Next Article in Journal
Study on Liking and Disliking in the Historical Urban Landscape of Ibarra, Ecuador
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards Cleaner Ports: Predictive Modeling of Sulfur Dioxide Shipping Emissions in Maritime Facilities Using Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
An HBIM Integrated Approach Using Non-Destructive Techniques (NDT) to Support Energy and Environmental Improvement of Built Heritage: The Case Study of Palazzo Maffei Borghese in Rome
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/su151411391
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Supply Chain in the Digital Age: A Scientometric–Thematic Literature Review

by
Agnieszka A. Tubis
1,
Katarzyna Grzybowska
2,* and
Bartosz Król
2
1
Department of Technical Systems Operation and Maintenance, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wyspianskiego Street 27, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
2
Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, Jacka Rychlewskiego Street 2, 60-965 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 11391; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411391
Submission received: 5 June 2023 / Revised: 15 July 2023 / Accepted: 19 July 2023 / Published: 22 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability in Logistics and Supply Chain Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The digitization of logistics processes enables, among others, real-time data exchange, which is currently the driving force of the modern economy, as well as functioning supply chains. Digital transformation has been accelerated in recent years, primarily by the development of the Industry 4.0 concept. It is also perceived as a trend supporting the sustainable development of organizations and industries. The main research challenge was identifying current research directions related to the digitalization of supply chains. Therefore, this article aims to present the literature review results of the last five years (2018–2022) regarding the digitalization of supply chains. The research used the PRISMA method (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 127 articles were analyzed. On this basis, we proposed a two-level qualifications framework that includes eight core categories and sixteen subcategories. The main contributions of this work are as follows: providing a complete and up-to-date (last five years) literature review on supply chains in the digital age from a global perspective that summarizes the current state of the art in an integrated framework; and provides an indication of the two most significant challenges currently observed, which are interrelated. The first key challenge is the digital transformation of businesses and supply chains; the second is sustainable development, which focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals; reducing the complexity of the issue by providing structure and clarity (Identifying categories and subcategories as the mind map); and identifying research gaps that we will work on in the future. Based on the review, we indicate three identified research gaps: there is a lack of research assessing the use of digitalization to build supply chain resilience; there are no studies evaluating the risk of the negative impact of technologies and threats on relations integrating future supply chains; and there is a lack of research on the changing role of man in modern logistics systems.

1. Introduction

Real-time data exchange is a major driving force of modern economy and society and is viewed as a core engine of the Fourth Industrial Revolution [1,2]. For this reason, we have been observing the intensive development of digitization processes and the technologies supporting them for several years. Initially, digitization was mainly identified or associated with the electronic version of a document or sound [3]. Currently, however, this concept is perceived from a broader perspective and is identified with the various socio-technical phenomena and processes of adopting and using digital technologies in a more comprehensive individual, organizational, and societal context [4]. The critical issue in the contemporary understanding of digitalization is the awareness that it is not only a process of technology adoption but, above all, a fundamental change taking place in organizational strategy, business processes, organizational knowledge, and the whole socio-technical organizational system [5]. This point of view is also confirmed by research [6], according to which digitalization introduces changes regarding the following: (1) technical capabilities and technological infrastructure in the organization, (2) organization strategy and development directions, (3) human factor potential, and (4) integration of all. For this reason, it should be stated that although digitalization is mainly associated with technological changes, other factors also determine the success of its implementation.
Digitalization is now a trend that forces enterprises to adapt and improve their digital capabilities in every respect. This is emphasized by many authors, including [5,7,8]. Digital technology transforms the internal and external elements of the organization and their mutual relationships, significantly affecting the company’s performance [9]. Technological and organizational changes also significantly impact the human factors in the implemented processes. Human capital is the basis of any undertaking related to organizational changes [6]. For this reason, digital transformation also forces the development of specialized capabilities in an organization’s employees and workers [10,11].
Digital transformation is also perceived as a trend supporting the sustainable development of organizations and industries. Many authors (e.g., [12]) indicate that the Fourth Industrial Revolution intensively supports the transition of enterprises towards more sustainable and circular production models. Jabbour et al. [13] emphasize that future initiatives related to the development of the circular economy will have opportunities and challenges that depend on applying new digital technologies. These technologies provide organizations with smarter products, devices, and services, which assist businesses and their value chains and reduce environmental impacts [14,15]. On the other hand, some studies show the negative impact of Industry 4.0 on the environment. As Chen et al. note, this is due to [16]: (1) the generation of large amounts of e-waste; (2) absorbing more and more materials, which speeds up the depletion of natural resources; and (3) high energy consumption and large emissions generated by data centers. Therefore, research on the impact of digitization on sustainable development should focus on both positive and negative effects.
Digitalization also supports the integration of management structures [17] and cooperation in supply chains. In today’s dynamically changing supply chains, their links face many challenges in their activities, such as global competitiveness, a lack of adaptability, and time to market [14]. For this reason, digitalization in supply chains is mainly focused on implementing many techniques that monitor real-time items, reduce idle time in production, visualize a smart interconnected network, make more efficient use of resources, optimize supply chain inventories to enable supplier risk assessment, and provide excellent visibility along the supply chain [18]. However, as Herold et al. note, despite the growing interest in digital services and products, the emergence of digitalization in the logistics and supply chain industries needs more attention [19]. This is incomprehensible because, as Kayapinar Kaya and Aycin note, any changes in production are directly reflected in supply chains [18]. For this reason, implementing Industry 4.0 solutions in manufacturing will also force transformations from the traditional to the digital supply chain. They also note that this is possible by integrating physical logistics processes with digital data and increasing the visibility of each link in the supply chain [18]. For this reason, digital transformation is one of the key trends whose development has a significant impact on the current functioning of supply chains and the future directions of changes and investments. Therefore, we considered it justified to conduct a literature review, the purpose of which was to seek answers to the following research questions:
  • Q1: What are the research directions related to the digitalization of supply chains over the last five years (2018–2022)?
  • Q2: Which research areas are particularly interesting to the scientific community (high publication rate), and which are still in the early stages of development or less popular?
  • Q3: Is there a research gap that should be analyzed due to recent economic and political changes?
The aim of this article is, therefore, to present the results of the literature review, which, in addition to the answers to the research questions defined above, makes an essential scientific contribution in the form of:
  • Development of a two-level classification framework for research in the analyzed area according to the assumptions of the concept map;
  • Conducting the qualification procedure following the adopted distribution criteria based on the results of the literature research;
  • Detailed characteristics of research on the digitalization of supply chains from the last five years.
The outline of this review paper is as follows: Section 2 presents the research method based on which we identified and selected articles as part of the prepared literature review. Section 3 describes the main results of the bibliometric analysis. Section 4 presents the detailed results of the analytical procedure, including a map of concepts, the division into categories and subcategories, the results of the classification procedure, and the characteristics of articles assigned to individual categories. Section 5 will deliver the discussion results, define theoretical and practical contributions, and identify the research gaps in the analyzed area. Finally, Section 6 describes the conclusions, limitations, and further lines of planned research.

2. Materials and Methods

Booth et al. [20] distinguish two types of information (overview) documents. Depending on the method of conducting the review, the following can be distinguished: (1) review plan, a method understood as a more informal note prepared for research; and (2) review protocol, which is a very detailed information document about the characteristics and methodological and analytical approach adopted in this study. The PRISMA (the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol was used for this study to minimize bias in selecting bibliographies for the literature review. Moreover, a graphical diagram of the procedure was presented to enable the reader to view the research procedure adopted by the authors (Figure 1).
Like any research activity, a systematic literature review should be properly planned (phase 1). In our case, planning the review involved determining the scope of this study and selecting the method, which was then used to answer the research questions. Then, an initial literature search was carried out to determine the scope of literature on the topic of interest to us, and verification of alleged research gaps in scientific research was conducted. Thanks to this, we ensured that the planned literature review was necessary. We have confirmed that no systematic reviews are analogous to the one we are planning. At this stage, the final form and wording of the research questions were also established. The right keywords were identified, and because they determine the scope of the obtained database and affect the results of the entire review, the proposed list of keywords was subject to internal discussion in the research team. At this stage, the electronic indexing databases used in this study were also indicated, and the criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of publications for this study and the search strategy used in the entire search were established.
Two selected electronic indexing databases were searched using keywords in the second research phase. The article search strategy was based on the search procedure for scientific publications in: (1) The Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, an indexing database provided by Clarivate Analytics—it is an interdisciplinary (multidisciplinary) research platform that records the content of over 12,000 high-profile journals and over 160,000 conferences worldwide; (2) Scopus, an indexing database provided by Elsevier—indexes content from 24,600 active titles from 5000 publishers. We chose these two databases because they contain publications from the most important publishing houses and conferences related to technical sciences and management. At the same time, the materials published in them are subject to scientific reviews, which allows the research to include results with the required quality parameters. The free-text searching strategy was also used, which allows searching for specific words in the topic fields, i.e., in the title, abstract, and keywords (considering differences in spelling rules) and using search filters.
In review publications, keywords constitute a specific framework that specifies the analysis area. Choosing keywords allows researchers to reach the most appropriate target group. Since the keywords selected for the review determine the scope of the primary database obtained and affect the results of the entire review, the prepared list of keywords was discussed with the research team. The first keyword in finding the right publications for the analysis was the term “supply chain”. It was chosen freely based on a basic premise, i.e., the main keyword was taken from the title of the article we prepared due to the primary research area. The second concept of searching for publications was “digital”. It was chosen because we consider the digitization of operations in supply chains. The third keyword chosen for this study was the term “technology”, because we are interested in the context of technology in this study. The last concept included in the review was the concept of “digitalization”. The effect of digitization is the digitization of the supply chain, whose development has been accelerated due to the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept. And this aspect of the functioning of modern supply chains is crucial for us, following the research questions posed in Section 1.
With a list of scientific publications that met all the criteria for inclusion in the review, detailed analysis and selection were carried out. In the first place, those publications that were duplicated in both indexing databases were removed. Based on a detailed review, scientific publications whose description went beyond the scope of the conducted research, e.g., related to banking, were excluded. As a result of individual analyses and internal discussion in the research team, 127 scientific publications were included in further qualitative and quantitative analysis. Detailed quantitative results of the procedure following the PRISMA protocol are presented in Figure 2.
Thanks to a well-thought-out and systematic review of scientific publications, it was possible to proceed to the following research stage. The synthesis and content analysis of 127 selected scientific publications following explicit and consistently applied rules prevented intentional manipulation of the content analysis results.
The synthesis and analysis of the results first required organizing data from scientific publications and grouping them into logical categories. The next step was critically analyzing each scientific publication, its content within the separate categories, and its evaluation. As a result of the research conducted, seven main categories of scientific publications were specified (Figure 2).

3. Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis was used to quantitatively analyze 127 selected open-access scientific publications published in 2018–2022 (Figure 3). It uses mathematical and statistical methods to evaluate the results of scientific activity in an interesting research area. Let us recall that scientific publications were selected based on two databases indexing scientific works: Web of Science and Scopus. The proceedings were completed in December 2022.
The growing number of published scientific papers from year to year indicates that the selected thematic area of research is important for science and economic practice. Digitalization in the current world is becoming a priority for enterprises and supply chains. It helps enterprises and organizations transform their activities and processes into systems supported by modern, highly advanced technology.
For this study, research areas related to the indicated research area were verified. In total, 53 areas of knowledge were specified, which shows that the researched subject is characterized by multidisciplinary specificity, which is related to the mutual complementation of issues and concepts from various fields of science. There are six leading areas of knowledge, of which three can be considered crucial, as their total share is about 84% (Table 1).
The Business Economics group includes 39 scientific publications. Digitalization takes place at many levels of the functioning of enterprises and supply chains. It focuses on economic factors that affect business, as confirmed by the articles included in this group. Publications in this area of knowledge focus on management and applied economics, and 35 scientific publications were assigned to the Engineering group. Publications in this knowledge area use technical, scientific, practical, and empirical knowledge to digitize enterprises and supply chains. The area of knowledge in Environmental Sciences: Ecology (33 scientific publications) is also not surprising. Research confirms that the digitalization of business supports the processes of achieving sustainable economic practices and focusing on greater sensitivity to environmental and social aspects.
The bibliographic analysis lists the six most crucial source titles in which the identified scientific works appeared (Table 2). The Sustainability magazine had the most significant impact on promoting research in the researched area. A total of 21 scientific publications were published under this title alone. In other cases, the total number of published articles did not exceed two.
MDPI (the most significant number of publications—38) is the leading publisher promoting publications on the analyzed subject. It is a publishing house that supports the policy of free and unlimited access to the full texts of published articles. Elsevier is also quick to act to meet various open access requirements—25 scientific publications have been identified here (Table 3).
An analysis was also carried out using a tool for analyzing knowledge visualization using semantic maps. The result is a science map. Using mapping and visualization opens up new research perspectives in inter- and transdisciplinary fields. The analysis allows for examining the structure of science, a field, or an area of knowledge.
For keywords, 678 were extracted from 127 scientific publications. The separated set of concepts was subject to the “normalization” process. This means that the listed keywords have been standardized as to the form of writing (lower/uppercase letters, words with hyphens), and nouns have been transformed from plural to singular (e.g., “digitalization”, “artificial-intelligence” to “artificial intelligence”).
The result is a network based on 34 keywords that appear at least five times (i.e., according to the software’s default threshold for the minimum occurrence of keywords). The VOSviewer software [21] was used for this study, which implements the VOS cluster technique (Visualization of Similarities).
The most frequent word is the supply chain, linked with other words 273 times. The second word that is also often connected is the concept of digitalization (271 links).
As a result of the cluster analysis using the VoSviewer software version 1.6.9, three conceptual clusters were identified by separating a group of similar objects (Table 4), which intensively coexist. These clusters are a set of closely related objects (Figure 4).
The conceptual clusters listed on the semantic map are internally highly uniform and externally highly differentiated. Conceptual clusters are like separate sub-areas of knowledge; you can see their connections as interactions on the map. Sub-areas of knowledge can interact with each other, change, and develop each other.

4. Results

The analysis of publications allowed us to identify eight research categories and 16 subcategories, which were presented as a mind map (Figure 5). It should be noted, however, that based on the content of the selected articles and the scope of the research described, it was possible to classify them into two or more categories. The assignment of individual articles to defined categories and subcategories is presented in Table 5, which is attached to the article.

4.1. Literature Review

The digital revolution has continued for many years, and Industry 4.0 has only intensified its development and application. For this reason, many authors undertake the challenge of reviewing the literature, the purpose of which is to identify existing research gaps, determine current and future directions of research conducted in the world, and answer questions important from the point of view of their research in this area.

4.1.1. Circular Economy (CE)

Researchers point to the need to involve digital technologies in the Circular Economy [12]. Remanufacturing is recognized as a key CE strategy. The key to remanufacturing success is leveraging existing and emerging digital technologies to shorten and strengthen the links between product manufacturers, users, and remanufacturers [22]. Researchers point to pursuing a holistic achievement of sustainable digitalization to benefit people, prosperity, and the planet and implement the Sustainable Development Goals [23]. In the context of the Circular Economy, they explore the use of new technologies [24]. Tavana et al. discover big data, data analytics, blockchain, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the Internet of Things as the most critical technologies for facilitating supply chain digital transformation [25].

4.1.2. Traceability and Agility

Researchers identify research gaps, for example, between theoretical frameworks and actual implementations of traceability [26]. Based on a literature review, Chang and Chen examined blockchain technology’s current state and future directions in supply chain management [27] toward agility and traceability. Seyedghorban et al. indicate that the area of supply chain digitalization is starting to attract growing attention; however, its research status remains unclear [28]. Another review shows a two-way managerial approach to the relationship between digitalization and open access [29]. Conversely, Amentae and Gebresenbet identified infrastructure and cost challenges for practical applications [30]. Researchers indicate that breakthrough technologies such as IoT, blockchain, and artificial intelligence are gradually affecting the modus operandi of the food industry, especially regarding the traceability of products and ingredients [31]. Meanwhile, the public sentiment analysis on this topic showed a generally positive social overtone to technological changes in agri-food production [32]. Park and Li focus on blockchain-based supply chain management and its sustainability performances in environmental protection, social equity, and governance efficiency [33]. They pay attention to supply chain management’s transparency, reliability, traceability, and efficiency.

4.1.3. Disruptive Technologies

Researchers explore scientific advances related to breakthrough technologies through a literature review [34] and chart promising paths for future research [35]. They highlight the impact of digital transformation on small and medium enterprises (SMEs) [36] and the integration of sustainable economic development and digital technologies [37].
On the other hand, Hänninen et al., based on a review of the retail literature, determined the future directions of the development of retail supply chains [38]. They identified five research areas that aim to better understand technological and digital developments in the retail sector. Mthimkhulu and Jokonya suggest that technical factors (security, complexity, and cost), organizational factors (management support), and environmental factors (competition, IT policy and regulations, and support) affect the adoption of blockchain technology in the supply chain and logistics industry [39]. Chen et al. identify practices relating to the management of sustainable work development based on digital technology and indicate best practices [40].
Researchers are also analyzing breakthrough technologies through systematic literature reviews. Based on the analyses, a supply chain innovation matrix was developed that links operational and management practices to innovation outcomes [41]. An analysis of digital technologies by Samoggia et al. allows a better understanding of their most popular features [42]. Li and Kassem indicate that distributed ledger technology (DLT) (e.g., blockchain) and smart contracts to ‘supplementary’ technologies are used in conjunction with other technologies, e.g., applications [43].

4.1.4. Models

In one of the papers, the authors identified 28 models of maturity. Each focuses on a specific supply chain function or digital technology [44]. Whereas Queiroz et al. proposed a new perspective on categorizing maturity levels [45]. As part of the analysis presented in [46], the authors proposed possible ways of implementing digital transformation for specific supply chain models. The research presented in [47] highlights the features of high-performance food production chain models.

4.2. Digital Transformation

As defined by Abdallah et al. [6], digital transformation is a customer-centric mechanism that enables continuous improvement in the productivity of the manufacturing processes using advanced digital technologies, such as cloud computing, the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, digital twins, and artificial intelligence, in all aspects of the organization. Digital transformation is perceived as a solution to improve the current cooperation of partners in supply chains through better communication, greater transparency, and, above all, faster data exchange. For this reason, many authors in their research define a conceptual framework for the effective implementation of digital technologies to improve processes carried out by individual organizations as well as cooperation between links in the analyzed supply chains. Abdallah et al., in their research, distinguished four areas of the digital transformation framework [48]: (1) people; (2) enabling technology and tools; (3) business processes; and (4) strategy and leadership. In many cases, digital transformation analyses are universal, referring to broadly understood production processes and the implementation of Industry 4.0 solutions in global supply chains. Some publications, however, focus on selected sectors and the specificity of supply chains operating in them. With all this in mind, we propose the creation of four subcategories in the “Digital Transformation” category.

4.2.1. Framework of Digitalization

The conceptual framework for implementing digitalization is most often related to improving the production or purchasing process. An example of such research is purchasing digitalization and assessing data analysis’s role in digitizing orders, as presented in [49]. On the other hand, Sjodin et al. presented a proposal to modify purchasing process models by implementing digital solutions [50].
In some publications, the authors focus on selecting an appropriate digitalization strategy and identifying the required implementation stages. Ho et al. identified and evaluated three approaches for formulating digital strategies in production supply chains [51]: (1) top-down, (2) bottom-up; and (3) mixed. Every identified typology is supplemented with determinant criteria for digital supply chain strategy formulation, i.e., number of suppliers, market demand, and product types. A proposal for a framework for implementing digitalization in manufacturing enterprises was also developed by [52]. The framework he presented can be used to position and discuss companies’ digitalization and automation initiatives concerning business-, manufacturing-, and supply chain- digital strategies. Many authors [6,48] also identified the most critical steps in implementing digital transformation for manufacturing supply chains. On the other hand, Deepu and Ravi, in their research, identified key decision-making factors that became the basis for developing a conceptual framework for effective digitalization of the supply chain [53]. A conceptual framework for using digital transformation to improve redistributed manufacturing was also presented by [54].
The framework for implementing digital technologies is also examined in the context of developing management concepts that support the functioning of supply chains. Ehie and Ferreira proposed using digital technologies to improve basic supply chain management processes under the SCOR model (Supply Chain Operation Reference model) [55]. Their research aimed to understand the conditions under which supply chain digitalization is more or less effective. In [56], however, digitization was proposed to improve the concept of DDMRP (Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning).
The implementation of digitalization often requires organizational and process changes. For this reason, Genzorova et al. proposed changes to business models adapted to the opportunities and requirements of digital transformation [57]. At the same time, Chen et al. developed a new supply chain coordination model based on data exchange using digitalization [17]. In [58], the authors proposed using digitalization to modernize processes in a selected enterprise, including as part of its cooperation with cooperators. Also, Chen et al. [59] have developed an integrated management structure based on digitization for the functioning of supply chains. Dolgui et al., in their research, developed an implementation framework for a reconfigurable supply chain that responds to the needs of changing environments [60]. A critical element of this framework is the use of digital technologies.

4.2.2. Assessment of the Impact of Digitalization on the Functioning of SC

The development of the concept of digitalization has had a powerful impact on changes both in individual enterprises and entire supply chains. For this reason, an important research area of this concept is the analysis of the impact assessment of the implementation of digitalization, which relates to both individual links and the entire supply chain. An example is the research presented in [61], which assessed the impact of digitalization on fast, fair, and safe humanitarian logistics. The presented results of the analysis may also concern a specific group of enterprises that come from one region. Examples of such analyses are presented in [62]. The authors assessed the level of impact of technology development and digitization on supply chains and organizational performance in Malaysian manufacturing enterprises. Digitalization is often analyzed in the context of global supply chains. For this reason, some authors assess its impact on the internationalization capacity of enterprises, in particular in the SME sector [36]. On the other hand, Gviliya et al. studied the depth of logistics integration and the accompanying level of digitalization in inter-organizational logistics entities [63].
One of the areas of impact is assessing the impact of digitization on building resilience throughout the supply chain. The research presented in [64] found that the development of digitization in individual chain links positively affects the level of their resilience. The impact of digitalization on building resilience in short food supply chains was also analyzed in [65].
Researchers in various aspects assess the impact of digitalization. The research presented in [66] is an example of an analysis that considers the mutual relations between objects of influence. The researchers proposed a model considering the interrelationships between Industrial Innovation, Inequality, and Inflation. Using the interplay between these variables, the researchers analyzed various scenarios, considering technology development, inequality rise, and massive unemployment, and providing an archetype for digital transformation and its impact on sustainability models. A broad view of the impact of digitalization was also presented by [67]. The authors identified and analyzed the impact of the Industrial Revolution 4.0 on goods and service production processes. The results indicated the breakthrough nature of the introduced changes and the resulting economic, social, and political effects.
Digitization affects not only the modification of existing processes, organizational structures, and technical systems but also the requirements for the competencies of managerial and operational staff. For this reason, in numerous publications, this impact is also analyzed by researchers. This aspect is discussed in detail in the category “Human capital”. The positive impact of digitalization on the creation of social capital and the efficiency of the supply chain was demonstrated, among others, by [68]. It should be noted, however, that such an impact is also assessed in terms of (1) the future role played by the management staff managing supply chains [69]; (2) changes in the directions of personnel development for the management of sea shipping handling deliveries in global supply chains [70]; and (3) as well as changes in the skills of employees employed in construction supply chains [71]. Song also indicates that digitizing container shipping will change the behavior and relationships of stakeholders in individual supply chains [72].

4.2.3. Identification of Challenges Related to Digitalization and Factors Determining Implementation

In many cases, the identification of challenges related to digitalization is preceded by interviews conducted among a selected group of enterprises. An example of such research is presented in [73]. The authors assessed the level of digitization of supply chains in which Romanian enterprises participated. Based on this research, they identified the main challenges emerging in the digitization process and good practices related to its implementation. Research on the challenges related to the implementation of digitization and Industry 4.0 tools was also studied by [74]. Their research indicated that coordination and collaboration are the most significant challenges to adopting Industry 4.0 out of the fourteen identified challenges, followed by resistance to change and governmental support. The implementation of digitization is a challenge, especially for partners in the SME sector. For this reason, Omrani et al. identified in their research, the factors that determine the implementation of digital transformation in small and medium-sized enterprises [75].
A significant challenge regarding digitalization is the selection of appropriate tools and technologies that meet the needs of modern supply chains. Research in this area was conducted by [76], who analyzed the scope of the implementation of new technologies in international business. Their results identified the drivers of the use of particular technologies in global supply chains. Similar analyses regarding the critical criteria for selecting I4.0 technology were conducted by [18]. In their research, the authors also identified the criteria for selecting suppliers to provide these technologies. Apart from traditional criteria such as price, quality, efficiency, and delivery conditions, these are criteria relating to the use of I4.0 technology, i.e., (1) Smart warehouse and shelving systems; (2) Intelligent Transportation system such as GPS, RFID (Radio-frequency identification), and dynamic sensors; (3) Employee training on Industry 4.0; (4) Use of autonomous machine; (5) Internet of Things (IoT) Implementation; and (6) Big data and Cloud computing. Also, Suleiman et al. presented research results to identify areas and concepts supported by Industry 4.0 solutions. They distinguished five such areas [77]: (1) Customer Orientation; (2) sustainability; (3) Knowledge Management; (4) Global Value Chain; and (5) Smart Factory. For each area, the authors proposed selecting appropriate solutions using I4.0 technologies.

4.2.4. Digitalization in the Selected Sector

In some articles, the possibilities of digitalization and its impact on the operation of supply chains are related to a specific sector. The research results for the analyzed sectors are presented in Table 5.
Table
Table 5. Conceptual clusters for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Table 5. Conceptual clusters for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
SectorResearch AreaAuthors
Agri-foodcritical challenges related to the implementation of digitalization[78]
improving food traceability and verifying its authenticity through digitalization[79]
creating digitization incubators[80]
the possibility of using digitalization to improve Agriculture 4.0 solutions[81]
building the resilience of short-food supply chain participants through digitalization[65]
implementation of digital transformation and automation in the meat industry[82]
Automotivethe impact of digital transformation on the integration of global value chains[83]
differences in the use and impact of digital technologies between manufacturing subsidiaries and lead companies[84]
Fashion/Textileusing digitalization in creating interactive clothing design systems[85]
implementation of an IoT-based solution for warehouse process management[86]
Woodrestructuring of business processes by implementing digital technologies[87]
Metallurgicaltools used in the metallurgy in Poland on the way to full digitalization[88]
Public servicesmodernization of processes by implementing blockchain technology[89]
assessing different approaches to digital transformation in the public services sector[90]
Humanitarian supply chainsthe impact of digitalization on fast, fair, and safe humanitarian logistics[61]
configuration of the technology portfolio and overcoming barriers related to the implementation of digital technologies[91]

4.3. Industry 4.0—Disruptive Technology

Another group of publications discusses the digitalization of supply chains and the technologies used. It should be noted that the technological context is widely discussed. For the specified category, five subcategories have been identified.

4.3.1. Blockchain Technology

Supply chain digitalization is a trend that refers to the evolution towards a more intelligent model that includes digital technologies [92]. These are Industry 4.0 disruptive technologies [93]. One of the most attractive technologies for supply chains seems to be Blockchain technology (BCT), which can be combined with others, e.g., Digital Twin [94], IoT [92], and Artificial Intelligence (AI) [95,96]. Mthimkhulu and Jokonya study the impact of blockchain adoption in the supply chain and logistics industries [39]. Digital supply chains are not the only ones struggling with issues such as traceability, transparency, and the trust of supply chain partners. Digital technologies have become more prevalent in different industries, for example, agriculture and the food industry. Many Industry 4.0 technologies (AI, IoT, BD, blockchain, robotics, and smart sensors) are used in the plant supply chain—from farm to fork [97].
Rana et al. [98] indicate that Blockchain technology can be integrated into the supply chain, e.g., in supply chain transactions [99], through data and security management [100], or to support transparency and poor exchange of information between the parties [101]. All of this is to deal with existing problems and improve the efficiency, reliability, and usability of data in supply chains. Blockchain technology helps enhance the various sources of trust in SCM and provides supply chain partners with protection mechanisms to avoid the risks and costs of opportunistic behavior in collaboration, shifting trust from relational to system-based and cognition-based [102]. Blockchain technology can be seamlessly combined with the Internet of Things (IoT) system [103], which generates and uses digital information throughout the chain.

4.3.2. Digital Twin

Blockchain technology ensures digital safety, and the digital twin model of supply chains enables digital mapping of the supply chain in virtual space. The digital twin enables real-time data processing and continuous updating of the status of facilities and processes in this supply chain. The digital model of supply chains will allow for finding reserves to optimize and transform all links of this chain [104], more effective data management [105], improved cooperation between enterprises, identification of inconsistencies, and knowledge transfer [94,105,106].

4.3.3. IoT and RFID

The use of IoT technology in an industrial environment allows for real-time data capture and artificial intelligence, data analytics [107], the introduction of digital traceability technology [108], and increased visibility along the whole value chain [56] to optimize supply chain performance.

4.3.4. Artificial Intelligence

The joint implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Blockchain technology in supply chains makes it possible to use the synergistic technical possibilities of these technologies to implement digital-driven traceability. Their interaction supports the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals [95]. A critical technology supporting the implementation of Artificial Intelligence is Big Data (BD). According to [96], Big Data is a crucial component of a fully digitized supply chain. The authors also indicate that with increasing digitalization among all stakeholders within the metal processing sector, digital transformation and digitalized value chains will subsequently increase, leading to further utilization of Big Data and corresponding technologies [96]. Artificial Intelligence can, for example, effectively improve resource efficiency [109].

4.3.5. Digital Marketing

It should be remembered that digitalization changes both buying and sales processes. Sales configurators support industrial marketing and supply chain management. It is a technology that supports the process of customer customization and visualization of a product or service [110]. We see that social media can also impact supply chain management [111]. Digital platforms can generally play a vital role in addressing these challenges by governing information flows across the supply chain and ensuring that intellectual property is protected and knowledge sharing happens without disclosing sensitive data [112].

4.4. Impact of Digitalization on Sustainable Development

Another group of publications separated by us is the one on the impact of the digitalization of supply chains on sustainable development and environmental protection. Three critical areas are highlighted in this category. These are Business Analytics, Environmental management, and Transport.

4.4.1. Business Analytics

As pointed out by Rusch et al., using digital technologies often entails only incremental improvements that result in a more sustainable business economy, e.g., increasing the efficiency of existing processes [113]. AI can also be an instrument to increase the transparency of sustainable supply chains [114]. Business analytics, which can support environmental protection issues, is also important. Research shows that companies with strong business analytics capabilities can excel in a circular economy more remarkably. Business analytics is highlighted as an essential enabler of an accelerated circular economy transition [115]. Business analytics can support the analysis of environmental data and energy consumption in the supply chain [116]. More radical forms of upgrade remain relatively rare [113].

4.4.2. Environmental Management

Parhi et al. indicate that, among others, infrastructure, technological solutions, and cyber security are the fundamental factors responsible for sustainable logistics 4.0 and sustainable supply chains [117]. This is confirmed by a study by Lee, who pointed to the positive impact of sustainable SCM on digital supply chain integration [118]. A classification system for sustainable development measures in decarbonization has been developed [119]. However, it should be remembered that Industry 4.0 and the digitalization of supply chains will not automatically improve the environment. Other supporting measures must also accompany the transition to a more sustainable economy [120]. Other studies suggest that sustainability assessments of, e.g., suppliers currently do not play a central role in supplier relationship management, primarily due to the lack of standardization that applies to indicator definitions and data properties [121]. The impact of digitalization and its environmental impact are also visible in agriculture and agricultural supply chains. Digital technologies are promoted as solutions to improve the efficiency and sustainability of agricultural production systems with economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Digital agricultural marketplaces and electronic platforms can connect producers directly with consumers, shorten agri-food supply chains, reduce food losses, and create new business opportunities for small agricultural producers [122]. The occurrence of the energy crisis in Europe in 2022, due to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, resulted in the development of energy-saving strategies in supply chains for sustainable development. Kunkel et al. focus on environmental sustainability aspects such as environmental data analysis and energy consumption in the supply chain [116].

4.4.3. Transport

The transport issue deserves attention in a separate group related to sustainable development. Considering that transport significantly impacts climate change (it is mainly responsible for CO2 emissions), the digitalization of transport is an important research area. Research indicates that two primary environmental sustainability goals should be considered: decarbonization and dematerialization [120]. The use of digital technologies and applications in transport and logistics significantly impacts sustainability, especially concerning the economic implications [123]. Ref. [124] presented a method of estimating the CO2 emission reduction potential for various Logistics 4.0 technologies. Based on a comparative analysis of the CO2 footprint, the possibilities of integrating some technological achievements of Logistics 4.0 [119] were assessed. Digitalization also concerns the creation of intelligent, environmentally and user-friendly IT systems. This is one of the directions for the development of transport around the world. Mobile applications, electronic tickets, electronic waybills, remotely managed transport, or digital platforms for predicting the maintenance of rolling stock or railway lines [125].

4.5. Impact of COVID-19 on Digitalization

Observations in many countries confirmed that the COVID-19 crisis (2019–2021) was a turning point in the use of digital technology—it accelerated the digital transformation of enterprises, education, schooling, and administration. The impulse for change was the need for society to adapt quickly to the new reality in this difficult time. At this time, companies needed to react to such situations as follows: (1) online sales increased dramatically [126]; (2) the number of disruptions in the work environment has grown, and new technologies have changed the way organizations work [127]; (3) accelerated the need to develop new skill sets [128]; and (4) explorative business process management (BPM) skills [127]. The pandemic has also undone progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and widened income inequalities [129]. Ref. [130] discusses how COVID-19 has accelerated the digitalization of the PDS (Public Distribution System in India). This study emphasized the need for the digitalization of PDS and proposed a three-layer conceptual framework: food grain supply chain networks, digital process automation, and digital technologies. Also, the work by Sridhar et al. discusses the pandemic’s global impact on food security and the digitalization of the agri-food sector [131]. Possible advancements like the use of digital tools, mainly artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and blockchain technology, in the agro-food sector have been discussed as they could be promising tools to develop a self-reliant society.

4.6. Hazards

In general, publications refer to research on the advantages and opportunities of the digitalization of supply chains. However, our research also identified a group of publications focusing on the dark side of supply chain digitalization. Publications that refer to the risks and threats resulting from the digitalization of supply chains have been separated. Research indicates the threats resulting from asymmetry and asynchronization that may occur in the supply chain. Son et al. indicate supplier-perceived digital capability asymmetry, wherein a buyer has a superior digital capability than its SME supplier, increases the SME supplier’s dependence on the more digitally capable buyer, resulting in more exposure to buyer opportunism [132]. And asynchronization was distinguished as a problem encountered when synchronizing the work of various participants in the digital supply chain [133]. Heim points to a reluctance to disclose supply chain information to potential competitors [134]. Researchers point out that digital technologies are often adopted to counter some of the existing threats in the supply chain. However, it should be remembered that their implementation introduces new sources of risk (e.g., cyber threats) [135] and widens income inequalities [129].

4.7. Human Capital

The introduction of digitalization has had the most significant impact on people and their current work. For this reason, some publications focus on aspects related to the human factor and social capital. Most of them assess the social impact of digitalization. The study of the impact of digitalization on the creation of social capital and the efficiency of the supply chain was assessed, among others, in [68]. Wehrle et al. also assessed the social impact of digitalization [69]. Their research analyzed the future role of supply chain management after digital transformation. Digitization affects employees employed in supply chains and other actors in these processes. For this reason, Song analyzed and assessed the impact of the digitalization of container shipping on changing behavior and relationships between stakeholders in supply chains [72]. Digitalization is also an essential knowledge domain for sea shipping management, as confirmed by the research presented in [70]. Among the other domains of maritime business, the personal development of the employed staff was also indicated. In [136], the author focused on corporate responsibility in the aspect of digitalization, bearing in mind the use of blockchain in supply chain management.
The second important area in this group is the impact of digitization on changes in employee competencies. Kuteyi and Winkler explored existing challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa and the region’s potential to implement modern digital technologies [137]. Their results clearly indicate that training to improve human capital competencies is the main challenge. This is also confirmed by research by Marinas et al., who developed a model for implementing digitalization, considering employee competencies, and assessing human resources for acquiring new digital skills [138]. Meyer et al., in their research, focused on building the potential for port workers based on training programs that increase competencies in digitalization [139]. Digital transformation is also dynamically changing the nature of the skills that workers in the construction sector should possess [71]. For this reason, it is necessary to introduce significant changes in the training programs for employees in this sector.

4.8. Other

There were articles in the research that described results that did not fit into any of the categories described above and, at the same time, were so unique that it was impossible to create a separate group of them. A separate group called “Others” has been created for these publications. In these publications, the authors focused their attention on:
  • Analysis of aspects related to business ethics in the light of implementing digital and mechatronic solutions [140].
  • Digital transformation of a human-centric manual assembly process by implementing a multi-criteria algorithm [141].
  • Development of digitization over the past 60 years in the logistics and supply chain sector [19].
  • Equipment maintenance model by utilizing digitization and organizational integration [142].
  • Using digitization to solve the information transmission problem between enterprises as part of project management [143].

5. Discussion

Modern supply chains, particularly the processes of their integration observed for many years, are a natural environment for digitizing internal processes and those carried out at the organization’s interface. The short response time to consumer needs, which has been required for many years, and changing economic and technological trends have forced companies to abandon traditional forms of cooperation in favor of flexible solutions that agilely adapt to the prevailing market conditions. The literature often emphasizes the need for organizations to adopt changing technologies to cope with shorter product life cycles and rapid environmental changes. The literature review presented in [3] shows that most publications related to the current development of technology focus on technologies such as cloud computing, wireless networks, big data, and the Internet of Things. An important area of their application is the exchange of information along supply chain links, supported by the digitization of primary and supporting processes.
The review results also point to the two most significant challenges today. It is digital transformation and sustainable development, i.e., strengthening digitalization that focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals and intensifying digital opportunities that foster sustainable social inclusion. Transforming enterprises and optimizing and automating processes using the opportunities offered by digital technologies and services are the basis for changing thinking and acting in supply chains. However, for the goal to be achieved in the implementation and sustainability of sustainable supply chains, it is necessary to take action to address the adverse effects of technology. The development of new technologies can pose significant hazards to the economy and society. Thanks to new technologies, breaking and crossing certain boundaries is easier. With technological progress, environmental pollution increases. Excessive use of scarce resources is increasing. The more technologically advanced the economy, the faster the development progresses, which drives consumer demand for ever newer technology. Thus, investing in digitalization can be a powerful driver of growth that supports the sustainable development of all actors in the international community, in the public and private sectors, as well as in civil society and the scientific community.
According to our research, digital transformation generates many challenges at the scale of one company and entire supply chains. Regarding supply chain management, the main challenge is coordinating processes and integrating data-sharing collaboration [72]. For this reason, in the published results, the authors propose various strategies for introducing digitalization [51] and supply chain coordination models based on data exchange [59]. Our literature research also indicates a strong connection between digitization processes and developing the Industry 4.0 concept. However, as [19] emphasized, in the results we obtained, it can be clearly seen that the aspects of Industry 4.0 technology relate primarily to the sphere of production and less to issues related to logistics operations. Among the most commonly used I4.0 tools in the context of supply chain integration, Blockchain technology is mentioned, which supports the conclusion of transactions between partners [99,100]. Another popular technology is the Internet of Things [14], which can support partners in collecting relevant information from the implemented logistics processes. An important aspect of digitalization is also the creation of various platforms that provide an environment for exchanging knowledge and operational data between participants in the supply chain. Such solutions include purchasing platforms, e.g., Procurement 4.0, described by [50]. The research directions adopted in this way result mainly from the fact that, in the aspect of the functioning of supply chains, the primary research attention is focused on relations and data exchange between cooperating enterprises.
The need for digitalization in supply chains is driven primarily by the changing conditions of modern enterprises. This is confirmed by the research collected in the “Impact of COVID-19 on digitalization” category. The conditions of functioning in the economy controlled by the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated, and in some areas even forced, the introduction of digital solutions. Six articles were qualified for this category, but many of the publications we analyzed from other categories began with the sentence “The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced the development of digital transformation...” (among others, [6,107]). Therefore, many results related to this research area should be expected to be published in the coming year.
Due to the existing political and economic situation, we currently see the need for dynamic changes in global supply chains. The armed conflict in Eastern Europe has forced the reconfiguration of many supply chains serving various sectors of the economy. Many Western manufacturers have broken off their cooperation with Russian contractors, and transporting goods through war zones is now impossible for many supply chains. This situation necessitates the search for solutions that, now and in the future, will help build the resilience of supply chains to this type of disruption and other disruptions. It seems that digitization is one such development path. In our research, only two papers [64,65] addressed aspects related to building resistance to disturbances. However, it should be expected that more and more such analyses will appear in the coming months (as was the case with the COVID-19 pandemic). After all, Eastern Europe is not the only area of armed conflict. In addition, the problem of interrupted supply chains and disruptions in the continuity of goods flows is now becoming a topical issue in humanitarian supply chains and other sectors (e.g., automotive in 2020–2021).
Our literature studies allowed us to finally define four fundamental research gaps. This is due to the lack of publications on: (1) assessing the use of digitization to build supply chain resilience; (2) risk assessment of the risk of the negative impact of technology and new threats on relations integrating future supply chains; and (3) the changing role of humans in digital logistics systems. The articles we identified do not sufficiently describe the scope and nature of the threats associated with implementing digital technologies and Industry 4.0. Of course, the asymmetry between supply chain participants, their reluctance to share information, and cybersecurity are important areas of the analyzed risk. However, there are no publications on the threats resulting from implementing cyber-physical systems, the automation and robotization of selected logistics processes, or the changing role of humans in modern logistics systems. In addition, we are witnessing the most significant transformation of the labor market in decades. Technologies that favor and enable automated activities eliminate and will increasingly eliminate human work. There is a legitimate concern that digital transformation and automation will result in the loss of millions of jobs worldwide. Of course, new technologies also create new jobs, but with a high specialization profile. This can lead to inequalities, primarily threatening medium- and low-skilled workers. Therefore, it is worth being aware that digital transformation and automation driven by artificial intelligence can significantly disrupt the labor market.
Our conclusion highlights the need for further research on the impact of digitalization on the modern supply chain. The stakeholders in supply chains face new opportunities related to digital transformation but also potential risks. As noted by Brunetti et al. [144], supply chain participants in their digitization strategies should take into account four areas of challenge, which we include
  • Market challenges related to changes in business models, producer-customer relations, and the evolution of servitization.
  • Organizational challenges relate primarily to knowledge management and increased access to information.
  • Economic challenges refer to new digital paradigms’ impact on labor demand.
  • Societal challenges deal with the impact of environmental sustainability, notably resource efficiency and energy consumption.
For this reason, Brunetti et al. in their research [144] indicate that in the face of currently observed intensive investments in new digital technologies supporting the functioning of supply chains, their stakeholders should consider in their activities how to face such defined challenges effectively.

6. Conclusions

The literature review allowed us to identify a group of 127 publications concerned with modern supply chains’ digitalization processes. This study has important implications for practitioners and researchers. The proposed classification framework shows the directions of research work dominating in the last five years, the results of which are published in international journals. This allowed us to identify the current research gap that people can fill by researching the development of supply chains and digitizing logistics processes. This is important from the point of view of the Industry 4.0 concept, whose further development is closely related to the digitization of primary and auxiliary processes in manufacturing, commercial, and service enterprises. At the same time, the result of classifying the analyzed documents has a practical dimension. It groups publications relating to particular aspects of the digitization of information flows in supply chains so that the classification framework is a guide for people looking for good practices in defined areas.
Our research procedure can be considered comprehensive. The results presented in this article answer the research questions formulated in Section 1: Introduction. In our analyses, we included the two most significant databases of journals (Web of Science and Scopus), and the choice of keywords was well thought out and confirmed by previous research. However, the focus of attention only on articles and proceedings papers and the lack of non-reviewed documents in the analysis, which often appear in magazines and on industry websites, can be considered limitations. However, such action is justified by our care for the quality of published results accepted for analysis. We also limited our analyses to articles available in open access. It was a conscious action because our previous experience shows that analyzing the content of articles only based on abstracts is insufficient. Therefore, to ensure the high quality of the results obtained from our research, we decided to introduce this limitation. However, we know that by doing so, we could exclude many valuable publications in the form of paid articles and conference materials distributed only to a small group of recipients.
The obtained results allowed us to define the existing research gaps and thus provide an answer to research question Q3. These research gaps will determine the future directions of our research. As a critical area of our future research, we have identified the need to identify the factors influencing the building of supply chain resilience to emerging external changes and the role of digitalization in this process. The second important direction of our future work will be identifying and analyzing risks related to digitalization processes, particularly their impact on new threats occurring in individual supply chain links and their mutual cooperation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.G. and A.A.T.; methodology, K.G. and A.A.T.; investigation, K.G., A.A.T. and B.K., formal analysis, K.G. and B.K.; resources, A.A.T.; writing—original draft preparation, K.G., A.A.T. and B.K.; writing—review and editing, K.G. and A.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koh, L.; Orzes, G.; Jia, F. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0): Technologies Disruption on Operations and Supply Chain Management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019, 39, 817–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Savastano, M.; Amendola, C.; Bellini, F.; D’Ascenzo, F. Contextual Impacts on Industrial Processes Brought by the Digital Transformation of Manufacturing: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Matt, D.T.; Pedrini, G.; Bonfanti, A.; Orzes, G. Industrial Digitalization. A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Eur. Manag. J. 2022, 41, 47–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Legner, C.; Eymann, T.; Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Böhmann, T.; Drews, P.; Mädche, A.; Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Digitalization: Opportunity and Challenge for the Business and Information Systems Engineering Community. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alsufyani, N.; Gill, A.Q. Digitalisation Performance Assessment: A Systematic Review. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abdallah, Y.O.; Shehab, E.; Al-Ashaab, A. Developing a Digital Transformation Process in the Manufacturing Sector: Egyptian Case Study. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 2022, 20, 613–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. George, G.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital Transformation, Sustainability, and Purpose in the Multinational Enterprise. J. World Bus. 2022, 57, 101326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Peng, Y.; Tao, C. Can Digital Transformation Promote Enterprise Performance? —From the Perspective of Public Policy and Innovation. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Meng, F.; Wang, W. Research on the Mechanism of Digitalization to the Improvement of Manufacturing Enterprises Performance Based on Mediating Effect. In Proceedings of the 2020 6th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM), London, UK, 27–29 March 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 122–126. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dhanpat, N.; Buthelezi, Z.P.; Joe, M.R.; Maphela, T.V.; Shongwe, N. Industry 4.0: The Role of Human Resource Professionals. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 18, a1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Giang, N.T.H.; Hai, P.T.T.; Tu, N.T.T.; Tan, P.X. Exploring the Readiness for Digital Transformation in a Higher Education Institution towards Industrial Revolution 4.0. Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. 2021, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Awan, U.; Sroufe, R.; Bozan, K. Designing Value Chains for Industry 4.0 and a Circular Economy: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Jabbour, A.B.L.d.S.; Sarkis, J.; Filho, M.G. Unlocking the Circular Economy through New Business Models Based on Large-Scale Data: An Integrative Framework and Research Agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 546–552. [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. Atif, S.; Ahmed, S.; Wasim, M.; Zeb, B.; Pervez, Z.; Quinn, L. Towards a Conceptual Development of Industry 4.0, Servitisation, and Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, X.; Despeisse, M.; Johansson, B. Environmental Sustainability of Digitalization in Manufacturing: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, Q.; García de Soto, B.; Adey, B.T. Supplier-Contractor Coordination Approach to Managing Demand Fluctuations of Ready-Mix Concrete. Autom. Constr. 2021, 121, 103423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kayapinar Kaya, S.; Aycin, E. An Integrated Interval Type 2 Fuzzy AHP and COPRAS-G Methodologies for Supplier Selection in the Era of Industry 4.0. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 33, 10515–10535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Herold, D.M.; Ćwiklicki, M.; Pilch, K.; Mikl, J. The Emergence and Adoption of Digitalization in the Logistics and Supply Chain Industry: An Institutional Perspective. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 34, 1917–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Booth, A.; Sutton, A.; Clowes, M.; Martyn-St James, M. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact; Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kerin, M.; Pham, D.T. Smart Remanufacturing: A Review and Research Framework. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 31, 1205–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Caiado, R.G.G.; Scavarda, L.F.; Azevedo, B.D.; de Mattos Nascimento, D.L.; Quelhas, O.L.G. Challenges and Benefits of Sustainable Industry 4.0 for Operations and Supply Chain Management—A Framework Headed toward the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; Parida, V. Towards the Smart Circular Economy Paradigm: A Definition, Conceptualization, and Research Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tavana, M.; Shaabani, A.; Raeesi Vanani, I.; Kumar Gangadhari, R. A Review of Digital Transformation on Supply Chain Process Management Using Text Mining. Processes 2022, 10, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gharaibeh, L.; Eriksson, K.M.; Lantz, B.; Matarneh, S.; Elghaish, F. Toward Digital Construction Supply Chain-Based Industry 4.0 Solutions: Scientometric-Thematic Analysis. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chang, S.E.; Chen, Y. When Blockchain Meets Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review on Current Development and Potential Applications. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 62478–62494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Seyedghorban, Z.; Tahernejad, H.; Meriton, R.; Graham, G. Supply Chain Digitalization: Past, Present and Future. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 96–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ciampi, F.; Faraoni, M.; Ballerini, J.; Meli, F. The Co-Evolutionary Relationship between Digitalization and Organizational Agility: Ongoing Debates, Theoretical Developments and Future Research Perspectives. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 176, 121383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Amentae, T.K.; Gebresenbet, G. Digitalization and Future Agro-Food Supply Chain Management: A Literature-Based Implications. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Abdollahi, A.; Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Ghobakhloo, M. Digitalization in Food Supply Chains: A Bibliometric Review and Key-Route Main Path Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 14, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ancín, M.; Pindado, E.; Sánchez, M. New Trends in the Global Digital Transformation Process of the Agri-Food Sector: An Exploratory Study Based on Twitter. Agric. Syst. 2022, 203, 103520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Park, A.; Li, H. The Effect of Blockchain Technology on Supply Chain Sustainability Performances. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Felsberger, A.; Reiner, G. Sustainable Industry 4.0 in Production and Operations Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rad, F.F.; Oghazi, P.; Palmié, M.; Chirumalla, K.; Pashkevich, N.; Patel, P.C.; Sattari, S. Industry 4.0 and Supply Chain Performance: A Systematic Literature Review of the Benefits, Challenges, and Critical Success Factors of 11 Core Technologies. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2022, 105, 268–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dethine, B.; Enjolras, M.; Monticolo, D. Digitalization and SMEs’ Export Management: Impacts on Resources and Capabilities. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2020, 10, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cricelli, L.; Strazzullo, S. The Economic Aspect of Digital Sustainability: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hänninen, M.; Kwan, S.K.; Mitronen, L. From the Store to Omnichannel Retail: Looking Back over Three Decades of Research. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 2021, 31, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mthimkhulu, A.; Jokonya, O. Exploring the Factors Affecting the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Supply Chain and Logistic Industry. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 16, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, C.; Feng, Y.; Shen, B. Managing Labor Sustainability in Digitalized Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Malacina, I.; Teplov, R. Supply Chain Innovation Research: A Bibliometric Network Analysis and Literature Review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 251, 108540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Samoggia, A.; Monticone, F.; Bertazzoli, A. Innovative Digital Technologies for Purchasing and Consumption in Urban and Regional Agro-Food Systems: A Systematic Review. Foods 2021, 10, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, J.; Kassem, M. Applications of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contracts in Construction. Autom. Constr. 2021, 132, 103955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hellweg, F.; Lechtenberg, S.; Hellingrath, B.; Thomé, A.M.T. Literature Review on Maturity Models for Digital Supply Chains. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2021, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Queiroz, M.M.; Fosso Wamba, S.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Machado, M.C. Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies by Organizations: A Maturity Levels Perspective. Ann. Oper. Res. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Nitsche, A.-M.; Kusturica, W. Modelling Advanced Technology Integration for Supply Chains. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Online, 25–27 April 2022; SCITEPRESS—Science and Technology Publications: Setúbal, Portugal, 2022; pp. 397–407. [Google Scholar]
  47. Emmanouilidis, C.; Bakalis, S. Digital Technology Enablers for Resilient and Customer Driven Food Value Chains. In Advances in Production Management Systems. Towards Smart and Digital Manufacturing. APMS 2020. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Lalic, B., Majstorovic, V., Marjanovic, U., von Cieminski, G., Romero, D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 592, pp. 649–657. [Google Scholar]
  48. Abdallah, Y.O.; Shehab, E.; Al-Ashaab, A. Towards Managing Digital Transformation in Manufacturing Industry: Theoretical Framework. Adv. Transdiscipl. Eng. 2021, 15, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hallikas, J.; Immonen, M.; Brax, S. Digitalizing Procurement: The Impact of Data Analytics on Supply Chain Performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021, 26, 629–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sjodin, D.; Kamalaldin, A.; Parida, V.; Islam, N. Procurement 4.0: How Industrial Customers Transform Procurement Processes to Capitalize on Digital Servitization. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ho, W.R.; Tsolakis, N.; Dawes, T.; Dora, M.; Kumar, M. A Digital Strategy Development Framework for Supply Chains. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 70, 2493–2506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sjøbakk, B. The Strategic Landscape of Industry 4.0. In Advances in Production Management Systems. Smart Manufacturing for Industry 4.0. APMS 2018. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Moon, I., Lee, G., Park, J., Kiritsis, D., von Cieminski, G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 536, pp. 122–127. [Google Scholar]
  53. Deepu, T.S.; Ravi, V. A Conceptual Framework for Supply Chain Digitalization Using Integrated Systems Model Approach and DIKW Hierarchy. Intell. Syst. Appl. 2021, 10–11, 200048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zaki, M.; Theodoulidis, B.; Shapira, P.; Neely, A.; Tepel, M.F. Redistributed Manufacturing and the Impact of Big Data: A Consumer Goods Perspective. Prod. Plan. Control 2019, 30, 568–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ehie, I.; Ferreira, L.M.D.F. Conceptual Development of Supply Chain Digitalization Framework. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2019, 52, 2338–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pekarčíková, M.; Trebuňa, P.; Kliment, M.; Edl, M.; Rosocha, L. Transformation the Logistics to Digital Logistics: Theoretical Approach. Acta Logist. 2020, 7, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Genzorova, T.; Corejova, T.; Stalmasekova, N. How Digital Transformation Can Influence Business Model, Case Study for Transport Industry. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 40, 1053–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Belli, L.; Davoli, L.; Medioli, A.; Marchini, P.L.; Ferrari, G. Toward Industry 4.0 With IoT: Optimizing Business Processes in an Evolving Manufacturing Factory. Front. ICT 2019, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chen, Q.; Adey, B.T.; Haas, C.T.; Hall, D.M. Exploiting Digitalization for the Coordination of Required Changes to Improve Engineer-to-Order Materials Flow Management. Constr. Innov. 2022, 22, 76–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dolgui, A.; Ivanov, D.; Sokolov, B. Reconfigurable Supply Chain: The X-Network. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 4138–4163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Khan, M.; Khan, M.; Ali, A.; Khan, M.I.; Ullah, I.; Iqbal, M. Digitalization for Fast, Fair, and Safe Humanitarian Logistics. Logistics 2022, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lee, K.L.; Azmi, N.A.N.; Hanaysha, J.R.; Alzoubi, H.M.; Alshurideh, M.T. The Effect of Digital Supply Chain on Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study in Malaysia Manufacturing Industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 10, 495–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gviliya, N.; Parfyonov, A.; Shulzhenko, T. Managing Integrated Interorganizational Logistic Systems in the Digital Economy. Upravlenets 2019, 10, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zouari, D.; Ruel, S.; Viale, L. Does Digitalising the Supply Chain Contribute to Its Resilience? Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2021, 51, 149–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Michel-Villarreal, R.; Vilalta-Perdomo, E.L.; Canavari, M.; Hingley, M. Resilience and Digitalization in Short Food Supply Chains: A Case Study Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pasqualino, R.; Demartini, M.; Bagheri, F. Digital Transformation and Sustainable Oriented Innovation: A System Transition Model for Socio-Economic Scenario Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rymarczyk, J. Technologies, Opportunities and Challenges of the Industrial Revolution 4.0: Theoretical Considerations. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2020, 8, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kim, H.K.; Lee, C.W. Relationships among Healthcare Digitalization, Social Capital, and Supply Chain Performance in the Healthcare Manufacturing Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wehrle, M.; Lechler, S.; von der Gracht, H.A.; Hartmann, E. Digitalization and Its Impact on the Future Role of SCM Executives in Talent Management—An International Cross-Industry Delphi Study. J. Bus. Logist. 2020, 41, 356–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Koh, L.Y.; Li, X.; Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F. Key Knowledge Domains for Maritime Shipping Executives in the Digital Era: A Knowledge-Based View Approach. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2022, 11, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hodorog, A.; Petri, I.; Rezgui, Y.; Hippolyte, J.-L. Building Information Modelling Knowledge Harvesting for Energy Efficiency in the Construction Industry. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 1215–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Song, D. A Literature Review, Container Shipping Supply Chain: Planning Problems and Research Opportunities. Logistics 2021, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rugiubei, R.; Pînzaru, F. The Digitalization of Supply Chain Management in Romanian Companies: An Introductive Research. Proc. Int. Conf. Bus. Excell. 2022, 16, 1295–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kamali Saraji, M.; Streimikiene, D.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L. Fermatean Fuzzy CRITIC-COPRAS Method for Evaluating the Challenges to Industry 4.0 Adoption for a Sustainable Digital Transformation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Omrani, N.; Rejeb, N.; Maalaoui, A.; Dabic, M.; Kraus, S. Drivers of Digital Transformation in SMEs. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ahi, A.A.; Sinkovics, N.; Shildibekov, Y.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Mehandjiev, N. Advanced Technologies and International Business: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Literature. Int. Bus. Rev. 2022, 31, 101967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Suleiman, Z.; Shaikholla, S.; Dikhanbayeva, D.; Shehab, E.; Turkyilmaz, A. Industry 4.0: Clustering of Concepts and Characteristics. Cogent Eng. 2022, 9, 2034264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Anastasiadis, F.; Tsolakis, N.; Srai, J. Digital Technologies Towards Resource Efficiency in the Agrifood Sector: Key Challenges in Developing Countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. McVey, C.; Elliott, C.T.; Cannavan, A.; Kelly, S.D.; Petchkongkaew, A.; Haughey, S.A. Portable Spectroscopy for High Throughput Food Authenticity Screening: Advancements in Technology and Integration into Digital Traceability Systems. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 118, 777–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. D’Oronzio, M.A.; Sica, C. Innovation in Basilicata Agriculture: From Tradition to Digital. Econ. Agro-Aliment. 2021, 23, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R. Enhancing Smart Farming through the Applications of Agriculture 4.0 Technologies. Int. J. Intell. Netw. 2022, 3, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Echegaray, N.; Hassoun, A.; Jagtap, S.; Tetteh-Caesar, M.; Kumar, M.; Tomasevic, I.; Goksen, G.; Lorenzo, J.M. Meat 4.0: Principles and Applications of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Meat Industry. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Szalavetz, A. Digital Transformation—Enabling Factory Economy Actors’ Entrepreneurial Integration in Global Value Chains? Postcommunist Econ. 2020, 32, 771–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Szalavetz, A. Digitalisation, Automation and Upgrading in Global Value Chains—Factory Economy Actors versus Lead Companies. Postcommunist Econ. 2019, 31, 646–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sharma, S.; Koehl, L.; Bruniaux, P.; Zeng, X.; Wang, Z. Development of an Intelligent Data-Driven System to Recommend Personalized Fashion Design Solutions. Sensors 2021, 21, 4239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Khan, M.G.; Huda, N.U.; Zaman, U.K.U. Smart Warehouse Management System: Architecture, Real-Time Implementation and Prototype Design. Machines 2022, 10, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Labelle, E.R.; Kemmerer, J. Business Process Reengineering of a Large-Scale Public Forest Enterprise Through Harvester Data Integration. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2022, 43, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gajdzik, B.; Wolniak, R. Digitalisation and Innovation in the Steel Industry in Poland—Selected Tools of ICT in an Analysis of Statistical Data and a Case Study. Energies 2021, 14, 3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Doguchaeva, S.; Zubkova, S.; Katrashova, Y. Blockchain in Public Supply Chain Management: Advantages and Risks. Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 63, 2172–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Seepma, A.P.; de Blok, C.; Van Donk, D.P. Designing Digital Public Service Supply Chains: Four Country-Based Cases in Criminal Justice. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021, 26, 418–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Marić, J.; Galera-Zarco, C.; Opazo-Basáez, M. The Emergent Role of Digital Technologies in the Context of Humanitarian Supply Chains: A Systematic Literature Review. Ann. Oper. Res. 2022, 319, 1003–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Bigliardi, B.; Filippelli, S.; Petroni, A.; Tagliente, L. The Digitalization of Supply Chain: A Review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 200, 1806–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Amoozad Mahdiraji, H.; Yaftiyan, F.; Abbasi-Kamardi, A.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. Investigating Potential Interventions on Disruptive Impacts of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Circular Supply Chains: Evidence from SMEs of an Emerging Economy. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 174, 108753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pekarcikova, M.; Trebuna, P.; Kliment, M.; Rosocha, L. Material Flow Optimization through E-Kanban System Simulation. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2020, 19, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tsolakis, N.; Schumacher, R.; Dora, M.; Kumar, M. Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Implementation in Supply Chains: A Pathway to Sustainability and Data Monetisation? Ann. Oper. Res. 2022, 327, 157–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sorger, M.; Ralph, B.J.; Hartl, K.; Woschank, M.; Stockinger, M. Big Data in the Metal Processing Value Chain: A Systematic Digitalization Approach under Special Consideration of Standardization and SMEs. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hassoun, A.; Boukid, F.; Pasqualone, A.; Bryant, C.J.; García, G.G.; Parra-López, C.; Jagtap, S.; Trollman, H.; Cropotova, J.; Barba, F.J. Emerging Trends in the Agri-Food Sector: Digitalisation and Shift to Plant-Based Diets. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2022, 5, 2261–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Rana, S.K.; Kim, H.-C.; Pani, S.K.; Rana, S.K.; Joo, M.-I.; Rana, A.K.; Aich, S. Blockchain-Based Model to Improve the Performance of the Next-Generation Digital Supply Chain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Durack, C.F.; Blesik, T.; Düring, M.; Bick, M. Blockchain Applications in Supply Chain Transactions. J. Bus. Logist. 2021, 42, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Joannou, D.; Kalawsky, R.; Martínez-García, M.; Fowler, C.; Fowler, K. Realizing the Role of Permissioned Blockchains in a Systems Engineering Lifecycle. Systems 2020, 8, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Weerakoon, H.D.; Chandanie, H. Analysis of Feasibility of Blockchain Technology For International Trade Related to Sri Lankan Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the 9th World Construction Symposium 2021 on Reshaping Construction: Strategic, Structural and Cultural Transformations towards the “Next Normal”, virtually, 9–10 July 2021; The Ceylon Institute of Builders: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2021; pp. 75–85. [Google Scholar]
  102. Qian, X.; Papadonikolaki, E. Shifting Trust in Construction Supply Chains through Blockchain Technology. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2020, 28, 584–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ramkumar, G.; Kasat, K.; Khader, P.R.A.; Muhammed, P.K.N.; Raghu, T.; Chhabra, S. Quality Enhanced Framework through Integration of Blockchain with Supply Chain Management. Meas. Sens. 2022, 24, 100462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Semenov, Y.; Semenova, O.; Kuvataev, I. Solutions for Digitalization of the Coal Industry Implemented in UC Kuzbassrazrezugol. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 174, 01042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Moder, P.; Ehm, H.; Jofer, E. A Holistic Digital Twin Based on Semantic Web Technologies to Accelerate Digitalization. In Digital Transformation in Semiconductor Manufacturing. EADTC EADTC 2018 2019. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; Keil, S., Lasch, R., Lindner, F., Lohmer, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 670, pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  106. Moder, P.; Ehm, H.; Ramzy, N. Digital Twin for Plan and Make Using Semantic Web Technologies—Extending the JESSI/SEMATECH MIMAC Standard to the Digital Reference. In Digital Transformation in Semiconductor Manufacturing. EADTC EADTC 2018 2019. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; Keil, S., Lasch, R., Lindner, F., Lohmer, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 670, pp. 24–32. [Google Scholar]
  107. Sermuksnyte-Alesiuniene, K.; Simanaviciene, Z.; Bickauske, D.; Mosiiuk, S.; Belova, I. Increasing the Effectiveness of Food Supply Chain Logistics through Digital Transformation. Indep. J. Manag. Prod. 2021, 12, s677–s701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Beliatis, M.J.; Jensen, K.; Ellegaard, L.; Aagaard, A.; Presser, M. Next Generation Industrial IoT Digitalization for Traceability in Metal Manufacturing Industry: A Case Study of Industry 4.0. Electronics 2021, 10, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ben, K.; Feng, Z.; Cao, Y. Exploration and Practice of Intelligent Manufacturing of Electronic Information Equipment. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 892, 012056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Mahlamäki, T.; Storbacka, K.; Pylkkönen, S.; Ojala, M. Adoption of Digital Sales Force Automation Tools in Supply Chain: Customers’ Acceptance of Sales Configurators. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 91, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Agnihotri, R.; Kalra, A.; Chen, H.; Daugherty, P.J. Utilizing Social Media in a Supply Chain B2B Setting: A Knowledge Perspective. J. Bus. Logist. 2022, 43, 189–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Liu, Z.; Sampaio, P.; Pishchulov, G.; Mehandjiev, N.; Cisneros-Cabrera, S.; Schirrmann, A.; Jiru, F.; Bnouhanna, N. The Architectural Design and Implementation of a Digital Platform for Industry 4.0 SME Collaboration. Comput. Ind. 2022, 138, 103623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rusch, M.; Schöggl, J.; Baumgartner, R.J. Application of Digital Technologies for Sustainable Product Management in a Circular Economy: A Review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 32, 1159–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ebinger, F.; Omondi, B. Leveraging Digital Approaches for Transparency in Sustainable Supply Chains: A Conceptual Paper. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kristoffersen, E.; Mikalef, P.; Blomsma, F.; Li, J. The Effects of Business Analytics Capability on Circular Economy Implementation, Resource Orchestration Capability, and Firm Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 239, 108205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kunkel, S.; Matthess, M.; Xue, B.; Beier, G. Industry 4.0 in Sustainable Supply Chain Collaboration: Insights from an Interview Study with International Buying Firms and Chinese Suppliers in the Electronics Industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 182, 106274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Parhi, S.; Joshi, K.; Gunasekaran, A.; Sethuraman, K. Reflecting on an Empirical Study of the Digitalization Initiatives for Sustainability on Logistics: The Concept of Sustainable Logistics 4.0. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 2022, 4, 100058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lee, S.-Y. Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Digital-Based Supply Chain Integration, and Firm Performance: A Cross-Country Empirical Comparison between South Korea and Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Brinken, J.; Pabsch, C.; Behrendt, F. Decarbonization Potential of Logistic 4.0 Technologies in Apple Supply Chains. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 200, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Beier, G.; Matthess, M.; Guan, T.; Grudzien, D.I.d.O.P.; Xue, B.; de Lima, E.P.; Chen, L. Impact of Industry 4.0 on Corporate Environmental Sustainability: Comparing Practitioners’ Perceptions from China, Brazil and Germany. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 31, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Matthess, M.; Kunkel, S.; Xue, B.; Beier, G. Supplier Sustainability Assessment in the Age of Industry 4.0—Insights from the Electronics Industry. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 2022, 4, 100038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Bahn, R.A.; Yehya, A.A.K.; Zurayk, R. Digitalization for Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Potential, Status, and Risks for the MENA Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Kayikci, Y. Sustainability Impact of Digitization in Logistics. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 21, 782–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Brinken, J.; Trojahn, S.; Behrendt, F. Sufficiency, Consistency, and Efficiency as a Base for Systemizing Sustainability Measures in Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gerhátová, Z.; Zitrický, V.; Klapita, V. Industry 4.0 Implementation Options in Railway Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 53, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Akram, U.; Fülöp, M.T.; Tiron-Tudor, A.; Topor, D.I.; Căpușneanu, S. Impact of Digitalization on Customers’ Well-Being in the Pandemic Period: Challenges and Opportunities for the Retail Industry. Int. J. Environ Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ahmad, T.; Van Looy, A. Development and Testing of an Explorative BPM Acceptance Model: Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Koh, L.Y.; Yuen, K.F. Emerging Competencies for Logistics Professionals in the Digital Era: A Literature Review. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 965748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Srinivasan, N.; Eden, L. Going Digital Multinationals: Navigating Economic and Social Imperatives in a Post-Pandemic World. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2021, 4, 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Kumar, R.; Ganapathy, L.; Gokhale, R.; Tiwari, M.K. Scaling up the Digitalization of the Public Distribution System: A COVID-19 Pandemic Impetus. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2022, 55, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Sridhar, A.; Balakrishnan, A.; Jacob, M.M.; Sillanpää, M.; Dayanandan, N. Global Impact of COVID-19 on Agriculture: Role of Sustainable Agriculture and Digital Farming. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 42509–42525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Son, B.-G.; Kim, H.; Hur, D.; Subramanian, N. The Dark Side of Supply Chain Digitalisation: Supplier-Perceived Digital Capability Asymmetry, Buyer Opportunism and Governance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2021, 41, 1220–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Bekmurzaev, I.; Kurbanov, A.; Kurbanov, T.; Plotnikov, V.; Ushakova, E. Digital Technologies of Marketing Logistics and Risks of Their Implementation in Supply Chain. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 940, 012064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Heim, H. Digital Fashion Revolutions: Supply Chain Transparency, Digitalization and the Non-Disclosure Paradox. Fash. Pract. 2022, 14, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Kessler, M.; Arlinghaus, J.C.; Rosca, E.; Zimmermann, M. Curse or Blessing? Exploring Risk Factors of Digital Technologies in Industrial Operations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 243, 108323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Girrbach, P. Corporate Responsibility in the Context of Digitalization. Teh. Glas. 2021, 15, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Kuteyi, D.; Winkler, H. Logistics Challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa and Opportunities for Digitalization. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Marinas, M.; Dinu, M.; Socol, A.G.; Socol, C. The Technological Transition of European Manufacturing Companies to Industry 4.0. Is the Human Resource Ready for Advanced Digital Technologies? The Case of Romania. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2021, 55, 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Meyer, C.; Gerlitz, L.; Henesey, L. Cross-Border Capacity-Building for Port Ecosystems in Small and Medium-Sized Baltic Ports. TalTech J. Eur. Stud. 2021, 11, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ludin, D.; Wellbrock, W.; Müller, E.; Gerstlberger, W.; Gray, L.; Salat, S. Robotics in the Modern World of Work—Results From an Empirical Study Regarding Business Ethics. Teh. Glas. 2021, 15, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Turk, M.; Šimic, M.; Pipan, M.; Herakovič, N. Multi-Criterial Algorithm for the Efficient and Ergonomic Manual Assembly Process. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Grijalvo Martín, M.; Pacios Álvarez, A.; Ordieres-Meré, J.; Villalba-Díez, J.; Morales-Alonso, G. New Business Models from Prescriptive Maintenance Strategies Aligned with Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2020, 13, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhao, L.; Deng, J.; Ma, Y.; Zhu, Y. Design of Digital Business Center of Enterprise Project Management System Based on Information Technology. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1744, 022010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Brunetti, F.; Matt, D.T.; Bonfanti, A.; De Longhi, A.; Pedrini, G.; Orzes, G. Digital Transformation Challenges: Strategies Emerging from a Multi-Stakeholder Approach. TQM J. 2020, 32, 697–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 11391 g001 550
Figure 1. Five-phase procedure for conducting a systematic literature review; source: own work.
Figure 1. Five-phase procedure for conducting a systematic literature review; source: own work.
Sustainability 15 11391 g001
Sustainability 15 11391 g002 550
Figure 2. PRISMA-based flowchart of the systematic selection literature in the analyzed research area; source: own work.
Figure 2. PRISMA-based flowchart of the systematic selection literature in the analyzed research area; source: own work.
Sustainability 15 11391 g002
Sustainability 15 11391 g003 550
Figure 3. Number of scientific publications in 2018–2022 for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Figure 3. Number of scientific publications in 2018–2022 for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Sustainability 15 11391 g003
Sustainability 15 11391 g004 550
Figure 4. Visualization of the semantic web for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Figure 4. Visualization of the semantic web for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Sustainability 15 11391 g004
Sustainability 15 11391 g005 550
Figure 5. Identified categories and subcategories as the mind map; source: own work.
Figure 5. Identified categories and subcategories as the mind map; source: own work.
Sustainability 15 11391 g005
Table
Table 1. Fields of knowledge for the analyzed scientific publications in 2018–2022 for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Table 1. Fields of knowledge for the analyzed scientific publications in 2018–2022 for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Research AreasRecord Count% of 127
Business Economics3930.7%
Engineering3527.5%
Environmental Sciences: Ecology3325.9%
Science, Technology, and Other Topics2721.2%
Operations Research, Management Science1511.8%
Computer Science1310.2%
Table
Table 2. Source titles for the analyzed scientific publications in 2018–2022 for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Table 2. Source titles for the analyzed scientific publications in 2018–2022 for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Publication TitlesRecord Count% of 127
Sustainability2117%
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health43%
Annals of Operations Research32%
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology32%
International Journal of Production Economics32%
Journal of Business Logistics32%
Table
Table 3. Publishers that support research for the analyzed keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
Table 3. Publishers that support research for the analyzed keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization; source: own work.
PublishersRecord Count% of 127
MDPI3829.92%
Elsevier2519.68%
Emerald Group Publishing118.66%
Springer Nature118.66%
Table
Table 4. Clusters for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization according to VOSwiever; source: own work.
Table 4. Clusters for keywords Supply Chain & Digital & Technology & Digitalization according to VOSwiever; source: own work.
Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
AdaptationAnalyticsBlockchain
Artificial IntelligenceBarriersChallenges
BusinessBig DataInformation
CapabilitiesDesignModel
COVID-19DigitalizationTraceability
Dynamic capabilitiesFrameworkTrust
ImpactFuture
ImplementationIndustry 4.0
Information technologyInternet
InnovationInternet of Thing
IntegrationLogistics
ManagementSupply chain
PerformanceSustainability
Technology
Transformation
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tubis, A.A.; Grzybowska, K.; Król, B. Supply Chain in the Digital Age: A Scientometric–Thematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411391

AMA Style

Tubis AA, Grzybowska K, Król B. Supply Chain in the Digital Age: A Scientometric–Thematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):11391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411391

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tubis, Agnieszka A., Katarzyna Grzybowska, and Bartosz Król. 2023. "Supply Chain in the Digital Age: A Scientometric–Thematic Literature Review" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 11391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411391

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