International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

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

Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0 T

Shubhangini Rajput, Surya Prakash Singh
⁎

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to understand the hidden connection between Circular Economy (CE) and Industry
Industry 4.0 4.0 in the context of supply chain. The factors responsible for linking CE and Industry 4.0 are studied from two
Circular economy angles viz. from the enablers’ side and barriers’ side. In the paper, twenty-six significant enabling and fifteen
PCA challenging factors are identified which are further factorized using Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
DEMATEL (Most likely)
DEMATEL approach is applied on the factors constructed from PCA. Here, the DEMATEL is applied for three
DEMATEL (pessimistic)
DEMATEL (optimistic)
different sets of data termed as Optimistic, Pessimistic and Most Likely. The paper identified Artificial
Intelligence, Service and Policy Framework, and Circular Economy are significant enablers connecting CE and
Industry 4.0. Similarly, paper reports Interface Designing and Automated Synergy Model as the most significant
challenges to link CE and Industry 4.0 in a supply chain.

1. Introduction discrepancies. These problems prevent to achieve the sustainability,

In competitive business environment it is becoming impossible to
manage adverse effects of the unsustainable and environmental con-
sumption and production patterns. This requires the exploration for a
significant improvement in resource performance across the global
economy. This has caused many business organisations to explore the
ways of reusing the materials or products’ components and restore the
value of the material and energy inputs for a longer period of time.
Throughout the evolution of the linear economy (take-make-use-dis-
pose), industries manufacture the products and ultimately sell the
product to the end-customer, who then dumps it when no longer re-
quired. This phenomenon increases the sustainability, environmental
and economic issues for the society and leads towards the new para-
digm shift i.e., Circular Economy (CE). CE is a closed loop supply chain
which focuses on the restorative and regenerative aspects. It enables the
industrial system to adapt the concept of ‘end-of-life’ with restoration,
eliminates the use of toxic materials, aims to reuse and eliminates the
wastage through the explicit implementation of the design models,
product systems and design of the materials. The purpose of the CE is to
enhance the resource efficiency and environmental performance at
different levels of the supply chain (Heyes, Sharmina, Mendoza,
Schmid, & Azapagic, 2018).
The number of varied criteria has been identified to transform the
linear supply chain to circular supply chain to address 3R’s (recycle,
reduce, reuse), but, these efforts are hindered by gaps and data
which paves the way to move towards the emerging technologies such
as Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0 is a combination of Cyber-physical systems
(CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Cognitive Computing. This tech-
nological innovation from IS/IT to smart devices utilizes ubiquitous
systems, advance automation systems and cloud computing
(Balakrishnan, Kumara, & Sundaresan, 1999; Chang & Wang, 2010).
This has made possible the human-machine interconnection in CPS
context utilizing the information generated from different smart de-
vices. This can optimize the sustainable solutions to reduce the emission
and resource from the industrial systems (Tseng, Tan, Chiu, Chien, &
Kuo, 2018). Industry 4.0 and CE has motivated the business organiza-
tions to move towards the supply chain and offers a new outlook of
production and consumption (Jabbour, Jabbour, Filho, & Roubaud,
2018). Therefore, sustainability can be achieved by integration of CE
and Industry 4.0.
The main focus of this paper is to attain a clear picture of the
Industry 4.0 enablers and barriers, and to establish the link between CE
and Industry 4.0 in designing supply chain. Industry 4.0 enablers
identified in this paper can serve the purpose of achieving CE based
supply chain by reducing the carbon emission, enhancing the re-
manufacturing process and also optimizing the logistics process.
Similarly, the identified Industry 4.0 barriers gives leverage to the study
as it enables the industry practitioners to cope with these inhibitors and
would be more focused while implementing CE and Industry 4.0 for
supply chain. Furthermore, the empirical research on the effect of

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Management Studies, Vishwakarma Bhavan, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi,
110016, India.
E-mail addresses: shubhanginiahm@gmail.com (S. Rajput), surya.singh@gmail.com (S.P. Singh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.002
Received 1 November 2018; Received in revised form 5 March 2019; Accepted 7 March 2019
0268-4012/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh
Industry 4.0 on CE is in its infancy (Jabbour et al., 2018). Finally,
theory on effects of Industry 4.0 on CE remains fragmented and lacks
grounding in established theoretical perspectives. In this study, we fo-
cuses on “cause and effect” relationship among various dimensions of
Industry 4.0 and CE in supply chain and address the following research
questions:
RQ1: what are the dimensions of Industry 4.0 and CE?
RQ2: what are the joint effects of the dimensions of Industry 4.0 and
CE?
We answer our research questions using mixed-methods approach.
Firstly, we obtained the dimensions of Industry 4.0 using exploratory
factor analysis (EFA). For this, we have gathered 161 usable responses
from Indian manufacturing firms. Further, we performed cause and
effect analysis using DEMATEL technique.
The remaining paper is organized as follows. Section 2 review past
literature on CE and Industry 4.0. Section 3 and 4 provides description
of identified enabling and challenging factors. Section 5 and Section 6
describes the proposed methodology to understand the connection of
CE and Industry 4.0 from enablers and barriers point of view using
combined approach of PCA and DEMATEL in three variants respec-
tively. Section 7 illustrates the discussion followed by managerial im-
plications and theoretical contributions. Sections 8 presents the con-
clusion, limitations and future research directions.
2. Literature review
Industry 4.0 originally initiated in Germany at Hannover Messe in
2011 (Roblek, Meško, & Krapež, 2016). It is linked to Cyber-Physical
Systems (CPS), Cloud Computing (CC), Internet of Things (IoT) and Big
data. The main aim of Industry 4.0 is to achieve accuracy and precision
as well as to achieve higher degree of automatization (Thames &
Schaefer, 2016). Industry 4.0 also brings advancing effects to tradi-
tional linear economy so that it can be transformed to CE based sus-
tainable supply chain. An integrated Industry 4.0 and CE based supply
chain would be more flexible, sustainable, self-organized, secured, in-
teroperable and highly embedded with Information and Communica-
tion Technology (Geng & Doberstein, 2008; Mont, 2002). The section
provides review on various enabling and limiting factors to implement
Industry 4.0 and CE for supply chain.
2.1. Review on industry 4.0 and circular economy enablers
The principle of traditional linear economy model i.e. take-make-
dispose is incapable of managing the supply and demand balance in
consumption of natural resources. This imbalance is affecting the pla-
net’s sustainability as well as affecting the environmental and socio-
economic conditions (Elliot, 2011). Some of the related factors of linear
economy has demonstrated that it is unsustainable and resulted into a
new paradigm shift i.e. CE. The CE concept was popularized in China in
1990s in perspective of economic growth and natural resource limita-
tions (Su, Heshmati, Geng, & Yu, 2013). Previous studies on CE states
that redesigning of manufacturing systems was mainly focussed and
there was no explicit realization of social aspects in sustainable devel-
opment. It was questioned that sustainable development meets the
demand of the present without arbitrating the potentials of future
generations to meet their own needs. It is still unclear, how CE will
meet social dimension and will justify the three pillars of sustainability
viz., economic, environment and social. These three important pillars
are missing from the network of sustainable supply chain and needs
rigorous attention in the CE (Gray, Kouhy, & Lavers, 1995). The main
aim of the CE is to gain hold on materials recycling and to balance
economic and environmental growth (Winans, Kendall, & Deng, 2017).
Nowadays, manufacturing industry is undergoing transformation
from linear to circular economy. In this direction, Industry 4.0 is con-
sidered as key innovative technology. Sherer (2005) stated that supply
chain has its roots in the control of fulfilment activities that supports
99
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
linear physical flow of goods from suppliers to retailers. Arora, Raghu,
Vinze, and Brittenham (2006); Fiorini and Jabbour (2017) mentioned
about self-configuration and self-optimization makes supply chain more
efficient and dynamic. Tan and Wang (2010) identified key features
viz., reliability, scalability, modularity, Quality of Service (QoS), in-
tegration and interoperability, interfacing and networking capabilities,
security for Industry 4.0. Some of other requirements for Industry 4.0
implementation are ubiquitous data exchange, monitoring, self- orga-
nization capabilities, security and privacy, interoperability to enhance
supply chain efficiency (Miorandi, Sicari, Pellegrini, & Chlamtac, 2012;
Xu, 2012). Later, Athreya and Tague (2013) laid emphasis on self-or-
ganisation to achieve network communication among devices which
allows monitoring the system’s functioning. Borgia (2014) and
Monostori (2014) determined essential communication features in
terms of reliability and secure connections among different networked
devices and components in an Industry 4.0 environment. Tao, Zuo, Xu,
and Zhang (2014) argued that Cloud manufacturing as an application of
IoT achieves access to manufacturing resources and intelligent per-
ception. Pozza, Nati, Georgoulas, Moessner, and Gluhak (2015) ad-
vocated on the issues of the system failure, predictive maintenance and
service recovery that are considered as an important parameter for
Industry 4.0. Similarly, Wortmann and Flüchter (2015) also stated that
changes in the system are essential for the functions of the Industry 4.0
system which supports in recovering the services while reducing the
risk of the system failure. Beigne et al. (2015) mentioned that the
flexibility is a requirement for dynamic management of repro-
grammable devices/components in Industry 4.0 to increase platform
capability. In Industry 4.0, visual computing technology is the main
enabler which addresses several aspects such as automatized and flex-
ible production chain (Posada et al., 2015). Datta, Bonnet, and Haerri
(2015); Hsu and Lin (2016) and Williams, McMahon, Samtani, Patton,
and Chen (2017) illustrated that types of applications and devices as-
sists consumers to be more responsive, decision-centric and provides
feedback in short duration. Brettel, Fisher, Bendig, Weber, and Wolff
(2016) also stated that self-optimisation is helpful in analysing the
current state of the system which will increase the flexibility of the
system. Besides this, connectivity, storage, Quality of Services (QoS),
real-time analytics and benchmark are the key requirements to improve
Industry 4.0 services through big data analytics (Ahmed et al., 2017;
Zhong, Newman, Huang, & Lan, 2016). Charro and Scahefer (2018);
Wang and Ji (2018) addressed that cloud manufacturing as a new type
of Product-Service System and Big data as key towards sustainable
competitive advantage. Recently, Hashem et al. (2016); Witkowski
(2017); Lamba and Singh (2017, 2018); Luthra, Mangla, Shankar, Garg,
and Jakhar (2018); Mangla et al. (2018); Rajput and Singh (2018);
Gupta, Kar, Baabdullah, and Al-Khowaiter (2018), and Ismagilova,
Hughes, Dwivedi, and Raman (2019) quoted that IoT, Big data and
Industry 4.0 are the digital revolutions in production logistics focussed
on implementing product, technical, technological and organizational
innovation. Baldassare and Ricciardi (2017) and Dilberoglu,
Gharehpapagh, Yaman, and Dolen (2017) also discussed that Additive
Manufacturing is another component of Industry 4.0.
To promote transition from linear to circular economy in a supply
chain (Blunck & Werthmann, 2017) value networks are integrated for
transparency which is possible with the aid of Industry 4.0 technology.
Block chain is considered to be one of the technological innovations
that drives sustainable supply chain (Sandner, 2018; Weyns,
Ramachandran, & Singh, 2018; Kshetri, 2018; Queiroz & Wamba,
2019). Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) described laws and policy, in-
frastructure building as the practices for sustainable supply chain which
is also considered important for Industry 4.0. Somers, Dewit, and Baelus
(2018) focussed on product service system in sharing economy to gain
sustainability. Jesus, Antunes, Santos, and Mendonca (2018) also
mentioned that functional service economy can be achieved by opti-
mizing the usage of goods and services to create the highest possible
value for the longer period of time. Kalmykova, Sadagopan, and Rosado
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh
(2018) presented some sustainable supply chain strategies such as
product service system or product as a service, energy recovery, waste
recovery, infrastructure building/logistics, EIoT which are vital com-
ponents for Industry 4.0 to design supply chain. Muina, Sanchez,
Ferrari, and Blundo (2018) focussed on industrial system integration to
enable the minimum usage of resources and reuse waste to create
economic and environmental benefits. Recently, Lu and Xu (2019)
addressed that cloud manufacturing can enable on-demand manu-
facturing services via Internet and enhances the cloud based cyber-
physical production systems. Cardin (2019) mentioned that Cyber-
physical production system (CPPS) is a paradigm shift in manufacturing
process and delivers the benefits in optimizing the production pro-
cesses, resource-efficient production and human-centered production
process. Similarly, Lu, Peng, and Xu (2019) proposed energy-efficient
manufacturing architecture in an open CPPS where manufacturing ac-
tivities are self-configured. These findings argued that CPPS is related to
the entities of the manufacturing process and has implications on the
customised closed-loop supply chain. Liu et al. (2018) addressed that
human-robot collaboration contributes towards sustainable manu-
facturing. Industry 4.0 is a digital transformation of manufacturing
process in which heterogeneous data are shared between the physical
and real environment. In this perspective, (Alacer & Machado, 2019;
Duan, Edwards, & Dwivedi, 2019; Frank, Dalenogare, & Ayala, 2019)
the key technologies of Industry 4.0 are Industrial Internet of Things
(IIoT), Cloud computing (CC), Big data, Simulation, Augmented Reality,
Additive Manufacturing, Horizontal and Vertical Systems Integration,
Autonomous Robots, and Cyber-security. In a similar manner, Industry
4.0 and Circular Economy barriers are discussed in the next section.
2.2. Review on industry 4.0 and circular economy barriers
On the other hand, Industry 4.0 barriers are also identified that pose
various challenges in implementing Industry 4.0 for circular economy
based supply chain. Zhou, Liu, and Zhou (2015) has listed some chal-
lenges of Industry 4.0 such as Data analysis, Collaborative model, CPS
standards and specifications, CPS modeling and modeling integration,
smart devices development, investment cost. CPS considers physical
and real world components and uses different computing models. The
calculation process uses discrete logical time and physical processes use
continuous physical time. Therefore, it is difficult to use different
computing models to build a CPS modelling with a consolidated fra-
mework. Besides, CPS also works with heterogeneous devices/compo-
nents and deals with voluminous data which makes its behaviour more
complex. Therefore, uniform standards and specifications of the CPS is
required and is considered as a huge challenge. Industry 4.0 factory
works intelligently and smartly with artificial and smart/IoT devices
which minimizes the human involvement. However, different factories
requires different smart devices development and configurations which
require investment cost and time before it is implemented in any of the
smart factory. Schutze, Helwig, and Schneider (2018) reviewed that
sensor technology allows smart data generation and allows function-
ality of self-monitoring and self-configuration. Hence, Industry 4.0 is
not possible without sensor technology as their operations has the
ability to capture data, detect errors and failures and communicates
smartly with the smart devices.
Similarly, Leitao, Colombo, and Karnouskos (2016) has also figured
out some barriers related to the design, compatibility, and infra-
structure standardisation. Standardising or designing the infrastructure
to handle computational intensive tasks and to develop self-adaptation
functionality becomes complex. Schmacher et al. (2016) mentioned
that production processes are digitized and automatized with the sup-
port of disruptive technologies. IoT devices leverage the concept of
mobility for improving time, reducing cost, and develop consumer-
manufacturers interconnection. Therefore, implementing disruptive
technologies and its training is one of the most difficult barriers for a
smart factory. Babiceanu and Seker (2016) addressed virtualization for
100
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
manufacturing cyber-physical systems to the extent that predictive
manufacturing systems would become reality. Very recently, Atlam
et al. (2018) mentioned fog computing as a solution for IoT applications
but it has limited capabilities such as networking, computing and
storing. It is a geographically distributed computing architecture con-
nected with heterogeneous devices at the edge of the network but are
not backed by cloud services to provide storage, computational activ-
ities on a large scale. Industry 4.0 enhances mobility having IoT support
with privacy and security, but becomes challenging in fog computing
environment. Other challenges in Industry 4.0 are linked with security,
latency, heterogeneity, scalability and resource management. Miorandi
et al. (2012); Usman and Zhang (2014), and Elkhodr, Shahrestani, and
Cheung (2016) listed some other barriers such as interfacing and net-
working capabilities, semantic interoperability, and compatibility.
Some of the other works in related areas can be referred from
Weerakkody, El-Haddadeh, Al-Sobhi, Shareef, and Dwivedi (2013);
Hossain and Dwivedi (2014); Alalwan, Dwivedi, and Rana (2017);
Shareef, Dwivedi, Kumar, and Kumar (2017); Shiau, Dwivedi, and Yang
(2017); Aladwani and Dwivedi (2018); Rana et al. (2018) and Kamboj,
Sarmah, Gupta, and Dwivedi (2018). The brief description of these
identified factors and barriers is presented in Sections 3 and 4 respec-
tively.
Based on the review, it can be said that work on identifying enablers
and barriers for CE and Industry 4.0 has been done a lot. However, a
relationship among these enablers and barriers to link Industry 4.0 and
CE to implement supply chain is not established. There is need of es-
tablishing the relations between CE and Industry 4.0 for sustainable
supply chain. Therefore, the paper aims to identify driving enablers and
barriers as well as to establish linear relationships among the Industry
4.0 and CE enablers and barriers for supply chain.
3. Enabling factors to connect CE and industry 4.0
The factors identified through literature review and experts’ opi-
nions are presented in tabular form in Table 1 with their citing refer-
ences to maintain the objectivity of the study.
4. Challenging factors to connect CE and industry 4.0
From literature review and experts’ opinions, fifteen challenging
factors to link CE and Industry 4.0 are identified and presented in
tabular form in Table 2 with their citing references.
5. Cause and effect analysis of enablers for CE and industry 4.0
This section presents modelling CE and Industry 4.0 enablers in
supply chain (CE-SCM) using PCA and DEMATEL to understand the
connection between CE and Industry 4.0.
5.1. Factorization using PCA
Twenty six factors identified for Industry 4.0 in Section 3 are fac-
torized using PCA. Following are the steps:
5.1.1. Data validation and reliability analysis
In this paper, data is collected from leading Industry 4.0 area ex-
pertise of manufacturing sector and academicians through online
survey. It resulted in 179 returned questionnaires out of 200. Further
data cleaning was done by applying case wise replacements. Since, data
was missing and systemically some of the questionnaires were removed
from the sample. To apply PCA, the thumb rule for the minimum
sample size in relation to the number of variables is the sample size
should be larger than five times the number of variables (Shaukat, Rao,
& Khan, 2016). Concretely, the sample size of 161 is considered for
factorizing the twenty-six variables using PCA. Further, reliability test is
conducted to assess the errors and overall consistency of the datasets
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table 1
List of Factors.
Sl. No. Factors Description Authors

1. Reliability It is the system’s ability to work together with heterogeneous devices/ Borgia (2014); Monostori (2014); Tan and Wang (2010)
components and it will not fail for a specified operating period under
stated conditions.
2. Scalability Scalability of the system has the capability to manage increased load of Tan and Wang (2010)
large data and applications under extreme environment.
3. Modularity It emphasizes the system’s components for interchangeability. It Tan and Wang (2010)
indicates that components are capable to serve the technical or
production functions independently.
4. Quality of Service (QoS) It has the capability to provide better service over the congested Ahmed et al. (2017);Tan and Wang (2010); Zhong et al. (2016)
network (bandwidth delay). It involves in managing network resources
by setting priorities for different data types.
5. Integration and It integrates low power communication technologies to enhance system Tan and Wang (2010)
interoperability robustness as well as to develop semantics among devices connected in a
network to provide data in standardized formats for efficient
communication.
6. Self-organisation and This feature enables the system to retrieve data from heterogeneous Athreya and Tague (2013);Miorandi et al. (2012); Xu (2012);
adaptation devices in required format and to monitor the system’s functioning.
7. Predictive Maintenance It detects the changes in the condition of the system i.e., down time, Pozza et al. (2015); Wortmann and Flüchter (2015)
and recovery service reliability, updating, detecting errors, addresses failures to carry
out maintenance services.
8. Flexibility It ensures the system to respond when internal or external changes Beigne et al. (2015)
occur. When any reprogrammable devices or plug-in is integrated into
the system it responds dynamically and increases the systems efficiency.
9. Visual Computing It acquires, analyse, and synthesize visual data by means of computers Posada et al. (2015)
that provides automation and flexibility to the production process.
10. CIoT It lies in the types of applications/devices and the technologies which Datta et al. (2015); Hsu and Lin (2016) and Williams et al. (2017)
drives consumers and their purpose. This assists consumers to be more
responsive, shorter feedback loops, and can take decentralized decisions
among consumers.
11. Self-configure and It co-ordinates with other networked heterogeneous devices for Arora et al. (2006); Fiorini and Jabbour (2017)
routable information sharing between source and destination.
12. Self-optimisation It acquires the current state of the system as well as of the system’s Arora et al. (2006); Brettel et al. (2016); Fiorini and Jabbour
environment and adapts its behaviour accordingly. (2017)
13. Value networks It is a collaborative relationship that develops tangible and intangible Blunck and Werthmann (2017)
values through potential networks between two or more entities.
14. Block chain It maintains immutable information of products and processes Kshetri (2018); Sandner (2018); Queiroz and Wamba (2019)
throughout the supply chain, and regulates financial flow within the
supply chain.
15. Laws and Policy It is required for the plastics, chemical waste and product legislation. It Govindan and Hasanagic (2018),
aims to focus on the eco-design, eco-innovation and quality standard
products.
16. Infrastructure building It is required for implementation of technical equipment and facilities is Govindan and Hasangic (2018); Kalmykova et al. (2018)
required to develop agile and automated supply chain.
17. Product Service System It has the ability to reduce environmental impacts of both production Somers et al. (2018); Kalmykova et al. (2018)
and consumption. It more emphasized towards the consumer stage of
the product life cycle.
18. Functional Service It optimizes the use of goods and services while consuming less energy Jesus et al. (2018)
Economy or resources to increase the usage value to a maximum limit for the
longest period.
19. Industrial System It enables the network to exchange resources or by-products, and allows Muina et al. (2018)
Integration the sharing of utilities, and to ensure minimum usage of resources, cost
reduction and creates economic and environmental benefits.
20. EIoT It can monitor soil, water, humidity, wind, temperature etc. providing Kalmykova et al. (2018)
on-line and real-time environment information.
21. Energy recovery It is an alternative for those waste products which cannot be sustainably Frank et al. (2019); Kalmykova et al. (2018)
recycled in an eco-efficient manner.
22. Waste recovery It is helpful in aggregating waste into meaningful volumes and Kalmykova et al. (2018)
facilitating the re-use of waste products to enhance environmental and
social effectiveness.
23. Cloud manufacturing It assists in full sharing, high usage and on-demand use of distributed Alacer and Machado (2019); Charro and Scahefer (2018); Lu and
manufacturing resources in a centralized way. Xu (2019);Tao et al. (2014); Wang and Ji (2018)
24. Big data It has the capability to store, manage and analyse the high variety, high Witkowski (2017); Lamba and Singh (2017, 2018); Luthra et al.
volume, high velocity sets of data. It has the ability to enhance the (2018); Mangla et al. (2018); Gupta et al. (2018); Alacer and
supply chain visibility, adapt itself under the dynamic environment. Machado (2019); Frank et al. (2019)
25. CPPS It involves autonomous and coordinating sub-systems which are Cardin (2019); Lu et al. (2019)
connected with each other dependently across all levels of
manufacturing process. It provides the communication link among
humans, machines and products and interact with the physical world via
interfaces.
26. Collaborative robotics It is intended to develop physical interaction between robots and Alacer and Machado (2019); Frank et al. (2019)
humans in collaborative workspace. It provides an added incentive in
achieving quality production, accuracy and precision in manufacturing
process.

101
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table 2
List of challenging factors.
Sl. No. Barriers Description Authors

1. Data analysis As large amount of data gets capture in different formats, analysing data and making informed Tan, Vuran, and Goddard (2009)
decisions using analytics.
2. Collaborative model It is required for direct interaction with the humans and also designed robots offers safety work to Tan et al. (2009)
the humans within a defined workspace.
3. CPS standards and specifications It is required for the validation to ensure that the system is capable to handle the specific Tan et al. (2009)
requirements.
4. CPS modeling and modeling CPS model interacts between the physical and virtual world and also involves the physical and Tan et al. (2009)
integration computing components. Therefore CPS requires different computing models with a unified
framework.
5. Smart devices development Different advanced and smart devices are required to communicate in Industry 4.0 environment to Tan et al. (2009)
reduce the human- intervention.
6. Investment cost It is required to standardise the infrastructure and develop smart devices. Tan et al. (2009)
7. Design It is required to design model and to include CPS-enabled landscapes. Leitao et al. (2016)
8. Compatibility It keeps the system’s components working together in a functioning environment without Leitao et al. (2016); Elkhodr
implementing any changes to the system. et al. (2016)
9. Infrastructure standardisation Infrastructure is required to equip the advance technologies. It is required to integrate the Leitao et al. (2016)
heterogeneous devices/components in automation systems.
10. Interfacing and Networking It enables underlying wireless technologies and sensor technology to interface with the physical Elkhodr et al. (2016)
world.
11. Semantic interoperability To execute the transaction of data between the two or more machines, a protocol is required for Elkhodr et al. (2016)
different devices for efficient and effective communication.
12. Process digitization and Industry 4.0 induces mobility in the processes and reduces the cost, computerizes the production Schumacher, Selim, and Wilfried
automation processes and implements new disruptive technologies. (2016)
13. Automation system It maximizes the real-time visibility of the operation processes which offers reliable and efficient Babiceanu and Seker (2016)
virtualization solutions.
14. Fog computation It provides data storage and processing services locally to fog devices rather than storing on cloud. Atlam, Walters, and Wills (2018)
15. Sensor technology Industry 4.0 requires sensor based technology such as RFID to capture the large amount of Schutze et al. (2018)
information to communicate with other devices smartly.

using SPSS. The Cronbach’s alpha for the dataset found to be 0.849
ensuring the data is reliable for analysis.
5.1.2. Exploratory factor analysis
PCA using varimax rotation is applied to the datasets. Here, Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures the sampling adequacy to provide the
appropriateness of the data and Bartletts Test of Sphericity verifies that
obtained correlation matrix has an identity matrix and its associated p-
value < 0.001. The following result obtained indicates that PCA can be
applied.
5.1.3. Analysis of Eigenvalues and variance
The KMO value of 0.798 in the Table 3 illustrates that factors can be
easily extracted. Based on the results of reliability test and KMO test,
the eigenvalues is computed from the factor analysis. It measures the
amount of variation in the total sample accounted for by each factor.
For first factor, eigenvalue and extraction sum of squared loadings
equals 7.031 and represents 27.041% of the total variability. Similarly,
for results of other factors are shown in Table 4.
5.1.4. Correlation analysis
The following Table 5 illustrates the component matrix using var-
imax rotation. On applying PCA, 6 components are formed.
The following Table 6 illustrates the rotated component matrix and
referred as the loadings.
It shows the correlations estimates between each of the identified
factors and the estimated components. The highlighted cells depicts the
factor loadings on the extracted principal components respectively.
Table 3
KMO and Bartletts test results.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.
Hence, twenty-six factors are factorized into six principal compo-
nents or enabling factors. These six enabling factors are named as
Artificial Intelligence (E1), Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2), Service and
Policy Framework (E3), Circular Economy (E4), Network Agility (E5)
and Self- automation (E6). Further, DEMATEL is applied on these en-
ablers for cause-effect relationship.
5.2. Cause and effect analysis using DEMATEL
Here, DEMATEL is applied to design and analyse structural model of
causal-effect relationship of CE and Industry 4.0 for sustainable supply
chain. Recent work of Rajput and Singh (2018) and Lamba and Singh
(2018) can be referred for the detailed analysis. DEMATEL classifies
variables into cause and effect groups and forms the structural model.
Here, the cause and effect relationship are interpreted using three ap-
proaches viz. Average, Pessimistic and Optimistic aggregation ap-
proach. Following sections describes these approaches using DEMATEL.
5.2.1. Cause-effect analysis using DEMATEL (most likely)
In this approach, experts’ opinions are aggregated using arithmetic
mean. The calculations involved are shown in the following steps.
• Experts’ opinion and calculate the average matrix A
The first step in this process is to gather the experts’ opinion and
develop the pair-wise contextual relationships between identified
variables on a scale of 0–4 where, 0 represents ‘no influence’ and 4
represents the ‘very high influence’. For each expert, n*n positive ma-
trix, X k = [x ijk ] is formed. The average matrix A can be constructed
using Eq. (1).
K
0.798 1
A = [a ij] = x ijk
K k=1 (1)
7580.638
325
0.000 Table 7 demonstrates initial direct average relation matrix derived
from the above given formula.

102
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table 4
Eigenvalues and % of Variance from PCA.
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 7.031 27.041 27.041 7.031 27.041 27.041 6.629 25.498 25.498

2 6.105 23.481 50.523 6.105 23.481 50.523 4.793 18.436 43.934
3 3.945 15.172 65.694 3.945 15.172 65.694 3.912 15.047 58.981
4 3.217 12.371 78.066 3.217 12.371 78.066 3.770 14.501 73.482
5 2.397 9.220 87.286 2.397 9.220 87.286 3.544 13.630 87.111
6 1.224 4.708 91.993 1.224 4.708 91.993 1.269 4.882 91.993
7 .770 2.963 94.956
8 .224 .862 95.817
9 .153 .590 96.408
10 .136 .525 96.932
11 .120 .463 97.395
12 .094 .362 97.757
13 .091 .350 98.107
14 .078 .301 98.408
15 .071 .274 98.682
16 .066 .255 98.936
17 .047 .180 99.116
18 .046 .176 99.293
19 .039 .151 99.443
20 .033 .126 99.570
21 .028 .108 99.678
22 .024 .093 99.772
23 .022 .086 99.857
24 .019 .074 99.932
25 .011 .042 99.974
26 .007 .026 100.000

Table 5 Table 6
Component Matrix. Rotated Component Matrix.
Componenta Componenta

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Block chain .128 −.066 .089 .084 .045 .788 Block chain .099 −.024 −.033 −.032 .047 .802
Collaborative robotics .938 −.083 .092 .158 −.111 −.022 Collaborative robotics .960 .044 −.054 −.073 .012 .032
Visual computing .014 .028 .082 .189 .041 .736 Visual computing .009 −.005 .117 −.015 −.001 .757
Industrial System −.255 .523 .320 .739 .006 −.040 Industrial System −.082 .072 .981 .108 −.005 .047
Integration Integration
Functional Service System −.263 .553 .335 .679 .067 −.050 Functional Service System −.113 .131 .953 .110 .053 .033
Big data −.271 .485 .311 .751 .009 −.066 Big data −.094 .043 .978 .077 −.012 .022
Cloud Manufacturing −.227 .490 .343 .748 .006 −.065 Cloud Manufacturing −.048 .046 .980 .090 .015 .026
Laws and Policy .935 −.075 .123 .205 −.098 −.035 Laws and Policy .968 .037 .000 −.087 .029 .027
Infrastructure building .939 −.066 .149 .171 −.153 −.029 Infrastructure building .979 .012 −.018 −.024 .035 .029
QoS .953 −.051 .112 .124 −.137 −.028 QoS .975 .057 −.065 −.020 .026 .023
Predictive Maintenance .943 .030 .093 .140 −.114 −.011 Predictive Maintenance .956 .129 −.024 −.001 .009 .040
and Recovery and Recovery
Product Service System .966 −.070 .072 .063 −.110 −.026 Product Service System .965 .085 −.138 −.039 .026 .017
Integration and −.101 .663 .269 −.364 −.521 .056 Integration and −.063 .166 .066 .944 .041 −.002
Interoperability Interoperability
Self-optimisation −.024 .716 .279 −.362 −.498 .050 Self-optimisation .004 .232 .079 .953 .059 −.004
Self-configuring −.137 .648 .315 −.337 −.533 .039 Self-configuring −.083 .120 .106 .949 .065 −.015
Self-organisation and −.134 .680 .299 −.305 −.539 .000 Self-organisation and −.073 .139 .142 .951 .039 −.051
adaptation adaptation
Reliability .307 .803 −.255 −.174 .347 −.004 Reliability .111 .953 .057 .171 −.035 −.021
Scalability .323 .791 −.292 −.129 .350 .014 Scalability .129 .953 .072 .134 −.079 .000
Modularity .276 .777 −.310 −.174 .386 .005 Modularity .067 .966 .034 .117 −.062 −.015
Flexibility .253 .808 −.291 −.113 .361 .001 Flexibility .063 .951 .107 .135 −.080 −.013
Value networks .266 .793 −.295 −.175 .377 .024 Value networks .060 .966 .045 .139 −.056 .004
CPPS .067 −.075 .801 −.325 .320 −.141 CPPS .062 −.069 −.023 .086 .923 −.110
EIoT .959 −.028 .097 .052 −.096 −.023 EIoT .955 .116 −.120 −.013 .054 .021
CIoT .021 −.069 .827 −.306 .378 −.056 CIoT .009 −.055 .006 .059 .961 -.021
Waste recovery .015 −.103 .837 −.261 .357 .000 Waste recovery .016 −.103 .027 .044 .945 .039
Energy recovery .079 −.081 .797 −.214 .398 .114 Energy recovery .064 −.045 .039 .001 .913 .159

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax
a. 6 components extracted. with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

103
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table 7 Table 10
Initial direct average relation matrix A. The direct and indirect influences.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Row Sum S.No. Enablers D R D+R D-R

E1 0.000 3.400 3.200 3.600 3.200 3.200 16.600 1. Artificial Intelligence (E1) 0.462 0.265 0.727 0.196
E2 1.400 0.000 1.600 1.600 1.200 1.600 7.400 2. Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) 0.102 0.266 0.368 −0.164
E3 3.800 3.000 0.000 3.000 3.200 3.000 16.000 3. Service and Policy Framework (E3) 0.441 0.199 0.640 0.242
E4 4.000 3.000 2.400 0.000 3.000 2.400 14.800 4. Circular Economy (E4) 0.392 0.196 0.588 0.195
E5 1.200 0.800 2.000 0.400 0.000 1.600 6.000 5. Network Agility (E5) 0.072 0.284 0.356 −0.212
E6 0.800 0.600 1.000 0.600 0.800 0.000 3.800 6. Self-automation (E6) 0.028 0.286 0.314 −0.258
Column Sum 11.200 10.800 10.200 9.200 11.400 11.800

From Table 10, the values of (D + R) and (D–R) is computed. The

Table 8 cause-effect relationship diagram is drawn considering the values of
Normalized Direct Relation Matrix D. (D + R) and (D–R) which is shown in Fig. 1.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
5.2.2. Causal- effect analysis using DEMATEL (pessimistic)
E1 0.000 0.205 0.193 0.217 0.193 0.193
In this approach, experts’ opinions are aggregated using minimum
E2 0.084 0.000 0.096 0.096 0.072 0.096
E3 0.229 0.181 0.000 0.181 0.193 0.181
value. This approach follows the same procedure as shown previously.
E4 0.241 0.181 0.145 0.000 0.181 0.145 Appendix A shows all calculations required in DEMATEL (Pessimistic).
E5 0.072 0.048 0.120 0.024 0.000 0.096 Table 11 shows direct and indirect influences of the enablers. On the
E6 0.048 0.036 0.060 0.036 0.048 0.000 basis of the computed values of (D + R) and (D–R) causal diagram is
constructed and is shown in Fig. 2.

• Calculating the direct-relation matrix D 5.2.3. Causal- effect analysis using DEMATEL (optimistic)
In this approach, experts’ opinions are aggregated using maximum
This step obtains normalize direct relation matrix D given in
value. Table 12 shows direct and indirect influences of the enablers.
Table 8, from the matrix A given at Table 7 using Eqs. (2) and (3):
Appendix A shows all calculations required in DEMATEL (Optimistic).
D = A/ s, s> 0 (2) On the basis of the computed values of (D + R) and (D–R) causal dia-
Where, gram is constructed and is shown in Fig. 3.
n
6. Cause and effect analysis of barriers for CE and industry 4.0
n
s = max i, j [ aij , max j aij]
i=1
j=1 (3) This section presents the cause and effect analysis of challenging
factors in linking CE and Industry 4.0 applying the similar approach
• Calculating total relation matrix T used in previous section.

The next step is to obtain the total relation matrix T shown in 6.1. Cluster formation using PCA
Table 9 using Eq. (4) and is calculated to realize the direct or indirect
relationship between the variables. Here, the results of this study are used to evaluate the Industry 4.0
T = D (I D 1) (4) related issues for CE on its implementation. Similarly, data was col-
lected from leading Industry 4.0 area expertise of manufacturing sector
Where, I is an n*n identity matrix and academicians through online survey. It resulted in 85 returned
questionnaires out of 120 and data cleaning was done.
• Calculating the sum of rows and columns of Matrix T Concretely, the sample size of 76 is considered for factorizing the
fifteen challenging factors using PCA. Further, reliability test is con-
In Table 7, the row and column sum are represented by vectors D ducted to assess the errors and overall consistency of the datasets using
and R respectively. Let Di be the sum of ith row in matrix T. The value SPSS. The Cronbach’s alpha for the dataset found to be 0.841 ensuring
of Di indicates the total given both direct and indirect effects, that the data is reliable and can be used for further analysis.
variable i has on other variables. Let Rj be the sum of the jth column in PCA is applied to factorize the challenging factors. The Cronbach’s
matrix T. The value of Rj shows the total received both direct and in- alpha value calculated for the dataset is 0.811 which ensures the re-
direct effects, that all other variables have on variable j. Table 10 shows liability of the data. Table 13 illustrate the results obtained for KMO,
the values of direct and indirect influences. eigenvalues and correlation analysis.
The KMO value of 0.811 illustrates that challenging factors can be
• Constructing a cause and effect relationship diagram easily extracted. Based on the results of reliability test and KMO test,
the eigenvalues is computed from the factor analysis. It measures the
amount of variation in the total sample accounted for by each chal-
Table 9 lenging factors. For first challenging factor, eigenvalue and loadings
Total Relation Matrix T. equals 5.676 and represents 37.842% of the total variability. Similarly,
for other factors the following result is obtained and illustrated in
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
Table 14.
E1 0.000 0.096 0.086 0.095 0.091 0.094
E2 0.019 0.000 0.022 0.021 0.016 0.024 6.1.1. Correlation analysis
E3 0.111 0.080 0.000 0.074 0.090 0.085 Table 15 provides the component matrix using varimax rotation. On
E4 0.115 0.078 0.057 0.000 0.080 0.062
applying PCA, 5 components are formed.
E5 0.014 0.008 0.026 0.003 0.000 0.021
E6 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.006 0.000 The following Table 16 illustrates the rotated component matrix and
referred as the loadings.

104
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Fig. 1. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 enablers using DEMATEL (Most Likely).

Table 11 Table 12
The direct and indirect influences (Pessimistic). The direct and indirect influences (Optimistic).
S.No. Enablers D R D+R D-R S.No. Enablers D R D+R D-R

1. Artificial Intelligence (E1) 0.293 0.151 0.444 0.142 1. Artificial Intelligence (E1) 0.557 0.272 0.828 0.285
2. Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) 0.013 0.121 0.134 −0.108 2. Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) 0.151 0.346 0.497 0.151
3. Service and Policy Framework (E3) 0.132 0.113 0.245 0.018 3. Service and Policy Framework (E3) 0.552 0.299 0.850 0.552
4. Circular Economy (E4) 0.208 0.056 0.264 0.152 4. Circular Economy (E4) 0.513 0.273 0.785 0.240
5. Network Agility (E5) 0.026 0.121 0.147 −0.095 5. Network Agility (E5) 0.100 0.417 0.517 −0.317
6. Self-automation (E6) 0.000 0.109 0.109 −0.109 6. Self-automation (E6) 0.101 0.367 0.467 −0.266

It shows the correlations estimates between each of the identified
challenging factors and the estimated components.
Hence, fifteen challenging factors are factorized into four barriers.
For DEMATEL analysis, these four barriers are named as Interface de-
signing (B1), Technology Upgradation (B2), Automated Synergy model
(B3) and Fog computation (B4).
6.2. Cause-effect analysis using DEMATEL
Here, DEMATEL is applied for barriers using three different ap-
proaches of aggregation techniques. The detailed calculations of the
matrices for all variants of DEMATEL is provided in Appendix B. These
are shown in the following sections.
6.2.1. Cause- effect analysis using DEMATEL (most likely)
The direct influence matrix for barriers is shown in Table 17 while
Fig. 4 shows the causal diagram.
6.2.2. Cause- effect analysis using DEMATEL (pessimistic)
The direct influence matrix for barriers is shown in Table 18. Fig. 5
shows the causal diagram of CE and Industry 4.0 barriers.
6.2.3. Cause- effect analysis using DEMATEL (optimistic)
The direct influence matrix for barriers is shown in Table 19. Fig. 6
shows the causal diagram of CE and Industry 4.0 barriers.
7. Discussion
This section presents the common significant driving enablers and
barriers across the three different data sets obtained from the survey,
then applying the combined approach of PCA and DEMATEL. As
mentioned, PCA is applied to factorize the twenty-six identified factors
and fifteen identified challenges respectively which are similar to each
other. The twenty-six factors are factorized into six enablers and named
as Artificial Intelligence (E1) consists of block chain and visual com-
puting. Second, Manufacturing Ecosystem (E2) consists of industrial
system integration, functional service system, big data and cloud
manufacturing factors. Factors which consists of collaborative robotics,
laws and policy, infrastructure building, QoS, predictive maintenance
and recovery, product service system, EIoT are factorized as Service and
Policy Framework (E3). The fourth enabler, Circular Economy (E4)
consists of factors viz., CIoT, waste recovery, energy recovery and
CPPS. The fifth enabler, Network Agility (E5) consists of reliability,

Fig. 2. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 enablers using pessimistic approach.

105
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Fig. 3. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 enablers using optimistic approach.

Table 13 Table 15
KMO and Bartletts test results. Component Matrix.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.811 Component

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2071.071 1 2 3 4 5

df 105
Sig. 0.000 Design challenges .451 .343 .774 −.193
Investment cost .435 .430 .773
Compatibility .495 .335 .747 −.123 .226
Interfacing and Networking .512 .357 .746
scalability, modularity, flexibility and value networks factors. The sixth
Infrastructure standardization −.561 .779 −.172
enabler, Self- automation (E6) consists of factors viz., integration and Semantic interoperability −.561 .791 −.109 −.134 .115
interoperability, self- optimisation, self- configuring, self- organisation Data analysis −.584 .776
and adaptation. Similarly, the fifteen challenging factors are factorized Sensor technology −.538 .800 −.137
into four barriers and named as Interface designing (B1) composed of Smart devices development −.628 .750
Automation system virtualisation .804 .399 −.421
design, investment cost, compatibility, interfacing and networking. Process digitilisation and automation .805 .380 −.400
Second, Technology Upgradation (B2) consists of infrastructure stan- Collaborative model .785 .371 −.456
dardisation, semantic interoperability, data analysis, sensor technology CPS standards and specifications .783 .405 −.443
and smart devices development challenging factors. Third, Automated CPS modeling and modeling .773 .384 −.452 −.105
integration
Synergy model (B3) consists of automation system virtualisation, pro-
Fog computation .448 .221 .865
cess digitalisation and automation, collaborative model, CPS standards
and specifications, CPS modeling and modeling integration. The fourth Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
identified barrier is the Fog computation (B4). Post PCA, six enablers a. 5 components extracted.
and four barriers are formed which are used for further analysis. The
cause-effect relationships of these enablers are analysed using three chain so that the whole supply chain can be monitored and could
different approaches of DEMATEL (average, pessimistic and optimistic) analyse the wastage and resource efficiency. This establishes the link
as depicted in Fig. 4–6. The most common enablers obtained from three between CE based supply chain and Industry 4.0 to contribute towards
different DEMATEL approaches are Artificial Intelligence (E1), Service the sustainability as they are essential in revamping the linear economy
and Policy Framework (E3) and Circular economy (E4) which signifies based supply chain’s visibility, traceability and efficiency. Besides this,
that these are the most compelling enablers of Industry 4.0. The paper the paper contributes in identifying prominent Industry 4.0 enablers
argues that Industry 4.0 enablers is a necessity for closed loop supply which provides significant changes to the supply chain and highly

Table 14
Eigenvalues and % Variance.
Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 5.676 37.842 37.842 5.676 37.842 37.842 4.830 32.201 32.201

2 4.533 30.222 68.064 4.533 30.222 68.064 4.782 31.882 64.083
3 3.359 22.393 90.456 3.359 22.393 90.456 3.802 25.349 89.432
4 .817 5.445 95.901 .817 5.445 95.901 .969 6.462 95.894
5 .155 1.035 96.937 .155 1.035 96.937 .156 1.042 96.937
6 .103 .685 97.621
7 .081 .543 98.164
8 .072 .480 98.644
9 .059 .391 99.035
10 .036 .243 99.278
11 .033 .218 99.496
12 .029 .195 99.692
13 .023 .154 99.846
14 .014 .090 99.936
15 .010 .064 100.000

106
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table 16 Table 18
Rotated Component Matrix. The direct and indirect influences.
Component S.No. Barriers D R D+R D-R

1 2 3 4 5 1 Interface designing(B1) 0.427 0.272 0.700 0.155

2 Technology Upgradation(B2) 0.023 0.227 0.250 −0.204
Design challenges .959 −.185 3 Automated Synergy model(B3) 0.188 0.210 0.397 −0.022
Investment cost .973 .131 4 Fog computation(B4) 0.032 0.227 0.259 −0.195
Compatibility .110 .954 .235
Interfacing and Networking .133 .965
Infrastructure standardisation .974
respective technique.
Semantic interoperability .984 .114
Data analysis .975 Enabler set_DEMATELaggregate= {E1, E3, E4} (5)
Sensor technology .956 .127 −.142
Smart devices development −.131 .965 .104 Enabler set_DEMATELpessimistic= {E1, E3, E4} (6)
Automation system virtualisation .984 .110
Process digitilisation and automation .963 .111 Enabler set_DEMATELoptimistic= {E1, E2, E3, E4} (7)
Collaborative model .976
CPS standards and specifications .983 Common enabler set= {E1, E3, E4} (8)
CPS modeling and modeling integration .972 −.100
Fog computation .211 .212 .951 Eqs. (5)–(7) provides the CE and Industry 4.0 enablers obtained
from DEMATEL (Average), DEMATEL (Pessimistic) and DEMATEL
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax (Optimistic) approaches of the integrated techniques. Finally, Eq. (8)
with Kaiser Normalization.
provides the most common enablers i.e. Artificial Intelligence (E1) and
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Circular economy (E4) common to all techniques. Therefore, it can be
seen that Circular Economy (E4) is one the most influential factor in
Table 17
Industry 4.0 for implementing sustainable supply chain.
The direct and indirect influences.
Similarly, the common barriers identified from the different ap-
S.No. Barriers D R D+R D-R proaches of DEMATEL are Interface designing (B1) and Automated
Synergy model (B3). The barrier Interface Designing (B1) is the key
1 Interface designing(B1) 0.717 0.502 1.220 0.215
2 Technology Upgradation(B2) 0.154 0.521 0.675 −0.367 challenge to the integrated Industry 4.0-CE. To achieve closed loop
3 Automated Synergy model(B3) 0.698 0.368 1.066 0.330 supply chain, Interface designing is essential to adapt necessary re-
4 Fog computation(B4) 0.098 0.550 0.648 −0.453 quirements of circular economy, guided by the maximum agility and
integration of the automated product systems. On the other hand,
Automated Synergy model is required to analyse the performance of the
impacts the value chain by increasing the transparency of the whole supply chain. It maximises the accuracy and precision as well as enables
system. Artificial Intelligence (E1) play a vital role in enhancing the the deep integration of the disruptive technologies for efficient and
structural and technological aspects of the linear economy when it ra- effective semantic communication. These barriers are technological
dically undergoes an automation process. When real-time information barriers and tend to concern as the challenge for the industrial system
is captured through integrated sensors, the system should analyse the to encompass all the vital functions in one infrastructure. These barriers
current situation and adapts itself as per the current systems’ environ- have consequences for achieving the sustainable CE while im-
ment. Similarly, Service and Policy Framework (E3) is crucial for plementing Industry 4.0. The following set presents the summary of the
plastics, chemical wastes, product degradation legislation. It aims to identified barriers from PCA-DEMATEL approach.
provide eco-innovative products, eco-design and reliable quality pro-
ducts to the end-users. For this, another enabler i.e. Circular economy Barrier set_DEMATELaggregate= {B1, B3} (9)
(E4) becomes mandatory as it could determine the current needs and
Barrier set_DEMATELpessimistic= {B1, B3} (10)
objectives which intends to maximize the resource efficiency, and re-
duce the emissions from the industrial systems. Therefore, based on the Barrier set_DEMATELoptimistic= {B1, B2, B3} (11)
analysis derived from the applied techniques, these common driving
Common barrier set= {B1, B3} (12)
enablers should be considered to achieve CE based supply chain. The
following Eqs. (5)–(8) represent the summary of the PCA-DEMATEL Eqs. (9)–(11) provides the CE and Industry 4.0 barriers obtained
approach providing the most driving enablers obtained from the from DEMATEL (Average), DEMATEL (Pessimistic) and DEMATEL

Fig. 4. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 barriers using average approach.

107
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Fig. 5. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 barriers using pessimistic approach.

Table 19 Industry 4.0 for implementing supply chain which provides the op-
The direct and indirect influences. portunities for resource efficiency and energy recovery. Further, the
S.No. Barriers D R D+R D-R study argues that circular economy and Industry 4.0 are directly linked,
and sustainable supply chain through Industry 4.0 can’t be achieved
1 Interface designing(B1) 0.842 0.515 1.357 0.327 unless the Circular Economy is considered as one of the enabling factor.
2 Technology Upgradation(B2) 0.231 0.668 0.899 0.231
From the perspective of managerial implications, the identified
3 Automated Synergy model(B3) 0.842 0.515 1.357 0.842
4 Fog computation(B4) 0.138 0.747 0.885 −0.609
Industry 4.0 enablers can be explored to reduce the transaction cost and
induces the symbiotic relationship in the business organization. To link
circular economy and Industry 4.0, new business models with sharing
(Optimistic) approaches of the integrated techniques. Finally, Eq. (12) economy can be designed with different approaches to have insights on
provides the most common barrier i.e. Interface designing (B1), and new favorable circumstances to attain sustainable supply chain. This
Automated Synergy model (B3) are the most common barriers found provides a comprehensive overview of the material usage, biodegrad-
from all techniques. Therefore, these challenges could be considered as able, and packaging wastes to the industry practitioners and could
the most consequential barriers for CE and Industry 4.0 for im- implement the circular economy by using pure, high-quality materials
plementing closed loop supply chain. with cross-industry applications. This study has contributed in re-
vealing the positive relationship between the influential driving en-
7.1. Managerial implications ablers of Industry 4.0 and offers extensive benefits in terms of resource
efficiency, integration, interoperability. These benefits are the ante-
This sub-section discusses the managerial implications of the po- cedents of Industry 4.0 which results in improved operational pro-
tential enablers and barriers. The present study provides the sig- ductivity, enhanced efficiency and accuracy.
nificance of CE and Industry 4.0 enablers and barriers which are con-
sidered as pillars for supply chain. With the development of recent 7.2. Theoretical contributions
trends, the industrial systems are moving towards the CE which in-
creases the optimisation of resources and maximises the material re- In viewpoint of theoretical contributions, the key enablers of
covery from wastes. This is also true for implementing Industry 4.0 in Industry 4.0 have the capability to serve the eco-efficiency, eco-effec-
an organization for improving the sustainability in the supply chain. tiveness and eco-design principles which are partially explored. The
The Industry 4.0 enablers identified from the study has the potential to main part of the circular economy implementation is the progress
make the supply chain more sustainable and also revamp the process of monitoring which is under-developed and can be induced with Industry
monitoring the products. From the study carried out, Artificial 4.0 implementation. The prominent Industry 4.0 enablers allow estab-
Intelligence (E1), Service Policy and Framework (E3) and Circular lishing the connection between the material flows and their virtual
economy (E4) are the two most influential or driving enablers in representations throughout the closed loop supply chain. It provides a

Fig. 6. The causal diagram of Industry 4.0 barriers using optimistic approach.

108
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

radical change to the manufacturing industry from time, cost and
quality aspects. Further, it is stated that breadth and speed of im-
plementing integrated CE- Industry 4.0 not only focuses on the tech-
nical factors, but also on the environmental, social and economic ones.
Moreover, it also generates greater efficiency in the usage of resources
and energy. Industry 4.0 in CE can improve repair, reuse, and re-
integration of processes, machinery and products. Finally, the logistics
optimization is improved which results in flexibility and increased ef-
ficiency of the manufacturing process.
Similarly, from the analysis of the barriers that create challenge in
the implementation of closed supply chain in Industry 4.0 environment
are found to be Interface designing (B1), and Automated Synergy model
(B3). While working on the Industry 4.0 enablers, simultaneously equal
attention is also required to the barriers. These barriers will decrease
the error in the collaboration between the components of the system
and information exchange. The barriers identified in the initial stage
reduce the risks and failures and allows the industry practitioners to
make the right decisions at the right time. It guides the system to
translate the data generated in the required format, providing a precise
knowledge of the current scenario of the closed supply chain in real
time. Ultimately, the Industry 4.0 barriers supports in overcoming the
objective difficulties in managing the supply chain, and innovative
business model towards environmental, economic and social aspects.
Therefore, the paper contributes in identifying barriers which gives
leverage to the study as it enables the industry practitioners to cope
with these inhibitors and would be more focused while implementing
Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 for sustainable supply chain.
8. Conclusion, limitations and future research directions
The main aim of this paper is to study the cause-effect relationship
among six enablers and four barriers. DEMATEL in two variants (pes-
simistic, optimistic) are applied to categorize the enablers/barriers into
cause and effect groups. It is determined that Artificial Intelligence (E1)
and Circular economy (E4) are identified as the common driving en-
ablers. These identified Industry 4.0 enablers provides a favourable
circumstances to reinforce circular strategies such as remanufacturing,
recycling and also improves the maintainability and extends the life
cycle and value of the products. Industry 4.0 contributes towards the
sustainability by adopting IoT to retrieve real-time information which
further helps in improving the data collection and sharing the resource
consumption and materials wastage. It further enhances the manu-
facturing systems’ accuracy and precision. Industry 4.0 has laid the
foundation in identifying the failures and errors to optimize the wastes
and could control the operational performance of sustainable supply
chain. The Industry 4.0 enablers identified in this study allows perfor-
mance monitoring, predictive maintenance and service recovery. The
circular economy design in sustainable supply chain is adaptable based
on the data provided through cloud manufacturing and IoT. Therefore,
sustainable supply chain contributes towards implementing the linkage
between circular economy and Industry 4.0.
Similarly, Interface designing (B1) and Automated Synergy model
(B3) are appeared as the influential common driving barriers. These
identified barriers can affect technical opportunities and communica-
tion network under one ecosystem and could hamper the automation
functionality. These barriers are required to be suppressed while im-
plementing Industry 4.0 for circular economy so that the CE based
supply chain could be assisted by maximum agility and flexibility and
integration of the networked components. From the barriers perspec-
tive, Interface designing (B1), and Automated Synergy model (B3)
should be analysed for implementation that would affect radical in-
novations in circular economy.
The future research directions of this study is that these identified
influential enablers and barriers can be used for mathematical model-
ling or optimization models that can optimize industrial practices to
achieve efficiency gains in terms of profitability and in cost reductions
in resource usage and waste generation. Secondly, empirical explora-
tion of Industry 4.0 in gaining sustainability and carbon reduction is not
yet fully identified. Third, big data analysis to enhance the industrial
system and improvement of the industrial sustainability is yet to be
identified. Furthermore, there exists some gaps in supply chain net-
works in the levels of collaboration and inter-dependence which is not
elaborated in the paper. Due to the lack of the transparency and opti-
mized solutions, business organization cannot achieve efficiency and
effectiveness. In the future, researchers can focus on the Industry 4.0
technological gaps to create more empirical results and can further
evaluate the application of technologies in actual case studies.

Appendix A. Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 enablers from DEMATEL (Pessimistic)

Tables A1–A6

Table A1
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Row Sum

E1 0.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 15.000

E2 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
E3 3.000 2.000 0.000 0.000 2.000 2.000 9.000
E4 4.000 2.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 1.000 11.000
E5 0.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 3.000
E6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Column Sum 8.000 7.000 7.000 4.000 7.000 7.000

Table A2
: Normalized direct relation matrix D.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

E1 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200

E2 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.000
E3 0.200 0.133 0.000 0.000 0.133 0.133
E4 0.267 0.133 0.133 0.000 0.133 0.067
E5 0.000 0.000 0.133 0.000 0.000 0.067
E6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

109
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table A3
Total relation matrix T.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

E1 1.000 −0.200 −0.200 −0.200 −0.200 −0.200

E2 −0.067 1.000 0.000 −0.067 0.000 0.000
E3 −0.200 −0.133 1.000 0.000 −0.133 −0.133
E4 −0.267 −0.133 −0.133 1.000 −0.133 −0.067
E5 0.000 0.000 −0.133 0.000 1.000 −0.067
E6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

Table A4
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Row Sum

E1 0.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 20.000

E2 2.000 0.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 10.000
E3 4.000 4.000 0.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 20.000
E4 4.000 4.000 4.000 0.000 4.000 3.000 19.000
E5 2.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 2.000 8.000
E6 1.000 1.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 0.000 8.000
Column Sum 13.000 14.000 14.000 13.000 16.000 15.000

Table A5
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

E1 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200

E2 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100
E3 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200
E4 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.150
E5 0.100 0.050 0.100 0.050 0.000 0.100
E6 0.050 0.050 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.000

Table A6
Total relation matrix T.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

E1 1.357 0.544 0.547 0.522 0.597 0.573

E2 0.285 1.206 0.298 0.285 0.326 0.313
E3 0.523 0.544 1.380 0.522 0.597 0.573
E4 0.514 0.535 0.536 1.345 0.585 0.524
E5 0.249 0.217 0.261 0.211 1.193 0.275
E6 0.211 0.217 0.260 0.248 0.284 1.181

Appendix B. Circular Economy and Industry 4.0 barriers from DEMATEL (Most Likely)

Tables B1–B9

Table B1
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Row Sum

B1 0.000 3.400 3.200 3.600 3.200 13.400

B2 1.400 0.000 1.600 1.600 1.200 5.800
B3 3.800 3.000 0.000 3.000 3.200 13.000
B4 4.000 3.000 2.400 0.000 3.000 12.400
B5 1.200 0.800 2.000 0.400 0.000 4.400
Column Sum 10.400 10.200 9.200 8.600 10.600

110
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table B2
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

B1 0.000 0.254 0.239 0.269 0.239

B2 0.104 0.000 0.119 0.119 0.090
B3 0.284 0.224 0.000 0.224 0.239
B4 0.299 0.224 0.179 0.000 0.224
B5 0.090 0.060 0.149 0.030 0.000

Table B3
Total relation matrix T.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

B1 0.000 0.189 0.165 0.183 0.180

B2 0.038 0.000 0.042 0.041 0.032
B3 0.215 0.160 0.000 0.145 0.178
B4 0.223 0.156 0.112 0.000 0.160
B5 0.026 0.016 0.048 0.007 0.000
Column Sum R 0.502303 0.520999 0.368331 0.374924 0.550338

Table B4
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Row Sum

B1 0.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 12.000

B2 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 2.000
B3 3.000 2.000 0.000 0.000 2.000 7.000
B4 4.000 2.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 10.000
B5 0.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 0.000 2.000
Column Sum 8.000 7.000 7.000 4.000 7.000

Table B5
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

B1 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250

B2 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000
B3 0.250 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.167
B4 0.333 0.167 0.167 0.000 0.167
B5 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.000 0.000

Table B6
Total relation matrix T.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

B1 0.000 0.113 0.113 0.089 0.113

B2 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000
B3 0.088 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.050
B4 0.172 0.065 0.065 0.000 0.065
B5 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000
Column Sum R 0.272 0.227 0.210 0.099 0.227

Table B7
Initial direct average relation matrix A.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Row Sum

B1 0.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 16.000

B2 2.000 0.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 8.000
B3 4.000 4.000 0.000 4.000 4.000 16.000
B4 4.000 4.000 4.000 0.000 4.000 16.000
B5 2.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 6.000
Column Sum 12.000 13.000 12.000 11.000 14.000

111
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113

Table B8
Normalized direct relation matrix D.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

B1 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250

B2 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125
B3 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.250
B4 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.250
B5 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.063 0.000

Table B9
: Total relation matrix T.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

B1 0.000 0.215 0.205 0.194 0.228

B2 0.057 0.000 0.057 0.054 0.063
B3 0.205 0.215 0.000 0.194 0.228
B4 0.205 0.215 0.205 0.000 0.228
B5 0.048 0.022 0.048 0.020 0.000

References
Ahmed, E., Yaqoob, I., Abaker, I., Khan, I., Ibrahim, A., Imran, M., et al. (2017). The role
of big data analytics in Internet of Things. Computer Networks, 129, 459–471.s.
Alacer, V., & Machado, V. C. (2019). Scanning the Industry 4.0: A Literature Review on
Technologies for Manufacturing Systems. Engineering Science and Technology an
International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.01.006.
Aladwani, A. M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Towards a theory of SocioCitizenry: Quality
anticipation, trust configuration, and approved adaptation of governmental social
media. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 261–272.
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of
mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 99–110.
Arora, H., Raghu, T. S., Vinze, A., & Brittenham, P. (2006). Collaborative self- config-
uration and learning in autonomic computing systems: Applications to supply Chain.
Paper Presented in IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing, 304–319.
Athreya, A., & Tague, P. (2013). Network self-organization in the internet of things. Paper
Presented in IEEE International Workshop of Internet-of-Things Networking and Control,
25–33.
Atlam, H. F., Walters, R. J., & Wills, G. B. (2018). Fog computing and the internet of
things: A review. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 2(10), 1–18.
Babiceanu, R. F., & Seker, R. (2016). Big data and virtualization for manufacturing cyber-
physical systems: A survey of the current status and future outlook. Computers in
Industry, 81, 128–137.
Balakrishnan, A., Kumara, S. R. T., & Sundaresan, S. (1999). Manufacturing in the digital
age: Exploiting information technologies for product realization. Information Systems
Frontiers, 1(1), 25–50.
Baldassare, F., & Ricciardi, F. (2017). The additive manufacturing in the industry 4.0 era:
The case of an italian FabLab. Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and
Management, 1(1), 105–115.
Beigne, E., Christmann, J., Valentian, A., Billoint, O., Amat, E., & Morche, D. (2015).
November). UTBB FDSOI technology flexibility for ultra low power internet-of-things ap-
plications. Paper Presented in European Solid-State Device Research Conference164–167.
Blunck, E., & Werthmann, H. (2017). Industry 4.0- an opportunity to realize sustainable
manufacturing and its potential for a circular economy. Paper Presented in Proceedings
of the DIEM: Dubrovnik International Economic Meeting in Dubrovnik, 12–14 (Accessed
on 23 August 2018).
Borgia, E. (2014). The internet of things vision: Key features, applications and open is-
sues. Computer Communications, 54, 1–31.
Brettel, M., Fisher, F. G., Bendig, D., Weber, A. R., & Wolff, B. (2016). Enablers for self-
optimizing production systems in the context of industrie 4.0. Paper Presented in 48th
CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems- CIRP CMS 2015 in Ischia, 93–98.
Cardin, O. (2019). Classification of cyber-physical production systems application:
Proposition of an analysis framework. Computers in Industry, 104, 11–21.
Chang, K. C., & Wang, C. P. (2010). Information systems resources and information se-
curity. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(4), 579–593.
Charro, A., & Scahefer, D. (2018). Cloud manufacturing as a new type of Product-Service
System. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 31(10),
1018–1033.
Datta, S. K., Bonnet, C., & Haerri, J. (2015). Fog computing architecture to enable con-
sumer centric internet of things services. Paper Presented in International Symposium on
Consumer Electronics, 1–2.
Dilberoglu, U. M., Gharehpapagh, B., Yaman, U., & Dolen, M. (2017). The role of additive
manufacturing in the era of industry 4.0. Paper Presented in 27th International
Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 11, 545–554.
Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision
making in the era of Big Data–evolution, challenges and research agenda.
International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71.
Elkhodr, M., Shahrestani, S., & Cheung, H. (2016). The internet of things : New inter-
operability, management and security challenges. International Journal of Network
Security & Its Applications, 8(2), 85–102.
Elliot, S. (2011). Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability: A re-
source base and framework for IT- enabled business transformation. MIS Quarterly,
35(1), 197–236.
Fiorini, P. C., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2017). Information systems and supply chain man-
agement towards a more sustainable society: Where we are and where we are going.
International Journal of Information Management, 37, 241–249.
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technologies:
Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of
Production Economics, 210, 15–26.
Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges
and opportunities for achieving “leapfrog development’. The International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 15(3), 231–239.
Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and
practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal
of Production Research, 56(1-2), 278–311.
Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting:
A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.
Gupta, S., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A., & Al-Khowaiter, W. A. (2018). Big data with cog-
nitive computing: A review for the future. International Journal of Information
Management, 43, 112–129.
Hashem, I. A. T., Chang, V., Anuar, N. B., Adewole, K., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., et al. (2016).
The role of big data in smart city. International Journal of Information Management,
36(5), 748–758.
Heyes, G., Sharmina, M., Mendoza, J. M. F., Schmid, A. J., & Azapagic, A. (2018).
Developing and implementing circular economy business models in service –oriented
technology companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 621–632.
Hossain, M. A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2014). What improves citizens’ privacy perceptions
toward RFID technology? A cross-country investigation using mixed method ap-
proach. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 711–719.
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet
of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy per-
spectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 516–527.
Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Raman, K. R. (2019). Smart cities: Advances
in research—An information systems perspective. International Journal of Information
Management, 47, 88–100.
Jabbour, A. B. L.d. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Filho, M. G., & Roubaud, D. (2018). Industry 4.0
and the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap for
sustainable operations. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10479-018-2772-8.
Jesus, A. D., Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Mendonca, S. (2018). Eco-innovation in the
transition to a circular economy: An analytical literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 172, 2999–3018.
Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, l. (2018). Circular economy- from review of
theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources,
Conservation, and Recycling, 135, 190–201.
Kamboj, S., Sarmah, B., Gupta, S., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Examining branding co-creation
in brand communities on social media: Applying the paradigm of Stimulus-Organism-
Response. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 169–185.
Kshetri, N. (2018). Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objec-
tives. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 80–89.
Lamba, K., & Singh, S. P. (2017). Big data in operations and supply chain management:

112
S. Rajput and S.P. Singh
Current trends and future perspectives. Production Planning and Control, 28(11-12),
877–890.
Lamba, K., & Singh, S. P. (2018). Modelling big data enablers for operations and supply
chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(2), 629–658.
Leitao, P., Colombo, A. W., & Karnouskos, S. (2016). Industrial automation based on
cyber-physical systems technologies: Prototype implementations and challenges.
Computers in Industry, 81, 11–25.
Liu, Q., Liu, Z., Xu, W., Tang, Q., Zhou, Z., & Pham, D. T. (2018). Human-robot colla-
boration in disassembly for sustainable manufacturing. International Journal of
Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1578906.
Lu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Cloud-based manufacturing equipment and big data analytics to
enable on-demand manufacturing services. Robotics and Computer-integrated
Manufacturing, 57, 92–102.
Lu, Y., Peng, T., & Xu, X. (2019). Energy-efficient cyber-physical production network:
Architecture and technologies. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 129, 56–66.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Shankar, R., Garg, C. P., & Jakhar, S. (2018). Modelling critical
success factors for sustainability initiatives in supply chains in Indian context using
Grey-DEMATEL. Production Planning and Control, 29(9), 705–728. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09537287.2018.1448126.
Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., et al. (2018).
Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country
context. Production Planning and Control, 29(6), 551–569.
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., Pellegrini, F., & Chlamtac, I. (2012). Internet of things: Vision,
applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 10(7), 1497–1516.
Monostori, L. (2014). Cyber-physical production systems: Roots, expectations and R&D
challenges. Paper Presented in Proceedings of the 47th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing
Systems 2014 in Ontario, Vol. 17, 9–13.
Mont, O. K. (2002). Clarifying the concept of product-service system. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 10, 237–245.
Muina, F. E. G., Sanchez, R. G., Ferrari, A. M., & Blundo, D. S. (2018). The paradigms of
industry 4.0 and circular economy as enabling drivers for the competitiveness of
businesses and territories: The case of an Italian ceramic tiles manufacturing com-
pany. Social Sciences, 7(12), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7120255.
Posada, J., Toro, C., Barandiaran, I., Oyarzun, D., Stricker, D., de Amicis, R., Pinto, E. B.,
Eistert, P., Dollner, J., & Vallarino, I. (2015). Visual computing as a key enabling
technology for Industrie 4.0 and Industrial Internet. IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications, 35(2), 26–40.
Pozza, R., Nati, M., Georgoulas, S., Moessner, K., & Gluhak, A. (2015). Neighbor discovery
for opportunistic networking in internet of things scenarios: A survey. IEEE Access :
Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 3, 1101–1131.
Queiroz, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2019). Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain:
An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. International
Journal of Information Management, 46, 70–82.
Rajput, S., & Singh, S. P. (2018). An integrated approach of PCA, ISM, DEMATEL to model
IoT enablers for industry 4.0. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-
2018-0378.
Rana, N. P., Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Islam, R., Roderick, S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018).
Barriers to the development of smart cities in Indian context. Information Systems
Frontiers, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9873-4.
Roblek, V., Meško, M., & Krapež, A. (2016). A complex view of Industry 4.0. SAGE Open,
6(2), 1–11.
Sandner, P. (2018). Blockchain: Proposition of a new and sustainable macroeconomic system.
Accessed June 6 2018https://medium.com/@philippsandner/blockchain-
proposition-of-a-new-and-sustainable-macroeconomic-system-d9c628bd56b7.
Schumacher, A., Selim, E., & Wilfried, S. (2016). A maturity model for assessing Industry
4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP, 52, 161–166.
Schutze, A., Helwig, N., & Schneider, T. (2018). Sensors 4.0- smart sensors and mea-
surement technology enable Industry 4.0. Journal of Sensors and Sensor Systems, 7,
359–371.
Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2017). Content design of ad-
vertisement for consumer exposure: Mobile marketing through short messaging
113
International Journal of Information Management 49 (2019) 98–113
service. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 257–268.
Shaukat, S. S., Rao, T. A., & Khan, M. A. (2016). Impact of sample size on principal
component analysis ordination of an environmental data set: Effects on eigen-
structure. Ekológia (Bratislava), 35(2), 173–190.
Sherer, S. A. (2005). From supply chain management to value network advocacy:
Implications for e-supply chains. Supply Chain Management an International Journal,
10(2), 77–83.
Shiau, W. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Yang, H. S. (2017). Co-citation and cluster analyses of
extant literature on social networks. International Journal of Information Management,
37(5), 390–399.
Somers, L., Dewit, I., & Baelus, C. (2018). Understanding product-service systems in a
sharing economy context- a literature review. Paper Presented in 10th CIRP Conference
on Industrial Product- Service Systems, IPS2 in Linkoping, Vol. 41, 173–178.
Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in
China: Moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42,
215–227.
Tan, L., & Wang, N. (2010). Future internet: The internet of things. Paper Presented in 3rd
International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE) in
Chengdu V5-376-V5-380.
Tan, Y., Vuran, M., & Goddard, S. (2009). Spatio-temporal event model for cyber-physical
systems. Proceedings of IEEE ICDCS Workshops, 44–50.
Tao, F., Zuo, Y., Xu, L. D., & Zhang, L. (2014). IoT-based intelligent perception and access
of manufacturing resource toward cloud manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, 10(2), 1547–1557.
Thames, L., & Schaefer, D. (2016). Software-defined cloud manufacturing for industry
4.0. Paper Presented in The 6th International Conference on Changeable, Agile,
Reconfigurable and Virtual Production, Vol. 52, 12–17.
Tseng, M. L., Tan, R. R., Chiu, A. S. F., Chien, C. F., & Kuo, T. C. (2018). Circular Economy
meets Industry 4.0: Can big data drive industrial symbiosis? Resources. Conservation
& Recycling, 131, 146–147.
Usman, M., & Zhang, X. (2014). A framework for realizing universal standardization for
internet of things. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information, 2(2), 147–153.
Wang, L., & Ji, W. (2018). Cloud enabled CPS and Big data environment in manu-
facturing. Paper Presented in 3rd International Conference on the Industry 4.0 Model for
Advanced Manufacturing in Belgrade, 265–292.
Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Shareef, M. A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2013).
Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption: An
empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5),
716–725.
Weyns, D., Ramachandran, G. S., & Singh, R. K. (2018). Self-managing internet of things.
Paper Presented in 44th International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice
of Computer Science in Krems, Vol. 10706, 67–84.
Williams, R., McMahon, E., Samtani, S., Patton, M., & Chen, H. (2017). Identifying vul-
nerabilities of consumer internet of things (IoT) devices: A scalable approach. Paper
Presented in IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics,
179–181.
Winans, K., Kendall, A., & Deng, H. (2017). The history and current applications of the
circular economy concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 825–833.
Witkowski, K. (2017). Internet of things, Big data, industry 4.0- innovative solutions in
logistics and supply Chain management. Paper Presented in 7th International Conference
on Engineering, Project, and Production Management, Vol. 182, 763–769.
Wortmann, F., & Flüchter, K. (2015). Internet of things: Technology and value added.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(3), 221–224.
Xu, X. (2012). From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 28, 75–86.
Zhong, R. Y., Newman, S. T., Huang, G. Q., & Lan, S. (2016). Big Data for supply chain
management in the service and manufacturing sectors: Challenges, opportunities, and
future perspectives. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 572–591.
Zhou, K., Liu, T., & Zhou, L. (2015). Industry 4.0: Towards future industrial opportunities
and challenges. Paper Presented in 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and
Knowledge Discovery (FSKD) in Zhangjiajie, 2147–2152.