Circular Economy, Industry 4.0 and Supply Chain: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Conner Chen and Version 1 by Renata de Oliveira Mota.

Thise paper aims to assess the relationship between Industry 4.0 (I4.0) and the circular economy that could contribute to supply chain vertical disintegration of companies has increased the complexity of management performance. To achieve this, a combination of the interpretative structural modelling (ISM) and (cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification) MICMAC approach was used to establish the interrelationships between these topics. The developed analysis reveals that there are 19 constructs capable of elucidating this relationship and that there is a hierarchy between these constructs, which are presented in a structural model. Further, the different levels of dependency and driving power arein terms of time and quality and increased uncertainty in the markets, making it impossible today for companies to compete effectively if they are isolated from their suppliers and other stakeholders. In this context, adopting the concept of supply chains (SCs) is increasingly essential for a compared in a cluster diagram. As the main result, it was found that there is a strong mutual relationship between the basic technologies. The use of Internet of Things and cloud computing technologies influencesny’s performance. Moreover, two themes are being increasingly discussed in the context of SCs, the collection of large amounts of data, leading to big data, which in turn influence the use of data analytics tools to obtain competitive advantages. These outcomes may contribute to managers’ more assertive decision-making regarding the selection, implementation, and evaluation of projects adopting Industry 4.0 technologies and circular economy approaches in supply chains. Moreover, our study could bircular economy (CE) and Industry 4.0 (I4.0). The CE paradigm consists of a possible way to achieve environmental objectives and economic sustainability by developing systemic changes that go beyond the individual company and involve the basis for future empirical research to investigate how companies incorporate Industry 4.0 technologies into their processes and how this influences the quest for sustainablother actors in the SC, contributing to adding value to a product and/or service supply chains.

  • circular economy
  • industry 4.0
  • supply chain management
  • interpretive structural modelling
  • MICMAC approach

1. Introduction

The vertical disintegration of companies has increased the complexity of management in terms of time and quality and increased uncertainty in the markets, making it impossible today for companies to compete effectively if they are isolated from their suppliers and other stakeholders [1,2][1][2]. In this context, adopting the concept of supply chains (SCs) is increasingly essential for a company’s performance. Moreover, two themes are being increasingly discussed in the context of SCs, the circular economy (CE) and Industry 4.0 (I4.0) [3]. The CE paradigm consists of a possible way to achieve environmental objectives and economic sustainability by developing systemic changes that go beyond the individual company and involve the other actors in the SC, contributing to adding value to a product and/or service [4,5][4][5]. On the other hand, I4.0 refers to an industrial revolution based on the deployment of automation technologies and information and communication technologies, which can be helpful to meet current SC needs, such as flexibility, increased productivity, reducing waste, resource optimisation, and more sustainable production processes [2]. Consequently, the CE can be used to minimise resource usage and decrease waste generation in a high-tech manufacturing environment, integrating sustainable resource management and transforming SCs in the I4.0 [6,7][6][7].
Previous research has assessed the relationship between these themes. For example, some researchers have linked the CE to I4.0 [7[7][8],8], while others have linked, separately, the implementation of I4.0 or the CE to SC performance [1,2,9,10,11][1][2][9][10][11]. However, a systematic analysis from the perspective of experts concerning the relationship between these three topics is still missing. Many articles do not provide insight into the realization of initiatives to introduce Sustainable Industry 4.0 in the supply chain context. Our paper uses combined Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) and the MICMAC approach was used as a systematic methodology to establish the interrelationships between these topics. However, there is still a lack of studies that analyse this relationship more deeply, to create a consensus between the relationships between the different strategies of I4.0 and CE in the supply chain [12,13][12][13].
To clarify our research gap, Table 1 was developed to contrast the research gap wisth the study ies already published.
The discussion on sustainable developms to identify the relationsent and the CE has been highlighted worldwide since the 1980s, recognising that natural resources are limited and are suffering significant and irreversible damage from human activity [4]. This new persp between I4.0 technologies and the CE andective has created pressure from several stakeholders (consumers, investors, governments, etc.) for companies to reduce their negative impact on the environment [4]. pTheresent the effect of adopting both approaches concerning SCfore, organisations have been working on improving their environmental performance to obtain competitive advantages (such as increased market share and product differentiation) capable of improving financial performance. Then, this researc without significantly increasing (or even reducing) costs [13]. At the is an attempt to fill this gap and aims to answer the two research questions: (1) what are thesame time, I4.0 has been impacting the development of the global industry as it has been providing solutions for computerisation and digitalisation. In other words, the CE and I4.0 are seen as having the potential to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of organisations and, consequently, to offer performance improvements for SCs. Sustainable development depends on its relationships between with technological development [14]. The I4.0, through technologies and the CE? (2) What iscal pillars, has the potential for transition to CE, by maximizing the use of available resources and minimizing waste and emission [2][15].

2. The Importance of the CE and I4.0 for SC Performance

Population growthe potential effect of these constructs on SC performance? As a starting point, a syste linked to economic and technological development has led to changes in the types of production and consumption, making SCs increasingly dependent and unsustainable [4]. Growing marketic literature review (SLR) was developed, resulting in 19 constructs. Subsequently, the interaction competitiveness, environmental changes, public pressure, and environmental legislation have generated the need for organizations to change their production systems’ operations to ensure the coexistence of industrial development and environmental protection [16]. For these between these conchanges to occur, it is necessary to redefine the basic structs aure of SCs to include environmental issues [17]. As recommended by the strengCE literature [5], the of the driving and dependence power of this relfirst step of this change is to migrate from a linear SC to a closed-loop one. When SCs extend environmental concerns to their operationship were p, they are characterized as a circular supply chain (CSC) [6]. According to Srivastava [18] (posed. 54), using a combined interpretive structural modelling (ISM) and fuzzy MICMAC (Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliqués à un Classement (ccircular supply chain management (CSCM) can be defined as “the integration of environmental thinking with supply chain management, including product design, material selection and supply, manufacturing process-impact matrix multiplication applied to classifices, delivery of the final product to consumers and the management of the entire product life cycle, even after the end of its useful life”. The adoption) an of the CSCM requires a paradigm shift [13][18]. Specificallysis.

2. Theoretical Background

Al, organisathiough much work has been done on sustainable SCs, the relationship between thens need to stop seeing environmental issues as external restrictions that impose limits, increase the costs of their operation, and reduce their competitiveness CE[19] and SCs still needs to be explored, especiallytart instead to see them as an opportunity to generate economic and financial gains [18], thus impro identifyving their performance [13]. To tache methods and tools thatieve this, several practices need to be adopted across , including: circular projects; designing products and operations in the SC to support efficient CE adoption, enabling a “complete” transition from a linear to a circular SC due to its increased complexity [5].aking into account environmental protection and health throughout the product’s life cycle; reverse logistics (planning and controlling the flow of raw materials, inventories, and products from the point of consumption to the point of origin to recapture value or ensure proper disposal); recycling and remanufacturing operations; the recovery, reuse, and Ireformin this context, I4.0 technologies can be of great value [2,7]g of products and packaging; waste management and minimisation; and the substitution of hazardous materials or processes with less problematic ones [20]. The SC invome proposals for relationshiplves coordinating, planning, and controlling products and services through integrated activities between these two approaches can be found insuppliers and customers. However, despite being connected, many of these activities are carried out independently by each member organisation of the chain [21]. Thus, the literature, with ReSOLVE [16]results obtained in the traditional SC structure are no longer sufficient and do not match current technological bdevelopments [21]. In this cong onetext, the concept of the most cited methods. However, empirical studies are scarce, resultinintegration and digitisation of the SC emerges to add value, strengthen the competitive potential of organisations, and improve the corporate performance of intra-organisational and inter-organisational processes [22]. A digitised in the effect of this relationship on companies’ performance, especially in theSC is an intelligent system of networks, hardware, and software that requires a massive amount of data, as well as cooperation and communication, to support and synchronise interaction between organisations to provide higher value and more accessible services based on agility, consistency, and effectiveness [3]. SC,everal is poorly studied. It itechnologies and innovative solutions are used for digitising and integrating of SCs, including I4.0 technologies t[21][23], such as: flexis gap that the present study aims to address. The intersection literatble and digitally integrated production systems; inter-organisational information integration, synchronisation and communication systems; worker support technologies; the Internet of Things (IoT); cloud computing; big data; and data analytics. Further, as Vacchi et al. [7] (p. 1) stated, “Industre between these areas is presentedy 4.0 pushes manufacturing industries to make their processes minimise waste: this transition to efficiency links Industry 4. 

3. Research Method

T0 withis research aims to identifythe goals of the circular economy”. Therefore, there is an opportunity to investigate the relationships between these three themes.

3. The Literature Regarding the Relationship between the CE and I4.0 and Its Effect on SC Performance

The need to optimise SCs due to the competitive pressures of the market promotes and encourages the adoption of I4.0 technologies, in parallel with CE approaches [15]. According to Rajput [24], andthe SC performance. For this, the ISM approach was chosen to identify and classifyCE integration with I4.0 is a way to achieve sustainability, as it reduces barriers such as lack of information regarding the life cycle of products and uncertainty about the return on investments [25]. Forela example, as Tiwari [8] (p. 2) stated, “the advent and adoptionships between variables [10] of digital technologies based on the principles of Industry 4.0 may This methodology involves four steps [10,31,32]:help to overcome the barriers to the adoption of CE”. In other words, if organisations want (1)to identification of elements thamaintain and strengthen their competitive potential, they need to embrace technological and environmental changes together [12]. In this context, relatJabbour et al. [15] proposed the three research topirelationship between the CE business actions and I4.0 technologies (Table 1).
Table 1. Relationship between the ReSOLVE framework and I4.0 technologies.
ReSOLVE StrategiesI4.0 Technologies
RegenerateInternet of Things (IoT)
ShareCloud computing and IoT
OptimiseCyber–Physical Systems (CPS) and IoT
LoopCPS, IoT and Cloud computing
VirtualiseCloud computing, IoT and Additive Manufacturing
ExchangeAdditive Manufacturing
Source: [14].
More recently, s through a systematic literature rome studies have simultaneously addressed all these three themes Laskurain-Iturbe et al. [12] showed evidew (SLR), and this generated a preliminary list; (2) datance of the potential impacts of additive manufacturing and robotics by integrating industry 4.0 and the CE. Rajput and Singh [24] cused DEMATEL tollection through expert interviews to val identify enablers and barriers to the relationship between these topics. Dev et al. [26] simulatedate this list from an empirical perspective; a reverse logistics model to propose a roadmap for the joint implementation of I4.0 principles using the ReSOLVE model. Further, Yadav et al. (3)[27] delaboration of the structural model; and (4) fuzzy MICMAC development with a cluster diagramveloped a framework to overcome challenges in SCs through solutions based on I4.0 and the CE, subsequently validating it through a case study in the automotive industry. Various researchers have used other perspectives to examine this relationship [28][29]. sAlthowed the elements driver and dependence power. The following subsections describe these steps, as summarised in Figure 1ugh the theme’s relevance in the literature has been highlighted, no research was identified in the SLR assessing the relationship between the themes systematically from the perspective of experts.
Sustainability 14 02772 g001 550
Figure 1. Research method.

4. Conclusions

The main contribution of this research is to present the relationships between the different constructs of the studied themes. The ISM model, the reachability matrix, and the strength matrix of relationships are, together, valuable tools for understanding the direction, order, and power of the complex relationships between I4.0, the CE, and SC performance. Using these tools, managers can make more proactive and consistent decisions regarding implementing I4.0 technologies and CE approaches. They can also select the main performance measures associated with this implementation, allowing the evaluation of the performance of projects with greater accuracy.

References

  1. Kaur, H.; Prakash Singh, S. Multi-stage hybrid model for supplier selection and order allocation considering disruption risks and disruptive technologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 231, 107830.
  2. Mastos, T.D.; Nizamis, A.; Vafeiadis, T.; Alexopoulos, N.; Ntinas, C.; Gkortzis, D.; Papadopoulos, A.; Ioannidis, D.; Tzovaras, D. Industry 4.0 sustainable supply chains: An application of an IoT enabled scrap metal management solution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122377.
  3. Abdul-Hamid, A.-Q.; Ali, M.H.; Osman, L.H.; Tseng, M.-L. The drivers of industry 4.0 in a circular economy: The palm oil industry in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129216.
  4. Kakadellis, S.; Woods, J.; Harris, Z.M. Friend or foe: Stakeholder attitudes towards biodegradable plastic packaging in food waste anaerobic digestion. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105529.
  5. Elia, V.; Gnoni, M.G.; Tornese, F. Evaluating the adoption of circular economy practices in industrial supply chains: An empirical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 122966.
  6. Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Kumar Mangla, S. Synchronized Barriers for Circular Supply Chains in Industry 3.5/Industry 4.0 Transition for Sustainable Resource Management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104986.
  7. Vacchi, M.; Siligardi, C.; Cedillo-González, E.I.; Ferrari, A.M.; Settembre-Blundo, D. Industry 4.0 and smart data as enablers of the circular economy in manufacturing: Product re-engineering with circular eco-design. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10366.
  8. Tiwari, D.; Miscandlon, J.; Tiwari, A.; Jewell, G.W. A review of circular economy research for electric motors and the role of industry 4.0 technologies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9668.
  9. Geissdoerfer, M.; Morioka, S.N.; de Carvalho, M.M.; Evans, S. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 712–721.
  10. Govindan, K.; Azevedo, S.G.; Carvalho, H.; Cruz-Machado, V. Lean, green and resilient practices influence on supply chain performance: Interpretive structural modeling approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 15–34.
  11. Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Urbinati, A.; Chiaroni, D.; Terzi, S. Assessing relations between Circular Economy and Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1662–1687.
  12. Laskurain-Iturbe, I.; Arana-Landín, G.; Landeta-Manzano, B.; Uriarte-Gallastegi, N. Exploring the influence of industry 4.0 technologies on the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128944.
  13. Ambec, S.; Lanoie, P. Negotiating Identities: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the South African Association of Art Historians. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 45–63.
  14. Bashtannyk, V.; Buryk, Z.; Kokhan, M.; Vlasenko, T.; Skryl, V. Financial, economic and sustainable development of states within the conditions of industry 4.0. Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 406–413.
  15. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Godinho Filho, M.; Roubaud, D. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 270, 273–286.
  16. Díaz-Chao, Á.; Ficapal-Cusí, P.; Torrent-Sellens, J. Environmental assets, industry 4.0 technologies and firm performance in Spain: A dynamic capabilities path to reward sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 125264.
  17. Hummels, H.; Argyrou, A. Planetary demands: Redefining sustainable development and sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123804.
  18. Srivastava, S.K. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80.
  19. Díaz-Ramírez, M.C.; Ferreira, V.J.; García-Armingol, T.; López-Sabirón, A.M.; Ferreira, G. Environmental assessment of electrochemical energy storage device manufacturing to identify drivers for attaining goals of sustainable materials 4.0. Sustainability 2020, 12, 342.
  20. Isernia, R.; Passaro, R.; Quinto, I.; Thomas, A. The reverse supply chain of the e-waste management processes in a circular economy framework: Evidence from Italy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2430.
  21. Büyüközkan, G.; Göçer, F. Digital Supply Chain: Literature review and a proposed framework for future research. Comput. Ind. 2018, 97, 157–177.
  22. Flynn, B.B.; Huo, B.; Zhao, X. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 58–71.
  23. Bhargava, B.; Ranchal, R.; Ben Othmane, L. Secure information sharing in digital supply chains. Proceedinigs of the 2013 3rd IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC), Ghaziabad, India, 22–23 February 2013; 2013; pp. 1636–1640.
  24. Rajput, S.; Singh, S.P. Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 98–113.
  25. Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Sarkis, J.; Filho, M.G. Unlocking the circular economy through new business models based on large-scale data: An integrative framework and research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 546–552.
  26. Dev, N.K.; Shankar, R.; Qaiser, F.H. Industry 4.0 and circular economy: Operational excellence for sustainable reverse supply chain performance. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104583.
  27. Yadav, G.; Kumar, A.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, V.; Batista, L. A framework to achieve sustainability in manufacturing organisations of developing economies using industry 4.0 technologies’ enablers. Comput. Ind. 2020, 122, 103280.
  28. Manavalan, E.; Jayakrishna, K. An analysis on sustainable supply chain for circular economy. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 33, 477–484.
  29. Nascimento, D.L.M.; Alencastro, V.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Caiado, R.G.G.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Lona, L.R.; Tortorella, G. Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context: A business model proposal. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 607–627.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback