigm.

Since the advent of the fourth industrial wave, a growing global
research interest has evolved toward augmenting the economic, envi­
ronmental, and societal values of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) through integrating
its applicable technologies and intelligent techniques with the sustain­
able manufacturing (SM) paradigm, which seeks to address sustain­
ability concerns in three interconnected compartments—products,
processes, and systems—using an innovation-based 6R concept (reduce,
reuse, recover, redesign, remanufacture, and recycle) to enable closed-
loop material flow throughout the product life-cycle (Gholami et al.,
2021). Stock and Seliger (2016) were among the first to investigate SM
in Industry 4.0, claiming that I4.0 and its relevant technologies provide a
Sustainable manufacturing, which has also been viewed as a practice
of the circularity in manufacturing under the circular economy concept
(Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Enyoghasi and Badurdeen, 2021), entails
developing more sustainable products—energy-efficient, eco-friendly,
and socially-responsible—using sustainable processes and systems, i.e.,
those which produce minimal adverse environmental effects, conserve
energy and natural resources, are harmless to people and viable to profit
(Jayal et al., 2010; Gholami et al., 2019). This implies that there is al­
ways a need for developing SM compartments due to a number of pre­
vailing issues such as the depletion of non-renewable resources, more
stringent environmental and occupational health/safety regulations,
and the growing penchant for environmentally-friendly products,

* Corresponding author. Department of Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Johor Bahru, 81310, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: ghamed@utm.my, hamed.gholami@emse.fr (H. Gholami).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134327
Received 30 May 2022; Received in revised form 7 September 2022; Accepted 20 September 2022
Available online 28 September 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Gholami et al.
amongst many others (Jamil et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021).
Given the work’s scope, this research concentrates on product-level
sustainability development. Sustainable products are those that benefit
the environment, society, and economy—the so-called triple bottom line
(TBL)—while safeguarding public health, well-being, and the environ­
ment throughout their commercial life (Shuaib et al., 2014). Hence, the
development of sustainable products must adopt a holistic approach that
takes into account the critical criteria of the TBL (Ahmad et al., 2018;
Hapuwatte and Jawahir, 2021). This requires having an all-inclusive
view from premanufacturing, manufacturing, and use through
post-use phases in the life-cycle to reach the optimum situation of
near-perpetual circularity of material flow across the total product
life-cycle. Such a comprehensive approach often necessitates the use of
the 6R values (Jayal et al., 2010; Shuaib et al., 2014). This fuzzy con­
dition—a need for the product-level sustainability development, which
is a complex systems challenge that vastly relies on holistic and analytic
approaches—and the fact that I4.0 is dramatically receiving a great deal
of attention from practitioners and researchers, thereby draws our
research questions:
• What are the main relevant I4.0 technologies that could be applied
by manufacturers to develop sustainable products?
• How and to what extent may such technologies contribute to sus­
tainable products development?
Under such circumstances, I4.0 technologies may provide intriguing
possibilities for tackling the TBL issues of SM at the product level;
however, going through the literature reveals that only a handful of
research has empirically scrutinized I4.0 technologies to this end. For
instance, Bai et al. (2020) have empirically demonstrated, from a gen­
eral outlook of sustainability, that autonomous robots may improve
industrial and organizational environmental sustainability aspects and
big data analytics can effectively address social sustainability concerns
in the automotive industry.
Although anecdotal and theoretical studies have significantly
contributed to enriching the convergence of SM and I4.0, there are very
few empirical and methodological investigations in this field (Machado
et al., 2020; Sartal et al., 2020; Ching et al., 2021; Enyoghasi and
Badurdeen, 2021). To be more precise, there is no published empirical
research on assessing the applicability of I4.0 technologies toward sus­
tainable products. According to Bai et al. (2020), practitioners need to
know more about I4.0 technologies and their applicability to organiza­
tional sustainability, particularly when making capital investment de­
cisions. Further elicitation of this assessment might be beneficial to
policy-and decision-makers seeking to make policies on I4.0 (Lin
et al., 2017; Kamble et al., 2018) since the adoption of new technology,
based on Garetti and Taisch (2012), may change the meaning of “what is
sustainable”. Yet, there is a considerable paucity of knowledge and un­
certainty in this area (Gholami et al., 2021), which provides an oppor­
tunity for innovative research. As such, this research is being conducted
to answer the above-mentioned queries, which were fundamentally
formulated to further the research objectives, i.e., (1) to survey the
applicability of state-of-the-art I4.0 technologies in each of the eco­
nomic, environmental, and social aspects at the product level, and (2) to
scrutinize the technologies based on product sustainability criteria. In
doing so, the application of the Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference
by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS), which has been a fuzzy
modification of TOPSIS intended to remedy its deficiencies in handling
ambiguity and uncertainty, is further utilized since it is sound logic and
capable of distinguishing between cost and benefit criteria and simul­
taneously taking solutions that are close to the positive ideal solutions
and far from the anti-ideal solutions.
The contribution of this paper also entails responding to calls in the
literature to integrate SM and I4.0 as a subject of research (Stock and
Seliger, 2016; Gholami et al., 2021), to extend the scrutiny through
empirical studies based on sustainable performance indicators (Sartal
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327
et al., 2020; Enyoghasi and Badurdeen, 2021), and to provide particular
insights through developing a more granular approach examining each
of the I4.0 technologies distinctly (Bai et al., 2020; Chiarini, 2021).
Moreover, it contributes empirically to addressing the questions posed
by the scholars, i.e.: can I4.0 revolutionize the SM wave? (Jabbour et al.,
2018); are all I4.0 technologies relevant for manufacturing sustain­
ability? (Chiarini, 2021); and how can I4.0 and the relevant technologies
contribute to SM (Sharma et al., 2020; Ching et al., 2021), particularly to
the SM of less developed economies? (Ghobakhloo et al., 2021).
To showcase the research contribution, this article is structured as
follows: a literature review in Section 2 gives insight into certain fields;
Section 3 explains the applied methods; Section 4 presents the detailed
analyses and findings on each objective; Section 5 elaborates a discus­
sion on the findings and implications; and, Section 6 presents conclu­
sions and recommendations.
2. Sustainable manufacturing 4.0
2.1. An overview of industry 4.0
Riding on the machines that changed the world, major revolutions
have appeared in the industrial era (Fig. 1)—the first wave (I1.0)
evolved from initial steam engine-powered machines; the second wave
(I2.0) evolved from electric machines to develop mass production; the
third wave (I3.0) evolved in the 1970s from automatic machines to
automate the production process using advanced electronics and infor­
mation technologies; and, the current wave (I4.0), which has evolved to
integrate smart machines with digital technologies to maximize indus­
trial productivity (Gholami et al., 2021).
Numerous countries have established their respective strategies to
boost I4.0 acceptance and advancement, e.g., Germany, which origi­
nated the notion, has initiated a program dubbed “High-Tech Strategy
2020” or the US, China, and Brazil that developed “Advanced
Manufacturing Partnership”, “Made in China (2025)”, and “Towards
Industry 4.0”, respectively (Dalenogare et al., 2018). Such strategies,
either in developed or developing countries, are aimed at disseminating
I4.0 notions and technologies to businesses of all sizes. This means that
these countries have already matured in terms of the two I3.0 principles,
including automation and ICT (information and communication tech­
nologies) usage, that are now being developed in I4.0. Since I4.0 is
mainly about the diffusion and adoption of technology, developing
countries may encounter challenges in the form of a sluggish
diffusion-adoption process as it typically flows from leading countries
(Dalenogare et al., 2018; Bernat and Karabag, 2019). Yet, with the in­
vasion of I4.0 technologies and the resulting shockwaves across global
markets and rising green tendencies, such countries are experiencing
problems (Letchumanan et al., 2022).
Thus, the value creation in leading countries is currently being
shaped by I4.0, which is a current wave of industrialization seeking to
develop cyber-physical systems (CPS) through an amalgamation be­
tween manufacturing operations systems and ICT, particularly the
Internet of Things (IoT) (Stock and Seliger, 2016; Dalenogare et al.,
2018). Following the initial three industrial revolutions, I4.0 possesses
great potential to significantly improve industrial productivity via pro­
found changes in the interrelatedness of systems. A CPS integrates in­
formation technology with the operational technologies of the physical
system. Meanwhile, the IoT refers to an ecosystem of technologies that
screens the physical objects’ status, captures significant data, and
communicates that data to the software applications through the
established networks (Blunck and Werthmann, 2017). In I4.0, the CPS
elements are essentially linked by IoT. Other enabling technologies,
which have mainly been deployed in I4.0, according to Rüßmann et al.
(2015), Wee et al. (2015), Machado et al. (2020), Sartal et al. (2020),
Enyoghasi and Badurdeen (2021), Gholami et al. (2021), among others,
are further described in Table 1. The extant literature indicates that
developing and integrating I4.0 and its enabling technologies with
H. Gholami et al.
Fig. 1. SM 4.0: An effective convergence of current waves.
sustainable paradigms would benefit both industry and society (e.g.,
Ghobakhloo, 2018; Ghobakhloo et al., 2021; Ajwani-Ramchandani
et al., 2021; Beltrami et al., 2021). In the context of manufacturing, it
gives the opportunity to move toward developing more sustainable
manufacturing (Stock and Seliger, 2016; Sharma et al., 2020; Ching
et al., 2021).
2.2. An overview of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0
Due to the sustainable development (SD) philosophy, as popularized
by the Brundtland report as “Our Common Future (WCED, 1987)”,
manufacturing has also had typical revolutions (Fig. 1)—the first wave
evolved through developing traditional substitution-based
manufacturing; the second wave evolved through developing lean
manufacturing to reduce waste and create value; the third wave evolved
in the 1990s with the 3R concept (reduce, reuse, and recycle) to develop
green manufacturing; and, the current wave, i.e., SM, which has evolved
to develop sustainability into three interconnected compartments—­
products, processes, and systems—using an innovation-based 6R
concept (3Rs, redesign, remanufacture, and recycle) to enable
closed-loop material flow throughout the product life-cycle (Gholami
et al., 2021).
It is believed that I4.0 technologies possess the potential to benefit all
17 SD Goals, the circular economy (Bai et al., 2020), and SM at all
product, process, and system levels (Stock and Seliger, 2016; Enyoghasi
and Badurdeen, 2021). To this end, a global research trend has appeared
toward enlarging the area of SM 4.0 (Fig. 1). To illustrate this, Fig. 2a
provides a visual depiction of how I4.0 technologies are deployed to
develop sustainability criteria in products, processes, and systems based
on an innovation-based 6R approach. The 6R implementation leads to
reaching the near-perpetual circularity of material flow across the total
product life-cycle (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016). In general, it is revealed
that the incorporation of I4.0 technologies and principles to evaluate
and advance SM enables developing the sustainability values of I4.0
(Stock and Seliger, 2016; Sartal et al., 2020; Enyoghasi and Badurdeen,
2021). The aforementioned research trend is expected to intensely
continue owing to its unique intellectual contribution to SD; however,
since the Earth Summit (UN, 1993), it has widely become understood
that being sustainable is preferable.
There were many significant efforts to develop sustainability at the
product level. Some primary studies have revealed the indicators
affecting sustainable product development (Jawahir et al., 2006; De
Silva et al., 2009; Jayal et al., 2010; Haapala et al., 2013; Shuaib et al.,
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327
2014). In general, this development has been traced by clustering,
assessing, and improving the interacting indicators (Shuaib et al., 2014);
among the different influencing indicators, eleven indications have been
taken into account in a major way, as shown in Fig. 2b. These criteria (i.
e., C1–C11), which, in addition to the TBL, expressly consider the 6Rs
and the entire product life-cycle (Shuaib et al., 2014; Enyoghasi and
Badurdeen, 2021), are characteristics or variables indicating the
behavior (performance indicator) or state (content indicator) of a
structure and necessitate the use of a metric to make a comparison to a
baseline or a sustainable outcome.
Nonetheless, very little study has been conducted on analyzing the
applicability of I4.0 technologies to the development of sustainable
products. One of the most thorough is the work of Enyoghasi and
Badurdeen (2021), who presented a comparative analysis investigating
major I4.0 technologies and their influence on SM at all levels and
highlighted that more in-depth studies, including case studies, are
required to ascertain this applicability for improving product-level
sustainability using the I4.0 technologies, as described in Table 1.
Further, a qualitative analysis was presented by Bibaud-Alves et al.
(2018) to evaluate the applicability of I4.0 technologies for the devel­
opment of new products. The opportunities provided by I4.0 for the
product development process were also assessed by Santos et al. (2017),
who found that the phases of product development most closely asso­
ciated with I4.0 were customer requirement analyses (Requirement) and
product model creation (Design). Through the broad lens of sustain­
ability, SM in I4.0 has also been studied in a number of theoretical and
empirical research. According to a review of the literature by Machado
et al. (2020), I4.0 offers superior possibilities for some of the 6Rs values
at the product level, including product remanufacture, reuse, and
recycling; however, contrary to the investigates considering I4.0 as an
expected enabler toward developing SM, this review rather views SM as
an enabler for I4.0. With the use of a few I4.0 technologies, Jena et al.
(2020) suggested and assessed an SM model, providing an approach for
minimizing industrial wastage and optimizing resource usage. In an
empirical manner, Bai et al. (2020) developed a hybrid multi-situation
decision technique to appraise I4.0 technologies based on their sus­
tainable performance and application across different contexts and
urged that each technology must thoroughly be studied, since distinct
technology will have varying effects on industry and sustainability ele­
ments. Chiarini (2021) employed a qualitative-quantitative method to
analyze the relevance of I4.0 technologies in improving
environmentally-sustainable manufacturing performance. In summary,
the literature demonstrates an increasing interest in identifying and
H. Gholami et al.
Table 1
Major I4.0 technologies.
Technology Description
Big Data Analytics It refers to massive and complicated sets of data
and analytical approaches in applications that
necessitate the adoption of sophisticated and
distinctive technologies for archiving,
managing, analyzing, and visualizing (Chen
et al., 2012; Awan et al., 2021). It can enable
practitioners to add original value to a variety
of products and systems (Wang et al., 2021).
Augmented/Virtual It refers to the use of cutting-edge technologies
Reality to create more immersive human-digital
interactions that allow users to interact with
virtual images while maintaining their ability
to see the real world around them (Xiong et al.,
2021). With the aid of digital augmentation,
operators can visualize actual processes
(Chiarini, 2021), prevent potentially hazardous
situations, make better decisions and/or carry
out tasks following standard practice
(Laskurain-Iturbe et al., 2021).
Simulation/ It refers to computer-based technologies that
Optimization simulate a real-world procedure or system (Bai
et al., 2020). Virtual testing and optimization of
machine parameters for the following output in
line before the physical changeover reduces
machine setup duration and improves quality
(Rüßmann et al., 2015; Ghobakhloo, 2018).
Additive Manufacturing It refers to an additive or layered
manufacturing process that creates solid three-
dimensional (3D) objects from a digital file, also
recognized as 3D printing (Bai et al., 2020;
Chiarini, 2021). New product development can
be simplified and expedited with the creation of
prototypes and proof-of-concept designs using
this technology (Gilchrist, 2016).
Cloud It refers to any IT services that are provided and
accessible through a cloud computing platform
(Bai et al., 2020). The recent enhancements in
hardware, virtualization technology,
concurrent computing, and internet service
delivery have led to the development of this
technology (Oliveira et al., 2014), which
provides a collaborative and adaptable
infrastructure over widely distributed
production and service locations, enabling the
integration of dispersed manufacturing
resources (He and Xu, 2015).
Industrial Internet of It refers to various hardware components that
Things collaborate via the internet of things
connectivity to improve manufacturing and
industrial procedures (Bai et al., 2020; Chiarini,
2021). Manufacturers can increase
productivity, lower labor costs, decrease energy
usage, and speed up the build-to-order cycle of
a product (Boyes et al., 2018).
Cybersecurity It refers to preventative measures employed to
guard against the theft, compromise, or attack
of information (Bai et al., 2020;
Laskurain-Iturbe et al., 2021). Systems,
applications, and networks’ security are all
safeguarded from potential cyberattacks with
this technology (Dixit and Silakari, 2021).
Autonomous Robots It refers to robots that are able to operate
autonomously and imitate human behavior in
the manufacturing process (Bai et al., 2020;
Sartal et al., 2020). It allows for a high degree of
job similarity between humans and robots and
is fundamentally safe (Franklin et al., 2020;
Chiarini, 2021).
Horizontal/Vertical It refers to the process of integrating several
System Integration sub-systems into a single system to execute the
designed performance (Ghobakhloo, 2018). It is
based on both horizontally integrated value
chains, and vertically integrated systems of
manufacturing, management, and business
(Rüßmann et al., 2015; Sartal et al., 2020).
Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327
assessing potential opportunities for SM using I4.0 technologies; how­
ever, it lacks the studies considering expressly the 6Rs and the entire
Code product life-cycle in addition to the TBL. Moreover, none of the research
explores and evaluates the benefits provided by I4.0 technologies for
T1
product-level sustainability development based on product sustainabil­
ity criteria, as discussed and depicted in Fig. 2a and b.
As evidenced by the literature, BDA competencies may improve real-
time monitoring of products, and, as a result, lower the cost of EoL
component processing, allowing for optimal product lifecycle optimi­
zation (Song and Moon, 2017; Rajput and Singh, 2019; Nascimento
T2 et al., 2019). Using augmented/virtual reality to observe products in real
time may improve product lifecycle data gathering, fault identification,
and meet product compliance requirements (Tao et al., 2018; Carvalho
et al., 2020). Numerous studies have documented the advantages of
employing AM technology in general. In product-level sustainability, it
is contended by Stock and Seliger (2016), Kamble et al. (2018), and
Nascimento et al. (2019) that AM enables shorter lead times for prod­
ucts, increases capabilities for producing sustainable products, and re­
duces the requirement for product and component assembly and thus for
T3 customizing complicated product designs. From the point of view of
Wang et al. (2016) and Frank et al. (2019), the IIoT provides users with
information about the product’s status quo. It can identify non­
conformities in the design and quality of the product (Tao et al., 2018).
The opportunities offered via such technologies to SM have also been
uncovered by Sartal et al. (2020), who underlined the lack of
T4 cutting-edge research on (1) examining the applicability of I4.0 tech­
nologies to SM and (2) developing performance indicators since there
has been no consensus among researchers as such. Thus, novel avenues
of investigation must be pursued in this understudied area, particularly
empirical studies offering systematic approaches to assess the applica­
bility of I4.0 technologies toward sustainable products development in
T5 various industries (Stock and Seliger, 2016; Enyoghasi and Badurdeen,
2021). Notably, no one has sought such a technological assessment in
contributing to product-level sustainability. Using a methodological
approach, as detailed in the following section, the contribution of this
investigation accordingly entails enriching this area.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Survey
T6 The first objective of this investigation is to survey the applicability
of state-of-the-art I4.0 technologies in each of the economic, environ­
mental, and social aspects at the product level. Based on the literature
and viewpoints of the project’s panel, a list of major I4.0 technologies
was developed (see Table 1) to do the survey, which is being used (oc­
casionally in tandem with other techniques) to study phenomena in the
emergent (sub)fields. The rationale is to bridge the gap between theory
T7
and practice, make research more practical for practitioners, and, more
importantly, improve the field’s scholarly standing (Forza, 2002).
After developing the technological list, a questionnaire is developed
based on Forza (2002) to do the survey. A six-point Likert scale was
accordingly applied; where the values 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 indicate ‘not
T8
applicable’, ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘moderate’, ‘high’, and ‘very high’,
respectively. There were four sections in the questionnaire. The first
section comprised questions about the respondents’ backgrounds. The
following sections were accordingly designed to assess the applicability
of identified I4.0 technologies in each of the sustainability aspects at the
product level. Applicability level displays if they can be utilized or
T9 applied in practice in the understudied context.
Six experts from academia (50%) and industry (50%), who are
certified Professional Technologists (P.Tech.) and knowledgeable about
sustainable products, were asked to undertake content validation to
assure that the contents were accurate and would meet the planned
objectives. The questionnaire was revised in response to their com­
ments. Following a minor revision, the questionnaire was resent to the
4
H. Gholami et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

Fig. 2a. A perspective of I4.0-enabled sustainable manufacturing toward a more sustainable-based state.

Fig. 2b. Major criteria affecting sustainable product development.

same experts, who all expressed agreement. applicability in each of the economic, environmental, and social aspects
After the questionnaire was developed, it was distributed to 200 at the product level. The results are subsequently discussed in the rele­
professional technologists who were considered as potential experts to vant section.
take part in the survey. All answers were collected within 41 days of the
commencement date. A total of 93 out of the 200 questionnaires had
3.2. FTOPSIS
been completed, yielding a response rate of 46.5%, which is considered
appropriate (Rezaei et al., 2017; Abu et al., 2019). A reliability test is
To further scrutinize the technologies based on product sustainabil­
conducted following the collection of the data set in order to determine
ity criteria, the Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to
if the instrument and the acquired data are reliable enough to be used for
Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS) was found to be appropriate. It is a fuzzy
further investigation. Based on the literature, the Cronbach coefficient
refinement of TOPSIS designed to address the shortcomings of TOPSIS
alpha (Cronbach, 1951) is the most extensively adopted approach in
when dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty. In this study, FTOPSIS is
survey research, testing the internal reliability of indicators used on a
employed since it distinguishes cost criteria (the lower the value, the
certain scale (Forza, 2002). Finally, an average mean value is used and
more applicable the technology) and benefit criteria (the higher the
measured for each of the I4.0 technologies to demonstrate their level of
value, the more applicable the technology) and simultaneously takes

5
H. Gholami et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

solutions that are close to the positive ideal solutions and far from the membership function FRc (x). The aggregated fuzzy rating will accord­
negative ideal solutions. This technique is explained and applied as ingly be:
follows.
R = (x, y, z)c = 1, 2, 3, ...., C (7)
3.2.1. Fuzzy sets and numbers ∑c
Where x = minc {xc }, y = 1/c c=1 bc , and z = maxc {zc }
Under many circumstances, precise data is inadequate to model real-
life environments since individual preferences and decisions have often
3.2.2. Fuzzy TOPSIS
been uncertain and cannot be estimated by precise numerical values
This technique, which was initially presented by Hwang and &Yoon
(Shen et al., 2013). The fuzzy set theory familiarized by Zadeh (1965) is
(1981), is based on the notion that the selected alternative should have
beneficial for dealing with such uncertainties in the decision-making
the shortest geometric distance from the best solution, called a “positive
process, permitting membership in a partial set instead of a crisp set.
ideal solution (PIS)”, and the longest geometric distance from the worst
Bellman and Zadeh (1970) pioneered the use of fuzzy sets to study
solution, called a “negative ideal solution (NIS)”, for solving an MCDM
decision-making problems and developed the fuzzy multi-criteria deci­
problem (Chen et al., 2006; Shen et al., 2013). In comparison with AHP
sion-making (MCDM) approach. A fuzzy set is determined using a
and ANP, the two most often applied approaches for analyzing and
membership function – see equation 1 – which has graphically been
prioritizing, TOPSIS is less sophisticated and time-consuming and also
illustrated in Fig. 3. fB (s)denotes a fuzzy subset B in S conceding that S is
avoids using extra pair-wise comparisons (Ertugrul and Karakasoglu,
a set of items and its components are represented by s through a real
2008; Shen et al., 2013; Hashemi et al., 2020).
number ranging from 0 to 1. This study has thus applied a set of trian­
Since it is required to use linguistic values to indicate judgements
gular fuzzy numbers to gauge the preferences since its application is
that cannot be articulated numerically and many of the choice criteria in
convenient for the decision makers. A triangular fuzzy number is
the issues are difficult to be quantified by the TOPSIS technique
denoted as (x, y, z), where x ≤ y ≤ z. The smallest possible, the most
(Koyuncu et al., 2021; Nara et al., 2021), the FTOPSIS method is applied
probable, and the largest possible values are presented by x, y, and z,
in this study. The numerical and verbal expressions, as well as the
respectively.
capability to assess and decide collectively, are all provided by FTOPSIS
⎧
⎪ (Calık, 2021; Koyuncu et al., 2021), where weighting criteria and
⎨ s− x s < x,s < z,x≤s≤y
fB (s) = y−z− sx y≤s≤z (1) grading alternatives are evaluated using linguistic variables expressed
⎪
⎩ z− y by fuzzy values (Guo et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2021). It simultaneously
takes into account the distances to PIS and NIS by expressing “relative
Here are some fundamental definitions of fuzzy notions utilized in closeness to ideal solution” in a fuzzy environment. Thus, the ideal so­
the FTOPSIS method proposed by Zadeh (1965, 1976). Concede B = (x, lution is obtained according to its closeness to the PIS and farness from
y, z) and D = (x1, y1, z1) as two triangular fuzzy numbers. This is how the NIS under uncertainty. FTOPSIS encapsulates the process of the
triangular fuzzy numbers are described in practice: implementation in some simple, logical, and common sense-based steps
(Hwang and &Yoon, 1981; Chen et al., 2006; Shen et al., 2013), as
B( + )D = (x, y, z)( + )(x1 , y1 , z1 ) = (x + x1 , y + y1 , z + z1 ) (2)
follows.
B( − )D = (x, y, z)( − )(x1 , y1 , z1 ) = (x − x1 , y − y1 , z − z1 ) (3) Step 1. The normalized fuzzy-decision matrix is:
[ ]
CB = (cx, cy, cz) (4) R = rij m.n
( )
1 1 1 Where B and C are the benefit and cost criterion sets, respectively, and
(B)− 1 = , , (5) ( )
x y z xij yij zij
rij = , , ,j ∈ B (8)
The following equation is to compute the distance between fuzzy zj zj zj
numbers B and D:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ zj = maxi zij , j ∈ B
[
1
d(B, D) = (x − x1 )2 + (y − y1 )2 + (z − z1 )2 (6) ( )
3 x−j x−j x−j
rij = , , (9)
zij yij zj xij
Concede that a decision set includes C decision-makers, and the fuzzy
rating of each decision-maker Dc (c = 1, 2, …, C) is used to denote a
x−j = mini xij , j ∈ C
positive triangular fuzzy number Rc (c = 1, 2, …, C) with the

Step 2. Weighted normalized decision matrix vij is computed by

multiplying the normalized matrix with the weights of the criteria:
[ ]
V = vij mn, i = 1, 2, ...., m; j = 1, 2, ....., n (10)

̽
where vij = rij.wj and wj has been the weight of the jth attribute or cri­
terion.
Step 3. Both positive-ideal solution (PIS, B*) and negative-ideal solu­
tion (NIS, B− ) are calculated:
( )
B∗ = v∗1 , v∗2 , ..., v∗n (11)
( )
B− = v−1 , v−2 , ..., v−n (12)

Fig. 3. A membership function indicating triangular fuzzy number B. where v∗j = maxi {vijb} and v−j = mini{vijb}, i = 1,2,. . .,m, j = 1,2,. . .,n.

6
H. Gholami et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

Step 4. Distance of each alternative from PIS and NIS is calculated: Table 2
( ) The respondents’ demographic profile.
∑
n
di∗ = dv vij , v∗j , i = 1, 2, ......, m (13) Demographics Respondents (P.Tech) (n = 93) Experts (P.Tech) (n = 3)
j=1
Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
∑
n ( ) Gender
di− = dv vij , v−j , i = 1, 2, ......, m (14) Male 49 52.7 2 0.67
j=1 Female 44 47.3 1 0.33
Age
Below 25 – – – –
26-35 21 22.6 – –
Step 5. The closeness coefficient (CCi) of each alternative is calculated 36-45 59 63.4 – –
as: Above 46 13 14.0 3 100
Nationality
di− Local 93 100 3 100
CCi = i = 1, 2, ......, m (15)
di− + di∗ Non-local – – – –
Current level of study
Bachelor 16 17.2 – –
Master 19 20.4 1 0.33
Step 6. At the end of the process, the alternatives are ranked according PhD 58 62.4 2 0.67
Other
to their CCi values. Alternative Bi is closer to the FPIS (B*) and farther
– – – –
Current position
from the FNIS (B− ) as CC1 approaches to 1. In other words, the Academic 52 55.9 – –
understudied alternatives are orderly ranked as per the descending order Industry 41 44.1 3 100
of CC1. Years of experience in current position
Less than 3 years – – – –
3–5 years – – – –
4. Case study: analyses and findings 5–10 years 51 54.8 – –
More than 10 years 42 45.2 3 100
4.1. Results from the survey Years of P.Tech experience
Less than 3 years 12 12.9 – –
3–5 years 19 20.4
Over recent decades, there have been obligations on automotive
– –
5–10 years 39 42.0 – –
manufacturing industries to vigorously improve their sustainable per­ More than 10 years 23 24.7 3 100
formance since they harm the environment and society through their
unsustainable products and protocols. Thus, the shift to sustainable auto
manufacturing is being urged to counter such harm. As mentioned by technologists.
Shen et al. (2013), automotive manufacturers must reduce their envi­ As mentioned in Section 3.1, the participants were tasked with
ronmental consequences and increase their ecological efficiency assessing the applicability of identified I4.0 technologies in each of the
through the implementation of environmental initiatives at all stages of economic, environmental, and social aspects, so as to find out whether
manufacturing. Although the initiative of sustainability in the automo­ they could be applied or used in practice in the understudied context. In
tive industry is gaining traction and scientific attention, according to doing so, we used an average mean value. Table 3 presents the mean
Wellbrock et al. (2020), it is still quite nebulous and needs further values of the most applicable technologies on their corresponding sus­
concretization. In this context, there is also a major criticism about why tainability aspects at the product level. The findings of the reliability test
the concentration is mostly on the ecological aspect (Nunes and Benett, using Cronbach alpha indicated that the data are reliable enough to be
2010). In Malaysia, the National Automotive Policy (NAP) was initially used since the alpha values exceed the recommended value of 0.60
presented as part of the Third Industrial Masterplan (IMP3) in 2006, to (Forza, 2002), as shown in Table 3.
shift the automotive industry to a more sustainable-based state. Riding Though the research in this paper is based on nine I4.0 technologies,
on this industry as one of the Malaysian major economic contributors, as described in Table 1, the findings shown in Table 3 reveal that only six
the NAP has evolved over the years; in 2009, it released the 2nd version of them have meaningfully been applicable in the context. The appli­
of the policy to improve the domestic automotive industrial capabilities cability level of the remaining technologies – cybersecurity (ranging
and create a further favorable investment landscape; in 2014, it released from 0 to 1), horizontal and vertical system integration (ranging from
the 3rd version, dubbed “NAP 2014”, which concentrates on strength­ 0 to 2), and autonomous robots (ranging from 0 to 1) – were found to be
ening green initiatives and the entire automotive ecosystem through unacceptable.
advancing technological, human capital, and supply chain aspects, so as
to place Malaysia as a regional center for Energy Efficient Vehicles; in
4.2. Results from the FTOPSIS
2020, it released the NAP 2020 to develop the automotive industry in
the fourth industrial age, enabling Malaysia to attain Connected
Following the findings obtained by the survey, this section presents
Mobility by 2030. Since the NAP was established, the industry has un­
dergone substantial improvements; however, with the new technolog­
ical invasion and shockwaves caused throughout the universal market, Table 3
The means and alpha values of the most applicable technologies at the product
as well as emerging green/sustainable tendencies, the Malaysian auto­
level.
motive industry is expected to have difficulties from 2020 onwards
(NAP, 2020). Tech. Means values Reliability test
(alpha values)
This project has been an attempt to this end, exploring the percep­ Economic Environmental Social
tions of professional technologists (P.Tech), as one of the key stake­ aspect aspect aspect
holders of the NAP, for assessing I4.0 technologies toward developing T1 4.15 4.37 3.92 0.889
auto manufacturing sustainability. Thus, this section presents the find­ T2 3.75 3.07 4.16 0.873
ings from the Professional Technologists’ perspective on Malaysia’s T3 3.82 3.11 3.95 0.722
T4 3.90 4.02 3.07 0.854
automotive industry in the I4.0 era. Table 2 demonstrates the de­
T5 3.19 3.03 3.97 0.772
mographic profile of respondents including 93 professional T6 4.14 3.30 3.96 0.856

7
H. Gholami et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

the application of fuzzy TOPSIS to further analyze and prioritize the Table 4
identified technologies based on product sustainability criteria, as Criteria for evaluating most applicable I4.0 technologies.
demonstrated in Fig. 2b. Fig. 4 shows the hierarchical structure of the Code Criteria Aspects Desired level
developed fuzzy TOPSIS model with 3 aspects, 11 main criteria, and 6
C1 Initial Investment Economy Minimum
most applicable technologies. This appraisal approach consists of three C2 Direct/Indirect Costs Economy Minimum
stages: selecting evaluation indicators, assessing and ranking technolo­ C3 Losses Economy Minimum
gies based on developed criteria, and completing a sensitivity analysis C4 Material Use Environment Minimum
on the decision made. C5 Energy Use Environment Minimum
C6 Waste and Emissions Environment Minimum
To incorporate sustainability into products, primary studies identi­ C7 Product end-of-life Management Environment Maximum
fied eleven interacting criteria, among others, as discussed in Section 2.2 efficiency
(see Fig. 2b). Hence, these eleven criteria were selected within three C8 Product Quality and Durability Society Maximum
divisions of the economy, environment, and society to further evaluate C9 Functional Performance Society Maximum
C10 Safety & Health impact Society Maximum
the six most applicable technologies (see Table 3). Table 4 presents the
C11 Regulations and Certifications Society Maximum
identified criteria in each aspect, also indicating the desired level of each effectiveness
indicator, i.e., cost criteria (the lower the value, the more applicable the
technology) and benefit criteria (the higher the value, the more appli­
cable the technology).
Table 5
The next stage is to create the fuzzy decision matrix to assess the
Linguistic variables applied.
technologies with respect to each criterion. To this end, the three major
Linguistic variables for weighing criteria Linguistic rating variables
decision makers (DM1, DM2, and DM3), who are certified professional
importance
technologists with more than 10 years’ managerial experience in the
automotive manufacturing industry, were tasked with expressing their Variables Fuzzy set Variables Fuzzy set

views on the applicability of each technology for each criterion using the Very low VL (0,0,0.1) Very poor VP (0,0,1)
scale given in Table 5, which indicates the linguistic variables employed Low L (0,0.1,0.3) Poor P (0,1,3)
Medium low ML (0.1,0.3,0.5) Medium poor MP (1,3,5)
in this study. The demographic profile of DMs/experts is shown in
Medium M (0.3,0.5,0.7) Medium M (3,5,7)
Table 2. Medium high MH (0.5,0.7,0.9) Medium good MG (5,7,9)
The experts were requested to assign a score to the criteria for High H (0.7,0.9,1) Good G (7,9,10)
evaluating their importance weights and also to rate technologies based Very high VH (0.9,1,1) Very good VG (9,10,10)
on them. A seven-point Likert scale instrument was applied in order to
obtain the data, as seen in Table 5, where the linguistic rating variables
T3.
varied from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’ and the linguistic variables for
weighing criteria importance ranged from ‘very low’ to ‘very high’.
4.2.1. Sensitivity analysis
Tables 6 and 7 show the weighing and rating of criteria and technologies
Sensitivity analysis is regarded as the hermeneutics of mathematical
assessed by decision makers, respectively. The fuzzy-decision matrix
modeling (Saltelli et al., 2021). Simply, it refers to a process in which
normalized and weighted, the distance of technologies from positive and
one or more variables in an issue are altered to gauge their impacts on
negative ideal solutions, and the closeness coefficient of technologies
some outcome or quantity of interest, e.g., the evaluation of the efficacy
have respectively been presented in Tables 8–10.
of a decision alternative in a policy-making issue, the effect of an issue
In general, the outcome of fuzzy TOPSIS analyses is finalized in
restriction on optimizing a cost or benefit function through shadow
Table 10, revealing that Technology 1 (T1) is the topmost applicable
pricing, or a model parameter’s role and function in creating a model
technology with CCi = 0.349 while Technology 3 (T3) with CCi = 0.183
output (Razavi et al., 2021). In such analyses, which are simple, intui­
has been the lowest applicable technology for product-level sustain­
tive, and suitable for a specific set of conditions, the sensitivity of the
ability development. According to the CCi (closeness coefficient) values,
issue is only calculated around a nominal point in the issue area.
the ranking order of the six technologies is: T1 > T2 > T4 > T6 > T5 >

Fig. 4. Hierarchical structure of the appraisal approach.

8
H. Gholami et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

Table 6
Criteria importance and aggregate fuzzy weights.
Criteria DMs’ linguistic assessment Fuzzy weights of criteria Fuzzy weights aggregated

DM1 DM2 DM3 DM1 DM2 DM3

C1 H VH VH (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.83,0.96,1)

C2 H VH VH (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.83,0.96,1)
C3 VH H VH (0.9,1,1) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.83,0.96,1)
C4 VH H VH (0.9,1,1) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.83,0.96,1)
C5 MH MH H (0.5,0.7,0.9) (0.5,0.7,0.9) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.56,0.76,0.93)
C6 H H VH (0.7,0.9,1) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.76,0.93,1)
C7 H H VH (0.7,0.9,1) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.76,0.93,1)
C8 VH H VH (0.9,1,1) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.83,0.96,1)
C9 VH H VH (0.9,1,1) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.9,1,1) (0.83,0.96,1)
C10 H MH H (0.7,0.9,1) (0.5,0.7,0.9) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.63,0.83,0.96)
C11 H MH H (0.7,0.9,1) (0.5,0.7,0.9) (0.7,0.9,1) (0.63,0.83,0.96)

Table 7
Technological evaluation and aggregate.
Criteria Technology 1 (T1) Technology 2 (T2) Technology 3 (T3)
DM1 DM 2 DM3 Aggregate DM1 DM 2 DM3 Aggregate DM1 DM2 DM3 Aggregate
C1 M MP M (2.33, 4.33, 6.33) G M MG (5,7,8.66) G G G (7,9,10)
C2 MP P P (0.33,1.66,3.66) M MP M (2.33,4.33,6.33) G G MG (6.33,8.33,9.66)
C3 MP P MP (0.66, 2.33, 4.33) MG MG MG (5,7,9) G MG G (6.33,8.33,9.66)
C4 M M MG (3.66, 5.66, 7.66) M M MG (3.66,5.66,7.66) G MG G (6.33,8.33,9.66)
C5 M M MG (3.66, 5.66, 7.66) MG MG M (4.33,6.33,8.33) G G G (7,9,10)
C6 P MP P (0.33,1.66,3.66) M M M (3, 5, 7) G MG MG (5.66, 7.66, 9.33)
C7 VG VG VG (9,10,10) M M M (3,5,7) P MP P (0.33,1.66,3.66)
C8 MG M MG (4.33,6.33,8.33) G G G (7,9,10) P MP P (0.33,1.66,3.66)
C9 MG M M (3.66, 5.66, 7.66) G G G (7,9,10) VG VG VG (9,10,10)
C10 MP MP MP (1,3,5) G G G (7,9,10) P MP MP (0.66, 2.33, 4.33)
C11 P P MP (0.33,1.66,3.66) G G G (7,9,10) MP MP P (0.66, 2.33, 4.33)

Criteria Technology 4 (T4) Technology 5 (T5) Technology 6 (T6)

DM1 DM DM3 Aggregate DM1 DM DM3 Aggregate DM1 DM2 DM3 Aggregate
2 2

C1 P MP P (0.33,1.66,3.66) MG G G (6.33,8.33,9.66) MG M M (3.66, 5.66, 7.66)

C2 MP M M (2.33, 4.33, 6.33) MG G MG (5.66, 7.66, 9.33) M MP M (2.33, 4.33, 6.33)
C3 M M M (3, 5, 7) MG MG MG (5, 7, 9) P P MP (0.33,1.66,3.66)
C4 P MP P (0.33,1.66,3.66) MG MG G (5.66, 7.66, 9.33) MG M MG (4.33,6.33,8.33)
C5 P P MP (0.33,1.66,3.66) MG MG G (5.66, 7.66, 9.33) M M MG (3.66, 5.66, 7.66)
C6 P MP P (0.33,1.66,3.66) MG MG G (5.66, 7.66, 9.33) MP M M (2.33, 4.33, 6.33)
C7 P MP P (0.33,1.66,3.66) G G G (7,9,10) G G G (7,9,10)
C8 MP MP MP (1,3,5) M P MP (0,3,7) G G G (7,9,10)
C9 P P MP (0.33,1.66,3.66) G G G (7,9,10) M M MP (2.33, 4.33, 6.33)
C10 P MP MP (0.66, 2.33, 4.33) VG VG VG (9,10,10) P P MP (0.33,1.66,3.66)
C11 P MP MP (0.66, 2.33, 4.33) P P MP (0.33,1.66,3.66) P P P (0,1,3)

According to Shen et al. (2013), it is used to fluctuate somewhat the
values of the weights to monitor their influences on the decision, and,
consequently, to confirm the validity of the resulting findings. Hence, a
sensitivity analysis is applied in this investigation to assess the appli­
cability of I4.0 technologies toward sustainable products development
considering the variation of sustainability criteria importance weights.
As shown in Fig. 5, fifteen experiments on eleven criteria are carried out,
with each one being treated as a condition, to test the validity of the
obtained results.
Based on this analysis, in fourteen conditions T1, T2, T4, T6, T5, and
T3 have the best ranking, respectively. In only one experiment (E12), the
ranking is T1, T2, T4, T5, T6, and T3, respectively. Thus, it can be
concluded that the process of our decision-making is not sensitive to the
weights of criteria with T1 – in other words, ‘Big Data Analytics’ obtains
the first rank among others. Based on this analysis, Technology 1 CCi
value varies from 0.34 to 0.36; Technology 2 CCi value varies from
0.338 to 0.358; Technology 3 CCi value varies from 0.175 to 0.191;
Technology 4 CCi value varies from 0.284 to 0.299; Technology 5 CCi
value varies from 0.276 to 0.293; and Technology 6 CCi value varies
from 0.28 to 0.296. The decision makers can apply these values in their
decision-making process based on priority.
5. Discussion on the findings and implications
The research methodology applied (Section 3) in the understudied
context (Section 4) helps achieve two main objectives that take into
account several implications for those policy-and decision-makers who
intend to examine the applicability of I4.0 technologies in each of the
triple bottom lines (economic, environmental, and social) at the product
level, and, more significantly, to scrutinize state-of-the-art I4.0 tech­
nologies based on product sustainability criteria. To be a sound assess­
ment, the results were drawn from the perceptions of professional
technologists (see Table 2), who play a crucial role as both internal and
external stakeholders in addressing technological issues within organi­
zations including multinationals. Knowing their perceptions in this
setting is particularly essential since it provides policy-and decision-
makers with a deeper understanding of the assessment from the
perspective of one of their most important groups of stakeholders.
Despite the research in the context was based on nine major I4.0
technologies (Table 1), the results from the survey, as summarized in
Table 3, revealed that six technologies–T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6–are
meaningfully applicable in each of the economic, environmental, and
social aspects at the product level. Considering both economic and
environmental sustainability aspects, T1 had the highest applicability
for developing sustainable products, while T5, by contrast, has had the

9
H. Gholami et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

Table 8 criticism of the work of Bai et al. (2020) who have regarded, in the
Fuzzy-decision matrix normalized and weighted. automotive industry, autonomous robots to improve industrial envi­
Criteria T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 ronmental sustainability dimensions and big data analytics to address
social sustainability concerns. It is even asserted that “in this way we
C1 (0.05, (0.03, (0.03, (0.09, (0.03, (0.04,
0.07, 0.04, 0.03, 0.19, 1) 0.03, 0.05, significantly support organizations and industry in their
0.14) 0.06) 0.04) 0.05) 0.09) decision-making processes (Bai et al., 2020, p.12, p.12)”. This may be
C2 (0.09, (0.05, (0.03, (0.05, (0.03, (0.05, due to having different outlooks – general outlook vs. particular outlook.
0.19, 1) 0.07, 0.04, 0.07, 0.04, 0.07, In pursuit of the first objective’s results, an appraisal approach by
0.14) 0.05) 0.14) 0.05) 0.14)
C3 (0.07, (0.03, (0.03, (0.04, (0.03, (0.09,
applying FTOPSIS was performed to further scrutinize state-of-the-art
0.14, 0.04, 0.04, 0.06, 0.04, 0.19, 1) I4.0 technologies in a fuzzy environment; an environment that neces­
0.5) 0.06) 0.05) 0.04) 0.06) sitates the consideration of the 6Rs and the entire product life-cycle in
C4 (0.04, (0.04, (0.03, (0.09, (0.03, (0.07, addition to the TBL. To this end, the approach was developed (see Fig. 4)
0.05, 0.05, 0.04, 0.19, 1) 0.04, 0.05,
with the six most applicable technologies as well as eleven critical
0.09) 0.09) 0.05) 0.05) 0.04)
C5 (0.04, (0.07, (0.03, (0.09, (0.03, (0.04, criteria within the three sustainability divisions (Table 4). The results
0.05, 0.05, 0.03, 0.19, 1) 0.04, 0.05, from the FTOPSIS application, as outlined in Table 10, revealed that T1
0.09) 0.04) 0.04) 0.05) 0.09) with CCi = 0.349 is the topmost applicable technology, signifying that it
C6 (0.09, (0.04, (0.03, (0.09, (0.03, (0.05, has the highest performance for developing sustainable products. In
0.19, 1) 0.06, 0.04, 0.19, 1) 0.04, 0.07,
0.04) 0.05) 0.05) 0.14)
contrast, T3 with CCi = 0.183 had the lowest rank. It is worth noting that
C7 (0.9, 1, (0.3, (0.03, (0.03, (0.7, (0.7, these findings have been discussed with professional technologists.
1) 0.5, 0.7) 0.16, 0.16, 0.9, 1) 0.9, 1) Accordingly, it is agreed that such an approach and outcome can be
0.36) 0.36) adopted by policy-and decision-makers to foster the technology through
C8 (0.43, (0.7, (0.03, (0.1, (0, 0.3, (0.7,
policy interventions since the appraisal approach has been based on the
0.63, 0.9, 1) 0.16, 0.3, 0.5) 0.7) 0.9, 1)
0.83) 0.36) product sustainability criteria, and not merely from a general outlook of
C9 (0.36, (0.7, (0.9, 1, (0.03, (0.7, (0.23, sustainability. Moreover, the process of decision-making was also found
0.56, 0.9, 1) 1) 0.16, 0.9, 1) 0.43, to be insensitive to the weights of criteria with T1.
0.76) 0.36) 0.63) These findings are incomparable with previous I4.0 research since
C10 (0.1, (0.7, (0.06, (0.06, (0.9, 1, (0.03,
this study has been the first empirical one investigating such technolo­
0.3, 0.5) 0.9, 1) 0.23, 0.23, 1) 0.16,
0.43) 0.43) 0.36) gies toward developing sustainable products based on product sustain­
C11 (0.03, (0.7, (0.06, (0.06, (0.03, (0, 0.1, ability criteria, highlighting the unique contribution of the current study
0.16, 0.9, 1) 0.23, 0.23, 0.16, 0.3) to the field and thus calling for cutting-edge studies to advance this new
0.36) 0.43) 0.43) 0.36)
research avenue. Considering the work of Stock and Seliger (2016), who
Criteria T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 were among the first to significantly contribute to the area of SM 4.0
C1 (0.04, (0.02, (0.02, (0.07, (0.02, (0.03, (Fig. 1), the topic seems relatively young and in need of movement to
0.06, 0.04, 0.03, 0.18, 1) 0.03, 0.05, create significant outlooks. There are very few empirical studies dis­
0.14) 0.06) 0.04) 0.05) 0.09) cussing the issue of technology assessment in the context of
C2 (0.07, (0.04, (0.02, (0.04, (0.02, (0.04,
manufacturing from a sustainability perspective (e.g., Bai et al., 2020;
0.18, 1) 0.06, 0.04, 0.06, 0.04, 0.06,
0.14) 0.05) 0.14) 0.05) 0.14) Chiarini, 2021); however, to be a sound assessment, the shift from
C3 (0.05, (0.02, (0.02, (0.03, (0.02, (0.07, general outlooks to particular outlooks is needed considering that (1)
0.13, 0.04, 0.04, 0.05, 0.04, 0.18, 1) manufacturing encompasses interrelated elements, with inter-connected
0.5) 0.06) 0.05) 0.04) 0.06) processes, units, norms, values, behaviors, individuals and groups,
C4 (0.03, (0.03, (0.02, (0.07, (0.02, (0.05,
0.05, 0.05, 0.04, 0.18, 1) 0.04, 0.05,
which are influencing and being influenced by one another, and (2)
0.09) 0.09) 0.05) 0.05) 0.04) sustainable manufacturing is essentially a complex systems problem
C5 (0.02, (0.04, (0.01, (0.05, (0.01, (0.02, (Jawahir and Bradley, 2016) and being relied highly on the analytical
0.04, 0.04, 0.02, 0.14, 0.02, 0.04, approaches that make learning and development through reductionism
0.08) 0.04) 0.04) 0.93) 0.04) 0.08)
thinking and mechanism interpretation.
C6 (0.07, (0.03, (0.02, (0.07, (0.02, (0.03,
0.17, 1) 0.05, 0.03, 0.17, 1) 0.04, 0.06, Nonetheless, the findings can corroborate empirically the studies
0.04) 0.05) 0.05) 0.14) demonstrating theoretically the applicability of T1 to improve direct/
C7 (0.6, (0.2, (0.02, (0.02, (0.53, (0.53, indirect costs, product end-of-life management, and wastes & emissions
0.9, 1) 0.4, 0.7) 0.14, 0.14, 0.83, 1) 0.83, 1) (Song and Moon, 2017; Rajput and Singh, 2019; Nascimento et al., 2019;
0.36) 0.36)
Enyoghasi and Badurdeen, 2021; Gholami et al., 2021), T2 to improve
C8 (0.35, (0.58, (0.02, (0.08, (0, 0.2, (0.58,
0.6, 0.86, 1) 0.15, 0.2, 0.5) 0.7) 0.86, 1) product quality & durability, safety & health impacts, and functional
0.83) 0.36) performance (Tao et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2020; Enyoghasi and
C9 (0.29, (0.58, (0.74, (0.02, (0.58, (0.19, Badurdeen, 2021; Gholami et al., 2021), T3 to improve functional per­
0.53, 0.86, 1) 0.96, 1) 0.15, 0.86, 1) 0.41,
formance (MacArthur and Waughray, 2016; Hashemi et al., 2022;
0.76) 0.36) 0.63)
C10 (0.06, (0.46, (0.03, (0.03, (0.56, (0.02, Enyoghasi and Badurdeen, 2021; Gholami et al., 2021), T4 to improve
0.24, 0.74, 0.19, 0.19, 0.83, 0.13, initial investments, energy use & efficiency, and material use & effi­
0.48) 0.96) 0.41) 0.41) 0.96) 0.34) ciency (Wee et al., 2015; Stock and Seliger, 2016; Kamble et al., 2018;
C11 (0.02, (0.46, (0.03, (0.03, (0.02, (0, 0.08, Nascimento et al., 2019; Enyoghasi and Badurdeen, 2021; Gholami
0.13, 0.74, 0.19, 0.19, 0.13, 0.28)
et al., 2021), T5 to improve functional performance, safety & health
0.34) 0.96) 0.41) 0.41) 0.34)
impacts, and product end-of-life management(Frank et al., 2019;
Enyoghasi and Badurdeen, 2021; Gholami et al., 2021), and T6 to
lowest applicability as such. Taking the social sustainability aspect into improve benefits and losses, product end-of-life management, and
consideration, T2 seems to have high applicability for product-level product quality & durability (Wang et al., 2016; Tao et al., 2018; Frank
social sustainability development. These findings are handy informa­ et al., 2019; Enyoghasi and Badurdeen, 2021; Gholami et al., 2021) at
tion for the manufacturer seeking to develop sustainability in each of the the product level. These underlying findings deliver the following
TBL at the product level. However, the findings detect an implied implications:

10
H. Gholami et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327

Table 9
Distances and T*, T− per criteria.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11

d(T1,T*) 0.92 0.74 0.79 0.94 0.95 0.72 0.23 0.45 0.51 0.75 0.83
d(T2,T*) 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.60 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35
d(T3,T*) 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.83 0.83 0.15 0.80 0.80
d(T4,T*) 0.74 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.72 0.83 0.76 0.81 0.80 0.80
d(T5,T*) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.29 0.75 0.26 0.27 0.83
d(T6,T*) 0.94 0.92 0.74 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.29 0.26 0.61 0.83 0.88
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11
d(T1,T− ) 0.09 0.58 0.29 0.06 0.05 0.58 0.85 0.62 0.56 0.31 0.21
d(T2,T− ) 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.83 0.83 0.74 0.74
d(T3,T− ) 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.90 0.26 0.26
d(T4,T− ) 0.59 0.10 0.05 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.23 0.32 0.23 0.27 0.27
d(T5,T− ) 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.82 0.42 0.83 0.78 0.21
d(T6,T− ) 0.06 0.09 0.58 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.82 0.83 0.44 0.21 0.16

particularly when making capital investment decisions. In a

Table 10
competitive international and regulatory context, it may also help
Computations of d+, d− and CCi.
diminish the environmentally-and legislation-based risks and
d+ d− CCi Rank improve the competitiveness of a manufacturer. Such an assessment,
T1 7.83 4.2 0.349 1 which is of critical importance to sustainable development, would
T2 7.50 3.92 0.343 2 hence be beneficial to policy-and decision-makers seeking to make
T3 9.19 2.06 0.183 6 policies toward augmenting the sustainability values of I4.0 in the
T4 9.22 3.78 0.290 3
T5 8.17 3.27 0.285 5
manufacturing context. To avoid any uncertainty, a sound assess­
T6 8.29 3.37 0.289 4 ment necessitates the engagement of stakeholders, who can influence
or be influenced by the decisions. This current study involved pro­
fessional technologists, who play an important role as both internal
• Theoretical implications – contributing a particular outlook, which and external stakeholders in addressing technological issues within
has yet to be explored in the literature, to enlarging the area of SM organizations including multinationals. It may be necessary to
4.0 which is an effective convergence of two broad concepts of sus­ conduct further research on such topics; the studies investigating and
tainable manufacturing (SM) and Industry 4.0. It is responding to developing value co-creation strategies for technological decision-
calls and questions in the literature, as discussed in Section 1, to making are especially noteworthy.
augment the economic, environmental, and societal values of I4.0 in
the manufacturing context through integrating SM and I4.0, and
6. Conclusions and recommendations
expanding the understanding of how developing sustainable prod­
ucts could be enabled by I4.0 technologies.
To maximize the economic, environmental, and societal values of
• Managerial implications – entailing stepwise guidelines to imple­
I4.0 in the manufacturing context, effective integration of state-of-the-
ment an appraisal approach in the area of SM 4.0 as well as an
art I4.0 technologies with the sustainable manufacturing paradigm has
applicable performance indicator set for assessing product-level
been urged to develop sustainable products. The purpose of this inte­
sustainability that takes, in addition to the TBL, 6Rs and the entire
gration is to develop products that are more energy-efficient, eco-
product life-cycle into consideration. This appraisal approach can
friendly, and socially-responsible since it has been affirmed that I4.0 and
enable policy-and decision-makers to determine what technology is
its applicable technologies possess great potential to this end. Although
required to be invested in making their products more sustainable.
there are many efforts to develop sustainable manufacturing, very little
However, they need to get a better understanding of I4.0 technolo­
research has been conducted on investigating the applicability of I4.0
gies and their applicability to product-level sustainability,
technologies to the development of sustainable products. The current

Fig. 5. Outcome of sensitivity analysis.

11
H. Gholami et al.
literature reveals that no research has empirically scrutinized I4.0
technologies in each of the triple bottom lines at the product level;
particularly using product sustainability criteria.
This study makes a significant contribution to calls in the literature
by enriching the area of SM 4.0, extending the scrutiny through an
empirical study based on product sustainability criteria, and developing
a more granular approach that examines each of the I4.0 technologies
distinctly. In line with the research objectives, the findings obtained by
surveying the applicability of I4.0 technologies in each of the economic,
environmental, and social aspects at the product level indicated that out
of nine major I4.0 technologies identified, only six of them–big data
analytics, augmented/virtual reality, simulation/optimization, additive
manufacturing, cloud, and industrial internet of things–are meaning­
fully applicable in the understudied context. It is found that big data
analytics has the highest applicability for product-level economic and
environmental sustainability development, whereas augmented/virtual
reality had the high applicability for product-level social sustainability
development. These findings are handy information for the manufac­
turer seeking to develop sustainable products using I4.0 technologies
through the broad lens of sustainability in the context. The findings
obtained by implementing the fuzzy TOPSIS application revealed that
‘big data analytics’ is the topmost applicable technology with CCi =
0.349, signifying the highest performance for developing sustainable
products. The process of decision-making was also found to be insensi­
tive to the weights of criteria with this technology. This may corroborate
empirically the studies demonstrating theoretically the importance of
the matter. Implicitly, such an approach and outcome can be adopted by
policy-and decision-makers to foster the technology through policy in­
terventions since the appraisal approach was based on bi-focal lenses,
and not merely from a general outlook of sustainability.
To this end, it is recommended that future studies consider bi-focal
lenses for developing their appraisal approaches since sustainable
manufacturing has been a complex systems challenge relying vastly on
holistic and analytic approaches. Using such a perspective, the future
scope of this research can be further widened to advance more granular
approaches scrutinizing state-of-the-art I4.0 technologies toward
developing sustainable processes and/or systems (see graphical ab­
stract) across different contexts, considering that there is also a growing
need for developing sustainable performance indicators in the under­
studied field. To address the uncertainty, other theories such as the grey
system theory may likewise be used.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hamed Gholami: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization,
Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. Ahmad
Hashemi: Methodology, Software, Data curation, Formal analysis.
Jocelyn Ke Yin Lee: Resources, Writing – review & editing. Georges
Abdul-Nour: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Anas
A. Salameh: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
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.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Professional Technologists for
their contribution to this study. This work was funded by Universiti
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327
Teknologi Malaysia under the Postdoctoral Fellowship Scheme (PDRU
Grant), Vot no. Q. J130000.21A2.05E33.
References
Abu, F., Gholami, H., Saman, M.Z.M., Zakuan, N., Streimikiene, D., 2019. The
implementation of lean manufacturing in the furniture industry: a review and
analysis on the motives, barriers, challenges, and the applications. J. Clean. Prod.
234, 660–680.
Ahmad, S., Wong, K.Y., Tseng, M.L., Wong, W.P., 2018. Sustainable product design and
development: a review of tools, applications and research prospects. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 132, 49–61.
Ajwani-Ramchandani, R., Figueira, S., Torres de Oliveira, R., Jha, S., Ramchandani, A.,
Schuricht, L., 2021. Towards a circular economy for packaging waste by using new
technologies: the case of large multinationals in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod.
281, 125139.
Awan, U., Shamim, S., Khan, Z., Zia, N.U., Shariq, S.M., Khan, M.N., 2021. Big data
analytics capability and decision-making: the role of data-driven insight on circular
economy performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 168, 120766.
Bai, C., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G., Sarkis, J., 2020. Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: a
sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 229, 107776.
Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A., 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci.
17 (4), 141–164.
Beltrami, M., Orzes, G., Sarkis, J., Sartor, M., 2021. Industry 4.0 and sustainability:
towards conceptualization and theory. J. Clean. Prod. 312, 127733.
Bernat, S., Karabag, S.F., 2019. Strategic alignment of technology: organising for
technology upgrading in emerging economy firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
145, 295–306.
Bibaud-Alves, J., El-Haouzi, H.B., Thomas, P., Boucinha, V., 2018. Toward a Sustainable
New Product Development Approach Based on Industry 4.0 Assets. 8th Workshop on
Service Orientation in Holonic and Multi-Agent Manufacturing. SOHOMA’18. Jun
2018, Bergamo, Italy.
Blunck, E., Werthmann, H., 2017. Industry 4.0 – an opportunity to realize sustainable
manufacturing and its potential for a circular economy. DIEM 3 (1), 644–666.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/187419.
Boyes, H., Hallaq, B., Cunningham, J., Watson, T., 2018. The industrial internet of things
(IIoT): an analysis framework. Comput. Ind. 101, 1–12.
Calık, A., 2021. A novel Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for
green supplier selection in the Industry 4.0 era. Soft Comput. 25 (3), 2253–2265.
Carvalho, A.C.P., Carvalho, A.P.P., Carvalho, N.G.P., 2020. Industry 4.0 technologies:
what is your potential for environmental management?. In: Industry 4.0-Current
Status and Future Trends. IntechOpen.
Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T., Huang, S.F., 2006. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and
selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102 (2), 289–301.
Chen, H., Chiang, R.H., Storey, V.C., 2012. Business intelligence and analytics: from big
data to big impact. MIS Q. 1165–1188.
Chiarini, A., 2021. Industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: are we sure
they are all relevant for environmental performance? Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (7),
3194–3207.
Ching, N.T., Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P., Asadi, S., 2021. Industry
4.0 applications for sustainable manufacturing: a systematic literature review and a
roadmap to sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod., 130133
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika
16 (3), 297–334.
Dalenogare, L.S., Benitez, G.B., Ayala, N.F., Frank, A.G., 2018. The expected contribution
of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 204,
383–394.
De Silva, N., Jawahir, I.S., Dillon Jr., O., Russell, M., 2009. A new comprehensive
methodology for the evaluation of product sustainability at the design and
development stage of consumer electronic products. Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 1 (3),
251–264.
Dixit, P., Silakari, S., 2021. Deep learning algorithms for cybersecurity applications: a
technological and status review. Computer Science Review 39, 100317.
Enyoghasi, C., Badurdeen, F., 2021. Industry 4.0 for sustainable manufacturing:
opportunities at the product, process, and system levels. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
166, 105362.
Ertugrul, İ., Karakasoglu, N., 2008. Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods
for facility location selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 39 (7), 783–795.
Forza, C., 2002. Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 152–194.
Frank, A.G., Dalenogare, L.S., Ayala, N.F., 2019. Industry 4.0 technologies:
implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 210,
15–26.
Franklin, C.S., Dominguez, E.G., Fryman, J.D., Lewandowski, M.L., 2020. Collaborative
robotics: new era of human-robot cooperation in the workplace. J. Saf. Res. 74,
153–160.
Garetti, M., Taisch, M., 2012. Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges.
Prod. Plann. Control 23 (2–3), 83–104.
Ghobakhloo, M., 2018. The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap
toward Industry 4.0. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 29 (6), 910–936.
Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P., Morales, M.E., 2021.
Industry 4.0 ten years on: a bibliometric and systematic review of concepts,
sustainability value drivers, and success determinants. J. Clean. Prod. 302, 127052.
Gholami, H., Abu, F., Lee, J.K.Y., Karganroudi, S.S., Sharif, S., 2021. Sustainable
manufacturing 4.0—pathways and practices. Sustainability 13 (24), 13956.
H. Gholami et al.
Gholami, H., Jamil, N., Zakuan, N., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S., Awang, S.R., Sulaiman, Z.,
2019. Social value stream mapping (Socio-VSM): methodology to societal
sustainability visualization and assessment in the manufacturing system. IEEE Access
7, 131638–131648.
Gilchrist, A., 2016. Industry 4.0: the Industrial Internet of Things. Springer, Heidelberg.
Guo, X., Zeng, T., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., 2018. Fuzzy TOPSIS approaches for assessing the
intelligence level of IoT-based tourist attractions. IEEE Access 7, 1195–1207.
Haapala, K.R., Zhao, F., Camelio, J., Sutherland, J.W., Skerlos, S.J., Dornfeld, D.A.,
Jawahir, I.S., Clarens, A.F., Rickli, J., 2013. A review of engineering research in
sustainable manufacturing. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 135, 041013.
Hapuwatte, B.M., Jawahir, I.S., 2021. Closed-loop sustainable product design for circular
economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 25 (6), 1430–1446.
Hashemi, A., Esrafilian, R., Hadavand, S., Zeraatkar, M., 2020. Application of fuzzy
TOPSIS for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Int. J. Eng.
Technol. 11 (6), 13–24.
Hashemi, A., Gholami, H., Venkatadri, U., Salameh, A.A., Jafari, M., Abdul-Nour, G.,
2022. A novel approach to solve cell formation problems with alternative routing
using particle swarm optimization,. Transform. Bus. Econ. 21, 313–332 (1(55)).
He, W., Xu, L., 2015. A state-of-the-art survey of cloud manufacturing. Int. J. Comput.
Integrated Manuf. 28 (3), 239–250.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Jabbour, D.S.A.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., Foropon, C., Filho, M.G., 2018. When titans meet –
can industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable manufacturing
wave? The role of critical success factors",. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 132,
18–25.
Jamil, N., Gholami, H., Mat Saman, M.Z., Streimikiene, D., Sharif, S., Zakuan, N., 2020.
DMAIC-based approach to sustainable value stream mapping: towards a sustainable
manufacturing system. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja 33 (1), 331–360.
Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, O.W., Rouch, K.E., Joshi, K.J., Venkatachalam, A., Jaafar, I.H.,
2006. Total Life-Cycle Considerations in Product Design for Sustainability: A
Framework for Comprehensive Evaluation, 11–15 September. In: Proceedings of the
10th International Research/expert Conference. Barcelona, Spain.
Jawahir, I., Bradley, R., 2016. Technological elements of circular economy and the
principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing.
Procedia Cirp 40 (1), 103–108.
Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Dillon Jr., O.W., Jawahir, I.S., 2010. Sustainable
manufacturing: modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and
system levels. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2 (3), 144–152.
Jena, M.C., Mishra, S.K., Moharana, H.S., 2020. Application of Industry 4.0 to enhance
sustainable manufacturing. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 39 (1), 13360.
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. 117, 408–425.
Koyuncu, C.A., Aydemir, E., Başarır, A.C., 2021. Selection Industry 4.0 maturity model
using fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS methods for a solar cell manufacturing
company. Soft Comput. 25 (15), 10335–10349.
Kumar, N., Kumar, G., Singh, R.K., 2021. Big data analytics application for sustainable
manufacturing operations: analysis of strategic factors. Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 23 (3), 965–989.
Laskurain-Iturbe, I., Arana-Landín, G., Landeta-Manzano, B., Uriarte-Gallastegi, N.,
2021. Exploring the influence of industry 4.0 technologies on the circular economy.
J. Clean. Prod. 321, 128944.
Lee, J.K.Y., Gholami, H., Saman, M.Z.M., Ngadiman, N.H.A.B., Zakuan, N., Mahmood, S.,
Omain, S.Z., 2021. Sustainability-oriented application of value stream mapping: a
review and classification. IEEE Access 9, 68414–68434.
Letchumanan, L.T., Gholami, H., Yusof, N.M., Ngadiman, N.H.A.B., Salameh, A.A.,
Štreimikienė, D., Cavallaro, F., 2022. Analyzing the factors enabling green lean six
sigma implementation in the industry 4.0 era. Sustainability 14 (6), 3450.
Lin, K., Shyu, J., Ding, K., 2017. A cross-strait comparison of innovation policy under
industry 4.0 and sustainability development transition. Sustainability 9 (5), 786.
MacArthur, E., Waughray, D., 2016. Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the Circular Economy
Potential 2016. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK.
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), 1462–1484.
NAP, 2020. National Automotive Policy 2020. Available at. https://www.miti.gov.my
/index.php/pages/view/nap2020. (Accessed 27 February 2022).
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 377 (2022) 134327
Nara, E.O.B., da Costa, M.B., Baierle, I.C., Schaefer, J.L., Benitez, G.B., do Santos, L.M.A.
L., Benitez, L.B., 2021. Expected impact of industry 4.0 technologies on sustainable
development: a study in the context of Brazil’s plastic industry. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 25, 102–122.
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), 607–627.
Nunes, B., Benett, D., 2010. Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: an
environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Benchmark Int. J. 17 (3),
396–420.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Espadanal, M., 2014. Assessing the determinants of cloud
computing adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Inf.
Manag. 51 (5), 497–510.
Rajput, S., Singh, S.P., 2019. Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 49, 98–113.
Razavi, S., Jakeman, A., Saltelli, A., Prieur, C., Iooss, B., Borgonovo, E., et al., 2021. The
future of sensitivity analysis: an essential discipline for systems modeling and policy
support. Environ. Model. Software 137, 104954.
Rezaei, G., Gholami, H., Shaharou, A.B.M., Zameri Mat Saman, M., Sadeghi, L.,
Zakuan, N., 2017. Shared knowledge mediated correlation between cultural
excellence and organisational performance. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 28 (3–4),
427–458.
Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P., Harnisch, M.,
2015. Industry 4.0: the future of productivity and growth in manufacturing
industries. Boston Consult. Group 9 (1), 54–89.
Saltelli, A., Jakeman, A., Razavi, S., Wu, Q., 2021. Sensitivity analysis: a discipline
coming of age. Environ. Model. Software 146, 105226.
Santos, K., Loures, E., Piechnicki, F., Canciglieri, O., 2017. Opportunities assessment of
product development process in Industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 11, 1358–1365.
Sartal, A., Bellas, R., Mejías, A.M., García-Collado, A., 2020. The sustainable
manufacturing concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: a literature
review. Adv. Mech. Eng. 12 (5), 1–17.
Sharma, R., Jabbour, C.J.C., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., 2020. Sustainable
manufacturing and industry 4.0: what we know and what we don’t. J. Enterprise Inf.
Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2020-0024.
Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Diabat, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria
approach for evaluating green supplier’s performance in green supply chain with
linguistic preferences. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 170–179.
Shuaib, M., Seevers, D., Zhang, X., Badurdeen, F., Rouch, K.E., Jawahir, I.S., 2014.
Product sustainability index (ProdSI) a metrics-based framework to evaluate the
total life cycle sustainability of manufactured products. J. Ind. Ecol. 18 (4), 491–507.
Song, Z., Moon, Y., 2017. Assessing sustainability benefits of cyber manufacturing
systems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 90 (5), 1365–1382.
Stock, T., Seliger, G., 2016. Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0.
Procedia CIRP 40, 536–541.
Tao, F., Cheng, J., Qi, Q., Zhang, M., Zhang, H., Sui, F., 2018. Digital twin-driven product
design, manufacturing and service with big data. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 94 (9),
3563–3576.
UN, 1993. Agenda 21. The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. Unite Nations,
New York, NY, USA.
Wang, J., Xu, C., Zhang, J., Zhong, R., 2021. Big data analytics for intelligent
manufacturing systems: a review. J. Manuf. Syst. 62, 738–752.
Wang, S., Wan, J., Li, D., Zhang, C., 2016. Implementing smart factory of industrie 4.0:
an outlook. Int. J. Distributed Sens. Netw. 12 (1), 3159805.
WCED, 1987. Our Common Future, third ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Wee, D., Kelly, R., Cattel, J., Breunig, M., 2015. Industry 4.0: How to Navigate
Digitization of the Manufacturing Sector. McKinsey Company, Chicago, IL, USA.
Wellbrock, W., Ludin, D., Röhrle, L., Gerstlberger, W., 2020. Sustainability in the
automotive industry, importance of and impact on automobile interior–insights from
an empirical survey. Int. J. Corporate Soc. Respons. 5 (1), 1–11.
Xiong, J., Hsiang, E.L., He, Z., Zhan, T., Wu, S.T., 2021. Augmented reality and virtual
reality displays: emerging technologies and future perspectives. Light Sci. Appl. 10
(1), 1–30.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353.
Zadeh, L.A., 1976. A fuzzy algorithmic approach to the definition of complex or
imprecise concepts. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 8, 249–291.