Next Article in Journal
Highly Luminescent 4H-1,2,4-Triazole Derivatives: Synthesis, Molecular Structure and Photophysical Properties
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Gradient-Based Algorithm for Surface Determination in Multi-Material Gap Measurements by X ray Computed Tomography
Previous Article in Journal
An Experimental Assessment of the Water Permeability of Concrete with a Superplasticizer and Admixtures
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cold Expansion Process with Multiple Balls—Numerical Simulation and Comparison with Single Ball and Tapered Mandrels
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainability in the Aerospace, Naval, and Automotive Supply Chain 4.0: Descriptive Review

School of Engineering, University of Cádiz, Avenue Universidad de Cádiz, 10, 11519 Puerto Real-Cadiz, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2020, 13(24), 5625; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245625
Submission received: 9 November 2020 / Revised: 3 December 2020 / Accepted: 7 December 2020 / Published: 10 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Special Issue of Manufacturing Engineering Society-2020 (SIMES-2020))

Abstract

:
The search for sustainability in the Supply Chain (SC) is one of the tasks that most concerns business leaders in all manufacturing sectors because of the importance that the Supply Chain has as a transversal tool and due to the leading role that it has been playing lately. Of all the manufacturing sectors, this study focuses on the aerospace, shipbuilding, and automotive sectors identified as transport. The present study carries out a descriptive review of existing publications in these three sectors in relation to the sustainability of the Supply Chain in its 4.0 adaptation as an update in matters that are in constant evolution. Among the results obtained, Lean practices are common to the three sectors, as well as different technologies focused on sustainability. Furthermore, the results show that the automotive sector is the one that makes the greatest contribution in this sense through collaborative programs that can be very useful to the other two sectors, thus benefiting from the consequent applicable advantages. Meanwhile, the Aerospace and Shipbuilding sectors do not seem to be working on promoting a sustainable culture in the management of the Supply Chain or on including training programs for their personnel in matters related to Industry 4.0.

1. Introduction

It can be said that a Supply Chain is composed of all the interested parties: customers, suppliers, manufacturers, transporters, warehousemen, etc. Each organization includes all the functions involved in it starting from the development of the new product, marketing, manufacturing, finance, to customer service and whose purpose is to satisfy the needs of the customer while generating profits in the process for itself [1].
Each Supply Chain will be divided into different stages, and within each stage, several actors can coexist, so it should really be called a Supply Network. All stages are connected through the flow of products, information, and funds—in both directions—aimed at maximizing the total value generated by the Supply Chain. The success of a Supply Chain should not be measured at each stage but in its total profitability. Therefore, the success of a Supply Chain lies in the efficiency of its management [2].
In addition, Supply Chain must adapt both to changes in technology and to customer requirements in order to remain competitive. The manufacturing Supply Chain is of the pull type as the processes are carried out in response to the request of the customer, which is also known as a reactive process [3].
Each connection between the stages of the Supply Chain (supplier–manufacturer–distributor–retailer–customer) has the processes required for each process cycle (sales order cycle, replenishment cycle, manufacturing cycle, procurement cycle), and these connection processes are divided into sub-processes at the same time [4]. The cycle view is useful when establishing information systems to support Supply Chain operations when considering operational decisions because it establishes the roles and responsibilities of each member and the expected outcome of each process.
Therefore, Supply Chain activities are framed within three macro processes: CRM, Customer Relationship Management; ISCM, Internal SCM; and SRM, Supplier Relationship Management. Figure 1 details these three framework processes [1].
Information is disrupted as it moves up the chain because the information shared in the stages is incomplete. The lack of coordination can be called “the whip effect”. This lack of coordination damages relations between the different stages where there is a tendency to blame other stages thinking that theirs is doing well, which causes a loss of trust between the different stages and makes coordination efforts difficult [5].
In the present case, transport companies tend to report on greenhouse gas emissions, fuel consumption, and transport efficiency. From an environmental perspective, they report on four categories: energy consumption, water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste generation.
The role of sustainability in the Supply Chain today has become crucially important in both its design and the operations that concern it while improving its performance [6]. The framework presented by the United Nations World Summit in 2005 identifies three pillars on which sustainable economic, environmental, and social development rests.
In order to build a more sustainable Supply Chain, companies must clearly define the reasons for developing more sustainable approaches to fuel interest from customers who are reluctant to pay more for sustainable products [7].
Therefore, the aim of this article is to explore the advances that exist in the three manufacturing sectors: Aerospace, Shipbuilding, and Automotive in terms of sustainable Supply Chain management. At the same time, common areas and possible synergies between the three sectors will be identified.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology carried out in this work is shown in Figure 2. It is a descriptive review in order to provide the existing advances on Supply Chain in the three big sectors that compose the transport manufacturing such as aerospace, naval, and automotive. Many advances are being made in each of these areas individually with respect to sustainability-focused supply chain management, but a descriptive review of the three areas together will provide an update for people working in the same fields in different areas. It is in this sense where it is intended to highlight that synergies are possible. Both aerospace and shipbuilding coincide in the type of production, while the automotive sector is mass production. However, there are related fields that would take advantage of advances in each production system or even sector. Hence, the managers dedicated to these fields can be nourished with the studies published by the scientific community serving as a strategic tool that allows them to update the various aspects addressed in the study. Therefore, the aim is to find out what work is being done in these three areas in terms of the progress of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) together with sustainability [8].
The study will be developed in five stages, starting with the definition of the research objective, mentioned above, until the evidence is reported once it has been analyzed [9].
To carry out the bibliographic search, Scopus was used as the main database in which the main journals and conference papers will be studied, as well as some book chapters and review articles.
To establish the search strategy, the descriptors “Supply Chain Management”, “4.0”, and each of the three sectors—“aerospace”, “shipbuilding”, “automotive”—were used as arguments. No exclusion criteria were established with respect to time due to the inclusion of the term 4.0 as a descriptor that acts as a limiter.
A total of 297 articles were found, to which the criteria of scientific quality were applied. Subsequently, duplicates were eliminated, and the abstracts and conclusions were not read until the articles were selected to be read in their entirety. The distribution of publications used in the study is shown in Figure 3.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Aerospace

Starting with the aerospace sector and considering the above-mentioned search arguments, a total of 18 articles are established that deal with this industry, of which 13 include sustainability in their content. Only two articles have been excluded because the criteria established were not met.
After evaluating the adaptation that this type of industry whose production engineer-to-order is characterized by the activities that must be added in order to comply with the established lead time, whether in terms of commercial management, procurement, production, or logistics and distribution in the case of the Supply Chain, the difficulty that smaller companies face in adapting to Industry 4.0 becomes clear. While large companies are more aware of the changes they must make in this adaptation, the Supply Chain is made up of these and other smaller and less developed companies in terms of both resources and organizational capacity for the integration of Industry 4.0, one of their concerns being the susceptibility to external breakdown [10].
Engineers, to order environments, develop Lean methodologies to accelerate delivery time among other techniques. Lean practices such as Just In Time (JIT) and Visual Management show how certain areas improve the potential impacts of business performance as well as the overall Supply Chain [11]. In addition to Lean, Green is another paradigm that focuses on the requirements that I4.0 makes, from product and process design, production planning and control, and communication with suppliers. Furthermore, the flexibility in the development of shared communication with suppliers is a fundamental requirement for the competitiveness of the Supply Chain [12]. To achieve this required competitiveness, in addition to enhancing management and sustainability in the Supply Chain, aerospace companies demonstrate the impact of product life management (PLM) systems by managing the entire product life cycle, from the first marketing idea to the after-sales service [13].
With regard to the digitalization of the framework processes of the Supply Chain, technologies such as the Internet of Things become important for companies in the sector interested in the transformation of Industry 4.0. Management principles that improve performance throughout the company focused on the involvement of employees in decision making, and two applications are the most suitable for the implementation of this technology: TQM (total quality management), which is a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) application that allows centralizing in a single database all interactions between a company and customers and the management of relationships with suppliers, and SRM (Supplier Relationship Management), with the intention of establishing positive relationships with the company. In addition, these are also used in the reduction of carbon emissions and the adoption of Green concepts [14].
It could be said that the Internet of Things collaborates closely on energy management in smart factories, smart logistics and transport, and creating smart business models. This is done in four main areas: (1) designing incentive mechanisms to promote green consumer behavior; (2) improving visibility throughout the product life cycle; (3) increasing system efficiency while reducing development and operational costs; and (4) encouraging sustainability monitoring and reporting performance in Supply Chain networks [15].
Moreover, the Internet of Things becomes more important in terms of the need to be able to visualize information in real time [16], as well as the existing improvement in after-sales services achieved through the sensors placed in its products, together with the Big Data technology, which reports on their performance, defects, and usage patterns in the hands of the customer. This fact has changed the business model, and the manufacturer has become the solution to the problem [17].
In this way, the importance of Big Data is confirmed due to the critical challenge that these factories have to process so much information. These intelligent systems are capable of monitoring and controlling the processes of the Supply Chain as well as providing information on breakdowns for the entire system of planning and control of production and finally providing useful solutions to employees [16].
With respect to Additive Manufacturing, it plays an important role in the viability of a complex product. Together with the freedom of product design, the ability to customize and the variety of products are determining factors in the competitiveness of the Supply Chain [18]. The environmental impact, health, and safety seems to be contemplated in this technology that marks a trend in terms of resource consumption [16,18]. The impact of the technology on production strategy, technical requirements and distribution is still to be resolved [18].
Within the study that allows the development of a conceptual model of the Supply Chain using Blockchain technology, it becomes evident that, as in companies in the aerospace sector, the top management is responsible for making strategic decisions and therefore for designing and implementing sustainability in the organization [15,19].

3.2. Shipbuilding

In the case of shipbuilding, there are only five articles that meet the search criteria from which only one had to be removed, which will be analyzed below. In the same way as in the previous section covering the aerospace sector, this section also considers the Engineer-to-order type of production. Thus, this sector faces the same problem of susceptibility to external breakdowns due to the difficulty of small enterprises to adapt to Industry 4.0 [10]. In the same way, the Lean methodology provides benefits in the Engineer-to-order environment, together with the relationship between digital and information technology of the I4.0, which is considered as an established term in the Lean Supply Chain [20].
In addition to the Lean paradigm, there are other Supply Chain Paradigms studied for the shipbuilding sector such as Green, Agile, and Resilient, which in combination with the enabling technologies stand out from the others in Big Data Analysis focused on the reduction of emissions. Data processing enables the reliability and security of data to quantify CO2 emissions from ships and provide information on energy efficiency parameters [21]. Other techniques include optimizing the energy efficiency of the ship by analyzing the energy transfer between the hull, propeller, and main engine; analyzing the optimal engine speeds [22]. After analyzing the data collected, including sea currents, waves, and winds, along with engine logging data, location, and speed, it is possible to predict ship performance, reduce fuel consumption, and thus reduce emissions [23], even by analyzing historical data as a basis for estimating future accidents [24].
Other technologies focused on Supply Chain sustainability are Cloud Computing, Cybersecurity, and Blockchain [25]. Cloud Computing studies the optimization of virtual machine placement. This is a great challenge in terms of the number of physical machines with the aim of reducing energy costs and waste of resources, in addition to minimizing operating expenses dedicated to the target platform [26], in collaboration with other technologies allowing a rapid diagnosis of system efficiency, in particular engine breakdown [27], in addition to collaborating in the sustainable development of the marine economy [28].
Cybersecurity has an important role to ensure the safe operation of ships, in addition to improving the environmental safety of the oceans. With the intention of complying with international regulations, the available resources are studied by analyzing the methods and policies of maritime cybersecurity that guarantee these aspects [29]. At the same time, there are publications that aim to inform staff to help protect cyberspace from adversaries through an introductory view of systems that help manage cyberspace security that simplifies the complexity of cyberspace and the variety of possible attacks.
As for the energy efficiency of cryptocurrencies, Blockchain technology tries to implement and change to more efficient algorithms such as the Proof of Stake (PoS), leaving behind the use of the Proof by Work (PoW) algorithm used to achieve energy sustainability [30].
In the aeronautical sector, these technologies have also taken on a leading role with regard to the sustainability of the Supply Chain, but there is no evidence of this from Cybersecurity. This does not mean that the sector has not focused on the study of this technology; there is evidence related to the characterization of digital manufacturing systems, identification of threats and vulnerability, control, and determination of risks [31].
There are studies that show the benefits of Blockchain, Internet of Things, and Fog Computing technologies in the application to a system that allows the identification and tracking of the pipes of a ship during its construction [32]. Likewise, no publications on Fog Computing technology have been published in the aeronautical sector as a technology that drives the Supply Chain and its sustainability, although in the same way as Cybersecurity, it does in other areas [33].
The Internet of Things has also been applied in other sector companies revealing a great impact on the performance of the Supply Chain and highlighting the potential for improvement not only in the economic but also in the environmental and social sustainability aspects. Its use allows a sustainable development in collaboration with the strategic and organizational management of the companies. In addition, it offers solutions attending to criteria such as the management of services or operations from the perspective of business based on intelligent operations [34].

3.3. Automotive

In the case of the automotive industry, there are a total of 54 publications, of which two have been eliminated and three have been evaluated in the sectors studied. In this case, and to consider the difference of the previous sectors, the type of production corresponds to the mass production; however, the Lean methodology is also present in this type of production.
One of the improvements in the operation and control of the plant is done through the relationships of the key performance indicators (KPIs). This performance measurement system of a Lean production system provides answers at the strategic, tactical, and operational levels in the implementation of I4.0 projects [35]. In addition to the contribution of Lean guaranteeing an efficient use of resources, in combination with Agile, they act as drivers for the general improvement of performance. As a decision support tool for decision making by identifying potential I4.0 technologies, the Lean–Agile combination adopts strategies that help achieve the overall objectives of the organization [36].
Another possible combination with Lean that is used as a lever to strengthen relationships is with Green practices. The result in this case would be Green Supply Chain Management, where Lean facilitates the collaboration with suppliers and environmental programs. At the same time, following a process innovation strategy based on I4.0 technologies, in addition to improving the Lean effect, leads to better economic results. However, companies will have to choose to obtain better performance by charging suppliers in environmental programs or by investing in I4.0 technologies, but not in both [37]. This is because innovation in technologies does not have the same impact on the Green Supply Chain; if the intention is to improve performance by targeting technologies, then Green is not being improved and vice-versa.
In the same way, it has been demonstrated that I4.0 technologies do not improve the performance of the Lean Supply Chain, and it can be negative to think that better results will be achieved by acquiring a technology than through management practices [38]. However, there are other studies that indicate that the Green and Lean approach can improve the content of I4.0 by adapting product and process design, manufacturing planning and control, cooperation with suppliers, shared information and customer energy and value through flexibility and process re-engineering, with communication between Supply Chain players being essential. All this makes the Supply Chain more flexible and visible and can be made possible through I.40 enabling technologies [12].
Supported by these information and communication technologies and Lean Manufacturing management methods, a new generation of manufacturing systems is born, which is called a Small Scale Intelligent Manufacturing System that is capable of generating value and meeting customer demands. In addition, in order to carry out Green Manufacturing, a Closed-loop Supply Chain model was developed [39]. This concept of Closed-Loop is not new; it was introduced by Solvang in 2007, defining it as a Supply Chain without waste [40], and it is related to a more current concept such as the circular economy.
This circular economy is favored by the interconnectivity promoted by Industry 4.0 allowing for real-time data collection, communication, and data analysis [41], although the transition between Industry 3.0 and 4.0 presents barriers between the Circular Supply Chain and Industry 4.0 [42]. Among the barriers to implementation of I4.0 are the workforce capable of understanding Industry 4.0, ineffective legislation and control, and short-term corporate objectives. These barriers, combined with the lack of funding for I4.0 initiatives, are causing organizations to develop an integrated strategic approach that is capable of utilizing the improved knowledge of I4.0 and the circular economy in order to take advantage of the increased profits from products and process designs that promote energy efficiency [43].
To achieve the effectiveness of Industry 4.0 in the sustainability of the Supply Chain, initiatives are identified from the organizational, legal, and ethical perspective and technological strategies. Within these technological strategies are the need for integration of technological platforms, data-sharing protocols, and a lack of internet-based network infrastructure [44]. Data-based technology and operations provide opportunities for new methods and operations to become an adopter of Industry 4.0 [45].
In order to know the facilitators of the sustainable Supply Chain, Figure 4 shows the most significant ones looking for the highest demand for digital, horizontal, and vertical integration and End-to-End.
The framework of Supply Chain processes in which the Internet of Things becomes highly important had already been appreciated earlier in the aerospace sector [14]. And the impact it has on the performance of the Supply Chain by improving economic, environmental and social sustainability aspects in shipbuilding [14]. It could therefore be said that the Internet of Things and environmentally friendly practices are the most influential factors in becoming a sustainable and industry-compliant organization 4.0 [46].
This is not the case with Additive Manufacturing, despite the fact that its adoption has many effects from the viability of a complex product, the freedom of design or the ability to mass customize, there are still contradictions with regard to the complexity and flexibility of the Supply Chain in addition to not being profitable in the automotive industry [18]. Just the opposite of the other two sectors.
Furthermore, there are studies that show how simulation boosts the flexibility and efficiency of the automotive Supply Chain by using simulation based on multi-objective optimization and developing a decision support model [47]. This flexible simulation-based approach allows risks to be assessed prior to implementation with a positive impact on Supply Chain risk management, saving many real resources, which makes the Supply Chain more sustainable [48,49].
Another way to achieve sustainability in production is through the use of Just in Time material in the assembly lines; this is achieved by implementing decentralized logistics areas known as supermarkets. At the same time, it was observed how the cost of shipping material across the assembly line is the most influential factor in reducing the total cost of the supermarket. It was through simulation that the optimum location of these supermarkets on the assembly lines was optimized [50]. Hence, the simulation allows us to optimize from a particular point of view any necessary movement by making iterations until the optimal solution is reached. This same concept is used in previous sectors, but there are no simulation-related applications for it.
The simulation also served as a semantic validator of Big Data, due to the fact that the Big Data technology showed indetermination when analyzing the data that could be solved through simulation. This shows that Big Data technology requires improvement [51]. However, it is the analysis of Big Data that drives artificial intelligence to achieve sustainable manufacturing and circular economy capabilities [52].
The expected connection in the automotive factories make the amount of shared data very large through the activities of the Supply Chain and in the interaction of product and service in the cloud. This shows the need to implement Cybersecurity through the integration of Supply Chain management—marketing integration [53]. In addition to marketing integration, the other areas addressed within the Supply Chain also benefit from Cybersecurity.
An adaptation of cloud computing with the use of robots, cloud robotics, are key to the virtual creation and integration of computational and physical processes resulting in the Cyber–Physical–Systems key to the transition to the sustainable digital world [54]. These systems make it necessary to analyze Cybersecurity risks in a globalized Supply Chain. Some occur due to cyber-attacks that cause an operational disruption in the SC; others cause an operational disruption affecting the entire Supply Chain, and others are produced by an inappropriate interaction between man and machine [55]. In addition to Cybersecurity, security in the traceability of operations is also necessary, for which a reference architecture of the applicability of Blockchain technology is necessary as well [56].
However, it seems that most companies prefer the implementation of only one technology to the adoption and integration of several. Most of them invest in the Internet of Things, Cloud Computing, or Radio Frequency Identification due to the optimization of resources, ease of access from anywhere, or for decision-making based on visibility. Others choose Big Data Analytics because of the speed in detecting failures with a better customer service and reduction of preventive maintenance. Furthermore, some companies rely on Blockchain to improve the traceability and transparency, which increases trust with stakeholders [57]. Several of these technologies such as Robotics, Automated Guided Vehicles, or Additive Manufacturing help reduce wasted resources and emissions by setting up a collaborative program. Thereby, when innovation costs are shared, the motivation to invest more is greater, and this translates into better Supply Chain performance [58]. It can be said that either the actors in the Supply Chain work collaboratively and support each other, or there will be no success in the performance of the Supply Chain [38]. It seems fundamental for the growth of Industry 4.0 and the coordination between the entities of the Supply Chain to establish models in daily environments, competition, and cost-sharing contracts [59].
In spite of seeking solutions such as collaboration, there is a lot of resistance that companies encounter when it comes to putting into practice the management changes that a sustainable Supply Chain carries out. As mentioned above, the size of companies has an influence, making it easier for larger companies to implement changes than for smaller ones. Another barrier is found at the level of employees and middle management in the face of increased control and performance measurement in real time, fearing changes in management [60,61] in addition to the lack of knowledge on the part of the managers of knowing if they will return the investment and will obtain benefit nor in time [62]. It could be said that one of the biggest problems the automotive industry faces is in management and organization [63]. There are also barriers due to lack of knowledge of I4.0 by suppliers [61]. The lack of technological infrastructure also makes implementation more difficult considering that there is no management support for the implementation of I4.0 [61,62].
On the other hand, there are findings that show that neither customer loyalty nor satisfaction is relevant to the success of Supply Chain management. The customer experience will be a differentiator in the future, and it will work to maintain the support of the rest of the factors [64].
However, there are still areas to be exploited that can be beneficial in the automotive industry [65]. In order to help the leaders of the companies make their plants intelligent, it is clear that there is a need for integration, collaboration, and transparency of all the members of the chain [66]. Leaders are encouraged to establish sustainable policies, training programs focused on I4.0 and to consider I4.0 as a strategic decision to improve costs, reduce resources and energy consumption, and contribute to the development of healthy societies [44]. However, this integration, behavior, and trust will be reflected when it is manifested by including the concept in the vision and mission of their organizations [13].
One of the proposals still to be developed is the servicing of Supply Chain management with respect to I4.0 applications [67]. Another is the implementation of I4.0 concepts at multiple levels of the Supply Chain. Within this multi-stage implementation proposal, they discourage talkers that go from a cultural, multifunctional approach and continuous improvement. It proposes to start from the focus organization for later integration of the partner organizations until arriving at the intelligent factory where the Supply Chains are connected among themselves and with their systems and the machines are linked to a common network system [68]. Finally, the proposal relating to installations and the application to the recovery of the value of the product at the end of its life cycle could be mentioned [69].
Figure 5 shows, as a summary, the technologies that each of the sectors studied considers applicable to boost sustainability in the Supply Chain. It shows how only Big Data and the Internet of Things are common to all three sectors. Similarly, Figure 6 shows the methodologies and practices that each of the sectors studied apply to the sustainable Supply Chain.

3.4. Key Points Overview

In this last section, a summary of the most significant aspects of each sector studied is included, as shown in Table 1, in order to establish a comparison between them. The facilitators referred to in Figure 4 for the automotive industry supply chain are taken as a reference.

4. Conclusions

In the aerospace sector, there is a tendency among companies that are committed to a sustainable 4.0 Supply Chain to be concerned that the breakdown will come from small external companies in the Supply Chain. Even so, they adopt Lean and Green methodologies considering their impact on performance.
With regard to the macro processes described in the introduction, the aerospace sector is committed to managing them through the Internet of Things applications, improving both the relations between the participants and with regard to the adoption of sustainable actions. In addition, there is evidence of the use of other technologies such as Big Data, Additive Manufacturing, and Blockchain, which are also focused on the implementation of sustainability in the Supply Chain.
Similarly, in the shipbuilding sector, there is also evidence of the concern about the ruptures caused by the smaller companies that make up the sector. In this case, the paradigms studied for this sector coincide with the aerospace sector, and the Agile and Resilient paradigms are added as well.
There is little evidence of the implementation of different technologies in this sector, although the Internet of Things seems to be the most remarkable.
In the case of the automotive industry and changing from production to mass production, they coincide with the Lean, Green, and Agile paradigms, although there is controversy in particular regarding Lean Supply Chain and 4.0 technologies where management practices are preferable. With regard to technologies, it could be said that this sector is one of the ones that has most implemented its applications in most of them, highlighting on the one hand the additive manufacturing as, despite the advantages it has, it does not seem to give benefits in this sector. On the other hand, Simulation stands out as providing flexibility and efficiency to the automotive Supply Chain and as a facilitator together with other technologies.
It seems that the sector is committed to the implementation of the technologies in a collaborative manner among the participants in the chain and also in the implementation by stages. Furthermore, the sector has identified the barriers that prevent it from successfully implementing technologies that make the Supply Chain sustainable, and it mainly identifies the human factor in this.
Despite comparing sectors with different production systems, it can be seen how all three rely on Lean practices as necessary to make the Supply Chain sustainable. Even the automotive sector, being the one that presents more publications, prefers Lean management practices to the benefits that Industry 4.0 technologies could bring. It could be said that Lean practices should be intrinsic to the company and that any technology to be implemented should not displace these practices.
With regard to technologies, all three sectors reveal a strong interest in the Internet of Things as being paramount for the sustainability of the Supply Chain. At the same time, Big Data and Blockchain are two technologies that also demonstrate contributions to sustainability and therefore focus on all three sectors. However, additive manufacturing is appropriate for the aerospace and shipbuilding sector, while the automotive sector does not find the full benefit. The technology that this sector is interesting in is Simulation, contributing considerably directly to the Supply Chain and indirectly as support to other technologies.
Finally, the contribution of the automotive sector to collaborative approaches to change management to smart factories should be highlighted, which at the same time would help alleviate the concern of the aerospace and shipbuilding sectors about the source of external breakdowns of components in the Supply Chain.

Author Contributions

M.R.-P. and M.B. conceptualized the paper. M.B. and P.F.M. approved the experimental procedure; M.R.-P. and J.M.V.-M. analyzed the data; M.R.-P. wrote the paper; M.B. and J.M.V.-M. revised the paper; P.F.M. supervised the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

Universidad de Cádiz (UCA) and Dpt. of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Design supported this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chopra, S.; Meindl, P. Administración de la Cadena de Suministro; Cruz Castillo, L.M., Gutierrez Hernández, B., Eds.; Pearson Educación, S.A.: México City, Mexico, 2013; ISBN 978-607-32-2133-7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Heizer, J.; Render, B. How China Sees America; Cañizal, A., Bazaco, E., Eds.; Pearson Educación, S.A.: Madrid, Spain, 2012; Volume 91, ISBN 9788578110796. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ballou, R.H. The evolution and future of logistics and supply chain management. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2007, 19, 332–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Sanchez Loppacher, J. Compitiendo a Través de la Cadena del Negocio. Supply Chain Management; Scarfi, J., Ed.; Temas Grupo Editorial: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2013; ISBN 9789871826568. [Google Scholar]
  5. Biswal, J.N.; Muduli, K.; Satapathy, S. Critical analysis of drivers and barriers of sustainable supply chain management in Indian thermal sector. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 2017, 10, 411–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pirvulescu, P.; Enevoldsen, P. Supply Chain management in the age of digitalization. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 414–428. [Google Scholar]
  7. Felsberger, A.; Reiner, G. Sustainable Industry 4.0 in Production and Operations Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vera Carrasco, O. Cómo escribir artículos de revisión. Rev. Med. Paz 2009, 15, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  9. Briner, R.B.; Denyer, D.; Rousseau, D. Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool. In The Oxford Handbook of Evedence-Based Management; Press, O.U., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 112–129. [Google Scholar]
  10. Müller, J.M.; Voigt, K.I. The Impact of Industry 4.0 on Supply Chains in Engineer-to-Order Industries—An Exploratory Case Study. IFAC PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Haddud, A.; Khare, A. Digitalizing supply chains potential benefits and impact on lean operations. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2020, 11, 731–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duarte, S.; Cruz-Machado, V. An investigation of lean and green supply chain in the Industry 4.0. Proc. Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 2017, 2017, 255–265. [Google Scholar]
  13. Masudin, I.; Wastono, T.; Zulfikarijah, F. The effect of managerial intention and initiative on green supply chain management adoption in Indonesian manufacturing performance. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Manavalan, E.; Jayakrishna, K. A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 127, 925–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Esmaeilian, B.; Sarkis, J.; Lewis, K.; Behdad, S. Blockchain for the future of sustainable supply chain management in Industry 4.0. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 163, 105064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kiel, D. What do we know about “Industry 4.0” so far? [Rewarded with IAMOT Best Student Paper Award]. Int. Assoc. Manag. Technol. 2017, 2, 9–22. [Google Scholar]
  17. Omar, Y.M.; Minoufekr, M.; Plapper, P. Business analytics in manufacturing: Current trends, challenges and pathway to market leadership. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2019, 6, 100127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Franco, D.; Miller Devós Ganga, G.; de Santa-Eulalia, L.A.; Godinho Filho, M. Consolidated and inconclusive effects of additive manufacturing adoption: A systematic literature review. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 148, 106713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nayak, G.; Dhaigude, A.S. A conceptual model of sustainable supply chain management in small and medium enterprises using blockchain technology. Cogent Econ. Financ. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Núñez-Merino, M.; Maqueira-Marín, J.M.; Moyano-Fuentes, J.; Martínez-Jurado, P.J. Information and digital technologies of Industry 4.0 and Lean supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 5034–5061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zaman, I.; Pazouki, K.; Norman, R.; Younessi, S.; Coleman, S. Challenges and opportunities of big data analytics for upcoming regulations and future transformation of the shipping industry. Procedia Eng. 2017, 194, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yan, X.; Wang, K.; Yuan, Y.; Jiang, X.; Negenborn, R.R. Energy-efficient shipping: An application of big data analysis for optimizing engine speed of inland ships considering multiple environmental factors. Ocean Eng. 2018, 169, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Anan, T.; Higuchi, H.; Hamada, N. New artificial intelligence technology improving fuel efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions of ships through use of operational big data. Fujitsu Sci. Tech. J. 2017, 53, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamedifar, H.; Spitzenberger, C.; Stahl, C.; Brown, A.; Nilberg, B.; Demay, V.; Aspholm, O. Terminal and transportation risk assessment for LNG export in North America. In Proceedings of the Petroleum Abstracts, Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2015; Volume 55, pp. 112–113. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ramirez-Peña, M.; Fraga, F.J.A.; Salguero, J.; Batista, M. Assessing sustainability in the shipbuilding supply chain 4.0: A systematic review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Riahi, M.; Krichen, S. A multi-objective decision support framework for virtual machine placement in cloud data centers: A real case study. J. Supercomput. 2018, 74, 2984–3015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Carbone, R.; Montella, R.; Narducci, F.; Petrosino, A. DeepNautilus: A Deep Learning Based System for Nautical Engines’ Live Vibration Processing. In Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 11679, pp. 120–131. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ju, D.; Shen, B. Sustainable development of marine economy guided by knowledge cloud services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Networking and Distributed Computing (ICNDC 2011), Beijing, China, 21–24 September 2011; pp. 235–239. [Google Scholar]
  29. McGillivary, P. Why maritime cybersecurity is an ocean policy priority and how it can be addressed. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2018, 52, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koštál, K.; Krupa, T.; Gembec, M.; Vereš, I.; Ries, M.; Kotuliak, I. On transition between PoW and PoS. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Electronics in Marine, Zadar, Croatia, 16–19 September 2018; Volume 2018, pp. 207–210. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wu, D.; Ren, A.; Zhang, W.; Fan, F.; Liu, P.; Fu, X.; Terpenny, J. Cybersecurity for digital manufacturing. J. Manuf. Syst. 2018, 48, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fernández-Caramés, T.M.; Fraga-Lamas, P.; Suárez-Albela, M.; Díaz-Bouza, M.A. A fog computing based cyber-physical system for the automation of pipe-related tasks in the industry 4.0 shipyard. Sensors 2018, 18, 1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Malik, S.; Azur, K.M.; Rouf, R.; Kontsos, A. The industry internet of things (IIoT) as a methodology for autonomous diagnostics, prognostics in aerospace structural health monitoring. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 1, 1007–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ante, G.; Facchini, F.; Mossa, G.; Digiesi, S. Developing a key performance indicators tree for lean and smart production systems. IFAC PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Raji, I.O.; Rossi, T. Exploring industry 4.0 technologies as drivers of lean and agile supply chain strategies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Toronto, ON, Canada, 23–25 October 2019; pp. 292–303. [Google Scholar]
  37. De Giovanni, P.; Cariola, A. Process innovation through industry 4.0 technologies, lean practices and green supply chains. Res. Transp. Econ. 2020, 100869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tortorella, G.; Miorando, R.; Mac Cawley, A.F. The moderating effect of Industry 4.0 on the relationship between lean supply chain management and performance improvement. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 24, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yu, H.; Solvang, W.D. Enhancing the competitiveness of manufacturers through Small-scale Intelligent Manufacturing System (SIMS): A supply chain perspective. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Industrial Technology & Management (ICITM 2017), Cambridge, UK, 7–10 March 2017; pp. 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wei, D.; Solvang, B.S.; Deng, Z. A Closed-loop Supply Chain Model for Managing Overall Optimization of Eco-efficiency. In Proceedings of the POMS 18th Annual Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
  41. Takhar, S.S.; Liyanage, K. The impact of Industry 4.0 on sustainability and the circular economy reporting requirements. Int. J. Integr. Supply Manag. 2020, 13, 107–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kumar, P.; Singh, R.K.; Kumar, V. Managing supply chains for sustainable operations in the era of industry 4.0 and circular economy: Analysis of barriers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K. Evaluating challenges to Industry 4.0 initiatives for supply chain sustainability in emerging economies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Avilés-Sacoto, S.V.; Avilés-González, J.F.; García-Reyes, H.; Bermeo-Samaniego, M.C.; Cañizares-Jaramillo, A.K.; Izquierdo-Flores, S.N. A glance of industry 4.0 at supply chain and inventory management. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Theory Appl. Pract. 2019, 26, 486–506. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bhagawati, M.T.; Manavalan, E.; Jayakrishna, K.; Venkumar, P. Identifying Key Success Factors of Sustainability in Supply Chain Management for Industry 4.0 Using Dematel Method. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Manufacturing and Automation, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 27–30 September 2019; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ivanov, D.; Das, A.; Choi, T.M. New flexibility drivers for manufacturing, supply chain and service operations. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 3359–3368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Schluter, F.; Hetterscheid, E. A Simulation Based Evaluation Approach for Supply Chain Risk Management Digitalization Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Application (ICIMSA 2017), Seoul, Korea, 3–15 June 2017; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hoffa-Dabrowska, P.; Grzybowska, K. Simulation modeling of the sustainable supply chain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fathi, M.; Nourmohammadi, A.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Yousefi, M. Production sustainability via supermarket location optimization in assembly lines. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vieira, A.A.; Dias, L.M.; Santos, M.Y.; Pereira, G.A.; Oliveira, J.A. On the use of simulation as a Big Data semantic validator for supply chain management. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2020, 98, 101985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bag, S.; Pretorius, J.H.C. Relationships between industry 4.0, sustainable manufacturing and circular economy: Proposal of a research framework. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ardito, L.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Panniello, U.; Garavelli, A.C. Towards Industry 4.0: Mapping digital technologies for supply chain management-marketing integration. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2019, 25, 323–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Garay-Rondero, C.L.; Martinez-Flores, J.L.; Smith, N.R.; Caballero Morales, S.O.; Aldrette-Malacara, A. Digital supply chain model in Industry 4.0. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pandey, S.; Singh, R.K.; Gunasekaran, A.; Kaushik, A. Cyber security risks in globalized supply chains: Conceptual framework. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2020, 13, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bodkhe, U.; Tanwar, S.; Parekh, K.; Khanpara, P.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N.; Alazab, M. Blockchain for Industry 4.0: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 79764–79800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Raut, R.D.; Gotmare, A.; Narkhede, B.E.; Govindarajan, U.H.; Bokade, S.U. Enabling Technologies for Industry 4.0 Manufacturing and Supply Chain: Concepts, Current Status, and Adoption Challenges. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2020, 48, 83–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, B.; De Giovanni, P. Green process innovation through Industry 4.0 technologies and supply chain coordination. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ghosh, D.; Sant, T.G.; Kuiti, M.R.; Swami, S.; Shankar, R. Strategic decisions, competition and cost-sharing contract under industry 4.0 and environmental considerations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Horváth, D.; Szabó, R.Z. Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bag, S.; Telukdarie, A.; Pretorius, J.H.C.; Gupta, S. Industry 4.0 and supply chain sustainability: Framework and future research directions. Benchmarking 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Abdirad, M.; Krishnan, K. Industry 4.0 in Logistics and Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. EMJ Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yadav, G.; Luthra, S.; Jakhar, S.K.; Mangla, S.K.; Rai, D.P. A framework to overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through solution measures of industry 4.0 and circular economy: An automotive case. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Princes, E. Facing disruptive challenges in supply chain 4.0. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
  65. Schniederjans, D.G.; Curado, C.; Khalajhedayati, M. Supply chain digitisation trends: An integration of knowledge management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 220, 107439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fatorachian, H.; Kazemi, H. Impact of Industry 4.0 on supply chain performance. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tabaklar, T.; Yildirim, C. The development of servitization concept in the era of industry 4.0 through SCM perspective. Handb. Res. Strateg. Fit Des. Bus. Ecosyst. 2019, 593–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shao, X.F.; Liu, W.; Li, Y.; Chaudhry, H.R.; Yue, X.G. Multistage implementation framework for smart supply chain management under industry 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ivascu, L. Measuring the implications of sustainable manufacturing in the context of industry 4.0. Processes 2020, 8, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ruiz-Benitez, R.; López, C.; Real, J.C. Achieving sustainability through the lean and resilient management of the supply chain abstract. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019, 49, 122–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Manville, G.; Papadopoulos, T.; Garengo, P. Twenty-first century supply chain management: A multiple case study analysis within the UK aerospace industry. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2019, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ruiz-Benítez, R.; López, C.; Real, J.C. The lean and resilient management of the supply chain and its impact on performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 203, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ruiz-Benitez, R.; López, C.; Real, J.C. Environmental benefits of lean, green and resilient supply chain management: The case of the aerospace sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 850–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Martínez-Jurado, P.J.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. Lean management and supply chain management: Interrelationships in the aerospace sector. In Operations and Service Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 1208–1242. ISBN 9781522539100. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mastrocinque, E.; Mondragon, A.E.C.; Hogg, P.J. A four-element framework for research on the composite materials supply chain. In Proceedings of the Engineering Technology, Engineering Education and Engineering Management—International Conference on Engineering Technology, Engineering Education and Engineering Management (ETEEEM 2014), Guangzhou, China, 15–16 November 2014; pp. 423–426. [Google Scholar]
  76. Beelaerts van Blokland, W.W.A.; Fiksiński, M.A.; Amoa, S.O.B.; Santema, S.C.; van Silfhout, G.J.; Maaskant, L. Measuring value-leverage in aerospace supply chains. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2012, 32, 982–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Hallam, C.R.A. Lean supply chain management techniques for complex aerospace systems: Using discrete event simulation to mitigate programmatic cost and schedule risk. In Proceedings of the PICMET’10—Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology, Proceedings—Technology Management for Global Economic Growth, Phuket, Thailand, 18–22 July 2010; pp. 2565–2573. [Google Scholar]
  78. Lai, E.T.H.; Yun, F.N.J.; Arokiam, I.C.; Joo, J.H.A. Barriers affecting successful lean implementation in Singapore’s shipbuilding industry: A case study. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 13, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hameri, A.P.; McKay, K.N.; Wiers, V.C.S. A maturity model for industrial supply chains. Supply Chain Forum 2013, 14, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Qamar, A.; Hall, M.A.; Chicksand, D.; Collinson, S. Quality and flexibility performance trade-offs between lean and agile manufacturing firms in the automotive industry. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Verma, A.K.; Hirkannawar, H. Lean supply chain integration and assessment—A simulation based training program. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual National Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management 2005—Organizational Transformation: Opportunities and Challenges (ASEM 2005), Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 26–29 October 2005; pp. 475–482. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ramos, E.; Pettit, T.J.; Flanigan, M.; Romero, L.; Huayta, K. Inventory management model based on lean supply chain to increase the service level in a distributor of automotive sector. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 9, 113–131. [Google Scholar]
  83. Barbosa, C.; Cunha, N.F.E.; Malarranha, C.; Pinto, T.; Carvalho, A.; Amorim, P.; Carvalho, M.S.; Azevedo, A.; Relvas, S.; Pinto-Varela, T.; et al. Towards an Integrated Framework for Aerospace Supply Chain Sustainability. In Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  84. Armoutis, N.; Maropoulos, P.G.; Matthews, P.; Lomas, C. Establishing agile supply networks through competence profiling. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2008, 21, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Fleischer, M.; Kohler, R.; Lamb, T.; Bongiorni, H.B. Marine supply chain management. J. Sh. Prod. 1999, 15, 233–252. [Google Scholar]
  86. Desai, P.; Saremi, R.; Hoffenson, S.; Lippizi, C. Agile and affordable: A survey of supply chain management methods in long lifecycle products. In Proceedings of the SysCon 2019—13th Annual IEEE International Systems Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 8–11 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  87. Chandak, A.; Gangele, A. Conceptual and statistical modeling for identifying linkages among supply chain strategy, flexibility and performance. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 2019, 9, 993–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kumar, M.; Garg, D.; Agarwal, A. Fuzzy DEMATEL approach for agile supplier selections performance criteria. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1240, 012157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Roehrich, J.K.; Hoejmose, S.U.; Overland, V. Driving green supply chain management performance through supplier selection and value internalisation: A self-determination theory perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 489–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Vieira, D.R.; Vieira, R.K.; Chain, M.C. Elements of managerial integration for sustainable product lifecycle management. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 2016, 9, 87–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lee, J.J. Greener manufacturing, maintenance and disposal—Towards the ACARE targets. Aeronaut. J. 2006, 110, 567–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Caniëls, M.C.J.; Cleophas, E.; Semeijn, J. Implementing green supply chain practices: An empirical investigation in the shipbuilding industry. Marit. Policy Manag. 2016, 43, 1005–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Feng, J.; Gong, Z. Integrated linguistic entropy weight method and multi-objective programming model for supplier selection and order allocation in a circular economy: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gholipour, S.; Ashoftehfard, A.; Mina, H. Green supply chain network design considering inventory-location-routing problem: A fuzzy solution approach. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2020, 35, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Stevenson, M.; Busby, J. An exploratory analysis of counterfeiting strategies: Towards counterfeit-resilient supply chains. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2015, 35, 110–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Ramirez-Peña, M.; Sánchez Sotano, A.J.; Pérez-Fernandez, V.; Abad, F.J.; Batista, M. Achieving a sustainable shipbuilding supply chain under I4.0 perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Carvalho, H.; Duarte, S.; Machado, V.C. Lean, agile, resilient and green: Divergencies and synergies. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2011, 2, 151–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pramanik, D.; Mondal, S.C.; Haldar, A. Resilient supplier selection to mitigate uncertainty: Soft-computing approach. J. Model. Manag. 2020, 15, 1339–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Quariguasi Frota Neto, J.; Dutordoir, M. Mapping the market for remanufacturing: An application of “Big Data” analytics. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 230, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bhatia, M.S.; Jakhar, S.K.; Mangla, S.K.; Gangwani, K.K. Critical factors to environment management in a closed loop supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gilbert, P.; Wilson, P.; Walsh, C.; Hodgson, P. The role of material efficiency to reduce CO2 emissions during ship manufacture: A life cycle approach. Mar. Policy 2017, 75, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Teresko, J. Making a pitch for PLM. Ind. Week 2004, 253, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
  103. Mason, H.; Jahadi, M.R. Computer-aided enterprise solutions. Aerosp. Am. 2008, 46, 101. [Google Scholar]
  104. Barbarin, P.; Swallow, C.; Deeley, M. Leveraging Plm Capabilities to Manage Quality and Reliability through the Warship’s Life Cycle. RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects—Warship 2010: Advanced Technologies in Naval Design and Construction—Papers. 2010, pp. 171–181. Available online: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19700180705&tip=sid&clean=0 (accessed on 8 December 2020).
  105. Fahhama, L.; Zamma, A.; Mansouri, K.; Elmajid, Z. Towards a mixed method model and simulation of the automotive supply chain network connectivity. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Colloquium on Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Competitiveness and Innovation in Automobile and Aeronautics Industries (LOGISTIQUA 2017), Rabat, Morocco, 27–28 April 2017; pp. 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  106. Zammit, J.P.; Gao, J.; Evans, R. The challenges of adopting PLM tools involving diversified technologies in the automotive supply chain. In Proceedings of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Seville, Spain, 10–12 July 2017; Volume 517, pp. 59–68. [Google Scholar]
  107. Chiang, P.H.; Torng, C.C. Development of total logistics support management information system and its applications to the aerospace industry. Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2016, 23, 482–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Cherry, S. Who Goes There? Proc. IEEE Spectr. 2002, 39, 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  109. Ren, N.; Liu, J.; Su, X.; Wang, P.; Yin, J. A research on the project of digital comprehensive capability platform for shipbuilding. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 254, pp. 487–491. [Google Scholar]
  110. Gorecki, S.; Possik, J.; Zacharewicz, G.; Ducq, Y.; Perry, N. A multicomponent distributed framework for smart production system modeling and simulation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yang, J.; Lee, S.; Kang, Y.S.; Do Noh, S.; Choi, S.S.; Jung, B.R.; Lee, S.H.; Kang, J.T.; Lee, D.Y.; Kim, H.S. Integrated Platform and Digital Twin Application for Global Automotive Part Suppliers. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 592, pp. 230–237. [Google Scholar]
  112. Sokol, D.Z. Improving the supply chain by sharing intelligent technical data packages. SAE Int. J. Aerosp. 2010, 2, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhao, J.Z. JT as the foundation of collaboration in ship lifecycle: The first iso standard for lightweight 3D visualization. In Proceedings of the RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects—International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS 2013), Busan, Korea, 24–26 September 2013; Volume 3, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  114. Swan, M. Blockchain for Business: Next-Generation Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Systems. Adv. Comput. 2018, 111, 121–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Idris, M.R.; Prakash, P.S.; Abdullah, A. E-Kanban hybrid model for Malaysian automotive component suppliers with IoT solution. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, UAE, 10–12 March 2020; pp. 728–738. [Google Scholar]
  116. Alvarado, K.; Rabelo, L.; Moraga, R.; Quijada, S.; Gruber, F.; Sepulveda, J. Application of SCOR to e-government: A case study. Int. J. Simul. Process Model. 2007, 3, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Alexander, D. Collaboration software (2003). Aerosp. Eng. 2003, 23, 25–27. [Google Scholar]
  118. Chryssolouris, G.; Makris, S.; Xanthakis, V.; Mourtzis, D. Towards the internet-based supply chain management for the ship repair industry. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2004, 17, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Makris, S.; Mourtzis, D.; Papakostas, N.; Chryssolouris, G. E-Collaboration for Ship Repair Supply Chain Management. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Catania, Italy, 19–22 September 2005; Volume 1, pp. 713–718. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ahlers, R. Cooperative design by using intelligent electronic supplier catalogs in the maritime industry. J. Sh. Prod. 2004, 20, 193–199. [Google Scholar]
  121. Mehdi, N.; Starly, B. Witness Box Protocol: Automatic machine identification and authentication in industry 4.0. Comput. Ind. 2020, 123, 103340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Chandriah, K.K.; Raghavendra, N.V. Architectural Framework for Industry 4.0 Compliance Supply Chain System for Automotive Industry. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 986, pp. 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  123. Das, A.; Franciosa, P.; Prakash, P.K.S.; Ceglarek, D. Transfer function of assembly process with compliant non-ideal parts. In Proceedings of the Procedia CIRP; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 21, pp. 177–182. [Google Scholar]
  124. Finke, G.R.; Schmitt, A.J.; Singh, M. Modeling and simulating supply chain schedule risk. In Proceedings of the Proceedings—Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5–8 December 2010; pp. 3472–3481. [Google Scholar]
  125. Satterberg, J.; Bloyer, D. Boeing commercial airplane factory modeling part 2—Simulation modeling for decision support to “Right-Size” receiving and inspection. In Proceedings of the IIE Annual Conference and Exhibition 2004, Houston, TX, USA, 15–19 May 2004; pp. 3771–3821. [Google Scholar]
  126. Li, G.; Lv, C.; Cheng, Y. Research on innovation of shipbuilding supply chain management based on complexity adaptive system. In Proceedings of the ICEIS 2011—13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Beijing, China, 8–11 June 2011; Volume 1, pp. 389–395. [Google Scholar]
  127. Dev, A.K.; Fung, Z.K. Simulation of hull panel logistics improvement in a shipyard. In Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects—19th International Conference on Computer Applications in Shipbuilding (ICCAS 2019), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 24–26 September 2019; Volume 1, p. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  128. Verma, A.; Devulapalli, J. Design of simulation tools for training programs in lean manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2006 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, IMECE 2006—Mechanical Engineering Technology Department Heads, Chicago, IL, USA, 5–10 November 2006. [Google Scholar]
  129. Taluru, D.R.; Allabanda, R.P.U. Application of data analytics in gas turbine engines. In Proceedings of the ASME 2019 Gas Turbine India Conference (GTINDIA 2019), Chennai, India, 5–6 December 2019; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  130. Nikolopoulos, L.; Boulougouris, E. A methodology for the holistic, simulation driven ship design optimization under uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Marine Design XIII, Espoo, Finland, 10–14 June 2018; Volume 1, pp. 227–244. [Google Scholar]
  131. Skobelev, P. Towards autonomous ai systems for resource management: Applications in industry and lessons learned. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 10978, pp. 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  132. Queen, K.H. Six emerging aerospace capabilities to watch. Manuf. Eng. 2017, 159, 81–83. [Google Scholar]
  133. Van Dyke Parunak, H.; Baker, A.D.; Clark, S.J. AARIA agent architecture: From manufacturing requirements to agent-based system design. Integr. Comput. Aided. Eng. 2001, 8, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Serfati, C.; Sauviat, C. Global supply chains and intangible assets in the automotive and aeronautical industries. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 2019, 19, 183–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Dumitrascu, O.; Dumitrascu, M.; Dobrotǎ, D. Performance evaluation for a sustainable supply chain management system in the automotive industry using artificial intelligence. Processes 2020, 8, 1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Schulze-Horn, I.; Hueren, S.; Scheffler, P.; Schiele, H. Artificial Intelligence in Purchasing: Facilitating Mechanism Design-based Negotiations. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 34, 618–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Linger, R. Behavior computation to validate aerospace software cyber security: A knowledge management process. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, Washington, DC, USA, 21–25 October 2019; Volume 2019. [Google Scholar]
  138. Frazier, P.D.; Gilmore, E.T.; Collins, I.J.; Chouikha, M.F. Novel counterfeit detection of integrated circuits via infrared analysis: A case study based on the Intel Cyclone II FPGAS. In Proceedings of the Proceedings—International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Jeju, Korea, 10–13 July 2016; Volume 1, pp. 404–409. [Google Scholar]
  139. Kennedy, J.; Holt, T.; Cheng, B. Automotive cybersecurity: Assessing a new platform for cybercrime and malicious hacking. J. Crime Justice 2019, 42, 632–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Hutchins, M.J.; Bhinge, R.; Micali, M.K.; Robinson, S.L.; Sutherland, J.W.; Dornfeld, D. Framework for Identifying Cybersecurity Risks in Manufacturing. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 1, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Warwick, G. Aerospace tackles barriers to use of cloud computing. In Proceedings of the Aviation Week and Space Technology, New York, NY, USA, 26 October–8 November 2010; Volume 172, p. 76. [Google Scholar]
  142. Zeiler, J.; Fottner, J. Architectural Design for Special Load Carriers as Smart Objects in a Cloud-based Service System. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA 2019), Tokyo, Japan, 12–15 April 2019; pp. 644–652. [Google Scholar]
  143. Smythe, S.A.; Thomas, B.M.; Jackson, M. Recycling of titanium alloy powders and swarf through continuous extrusion (Conformtm) into affordable wire for additive manufacturing. Metals 2020, 10, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Strong, D.; Kay, M.; Wakefield, T.; Sirichakwal, I.; Conner, B.; Manogharan, G. Rethinking reverse logistics: Role of additive manufacturing technology in metal remanufacturing. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 31, 124–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Qiao, D.; Wang, B.; Cridland, M. Additive manufacturing for marine and offshore applications. In SNAME Maritime Convention; The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  146. Szymczyk, P.; Smolina, I.; Rusińska, M.; Woźna, A.; Tomassetti, A.; Chlebus, E. Logistical aspects of transition from traditional to additive manufacturing. In Proceedings of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Wroclaw, Poland, 17–18 September 2018; Volume 835, pp. 752–760. [Google Scholar]
  147. Mahaboob Sheriff, K.M.; Kerbache, L. Implementation of additive manufacturing (Am) for automotive supply chain transformation in post covid-19 scenario-a barrier analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Detroit, MI, USA, 10–14 August 2020; p. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  148. Eryilmaz, U.; Dijkman, R.; Van Jaarsveld, W.; Van Dis, W.; Alizadeh, K. Traceability blockchain prototype for regulated manufacturing industries. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Singapore, 8–10 July 2020; pp. 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  149. Butean, A.; Pournaras, E.; Tara, A.; Turesson, H.; Ivkushkin, K. Dynamic consensus: Increasing blockchain adaptability to enterprise applications. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 1226, pp. 433–442. [Google Scholar]
  150. Zhu, J.; Wu, M.; Liu, C. Research on the Application Mode of Blockchain Technology in the Field of Shipbuilding. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of 2020 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Applications (ICAICA 2020), Dalian, China, 27–29 June 2020; pp. 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  151. Dutta, P.; Choi, T.M.; Somani, S.; Butala, R. Blockchain technology in supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research opportunities. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 142, 102067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Stroud, A.; Ertas, A. Complex multi-system integration problems associated with titanium metalworking and manufacture: System of systems aproach—Part I. Metals 2019, 9, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Silva-Martinez, J.; Schrage, D. Proposed variants for a collaborative aerospace lifecycle systems engineering master’s program. In Proceedings of the 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, National Harbor, MD, USA, 13–17 January 2014; p. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  154. Braglia, M.; Frosolini, M. An integrated approach to implement Project Management Information Systems within the Extended Enterprise. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wang, X.; Le, X. Discussions about Supply Logistics in Automobile Industry of China. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1544, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Bartlett, P.A.; Julien, D.M.; Baines, T.S. Improving supply chain performance through improved visibility. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2007, 18, 294–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Vilko, J.; Ritala, P.; Hallikas, J. Risk management abilities in multimodal maritime supply chains: Visibility and control perspectives. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 123, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Fraser, I.J.; Müller, M.; Schwarzkopf, J. Transparency for multi-tier sustainable supply chain management: A case study of a multi-tier transparency approach for SSCM in the automotive industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Keivanpour, S.; Ait Kadi, D.; Mascle, C. End of life aircrafts recovery and green supply chain (a conceptual framework for addressing opportunities and challenges). Manag. Res. Rev. 2015, 38, 1098–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sherafati, M.; Bashiri, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Pishvaee, M.S. Achieving sustainable development of supply chain by incorporating various carbon regulatory mechanisms. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 81, 102253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Li, G.; Li, L.; Choi, T.M.; Sethi, S.P. Green supply chain management in Chinese firms: Innovative measures and the moderating role of quick response technology. J. Oper. Manag. 2020, 66, 958–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Liboni, L.B.; Cezarino, L.O.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Oliveira, B.G.; Stefanelli, N.O. Smart industry and the pathways to HRM 4.0: Implications for SCM. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 24, 124–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Thaib, D. Drivers of the green supply chain initiatives: Evidence from indonesian automotive industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2020, 8, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ahmed, S.M.; Karmaker, C.L.; Doss, D.A.; Khan, A.H. Modeling the barriers in managing closed loop supply chains of automotive industries in Bangladesh. Int. J. Supply Oper. Manag. 2020, 7, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Pop, A.B.; Ţîţu, A.M. Implementation of advanced product quality planning in the aerospace industry a way to improve the quality management. Qual. Access Success 2020, 21, 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  166. Abollado, J.R.; Shehab, E. A Systems Approach for the Definition of Lean Workflows in Global Aerospace Manufacturing Companies. Procedia CIRP 2018, 70, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Lascu, E.; Lascu, F.D.; Stinga, F.; Severin, I. Process redesign to reduce stocks of obsolete parts in automotive industry. J. Gen. Manag. 2020, 21, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  168. Elhammouchi, C.; Abouabdellah, A. Proposal of professional referential evaluating the performance of downstream supply chain in Moroccan automotive industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Paris, France, 26–27 July 2018; Volume 2018, pp. 716–722. [Google Scholar]
  169. Turi, A.; Mocan, M.; Ivascu, L.; Goncalves, G. Managing success: The benefits of marketing effectiveness and strategic plan adaptation in automotive industry. In Proceedings of the 29th International Business Information Management Association Conference—Education Excellence and Innovation Management through Vision 2020: From Regional Development Sustainability to Global Economic Growth, Vienna, Austria, 3–4 May 2017; pp. 2047–2059. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Macro Supply Chain processes adapted from [1].
Figure 1. Macro Supply Chain processes adapted from [1].
Materials 13 05625 g001
Figure 2. Research methodology for this study.
Figure 2. Research methodology for this study.
Materials 13 05625 g002
Figure 3. Articles considered from each sector.
Figure 3. Articles considered from each sector.
Materials 13 05625 g003
Figure 4. Sustainable Supply Chain facilitators.
Figure 4. Sustainable Supply Chain facilitators.
Materials 13 05625 g004
Figure 5. Focus technologies in Supply Chain Management (SCM) digitalization.
Figure 5. Focus technologies in Supply Chain Management (SCM) digitalization.
Materials 13 05625 g005
Figure 6. Sustainable Supply Chain-driving methodologies.
Figure 6. Sustainable Supply Chain-driving methodologies.
Materials 13 05625 g006
Table 1. Comparison of SC facilitators.
Table 1. Comparison of SC facilitators.
AerospaceShipbuildingAutomotive
MethodologiesLean practices improve SC performance [11,12,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]Lean strengthens the probability of success of Supply Chain Management [78,79]Lean provides competitive advantages, quality, and flexibility performance [80,81] and improves dealer service through an inventory management model [82]
Agile practices evaluate new event with restructuring suggestions [75,83,84,85]The Agile methodology identifies improvements in the relationship between the shipyard and its suppliers [85,86]Agile provides competitive advantages, quality, and flexibility performance [80,87] and is used as a strategy for supplier selection [88]
Green practices make an important contribution to SC sustainability and suppliers [73,75,86,89,90,91]Green practices contribute to a sense of social responsibility and competitive advantage [86,92]Green practices improve the relationship between companies and green suppliers, improves the capacity to develop green products, and increases the competitiveness of companies in the market [93] and minimizes the total cost [94]
Resilient initiatives improve SC sustainability and social improvements in safety and environmental health [70,72,73,83,95]The resilient paradigm is compromised by the social and functional aspects of the I4.0 performance model [96]Resilient methodologies to SC are preferable to focus on minimizing costs [97], improve the selection of sustainable and appropriate suppliers, and maximize value by developing close and long-term relationships [98]
ModelsClosed-Loop SC models help increase profits by transforming and remanufacturing waste [86]Closed-Loop SC models help increase profits by transforming and remanufacturing waste [86]Adding value to remanufacturing practices [99] collaborating with environmental management [100]
No evidence of Circular EconomyCircular economy helps to reduce CO2 emissions [101]Circular economy provides priority solution measures to formulate effective strategies to overcome failures in the adoption of SC management [63]
Environmental sustainability by applying the product life cycle management system [90,102,103]Product lifecycle management (PLM) contributes to efficient control and distribution, minimizes costs, and reduces lead times [104]Product life-cycle management (PLM) approach supports decision making [105], reduces the time to market, and satisfies the end customer needs [106]
InfrastructureUse of technological platforms to improve logistics capacity [107] and to develop the reference architecture and define the standards to exchange electronic information securely [108]The use of technological platforms achieves an important integration and collaboration with its suppliers and customers [109]Through a platform with several simulation components, the control of the manufacturing systems is established [110]. In addition, an integrated platform based on a cyber–physical system provides optimal use of manufacturing resources in dynamic, real-time environments to increase efficiency and responsiveness to uncertain market changes [111]
Data Sharing Package allows the reduction of SC inefficiencies [112]Lightweight data format for the visualization of 3D product information and the collaboration of all SC agents in all phases of the ship lifecycle [113]Data-sharing protocols based on Blockchain technology provide reliability [114]. Data sharing on production planning and scheduling using IoT can reduce product preparation and delivery time [115]
Analysis, design, and performance improvement of the SC by applying the SC Operations Reference Model (SCOR) using the internet [116,117]Web-based software framework that enables electronic collaboration between companies working together for ship repair [118,119],
An open communication infrastructure guarantees the success of SC [120]
Providing benefits to remanufacturing practices through the use of Big Data using the Internet [99]
TechnologiesIoT: Registering and verifying the identity of the machines simplifying the management of the assets within the connected SC [121]IoT: Identification and tracking of the pipes of a ship during its construction [32], offering solutions for the management of services and operations [34]IoT: Allowing connectivity for later analysis through simulation [110]. This exchange of data on production planning and scheduling using IoT can reduce product preparation and delivery time [115,122]
Simulation: To accurately model or predict the effects of joining and fixing parts [123], analyzing SC performance [124], for decision support [125]Simulation: Management tool [107], to solve complicated problems of SC management [126], identify the critical control point to mitigate the effects caused by the disproportion in the logistic flow [127]Simulation: As a training tool for ship design processes [128] and as a tool for decision making [105]
Big Data Analytics: Support for dynamic production capacity and decision making of the SC [129]Big Data Analytics: Used to optimize the design of a vessel and to maximize efficiency and safety in an existing one [130], focused on the reduction of emissions [21,22]Big Data Analytics: Providing advantages to remanufacturing practices [99]
Artificial Intelligence: Adaptive resource management based on multi-agent technology [131], to produce more affordable parts, faster, and with less weight [132]Artificial Intelligence: Using control architecture and programming of the production plant [133], focused on reducing CO2 [23]Artificial Intelligence: new dimension of the relationship between financing and production [134]. Solves problems in the management of the SC that can track, communicate, analyze, and ensure the overall sustainability of the system [135]. Facilitate the execution of mechanism design-based negotiations [136]
Cybersecurity: To derive the behavior of programs with hidden malicious operations and supporting workforce productivity [137], providing operational certainty of SC systems [138]Cybersecurity: Improving economic, energy, and environmental aspects [96]Cybersecurity: Threat deterrence and mitigation function [139]. Provides mechanisms for identifying generic and manufacturing-specific vulnerabilities [140]
Cloud Computing: Providing unlimited processing to SC management [141]Cloud Computing: Improving economic, energy, and environmental aspects [96]Cloud Computing: Allows the collection, supply, and analysis of relevant data in all companies that make up the SC [122,142]
Additive Manufacturing: Supporting sustainability in CS through material recycling [143], remanufacturing of high-value parts on the reverse logistics supply chain [144]Additive Manufacturing: Enabling design flexibility, reducing waste, and integrating subassemblies [145], Negative aspect: increased delivery time, shipping cost, inventory requirements, and transportation vulnerability [146]Additive Manufacturing: Used during the supply stage; it changes complex subsets into a single integrated structure [147]
Blockchain: Ensuring traceability by certified agents in the SC [148,149]Blockchain: strengthening production security in the collaborative development process, improving the integrity and traceability of Supply Chain data [150]Blockchain: provides reliability in the creation of protocols to share processes, business logic, and financial ledgers [114]. Guarantees the security, transparency, and visibility of the network from the origin of the SC, the reengineering of the business processes to the improvement of the security [151]
Collaborative ProgramsUse of system of systems to address multi-system integration problems associated with SC [152], Collaborative Aerospace Life Cycle Systems Program that integrates from the beginning of the aerospace design process [153]Information systems for project management with integrated approach [154], high integration and collaboration between design, manufacturing, and management functions [109]Logistics integration through collaborative supply chain innovation [155]
Gaining transparency between the central company and its suppliers, exchanging high-quality information leads to significant improvements in overall SC performance [156]Through transparency, collaborative risk management in SC management shows collaborative control mechanisms [157]Through the Blockchain technology, the security, transparency, and visibility of the network is guaranteed [151].
Focal companies increase multi-tier SC management transparency for sustainability [158]
Through the implementation of sustainable policies with long-term strategies among the agents involved in SC [159]Through carbon policies based on the sustainability characteristics of the region, the level of design of Supply Chain networks is improved, cost is reduced, and the environmental impact is improved [160]The application of Green strategies to the management of CS helps companies establish innovative and effective policies [161]. Closed-Loop SC provides recommendations for sustainable policies [100]
No evidence of the I4.0 training programs despite potential benefits to SC management [162]No evidence of I4.0 training programs despite potential benefits to SC management [162]Design of training tools for ship design processes through the use of simulation [128]
Multi-Stage ImplementationNo evidence of culture in the sector in relation to SCNo evidence of culture in the sector in relation to SCImplementing Green practices in the management of SC collaborates in the implementation of socio-cultural responsibility [163]
No evidence of multifunctional approach in the sector in relation to SCNo evidence of multifunctional approach in the sector in relation to SCMultifunctional approach using Closed-Loop SC [164]
Continuous improvement of the quality of products and processes [165] system to define a Lean workflow [166]Through collaborative tools that allow completely managing the SC in continuous improvement [154]Continuous improvement to reduce stocks [167], evaluating the performance of the downstream supply chain [168,169]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramirez-Peña, M.; Mayuet, P.F.; Vazquez-Martinez, J.M.; Batista, M. Sustainability in the Aerospace, Naval, and Automotive Supply Chain 4.0: Descriptive Review. Materials 2020, 13, 5625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245625

AMA Style

Ramirez-Peña M, Mayuet PF, Vazquez-Martinez JM, Batista M. Sustainability in the Aerospace, Naval, and Automotive Supply Chain 4.0: Descriptive Review. Materials. 2020; 13(24):5625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245625

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramirez-Peña, Magdalena, Pedro F. Mayuet, Juan Manuel Vazquez-Martinez, and Moises Batista. 2020. "Sustainability in the Aerospace, Naval, and Automotive Supply Chain 4.0: Descriptive Review" Materials 13, no. 24: 5625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245625

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop