Next Article in Journal
Long-Term NDVI Trends and Vegetation Resilience in a Seismically Active Debris Flow Watershed: A Case Study from the Wenchuan Earthquake Zone
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Link Between Digital Readiness and Sustainable Development: A Cluster Analysis of EU Countries
Previous Article in Special Issue
Digital Product Passport Design Supporting the Circular Economy Based on the Asset Administration Shell
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Towards Sustainable Industry 4.0: An MCDA-Based Assessment Framework for Manufacturing and Logistics

Faculty of Engineering and Economics of Transport, Maritime University of Szczecin, 70-507 Szczecin, Poland
Sustainability 2025, 17(11), 5082; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115082
Submission received: 15 April 2025 / Revised: 21 May 2025 / Accepted: 30 May 2025 / Published: 1 June 2025

Abstract

:
Industrial enterprises and their supply chain partners are increasingly seeking methods to optimise production and logistics processes while pursuing sustainable development goals. The complexity and high risk associated with implementing Industry 4.0 technologies calls for structured decision-making support. This study presents a novel multi-criteria evaluation framework that integrates technological, organisational, and sustainability dimensions to support strategic transformation efforts. The proposed model comprises four subspheres of manufacturing, four subspheres of supply chain and logistics, twenty-three emerging technologies, and four sustainability perspectives adapted to industrial contexts. A hybrid MCDM approach combining DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II is applied to identify causal relationships, prioritise technologies, and rank sustainability priorities across different dimensions. The methodology enables companies to determine which technologies should be implemented first and how these relate to broader sustainability objectives. The results provide a structured roadmap for decision-makers, highlighting five key strategic areas for the sustainable implementation of Industry 4.0. In addition to its managerial relevance, the proposed model offers scientific novelty by bridging previously siloed research areas and demonstrating a data-driven approach to transformation planning.

1. Introduction

The evolution of industrial systems has been increasingly shaped by the principles of digitalisation, automation, and sustainability. These shifts, encapsulated by the concept of Industry 4.0, are widely recognised as key enablers of transformation across manufacturing and logistics domains [1,2]. At the same time, the imperative to integrate environmental and social responsibility into industrial strategy has grown steadily, reinforcing the relevance of sustainable development in both research and practice [3]. In particular, Bag et al. [3] emphasise that the adoption of advanced manufacturing capabilities—rooted in the “10R” framework—can facilitate the alignment of Industry 4.0 implementation with sustainability goals. The convergence of these domains creates new opportunities and challenges, thus calling for integrated frameworks that support strategic decisions under complexity [4].
Building on this foundation, Vrchota et al. [1] provide a systematic review of how green process outcomes are linked to Industry 4.0 initiatives in the manufacturing sector, highlighting the measurable impacts of digital transformation on sustainability performance. However, despite these opportunities, several studies underline the existence of persistent organisational and technological barriers that hinder the transition towards more sustainable operations. Kumar et al. [5], for example, analyse structural impediments and coordination challenges in implementing circular supply chains under Industry 4.0 conditions.
Recent studies have highlighted the importance of balancing technological advancement with economic, environmental, and social considerations when deploying Industry 4.0 solutions. For instance, Bag et al. [6] propose a strategic roadmap for sustainable supply chain transformation through digital innovation. Other contributions highlight the potential of circular economy principles to reinforce resource efficiency and stakeholder engagement in technologically advanced production systems [6,7]. Moreover, interdisciplinary research increasingly recognises the need for systemic approaches to Industry 4.0 planning—ones that integrate resilience, agility, and sustainability [8,9]. This perspective reflects a shift from purely efficiency-driven transformation to more inclusive and long-term oriented models of industrial development.
In light of this, a growing body of literature supports the integration of sustainability frameworks and digital technologies within comprehensive decision-making architectures [10,11]. However, the current research remains fragmented in terms of how to evaluate and prioritise technologies under sustainability criteria, especially when strategic transformation is expected to address both production and logistics domains simultaneously. This study addresses that gap by proposing a multi-criteria evaluation model that links sustainability perspectives with Industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies in an integrated decision-support structure.
The review of the existing literature indicates a significant research gap in the application of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDM) methods to assess and identify issues covering three areas: sustainable development, Industry 4.0—with particular emphasis on production and supply chains—and modern technologies supporting these areas. Existing approaches frequently analyse these issues in a fragmented manner, without identifying the interdependencies and technological hierarchies. This article contributes novel cognitive value by (i) developing an integrated model that simultaneously takes into account, within Industry 4.0, four subspheres of sustainable production, four subspheres of supply chain management, twelve technologies from the area of production, eleven technologies from the area of logistics, and four main areas of sustainable development in enterprises; and (ii) building a ranking of the importance of the elements within the aforementioned domains.
The developed analysis scheme is based on the application of the DEMATEL–PROMETHEE II hybrid decision-making method, which enables both the identification of cause-and-effect relationships between the elements studied and their prioritisation within the decision-making process. The Industry 4.0 philosophy, combined with sustainable production and supply chain management, raises critical questions among both business practitioners and the academic community. To address the research gap, the following research questions have been formulated:
  • RQ1: Which modern technologies are the most important and should be prioritised by companies striving to implement the Industry 4.0 concept in the area of production and logistics?
  • RQ2: In what sequence should companies implement selected technologies and key aspects of production and supply chain management to effectively implement the goals of sustainable Industry 4.0?
The remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 comprises a review of related literature. Section 3 describes the model of 23 technologies, 8 subspheres of production and logistics within Industry 4.0, and 4 spheres of sustainable development. Section 4 is the theoretical foundations of the combined DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II methodology. Section 5 illustrates the application of the proposed methodology to build rankings of model elements. Section 6 contains a summary, formulates research limitations, and lays out directions for model development.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0

The integration of Industry 4.0 technologies into manufacturing systems has opened up new avenues for aligning productivity with sustainability goals. Godina et al. [12] analyse the impact of additive manufacturing on sustainable business models, demonstrating its potential to support more resource-efficient and decentralised production. Complementarily, Çınar et al. [13] investigate the application of machine learning in predictive maintenance as a means to enhance the sustainability of smart manufacturing operations.
Several reviews have outlined the broader role of digital technologies in supporting sustainable manufacturing transitions. Ching et al. [14] provide a roadmap connecting Industry 4.0 applications with long-term sustainability objectives, while Leng et al. [15] examine how blockchain technologies can support product lifecycle management and traceability in environmentally conscious systems.
In terms of conceptual development, Sartal et al. [16] trace the evolution of the sustainable manufacturing paradigm in the context of Industry 4.0, and Machado and Winroth [17] highlight emerging research priorities in this domain. Their work reflects the growing importance of systemic thinking and the need to bridge technological and organisational perspectives. Further contributions by Yadav et al. [18] and Kamble et al. [19] propose implementation frameworks and enabling strategies—including digital twin technologies—that support sustainability in manufacturing ecosystems, especially within developing economies.

2.2. Sustainable Supply Chains in Industry 4.0

The transformation of supply chains under Industry 4.0 is increasingly guided by the principles of sustainability and circularity. Dev et al. [20] explore how digitalisation can enhance reverse supply chain performance by integrating circular economy practices into operational models. Similarly, Bag et al. [21] propose a comprehensive framework linking Industry 4.0 technologies with supply chain sustainability, outlining directions for future empirical research.
Several studies have investigated the enabling role of advanced technologies in the diffusion of sustainability drivers across supply chain networks. Luthra et al. [22] provide a strength-based analysis of critical enablers for sustainable supply chains in emerging economies, while Esmaeilian et al. [23] highlight blockchain as a key infrastructure for transparency, traceability, and stakeholder trust in sustainable supply chain systems.
The sector-specific application of Industry 4.0 in supply chains has also received growing attention. Ramirez-Peña and Sotano [24] examine sustainable supply chain practices in shipbuilding, while Birkel and Müller [25] present a systematic review of how Industry 4.0 supports the triple bottom line in supply chain management. Case-driven contributions include Yadav et al. [26], who develop a framework for overcoming circular supply chain challenges in the automotive sector, and Kumar et al. [27], who identify key success factors for integrating Industry 4.0 into circular supply chain operations.

2.3. Challenges in Sustainable Production and Supply Chains in Industry 4.0

Although the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies offers significant potential for improving sustainability outcomes, it is often accompanied by technical, organisational, and integration challenges. Liu et al. [28] highlight the complexity of leveraging digital capabilities to support circular supply chains, while Jamwal et al. [29] examine the role of deep learning as a sustainability enabler in manufacturing, emphasising the barriers to large-scale implementation. In a related study, the same authors develop a comprehensive framework to guide sustainable adoption of Industry 4.0 across production systems [30].
Organisational readiness and strategic alignment are frequently cited as limiting factors. Harikannan et al. [31] apply structural modelling to explore the relationships between Industry 4.0 technologies, sustainable practices, and firm performance. Similarly, Ghadimi et al. [32] highlight the difficulties of intelligent supplier selection in distributed supply chains, particularly when integrating multi-agent systems into existing decision environments. Javaid et al. [33] emphasise that sustainability-driven adoption of Industry 4.0 is conditioned not only by technological maturity, but also by workforce readiness and environmental awareness.
A number of studies address broader systemic and sectoral challenges. Furstenau et al. [34] identify critical tensions between automation-driven efficiency and environmental performance. Ghadge et al. [35] demonstrate that supply chain restructuring under Industry 4.0 can lead to misalignments if stakeholder expectations are not synchronised. Ciliberto and Szopik-Depczyńska [36] propose a lean manufacturing approach to facilitate circularity, while Kayikci et al. [37] explore blockchain adoption in food supply chains, revealing implementation barriers at the intersection of people, processes, and technology. Sharma and Jabbour [38] summarise key knowledge gaps in the literature and call for greater attention to interdependencies between sustainability and Industry 4.0 transformation pathways.

2.4. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Industry 4.0

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have been widely applied to tackle the complexity of industrial decision-making, especially in sustainability-oriented contexts. In the area of supplier evaluation, Wang et al. [39] apply MCDA to optimise selection criteria in the textile industry, while Kandakoglu et al. [40] offer a comprehensive review of MCDA approaches for sustainable development assessment. Their findings underscore the versatility of these methods across economic, environmental, and social domains.
The use of MCDA to support digital transformation has also gained momentum. Beyaz and Yildirim [41] demonstrate its application in assessing readiness for Industry 4.0 in the automotive sector. Other researchers have proposed hybrid frameworks to evaluate the impact of emerging technologies. For example, Abdullah et al. [42] integrate fuzzy logic with MCDA to quantify the influence of various technologies on manufacturing strategies, and Almeida et al. [43] develop a model incorporating economic, financial, and socio-technical criteria to assess investments in Industry 4.0.
Numerous studies underline the relevance of MCDA in sustainability-focused manufacturing environments. Rezaei [44] and Stoycheva et al. [45] explore its use in reverse logistics and automotive sustainability assessment, respectively. Kannan et al. [46] investigate how smart manufacturing systems can be prioritised using MCDA to mitigate sustainability challenges, while Sánchez-Garrido et al. [47] examine sustainability trade-offs in building design.
From a methodological standpoint, Eltarabishi et al. [48] and Garcia-Orozco and Vargas-Gutierrez [49] evalute the strengths and limitations of popular MCDA techniques such as PROMETHEE and QFD. Comparative analyses by Broniewicz and Ogrodnik [50] assess the effectiveness of various methods for sustainable transport planning.
Finally, several researchers have developed hybrid MCDA frameworks based on DEMATEL and PROMETHEE. Karanam et al. [51] apply DEMATEL and AHP–PROMETHEE to identify key enablers in perishable food logistics, while Sallum and Gomes [52] present a generalised hybrid MCDA strategy. Nguyen and Chu [53] extend this approach using DEMATEL–ANP-based fuzzy PROMETHEE II to rank innovative business ventures, illustrating the potential of such models enable structured evaluations that combine causal reasoning with flexible preference modelling.
A prior study by the author [54] investigated a hybrid DANP–PROMETHEE II framework for evaluating cybersecurity technologies in Industry 4.0 environments. Although the methodological approach exhibits some similarities, the previous model was confined to a specific technical domain and employed narrower decision-making criteria. In contrast, the present research replaces DANP with DEMATEL, broadens the range of assessed technologies, and integrates manufacturing and supply chain domains under a single sustainability-oriented assessment framework.

3. Industry 4.0, Sustainable Production, and Supply Chains

Modern enterprises operate in a rapidly evolving environment, where advanced technologies and increasing sustainability requirements play a pivotal role. The Industry 4.0 paradigm is revolutionising production processes and supply chain management by integrating intelligent systems, automation, and real-time data analysis. The impact of innovative technologies on sustainable production is becoming increasingly evident enabling companies to achieve higher operational efficiency while minimising their environmental footprint. Organisations that can effectively integrate digitalization, supply chain optimisation, and environmental and social responsibility gain a competitive advantage and long-term stability. Table 1 proposes four subspheres each from the manufacturing (I1–I4) and supply chain and logistics (S1–S4) domains as characteristics of Industry 4.0, along with 23 related modern technologies. They collectively address Research Question 1 (RQ1).
In order to ensure clarity when analysing the relationships and rankings within the model, a consistent coding scheme has been adopted:
  • Subspheres within manufacturing are denoted by the prefix I (e.g., I1–I4), while subspheres within supply chain and logistics use the prefix S (e.g., S1–S4).
  • Correspondingly, technologies related to manufacturing are labelled with D (D11–D42), and those related to supply chain and logistics are labelled with G (G11–G43).
This structure enables immediate recognition of the domain to which each component belongs and enhances the interpretability of model outputs, particularly in hierarchical rankings and influence diagrams.
Below are brief characteristics of Industry 4.0 subspheres in manufacturing (I1–I4) and supply chain and logistics (S1–S4).
Digital transformation and intelligent management systems (I1) from the foundation of Industry 4.0. Smart management systems integrating AI, IoT, big data, and blockchain enable process automation, failure prediction, and ongoing production optimisation. As a result, they increase operational efficiency, reduce raw material losses, and support the implementation of a circular economy. Advanced automation and robotics leverage AI (I2), collaborative robots (cobots), and autonomous systems to improve production efficiency. These technologies improve production, reduce costs and resource consumption, increase operational flexibility and improve work safety, while minimising the impact of industry on the environment. Energy optimisation in manufacturing (I3) is achieved through smart energy management systems, which integrate AI, IoT, and Big Data tools. These systems monitor energy consumption in real time, enable the integration of renewable energy sources, and support the transition to low-emission and energy-efficient production. Sustainable materials and green manufacturing processes (I4) play a key role in reducing the environmental footprint of the industry. The use of renewable, biodegradable, and recycled raw materials, combined with clean technologies and AI-supported systems, helps reduce emissions, limit resource consumption, and support environmental and corporate social responsibility (CSR) objectives. Smart logistics and transport optimisation (S1) are based on transportation management systems, which, supported by IoT, GPS, and blockchain, optimise delivery routes, monitor deliveries, and reduce pollutant emissions. The use of autonomous vehicles and logistics drones increases the flexibility and operational efficiency of the entire supply chain. Digital supply chain tracking and transparency (S2) powered by IoT and blockchain ensures real-time visibility into the location and condition of products. These technologies increase process transparency, eliminate the risk of counterfeiting, and enhance the safety and sustainability of logistics. Circular supply chain and the circular economy (S3) focus on the reuse, regeneration and recycling of resources. Through modular product design and new business models, it is possible to extend the life cycle of products, reduce emissions and significantly minimise waste. Smart warehouses and distribution hubs (S4) use AI, IoT and warehouse management systems (WMS) technologies to automate operations, monitor goods and optimise spatial efficiency. These innovations enhance operational performance, reduce losses and support the sustainable development of logistics and the entire supply chain.
Twelve technologies (D11–D42) related to production and eleven technologies (G11–G43) related to logistics are characterised within Industry 4.0.
Big data, AI, and machine learning (D11) enable real-time data analysis, production optimisation, failure prediction, and downtime reduction. These technologies enhance quality, flexibility, and operational efficiency, supporting sustainable industrial development. Digital twins (D12) represent physical processes and machines, enabling real-time monitoring, simulation, and optimisation. They support waste reduction, test innovations, extend equipment lifecycles, and achieve sustainable development goals. The Internet of Things (IoT) (D13) provides continuous monitoring of resources and processes, increasing efficiency and reducing losses. Thanks to sensors and data analysis, it supports energy management, predictive maintenance, and logistics optimisation in line with sustainable development. Cybersecurity (D14) ensures the protection of industrial data and systems from attacks, sabotage, and data breaches. It ensures infrastructure protection and business continuity, supporting resilient, sustainable development within Industry 4.0. Collaborative robots (cobots) (D21) operate alongside human workers, performing repetitive tasks using AI, the IoT, and vision systems. They enhance efficiency, reduce waste, and improve ergonomics, supporting flexible and safe manufacturing. Autonomous production systems (D22) continuously monitor and adapt processes in real time. They minimise waste and optimise resource and energy usage, supporting sustainable manufacturing and the circular economy. Robots equipped with vision systems and artificial intelligence (D23) analyse the environment, perform quality control, and flexibly adapt operations. They enhance precision, reduce waste, and enable more efficient resource management. Autonomous mobile robots (AMR) (D24) utilise AI, IoT, and vision systems to independently autonomously transport materials. They optimise internal logistics, reduce energy consumption, and enhance flexibility and operational efficiency. Intelligent energy management systems (EMS), smart grid and digital twins (D31) monitor energy consumption in real time, detect losses, and implement optimizations. They support network management and the integration of renewable energy sources, increasing energy efficiency and system resilience. Integration with renewable energy sources (RES) and storage systems (D32), such as batteries or hydrogen storage, reduces emissions and stabilises power supply. These solutions enable energy consumption optimisation and support the implementation of Industry 4.0 climate goals. Modern, sustainable materials and raw inputs (D41), such as biopolymers, recycled composites, and renewable raw materials, reduce emissions and resource consumption. Supported by AI and 3D printing, they enhance the product durability and facilitate the circular economy. Energy-efficient manufacturing processes (D42) utilising technologies such as 3D printing, CNC, AI, and IoT reduce raw material and energy consumption. They support precise planning, quality control, and material reuse, minimising the overall carbon footprint.
Dynamic route optimisation (G11) based on AI, IoT, and GPS algorithms enables real-time route planning. It reduces empty mileage, CO2 emissions, and fuel consumption, thereby increasing transport efficiency and punctual delivery. Green logistics (G12) incorporates electric- and hydrogen-powered vehicles, low-emission rail, and drones. Integrated with AI and IoT systems, it optimises routes and mitigates emissions and noise, supporting sustainable transport. Blockchain technology in supply chain management (G21) provides full transparency and traceability of products. It monitors the flow of materials, eliminates counterfeiting and supports ethical and ecological supply. IoT and RFID (G22) enable the real-time monitoring of product location and storage conditions. This reduces losses and waste, especially in the cold chain, thereby improving the efficiency of sustainable logistics. ESG and CO2 emissions reporting systems (G23) facilitate real-time tracking and documentation of greenhouse gas emissions. Integrated with blockchain, they enhance data transparency, regulatory compliance, and stakeholder trust. Reverse logistics (G31) enables the recovery, recycling, and repair of products. Through intelligent systems and blockchain, organisations can effectively classify returns, reduce waste and effectively manage resources in a circular economy. Distributed 3D printing (G32) enables on-demand production of components, eliminating the need for warehousing and reducing transportation emissions. When combined with AI and IoT, it supports local, flexible production and promotes the circular economy. Minimising inventory and raw material losses through AI and big data (G33) enables demand forecasting, inventory optimisation, and raw material reutilization. This approach enhances operational efficiency and fosters the development of sustainable logistics. Autonomous warehouse systems—AGV and AMR (G41)—automate internal transport, optimising routes and decreasing energy consumption. Integrated with WMS, they improve efficiency and reduce resource waste. Ecological packaging (G42), composed of biodegradable, compostable, or reusable materials, replaces plastics. Supported by AI, they enable the optimisation of material use and reduction of the supply chain’s carbon footprint. Intelligent warehouse space management (G43) based on AI and Big Data enables dynamic optimisation of goods allocation. Integration with IoT and WMS shortens picking times, reduces energy consumption and promotes efficient logistics.
Then, based on literature research, four perspectives for Sustainable Industry 4.0 have been established. Given the specific characteristics of manufacturing as well as supply chain and logistics domains, an operational perspective was added to the three commonly recognised sustainability dimensions—ecological–environmental, social, and economic–financial (Table 2).

4. Solution Methodology

Most of the research on MCDA in the concept of Industry 4.0 focuses on individual methods such as AHP, TOPSIS, or ANP. Only a limited number of studies combine approaches like DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II, despite the potential of such integrations to enhance the accuracy of evaluating decision-making factors. There is a noticeable lack of comprehensive MCDA models that account for the dynamic changes in Industry 4.0.
Industry 4.0 is characterised by highly dynamic processes and rapid technological advancements. Current models fail to fully incorporate variable parameters such as adaptive decision algorithms, artificial intelligence, and IoT in making decisions about sustainable production and supply chain management. While the majority of current studies emphasise resource optimisation, relatively few explore how Industry 4.0 technologies can support decisions about the circular economy in the context of MCDM methods. On the one hand, the majority of existing studies are limited to conceptual models and simulations, with a notable lack of research based on real data from companies implementing Industry 4.0 solutions. On the other hand, due to the framework of industry standards, ISO and similar, the possibility of testing MCDA models in industries such as automotive, aviation, pharmaceuticals, or logistics is limited.
DEMATEL can help with cause–effect analysis and PROMETHEE II can help with ranking alternatives, allowing for better decision evaluation in the dynamic Industry 4.0 environment. This combined approach enables a comprehensive and dynamic analysis of the impact of Industry 4.0 technologies on sustainable production and supply chain management. Using DEMATEL in risk impact analysis and PROMETHEE II to assess resilience strategies can improve supply chain management.
Figure 1 presents a structured overview of the two-phase hybrid methodology integrating DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II.
The left-hand section represents the DEMATEL phase, where the initial matrices are developed, validated, and processed to calculate influence values and determine two rankings: one for Industry 4.0 subspheres and one for technologies. These results are then used as structured input for the PROMETHEE II phase (right-hand side), which involves the evaluation of technologies across sustainability perspectives and the generation of a final ranking. Expert validation is incorporated into both phases. This schematic representation provides a concise visual summary of the proposed hybrid decision-making model.
The DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) [78] methodology is one of the methods of system analysis that allows users to identify and evaluate cause–effect relationships among factors. This method is mainly used to model complex decision-making systems and analyse the influence of individual factors on each other. In the initial phase, n experts evaluate the mutual influence of k criteria on each other, using a scale from, for example, 0 (no influence) to 4 (very strong influence). In this way, n initial-influence matrices X m :
X m = 0 x 12 m x 13 m x 1 k m x 21 m 0 x 23 m x 2 k m x k 1 m x k 2 m x k 3 m 0
where x i j ( m ) denotes expert m’s assessment of the influence of factor i on factor j. To incorporate the perspectives of all experts, the group direct–influence matrix is determined:
X = 1 n m = 1 n X ( m )
The matrix X constructed in this way aggregates expert ratings and represents average influence ratings between factors. To ensure the stability of calculations, the matrix X is normalised, creating normalised direct–influence matrix N :
N = X m a x ( j = 1 k z i j , i = 1 k z i j )
The final total-influence matrix T accounts for both direct and indirect influences. It can be represented as an infinite sum of powers of the matrix N :
T = N + N 2 + N 3 +
which leads to the form:
T = N ( I N ) 1
where I is the identity matrix. For the purposes of further analysis, the main indicators for each factor are calculated based on the matrix T . The following are calculated: the total impact D i and the received impact R j :
D i = j = 1 k t i j ,     R j = i = 1 k t i j ,  
The centrality index ( D i + R i ) indicates the overall significance of a given factor within the system. In contrast, the causality index ( D i R i ) reflects whether a factor is a cause ( D i R i ) > 0 or an effect ( D i R i ) < 0 . The values of ( D i + R i ) and ( D i R i ) are used as input to PROMETHEE II. Parameters with high values ( D i + R i ) are key in the analysed system. Factors with high values are classified as causes ( D i R i ) > 0 and influence other factors. Conversely, factors with low values are classified as effect ( D i R i ) < 0 and are influenced by other factors. The results can be visualised in a cause–effect diagram ( D i + R i , D i R i ) . Using the results of the DEMATEL method, PROMETHEE II [79] determines the weights of the criteria:
W i = D i + R i i = 1 k ( D i + R i )
The differences between the alternatives are calculated:
d i j = g i E g i F
Various forms of preference functions are subsequently applied, including:
P i E , F = 0 , d i j 0     d i j p ,   0 < d i j p 1 , d i j > p
which are summed up, taking into account the weights
K i , m = j = 1 k w i P j i , m
Next, the positive flow (leaving flow), negative flow (entering flow), and net flow are determined.
Positive flow:
Φ + E = 1 m 1 E F i = 1 k w i P i E , F
Negative flow:
Φ E = 1 m 1 E F i = 1 k w i P i F , E
Net flow:
Φ E = Φ + E Φ E
A higher net flow value indicates a better evaluation of a given alternative. To assess the internal consistency of expert evaluations used in both methods, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, denoted as W K , was applied. This non-parametric statistic measures the degree of agreement among multiple raters [80]. The formula is expressed as:
W K = 12 S n 2 ( k 3 k )
where S is the sum of squared deviations of the sums of ranks from their mean.

5. Results and Discussion

Below, we present a practical application of the proposed methodology to assess three interconnected domains: (i) sustainable development of the Industry 4.0 area, (ii) modern technologies (iii) in the spheres of production and supply chain. Drawing upon a comprehensive literature review, a template was proposed that simultaneously included: four subspheres of production with twelve modern technologies, and four subspheres of the supply chain with eleven modern technologies that support the implementation of four areas of sustainable development in enterprises operating in the Industry 4.0 paradigm. Eleven invited specialists participated in the assessment process. Six experts from this group were experienced practitioners from manufacturing companies, five participants were responsible for supply chain and logistics (SC&L) issues in companies. All declared at least good knowledge of the Industry 4.0 sphere. Experts assessed the degree of influence of one factor on another, using a scale of 0–4. The reliability of expert input used in the DEMATEL method was evaluated using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (14), denoted as W K , which measures the degree of agreement among raters. The calculation was performed based on the total outgoing influence values per technology. For n = 11 experts and k = 23 technologies, the resulting coefficient was W K = 0.63 with S = 77,144.76 . This indicates a satisfactory level of internal consistency in the assessments of causal relationships between technologies. The reliability findings are complemented by validity measures, discussed later in the PROMETHEE II section.
The initial-influence matrices X m were created (1), which were aggregated (2) into the group direct-influence matrix X (Table A1 in Appendix A) and normalised (3) to the normalised direct-influence matrix N (Table A2 in Appendix A). Following additional transformations (5), the final total-influence matrix T was obtained (Table A3 in Appendix A). Subsequently, based on (6), the centrality ( D i + R i ) and causality indices ( D i R i ) were determined within Industry 4.0 for four production subspheres I1–I4 and twelve related modern technologies D11–D42, as well as for four supply chain and logistics (SC&L) spheres S1–S4 and eleven related modern technologies G11–G43. The results are presented in Table 3. Centrality indicators ( D i + R i ) have the highest value for digital transformation and intelligent management systems (I1) and for sustainable materials and ecological production processes (I4) within Manufacturing Industry 4.0. In turn, in the supply chain and logistics part, centrality indicators ( D i + R i ) have the highest value for digital supply chain tracking and transparency (S2) and circular supply chain and closed-loop economy (S3). These findings suggest that these technology groups are the most influential within the Industry 4.0 framework. Simultaneously, the value of I1 is greater than S2, suggesting that production-related domains hold greater significance than logistics-related ones within the context of Industry 4.0.
Moving on to the centrality indicators ( D i + R i ) for individual Industry 4.0 technologies, the greatest value in the manufacturing section is attributed to cybersecurity (D14), ecological and energy-efficient production processes that reduce the consumption of raw materials (D42), autonomous production systems (D22), and big data and AI and machine learning (D11). These technologies and the previously mentioned technology groups should be prioritised by company management when developing and implementing Industry 4.0 strategies. The remaining technologies in this set—namely D31, D13, D12, D24, D21, D32, D41, and D23—are therefore of comparatively lesser importance. In terms of centrality indicators ( D i + R i ) in the supply chain and logistics section, the greatest value is attributed to IoT and RFID for monitoring the status of products in real time (G22), minimising warehouse and raw material losses using AI and big data (G33), intelligent warehouse space management (G43), and autonomous warehouse systems (AGV and AMR) (G41). These technologies should, likewise, be incorporated into companies’ strategic plans to transition toward Industry 4.0. As before, the remaining technologies in this group, G21, G11, G42, G31, G12, G32, and G23, are of lesser importance. In contrast, the causality indicator ( D i R i ) allows for the formulation of a cause–effect relationship. A value greater than zero indicates that the parameter influences other criteria. With a value less than zero, the parameter is an “effect”, i.e., it is influenced by other parameters. Figure 2 presents a cause–effect graph ( D i + R i , D i R i ) for eight subspheres of manufacturing and supply chain and logistics in the Industry 4.0 sphere.
The causality indicator ( D i R i ) has the highest value for sustainable materials and ecological production processes (I4), smart warehouses and distribution hubs (S4), digital transformation and intelligent management systems (I1), and digital supply chain tracking and transparency (S2). These are the groups of technologies that have the greatest impact on other technologies. The remaining four have a negative value of this indicator, which means that other groups have an impact on them. Among them, smart logistics and transport optimisation (S1) is the largest recipient of the impact from others. In a similar effect–cause pattern ( D i + R i , D i R i ) , 23 Industry 4.0 technologies were presented (Figure 3).
Within this group, the causality indicator ( D i R i ) has the highest positive value for Internet of Things—IoT (D13), ecological and energy-efficient production processes reducing the consumption of raw materials (D42), intelligent warehouse space management (G43), and dynamic optimisation of transport routes (G11). These technologies represent the most influential components within the Industry 4.0 framework, exerting a strong impact on other technologies. Conversely, the four technologies exhibiting the highest negative value of this indicator, which means that other groups have an impact on them, are 3D printing in distribution (G32), green logistics (G12), autonomous mobile robots—AMR (D24), and integration with renewable energy sources and energy storage (D32). The above values ( D i + R i ) and ( D i R i ) obtained using the DEMATEL methodology serve as input data for the subsequent application of PROMETHEE II methodology, in which a ranking of four Industry 4.0 sustainable perspectives outlined in Table 2 will be determined. First, (7) elements of the vector W that creates the Industry 4.0 technology ranking are determined (Table 4).
Subsequently, experts rate the impact of technology on individual Industry 4.0 sustainable perspectives options on a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the least favourable option). Aggregated results are presented in Table 5. The reliability of expert input used in the PROMETHEE II method was also assessed using (14) Kendall’s coefficient of concordance ( W K ) . The calculation was based on the impact scores of each technology on the four sustainability perspectives. For the same group of n = 11 experts and k = 23 technologies, the resulting coefficient was: W K = 0.74 with S = 90,614.48 . This result reflects a high level of agreement among experts when evaluating sustainability impacts. In addition to internal consistency, the validity of the expert input is supported by the use of two independent evaluation sheets: one for causal relationships (DEMATEL) and one for sustainability alignment (PROMETHEE II). This dual structure enables triangulation and strengthens the robustness of the overall findings.
As shown in Table 5, big data and AI and machine learning (D11) technology exerts the greatest impact on the economic and financial (L3) perspective, the weakest on the ecological–environmental (L1) perspective. For example, cybersecurity (D14) technology also has the greatest impact on the L3 perspective, and this impact exceeds that of D11 technology. Next, (8) the differences between the individual sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives are identified (Table A4 in Appendix A).
Table A4 in Appendix A illustrates the extent to which sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives are beneficial for specific Industry 4.0 technologies. For example, for big data and AI and machine learning (D11) and digital twin (D12) technologies, the L4-L1 score is positive, and higher for D11. This indicates that for both technologies, the L4 perspective is more beneficial than the L1. Moreover, since the L4-L1 score is greater for D11, the L4 perspective is more beneficial for D11 than for D12. In the next step, (9) preference functions, preference function classes, preference parameters and the relationship to sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives are introduced (Table 6).
The assignment of preference function types, unit definitions, function classes, and parameter values presented in Table 6 was conducted by the author based on a review of relevant literature and consultations with the expert panel involved in the study. These design choices were made to ensure methodological transparency while enhancing the interpretability and managerial applicability of the PROMETHEE II model in real industrial contexts.
Each technology was assigned either a qualitative or a quantitative type of preference function depending on its characteristics. For technologies assigned quantitative preference functions, operationally meaningful units were proposed for the ‘unit of the preference function’. These units are intended to support managerial interpretation by offering measurable indictors that are practical and easy to determine within companies. For example, for the ‘Internet of Things (IoT)’ technology, the proposed unit is ‘number of sensors’, which represents a concrete and observable metric. This allows decision-makers to assess the degree of IoT implementation in their operations.
Several classes of preference functions have been proposed in the literature [81]. The most commonly used include: class 1—a function without a threshold value, class 2—a function with a boundary value, and class 3 with a linear distribution of the function. The type of preference function (qualitative or quantitative) affects the value of the parameter for the preference function (Table A5 in Appendix A). Parameter 0 for the preference function indicates a low probability of using a given Industry 4.0 perspectives for a given Industry 4.0 Technologies, parameter 2 indicates a high probability of such application.
The sum of the preference functions presented in Table A6 in Appendix A is calculated based on (10) and Table 4 and Table A5 in Appendix A.
In the last step of PROMETHEE II, as outlined in (11–13), three essential parameters of this methodology are calculated: positive flow (also known as the leaving flow), negative flow (also known as the entering flow), and net flow. These parameters serve as the foundation for constructing the ranking of sustainable Industry 4.0 parameter alternatives (Table 7).
The positive flow (also referred to as the leaving flow) quantifies the degree to which a given alternative over all others. In practical terms, this means that the greater the positive flow, the more alternatives are “worse” than a given alternative. In other words, it indicates how preferred a given alternative is to others. In this analysis, the economic and financial perspective (L3) has the highest value of positive flow, which means that it dominates (is the best) compared to the other perspectives in the analysis. The second perspective in this division plane is the operational perspective (L4). Conversely, the negative flow (also known as the entering flow) measures the extent to which other alternatives dominate the given alternative. In practice, this means that the greater the negative flow, the more alternatives outperform a given alternative. It shows how weak a given alternative is in relation to others. In this analysis, the ecological–environmental (L1) perspective has the highest value entering flow, which indicates that the other perspectives are “better” than it. Next in this approach is the social (L2) perspective. These partial parameters are integrated to determine net flow, which is the difference between domination and being dominated. In practice, this is the parameter used to establish the final and unambiguous ranking of alternatives in PROMETHEE II, i.e., the higher the net flow, the better the alternative. In this analysis, the economic and financial perspective (L3) with the highest net flow is the best overall because it dominates the others and at the same time is not dominated by the others. Second place is occupied by the operational perspective (L4), third by the social perspective (L2), and the last place is taken by the ecological–environmental perspective (L1). The above analysis provides strategic guidance for companies aiming to implement a sustainable development strategy in the spheres of production and supply chain for the sequence of actions and implementations of modern technologies of the Industry 4.0 sphere. At the same time, it directly addresses RQ2.
Within the highest-ranked economic and financial (L3) perspective, the key technologies are D42, D22, G33, D12, D21, and G32. In the production sector, companies should prioritise the adoption of technologies that support sustainable development and increase the autonomy and flexibility of manufacturing processes. Ecological and energy-efficient manufacturing processes, designed to reduce the consumption of raw materials and energy, are the basis for a modern approach to environmentally responsible production. Their implementation allows not only to mitigate the negative impact of industrial activity on the environment, but also to reduce operating costs through better resource management. Autonomous manufacturing systems enable independent planning, monitoring, and optimisation of operations in real time, minimising human involvement in the process and increasing efficiency. Digital twin technology provides virtual representations of physical objects and production processes, which enables their analysis, testing, and improvement without interfering with the actual production environment. An important element of modern production are also collaborative robots (cobots), which operate alongside employees, supporting them in tasks requiring precision, repeatability, or lifting weights, while increasing work safety and ergonomics. Within the supply chain, technologies that support operational efficiency and reduce resource waste are key. Minimising warehouse and raw material losses using artificial intelligence (AI) and big data analytics allows for precise demand forecasting, reduction in surpluses, and optimisation of inventory management, yielding both economic and environmental benefits. Three-dimensional printing in distribution, in turn, introduces new opportunities for decentralised production on demand, enabling faster adaptation to customer needs, shortening delivery times and reducing costs and emissions related to the transport and storage of spare parts or components.
The operational perspective (L4) ranks second. The ranking of technologies in this perspective is D14, G22, D11, D13, G43, G11, D32, G31, and D23. In the production domain, companies should implement advanced technological solutions that enable increased efficiency, flexibility, and security of industrial operations. Cybersecurity constitutes the foundation for the safe operation of enterprises in the digital era, protecting industrial infrastructure from external attacks and ensuring data integrity. Big data, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning enable advanced analysis of production data in real time, supporting decision-making, failure forecasting, and process optimisation. The Internet of Things (IoT) enables continuous monitoring and control of machines and production systems, creating a network of interconnected devices that communicate autonomously. Another important aspect is integration with renewable energy sources and energy storage, which supports the implementation of sustainable development goals, reduces operating costs, and reduces dependency on conventional energy supplies. Finally, vision systems and artificial intelligence in robotics increase the precision and quality of production operations, enabling the automation of inspection, assembly, and manipulation tasks in a more flexible and adaptive way. Within the supply chain companies should prioritise the implementation of solutions that enable intelligent and agile management of the flow of goods and information. IoT and RFID technology enable monitoring the location and condition of products in real time, which increases the transparency of the supply chain and allows for a quick response in the event of irregularities. Intelligent warehouse space management is based on the use of optimisation algorithms and automation, which translates into better use of available space and shorter order picking times. Dynamic optimisation of transport routes, based on the analysis of weather data, traffic intensity or order levels, allows for a reduction in logistics costs and a reduction in CO2 emissions. In turn, reverse logistics enables the recovery of products, components, and materials, thus supporting the circular economy strategy and increasing operational efficiency.
The third perspective is social (L2) with D31, G41, G21, and D24 technologies. In the production sector, solutions that facilitate effective energy management and automation of operations in a dynamic, digital industrial environment are becoming increasingly important. Intelligent energy monitoring and management systems (EMS) and smart grid technologies enable continuous tracking of energy consumption, the identification of inefficiencies, and the optimisation of energy costs by aligning usage to external and internal conditions. Integration with an intelligent energy network (smart grid) additionally enables interaction with distributed energy sources, thereby enhancing the flexibility and energy resilience of production plants. Digital twins support predictive maintenance and optimisation of energy consumption at the level of machines, production lines, or entire facilities, through real-time modelling and simulation. In turn, autonomous mobile robots (AMR), as elements of flexible automation, enable autonomous transport of materials and components within production halls, minimising downtime and improving the fluidity of material flow. In the area of logistics, companies should focus on technologies that allow for increased autonomy and transparency of warehouse operations and the supply chain. Autonomous warehouse systems based on AGV robots (automated vehicle) and AMR, enable the independent movement of goods in warehouses without human intervention, which translates into increased efficiency, reduced errors, and improved work safety. These solutions are complemented by blockchain technology in the supply chain, which guarantees transparency, immutability, and full traceability of goods and data flow, enabling more effective risk management and increased trust between supply chain participants.
The fourth perspective is ecological–environmental (L1) with the technology sequence G42, D41, G12, and G23. In the context of manufacturing, the pursuit of reducing the environmental footprint at the stage of material selection is becoming increasingly important. The modern, ecological materials and raw materials area is a fundamental component of sustainable production—they are designed with renewable, biodegradable, or reusable features in mind. Their implementation not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions and the consumption of natural resources, but also fits into the assumptions of a closed-loop economy, where waste becomes a valuable resource again. In the field of logistics and supply chains, the significance of practices aligned with the idea of environmental and social responsibility is growing. Ecological packaging, composed of recycled or easy-to-process materials, not only reduces the amount of waste, but can also reduce transport weight, contributing to lower fuel consumption and emissions. Green logistics encompasses initiatives aimed at minimising the negative impact of logistics processes on the environment—including the use of low-emission means of transport, route optimisation and reduction in energy consumption in warehouses. A comprehensive approach to sustainable management is supported by ESG (environmental, social, governance) systems and CO2 emission reporting tools, which allow companies to monitor, analyse, and transparently present the impact of their activities on the environment, which is becoming an important assessment criterion in the eyes of investors, business partners, and consumers.
The prioritisation of Industry 4.0 technologies identified in this study aligns with findings from recent research. For instance, Ozdemir [82] applied a hybrid SF-AHP–WSM model to assess Industry 4.0 performance in SMEs, highlighting the significance of IoT and cybersecurity—findings that closely parallel those of the present study. Similarly, Wang et al. [39] utilised a multi-criteria decision model in the textile industry, emphasising the role of advanced technologies in supplier selection. Kandakoglu et al. [40] conducted a comprehensive review of MCDA methods for sustainable development, underscoring their applicability in Industry 4.0 contexts. Furthermore, Beyaz and Yildirim [41] demonstrated the effectiveness of MCDA in evaluating digital transformation within the automotive supplier industry, identifying key Industry 4.0 technologies.
Kumar et al. [83] applied a hybrid MCDM approach to identify strategies for overcoming barriers in Industry 4.0 implementation, emphasising the role of top management commitment. Similarly, Albayrak and Erkayman [84] utilised F-BWM and CoCoSo methods to assess critical success factors, highlighting vertical integration as a key technology. Singh et al. [85] prioritised enablers for Industry 4.0 adoption in manufacturing, underscoring the importance of data analytics and cybersecurity. Furthermore, He et al. [86] developed a deep reinforcement learning-based decision support system for optimising textile manufacturing processes, demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating AI with MCDM techniques.
These studies corroborate our findings and reinforce the relevance of MCDA approaches in prioritising Industry 4.0 technologies. Despite being conducted in diverse industrial contexts, they consistently highlight the high priority of cybersecurity, IoT, and AI-based technologies within sustainable transformation strategies.

6. Conclusions

In the era of dynamic market changes, companies from the production and logistics sector are constantly looking for market niches and ways to build a lasting competitive advantage. One of the key directions of development that responds to these business needs is the implementation of Industry 4.0 solutions, while taking into account the principles of sustainable development. In practice, this means that management must choose the appropriate implementation methodology, which will, on the one hand, increase the probability of digital transformation success, and on the other, will allow for reducing costs and implementation time. In the context of growing uncertainty in the external environment, the decision to change operational or investment strategy is becoming particularly difficult. Company boards face a dilemma: whether to maintain current priorities, counting on the stability and resilience of the adopted model, or decide to redefine them, taking the risk associated with implementing innovative technological solutions.
The aim of this article is to present a tool supporting management staff in the decision-making process regarding the transformation towards Industry 4.0. The presented approach can be a practical guide increasing the chances of effectively meeting business needs through accurate identification and implementation of adequate technologies and management models. From the perspective of research value and novelty, this article presents an original framework for simultaneous assessment of sustainable development, Industry 4.0, and advanced technologies in the area of production and logistics. The proposed methodology addresses a clearly identified research gap by integrating four key areas of manufacturing activity and four logistics areas with twenty-three technologies characteristic of the Industry 4.0 concept. In addition, four levels of sustainable development have been taken into account, adapted to the needs of production and logistics enterprises. Another significant innovation is the application of a hybrid MCDM approach (multi-criteria decision-making), which enables a comprehensive evaluation and construction of a ranking of elements contained in the developed scheme. In the first phase of the study, using the DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method, centrality and causality indicators were identified and ranked for eight subspheres (four production and four logistics), as well as for twenty-three Industry 4.0 technologies. The obtained results served as input data in the second stage, in which the PROMETHEE II (Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation) method was applied, enabling the creation of a ranking of four dimensions of sustainable development.
Based on the analysis, key recommendations can be formulated regarding priority directions for implementing Industry 4.0 solutions and sustainable development in manufacturing and logistics companies. The results clearly indicate that enterprises should concentrate their efforts on the following areas first:
  • The economic and financial (L3) perspective within the concept of sustainable development should be the foundation for transformation initiatives, due to its importance for the stability and long-term competitiveness of the organisation.
  • In the production sphere, Industry 4.0 assigns the highest priority to the area of digital transformation and intelligent management systems (I1), which enable integrated management of production processes based on real-time data.
  • In the context of logistics in Industry 4.0, the area of digital supply chain tracking and transparency (S2) has become crucial, supporting the efficiency, security, and transparency of logistics operations throughout the supply chain.
  • Industry 4.0 technologies used in production, the most important element was cybersecurity (D14), which is the foundation for the safe and reliable operation of integrated digital systems.
  • In the field of Industry 4.0 logistics technologies, particular priority is given to the Internet of Things (IoT) and RFID technology for real-time product status monitoring (G22), enabling continuous asset tracking and dynamic supply chain management.
These conclusions constitute the basis for further work on implementation models and tools facilitating strategic decision-making in the context of Industry 4.0 integration and the principles of sustainable development.
It should be noted that the empirical analysis was based on a single round of evaluations from n = 11 qualified experts. While a larger panel could further increase robustness, the current results have been statistically validated using concordance measures and are grounded in input from a sufficiently diverse and competent panel. This limitation has been considered when interpreting the findings.
To ensure the robustness of the expert-based evaluation process, both reliability and validity were verified. Reliability was confirmed using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance ( W K ) , with the results indicating satisfactory consistency for DEMATEL and high consistency for PROMETHEE II. Additionally, the validity of the results was supported by a dual-questionnaire structure, which enabled triangulation of expert opinions across different methodological dimensions. This approach reinforces the credibility of the findings and supports their practical applicability.
Methodologically, the scientific contribution of this study lies in the integration of the DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II methods into a unified evaluation framework specifically tailored to the context of sustainable Industry 4.0 transformation. Unlike previous studies that focus solely on either causal analysis or ranking, the proposed approach enables both the identification of cause–effect relationships between technologies and operational domains, such as production and logistics, and the development of consistent rankings across sustainability dimensions. Moreover, the model is applied concurrently to both production and supply chain and logistics areas, while addressing four distinct sustainability perspectives (ecological–environmental, social, economic–financial, and operational). This dual application broadens the scope of analysis and delivers a more comprehensive decision-support tool, which remains unexplored in the current literature.
It should be emphasised that the evaluation framework used in this study produces three complementary rankings: (1) a ranking of technological subspheres (i.e., domains within manufacturing and supply chain and logistics), (2) a ranking of individual Industry 4.0 technologies, and (3) a ranking of sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives (L1–L4). Each of these layers supports a distinct type of strategic decision-making.
The recommendation to prioritise the economic and financial perspective (L3) is based on the highest net flow score in Table 7. Technologies most strongly associated with this dimension were identified by cross-referencing Table 4 and Table 6 such as D42, D22, G33, D12, D21, and G32, and their relevance has been explained in detail in the discussion following Table 7. Similarly, if a company wishes to focus on environmental (L1) or social (L2) dimensions, it may use the same rationale—selecting technologies linked to these perspectives in Table 6, and considering their relative importance from the technology ranking in Table 4.
This layered structure enables flexible, goal-oriented interpretation of the results, depending on the transformation priorities of a given enterprise.
The presented research model assumes simultaneous analysis of three key areas: (i) sustainable development, (ii) application of the Industry 4.0 concept in the production and logistics sector, and (iii) advanced technologies supporting the digital transformation of enterprises. This approach allows for a comprehensive approach to the assessment of innovative solutions implemented within the industry of the future.
The priorities identified in this article and the proposed assessment scheme constitute a starting point for further, in-depth analyses, and research. Potential directions for future scientific work include, in particular:
  • Validation of the model in a real environment—testing the proposed methodology in specific manufacturing, service (logistics) enterprises to verify the usability, effectiveness, and practical application of the proposed decision-making scheme.
  • Extending the model to the trade sector—developing the assessment structure to include the specifics of trade enterprises, taking into account characteristic technologies (e.g., intelligent sales systems, advanced CRM systems, e-commerce platforms, inventory management automation) and new dimensions of sustainable development, such as ethical supply chains, packaging management, and impact on the end-consumer. This adaptation may significantly enhance its universality and application usefulness.
  • Extending the model with emerging technologies—taking into account solutions characteristic of the Industry 5.0 concept, such as production personalization, human–machine cooperation, and technologies supporting employee well-being.
  • Integration with ERP and MES decision-making systems—embedding the model in digital enterprise management environments, which will enable its automation and continuous updating of decision-making data.
  • Application of advanced MCDM and machine learning methods—exploration of alternative approaches to multi-criteria evaluation (e.g., ANP, TOPSIS, AHP fuzzy) and integration of the model with artificial intelligence algorithms for dynamic adaptation of weights and preferences.
  • Development of visualisation tools and user interfaces—development of interactive dashboards and applications supporting company management in scenario analysis and rapid interpretation of model outcomes.
  • Sensitivity and strategic scenario analysis—execution of comprehensive sensitivity analyses for various configurations of decision parameters, which will allow for a better understanding of the model’s resilience to changes in the business and technological environment.
The implementation of the aforementioned research directions may contribute to the further development of integrated decision-making models supporting digital transformation in alignment with the principles of sustainable development in various economic sectors.
The significant limitations of the proposed approach include the currently limited form of visualisation of results. To enhance its practical applicability, especially for management staff, it is recommended to develop more intuitive and interactive data presentation tools that allow for easier interpretation and use of results in decision-making processes. Additionally, the potential impact of subjectivity of expert assessments, which may affect the credibility of the obtained results, should be taken into account. It is therefore important to ensure a high-quality expert process by selecting a diverse, interdisciplinary, and representative group of experts and by using methods that minimise the risk of bias.
Another important limitation concerns the choice of methodological tools. While the model proposed in this study relies on a hybrid DEMATEL–PROMETHEE II approach for identifying relationships and priorities, future research could explore Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) or other formal inference techniques to enhance internal validation. Although SEM offers strong analytical capabilities, it also requires strict assumptions and extensive data, which may limit its applicability for managerial applications. As Ziemba et al. [87] highlight, excessive methodological complexity can hinder the adoption of decision-support tools in real-world industrial practice.
Similarly, more advanced causal inference methods, such as Bayesian or counterfactual approaches, may provide deeper insight into causal mechanisms or uncertainty propagation. However, due to their computational and interpretative complexity, they are not easily applicable in managerial contexts. Therefore, the choice of methods in this study reflects an deliberate balance between scientific rigour and practical relevance, ensuring that the results remain accessible and actionable for decision-makers.

Funding

The research presented in the article was carried out at the Maritime University of Szczecin as part of task 1/S/WIET/PUBL/2025.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Group direct-influence matrix X .
Table A1. Group direct-influence matrix X .
D11D12D13D14D21D22D23D24D31D32D41D42G11G12G21G22G23G31G32G33G41G42G43
D1101.6363.9091.7273.4553.7271.4551.3643.8181.8181.8183.4551.3642.8182.0913.3642.0913.0910.2813.3642.1820.9092.273
D122.63602.7273.0912.6360.4551.6362.0911.8182.9092.0911.2733.2730.4552.0912.3642.6362.1823.2731.1823.3643.2731.273
D133.7271.72703.5453.0913.8182.9092.1822.5452.1822.4553.6362.8182.1821.4552.0911.3641.3642.3643.7272.6361.8183.364
D143.8183.0911.81802.0912.5451.5452.1823.4551.3643.1821.8182.8183.0913.3643.7272.0912.3642.5453.1821.7273.0912.727
D212.6362.1821.6362.63602.4552.6362.8181.8181.4551.1821.7272.1822.1821.8181.7271.2732.0911.3641.6362.1822.7271.455
D223.9092.3643.9091.8182.90902.0913.0913.9092.3642.3643.6361.8181.2731.9093.1821.5452.3642.5453.0911.6362.6361.636
D232.9091.7271.7273.9092.2732.45502.9092.9091.2732.6361.2730.5451.9091.3641.8180.3643.1822.7271.3642.3641.6362.091
D242.8181.6362.6361.9092.9091.6362.54500.4551.6362.0912.6360.3642.0912.3642.9091.2731.6362.6361.7271.6360.5451.273
D313.9091.4551.2732.0912.6363.7272.9091.27301.6362.8182.6361.8181.6362.0913.0912.3642.8183.7273.5451.8181.8182.909
D323.7271.4552.3642.5451.8182.3640.7271.8181.72702.6360.7271.1823.0911.0912.1821.8180.7271.4552.7270.4550.7271.818
D411.3641.2731.5451.7271.3642.5451.2733.6361.3642.81801.3641.7272.1822.7272.1821.6361.8181.2731.2732.6363.1821.545
D421.7273.4553.3643.9091.2733.6361.5453.3642.6362.1821.27301.3642.0913.4553.1823.1823.6363.6363.8182.0912.9092.091
G111.6363.1822.3641.3642.6361.3641.8182.5453.3642.5451.0912.45502.9091.5451.7273.6362.7272.9091.3641.3643.0912.182
G122.5452.5451.1822.1821.3641.2730.7272.6361.2731.4551.7271.0912.54502.7271.6361.2732.5450.9092.6361.3640.9090.909
G210.9093.2732.0912.9093.0911.9091.3641.3642.4553.2731.9092.7272.9091.72701.7272.6362.1821.4551.8182.5453.0910.364
G223.5453.9093.1823.2733.2731.6361.2733.4553.9093.0911.3643.3642.0913.6363.18202.6361.2731.9093.6361.2733.0910.909
G231.3641.3642.1822.9091.3642.6361.2732.1821.8182.7272.4550.7270.7271.3641.3642.63600.3641.6361.1822.6361.3643.364
G311.3641.3642.1822.9091.5450.5452.7271.2731.7272.0911.7273.3643.2732.7271.8181.7270.72701.3642.1822.9090.9090.727
G320.4552.9090.5451.3641.9092.7271.2731.3641.6361.3642.1821.4550.3640.9091.5451.3640.5452.72701.7273.3641.3642.636
G333.0913.6361.2733.4551.2732.6362.5453.1823.0912.1821.8183.6362.9092.3641.2733.5451.2731.2733.18200.9092.0912.636
G411.3642.3642.7272.4552.3642.1822.9091.6362.2733.6362.0912.0912.2732.9092.5451.8183.0910.9093.3641.27301.6361.273
G422.6360.9090.7273.1821.1823.0911.4552.8181.3642.8180.7272.1821.6361.4551.3642.1821.5451.3642.8181.3643.09100.909
G432.1822.0912.7272.9091.9092.3640.9092.3643.0911.8182.1822.6361.5452.5453.0913.3643.2731.3641.6363.3642.3643.6360
Table A2. Normalised direct influence matrix N .
Table A2. Normalised direct influence matrix N .
D11D12D13D14D21D22D23D24D31D32D41D42G11G12G21G22G23G31G32G33G41G42G43
D1102.7356.5352.8875.7766.232.4322.286.3833.0393.0395.7762.284.7113.4965.6243.4965.1670.475.6243.6481.523.8
D124.40704.5595.1674.4070.7612.7353.4963.0394.8633.4962.1285.4720.7613.4963.9524.4073.6485.4721.9765.6245.4722.128
D136.232.88705.9265.1676.3834.8633.6484.2553.6484.1046.0784.7113.6482.4323.4962.282.283.9526.234.4073.0395.624
D146.3835.1673.03903.4964.2552.5833.6485.7762.285.3193.0394.7115.1675.6246.233.4963.9524.2555.3192.8875.1674.559
D214.4073.6482.7354.40704.1044.4074.7113.0392.4321.9762.8873.6483.6483.0392.8872.1283.4962.282.7353.6484.5592.432
D226.5353.9526.5353.0394.86303.4965.1676.5353.9523.9526.0783.0392.1283.1915.3192.5833.9524.2555.1672.7354.4072.735
D234.8632.8872.8876.5353.84.10404.8634.8632.1284.4072.1280.9113.1912.283.0390.6095.3194.5592.283.9522.7353.496
D244.7112.7354.4073.1914.8632.7354.25500.7612.7353.4964.4070.6093.4963.9524.8632.1282.7354.4072.8872.7350.9112.128
D316.5352.4322.1283.4964.4076.234.8632.12802.7354.7114.4073.0392.7353.4965.1673.9524.7116.235.9263.0393.0394.863
D326.232.4323.9524.2553.0393.9521.2153.0392.88704.4071.2151.9765.1671.8243.6483.0391.2152.4324.5590.7611.2153.039
D412.282.1282.5832.8872.284.2552.1286.0782.284.71102.282.8873.6484.5593.6482.7353.0392.1282.1284.4075.3192.583
D422.8875.7765.6246.5352.1286.0782.5835.6244.4073.6482.12802.283.4965.7765.3195.3196.0786.0786.3833.4964.8633.496
G112.7355.3193.9522.284.4072.283.0394.2555.6244.2551.8244.10404.8632.5832.8876.0784.5594.8632.282.285.1673.648
G124.2554.2551.9763.6482.282.1281.2154.4072.1282.4322.8871.8244.25504.5592.7352.1284.2551.524.4072.281.521.52
G211.525.4723.4964.8635.1673.1912.282.284.1045.4723.1914.5594.8632.88702.8874.4073.6482.4323.0394.2555.1670.609
G225.9266.5355.3195.4725.4722.7352.1285.7766.5355.1672.285.6243.4966.0785.31904.4072.1283.1916.0782.1285.1671.52
G232.282.283.6484.8632.284.4072.1283.6483.0394.5594.1041.2151.2152.282.284.40700.6092.7351.9764.4072.285.624
G312.282.283.6484.8632.5830.9114.5592.1282.8873.4962.8875.6245.4724.5593.0392.8871.21502.283.6484.8631.521.215
G320.7614.8630.9112.283.1914.5592.1282.282.7352.283.6482.4320.6091.522.5832.280.9114.55902.8875.6242.284.407
G335.1676.0782.1285.7762.1284.4074.2555.3195.1673.6483.0396.0784.8633.9522.1285.9262.1282.1285.31901.523.4964.407
G412.283.9524.5594.1043.9523.6484.8632.7353.86.0783.4963.4963.84.8634.2553.0395.1671.525.6242.12802.7352.128
G424.4071.521.2155.3191.9765.1672.4324.7112.284.7111.2153.6482.7352.4322.283.6482.5832.284.7112.285.16701.52
G433.6483.4964.5594.8633.1913.9521.523.9525.1673.0393.6484.4072.5834.2555.1675.6245.4722.282.7355.6243.9526.0780
Table A3. Total influence matrix T .
Table A3. Total influence matrix T .
D11D12D13D14D21D22D23D24D31D32D41D42G11G12G21G22G23G31G32G33G41G42G43
D111.8871.9692.2772.2362.2092.3631.6101.9742.4111.9361.7892.2861.6712.0761.9272.3751.7812.0001.7252.3291.9041.7341.753
D122.0891.5211.9082.2371.9181.6761.4911.8941.9011.9541.6841.7411.8031.5491.7562.0181.7261.6972.0241.7671.9581.9381.461
D132.6212.1271.7892.6622.2862.5301.9352.2482.3682.1182.0152.4411.9902.1101.9612.3371.7881.8692.1912.5162.1072.0112.045
D142.6092.3242.0622.0842.1252.3021.7072.2282.4822.0002.1102.1491.9962.2342.2462.5661.8962.0062.1962.4071.9712.2001.917
D211.9651.7451.6242.0211.3691.8421.5451.8841.7701.5881.4261.6941.5271.6861.6001.7901.3931.5861.6011.7151.6431.7301.370
D222.6082.1732.3662.3572.2271.8891.7872.3382.5192.1141.9612.4101.8021.9251.9852.4551.7731.9842.1812.3791.9262.0851.741
D232.0611.7201.6802.2661.7831.8991.1661.9421.9901.5981.7081.6781.3161.6951.5871.8631.2821.8051.8541.7361.7231.6051.513
D241.9051.6021.7141.8351.7671.6481.4671.3661.4851.5461.5071.7621.1811.6071.6261.8921.3241.4521.7111.6661.4941.3261.286
D312.5011.9651.8812.3032.0992.3871.8371.9811.8331.9261.9662.1691.7331.9071.9432.3561.8311.9872.2732.3571.8851.8961.871
D322.0011.5031.6111.8451.5351.7031.1271.5991.6251.2151.5431.4081.2621.7081.3661.7311.3631.2461.4581.7691.2361.2951.336
D411.6941.5381.5481.8051.5291.7881.2751.9501.6181.7541.1751.5701.3991.6301.6841.7891.4011.4671.5201.5891.6501.7391.323
D422.3692.4532.3682.7952.0622.5401.7732.4732.4212.1911.8901.9251.8302.1362.3182.5602.1092.2522.4522.5802.0952.2241.885
G111.9662.0441.8702.0031.9281.8341.5331.9922.1501.9061.5481.9421.2971.9311.6921.9481.8921.8111.9921.8291.6681.9211.621
G121.7211.6151.3621.7191.4001.4381.0851.6481.4741.4041.3351.3991.4341.1501.5581.5621.2331.4751.3251.6621.3271.2651.120
G211.8142.0261.7912.1941.9571.8711.4321.7731.9741.9921.6361.9401.7441.7171.4011.9011.7111.6851.7341.8481.8021.8991.296
G222.6312.4892.3082.6602.3452.2141.7022.4602.5782.2941.8682.4151.9162.3502.2472.0222.0081.8722.1472.5241.9262.2181.679
G231.6461.5001.5981.9251.4781.7591.2251.6691.6501.6791.5361.4121.1931.4531.4291.8141.0941.1841.5201.5351.5971.4201.585
G311.6771.5651.6311.9881.5411.4711.5011.5741.6831.6201.4491.8671.6481.7171.5401.7051.2571.1911.5391.7301.6801.3851.206
G321.3311.6081.2071.5361.4221.6111.1321.3981.4681.3421.3641.3921.0401.2391.3271.4571.0691.4481.1351.4601.6041.2981.340
G332.3832.3001.8752.5021.8852.1981.7652.2682.3071.9971.8032.3031.8932.0091.8202.4231.6701.7482.2001.7911.7281.9351.820
G411.9141.9161.9162.1531.8801.9531.6861.8431.9802.0661.7041.8631.6501.9251.8371.9441.7951.5182.0461.8011.4211.6901.473
G421.8621.4641.4001.9901.4751.8541.2791.7861.6071.7141.2801.6681.3501.4911.4471.7671.3601.3841.7381.5861.6901.1991.216
G432.2352.0492.0862.4251.9722.1641.5152.1372.2941.9581.8542.1501.6942.0352.0912.3881.9801.7261.9502.3161.9532.1701.393
Table A4. Differences between sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Table A4. Differences between sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Industry 4.0 Technology CodeL1-L2L1-L3L1-L4L2-L1L2-L3L2-L4L3-L1L3-L2L3-L4L4-L1L4-L2L4-L3
D11−0.909−1−0.5460.909−0.0910.36310.0910.4540.546−0.363−0.454
D12−1.0910−0.2721.0911.0910.8190−1.091−0.2720.272−0.8190.272
D13−2.909−1.455−32.9091.454−0.0911.455−1.454−1.54530.0911.545
D14−0.182−2.727−1.7270.182−2.545−1.5452.7272.54511.7271.545−1
D210.546−0.4541.182−0.546−10.6360.45411.636−1.182−0.636−1.636
D22−1.818−2.636−2.3641.818−0.818−0.5462.6360.8180.2722.3640.546−0.272
D23−0.909−0.545−10.9090.364−0.0910.545−0.364−0.45510.0910.455
D24−0.455−2.273−1.1820.455−1.818−0.7272.2731.8181.0911.1820.727−1.091
D31−2−1.455−2.81820.545−0.8181.455−0.545−1.3632.8180.8181.363
D321.7280.6371.364−1.728−1.091−0.364−0.6371.0910.727−1.3640.364−0.727
D41−1−0.455−0.45510.5450.5450.455−0.54500.455−0.5450
D42−3−2.818−230.18212.818−0.1820.8182−1−0.818
G111−0.5460.182−1−1.546−0.8180.5461.5460.728−0.1820.818−0.728
G121−1.273−0.455−1−2.273−1.4551.2732.2730.8180.4551.455−0.818
G212−0.3640.455−2−2.364−1.5450.3642.3640.819−0.4551.545−0.819
G22−0.273−1.818−2.8180.273−1.545−2.5451.8181.545−12.8182.5451
G23−1−2.091−11−1.09102.0911.0911.09110−1.091
G312−1−1.728−2−3−3.72813−0.7281.7283.7280.728
G320.272−2.091−2.364−0.272−2.363−2.6362.0912.363−0.2732.3642.6360.273
G33−1.636−2.273−1.4541.636−0.6370.1822.2730.6370.8191.454−0.182−0.819
G410.72710.546−0.7270.273−0.181−1−0.273−0.454−0.5460.1810.454
G42−0.364−3.182−1.8180.364−2.818−1.4543.1822.8181.3641.8181.454−1.364
G43−1.273−2.091−2.1821.273−0.818−0.9092.0910.818−0.0912.1820.9090.091
Table A5. Parameter values for the preference function.
Table A5. Parameter values for the preference function.
Industry 4.0 Technology CodeParameter ValueL1-L2L1-L3L1-L4L2-L1L2-L3L2-L4L3-L1L3-L2L3-L4L4-L1L4-L2L4-L3
D111000000100000
D1220000.5460.5460.4100000.13600.136
D130000110100111
D1410000.18200111110
D210101001111000
D2220000.9090010.4090.13610.2730
D231000000000000
D240000100111110
D31200010.27300.7280010.4090.682
D321101000010000
D411000100000000
D421000101100100
G111100000010000
G120100000111110
G211100000010010
G220000100110111
G231000100111100
G3121000000.5100.86410.364
G321000000110110
G331000100100100
G411010000000000
G421000000111110
G431000100100100
Table A6. Preference functions with weighting factors.
Table A6. Preference functions with weighting factors.
Industry 4.0 Technology CodeWL1-L2L1-L3L1-L4L2-L1L2-L3L2-L4L3-L1L3-L2L3-L4L4-L1L4-L2L4-L3
D1148.67500000048.67500000
D1244.11400024.08624.08618.0870005.99905.999
D1347.75500047.75547.755047.7550047.75547.75547.755
D1451.6090009.3930051.60951.60951.60951.60951.6090
D2141.71441.714041.7140041.71441.71441.71441.714000
D2248.78400044.3450048.78419.9536.63548.78413.3180
D2338.458000000000000
D2441.86500041.8650041.86541.86541.86541.86541.8650
D3148.03600048.03613.114034.9700048.03619.64732.761
D3239.68439.684039.684000039.6840000
D4138.74300038.74300000000
D4249.49500049.495049.49549.4950049.49500
G1140.87340.87300000040.8730000
G1238.43238.4320000038.43238.43238.43238.43238.4320
G2142.34342.34300000042.3430042.3430
G2250.65900050.6590050.65950.659050.65950.65950.659
G2337.21100037.2110037.21137.21137.21137.21100
G3138.72838.7280000019.36438.728033.46138.72814.097
G3238.30200000038.30238.302038.30238.3020
G3347.53700047.5370047.5370047.53700
G4142.572042.5720000000000
G4239.36700000039.36739.36739.36739.36739.3670
G4345.04400045.0440045.0440045.04400

References

  1. Vrchota, J.; Pech, M.; Rolinek, L.; Bednář, J. Sustainability outcomes of green processes in relation to Industry 4.0 in manufacturing: Systematic review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bag, S.; Pretorius, J.H.C. Relationships between Industry 4.0, sustainable manufacturing and circular economy: Proposal of a research framework. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022, 30, 864–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bag, S.; Gupta, S.; Kumar, S. Industry 4.0 adoption and 10R advance manufacturing capabilities for sustainable development. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 231, 107846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M. Industry 4.0, innovation, and sustainable development: A systematic review and a roadmap to sustainable innovation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 4237–4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kumar, P.; Singh, R.K.; Kumar, V. Managing supply chains for sustainable operations in the era of Industry 4.0 and circular economy: Analysis of barriers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bag, S.; Yadav, G.; Dhamija, P.; Kataria, K.K. Key resources for Industry 4.0 adoption and its effect on sustainable production and circular economy: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 125233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fatorachian, H.; Kazemi, H. Impact of Industry 4.0 on supply chain performance. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 32, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oláh, J.; Aburumman, N.; Popp, J.; Khan, M.A.; Haddad, H. Impact of Industry 4.0 on environmental sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jamwal, A.; Agrawal, R.; Sharma, M.; Giallanza, A. Industry 4.0 technologies for manufacturing sustainability: A systematic review and future research directions. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Enyoghasi, C.; Badurdeen, F. Industry 4.0 for sustainable manufacturing: Opportunities at the product, process, and system levels. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 166, 105362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. 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]
  12. Godina, R.; Ribeiro, I.; Matos, F.; Ferreira, B.T.; Carvalho, H. Impact assessment of additive manufacturing on sustainable business models in Industry 4.0 context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Çınar, Z.M.; Abdussalam Nuhu, A.; Zeeshan, Q.; Korhan, O. Machine learning in predictive maintenance towards sustainable smart manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ching, N.T.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M. Industry 4.0 applications for sustainable manufacturing: A systematic literature review and a roadmap to sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 334, 130133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Leng, J.; Ruan, G.; Jiang, P.; Xu, K.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, X.; Liu, C. Blockchain-empowered sustainable manufacturing and product lifecycle management in Industry 4.0: A survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 132, 110112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sartal, A.; Bellas, R.; Mejías, A.M. The sustainable manufacturing concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: A literature review. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2020, 12, 1687814020925232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Machado, C.G.; Winroth, M.P. Sustainable manufacturing in Industry 4.0: An emerging research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1462–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yadav, G.; Kumar, A.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. A framework to achieve sustainability in manufacturing organisations of developing economies using Industry 4.0 technologies’ enablers. Comput. Ind. 2020, 122, 103280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Parekh, H.; Mani, V. Digital twin for sustainable manufacturing supply chains: Current trends, future perspectives, and an implementation framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 176, 121448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dev, N.K.; Shankar, R.; Qaiser, F.H. Industry 4.0 and circular economy: Operational excellence for sustainable reverse supply chain performance. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bag, S.; Telukdarie, A.; Pretorius, J.H.C. Industry 4.0 and supply chain sustainability: Framework and future research directions. Benchmarking 2021, 28, 1410–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Luthra, S.; Kumar, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. Industry 4.0 as an enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: An analysis of influential strength of drivers in an emerging economy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1505–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Esmaeilian, B.; Sarkis, J.; Lewis, K.; Behdad, S. Blockchain for the future of sustainable supply chain management in Industry 4.0. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 163, 105064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ramirez-Peña, M.; Sotano, A.J.S. Achieving a sustainable shipbuilding supply chain under I4.0 perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Birkel, H.; Müller, J.M. Potentials of Industry 4.0 for supply chain management within the triple bottom line of sustainability–A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yadav, G.; Luthra, S.; Jakhar, S.K.; Mangla, S.K. A framework to overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through solution measures of Industry 4.0 and circular economy: An automotive case. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kumar, A.; Choudhary, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. Analysis of critical success factors for implementing Industry 4.0 integrated circular supply chain–Moving towards sustainable operations. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 34, 984–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, L.; Song, W.; Liu, Y. Leveraging digital capabilities toward a circular economy: Reinforcing sustainable supply chain management with Industry 4.0 technologies. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 178, 109113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jamwal, A.; Agrawal, R.; Sharma, M. Deep learning for manufacturing sustainability: Models, applications in Industry 4.0 and implications. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights 2022, 2, 100107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jamwal, A.; Agrawal, R.; Sharma, M.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, S. Developing a sustainability framework for Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2021, 98, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harikannan, N.; Vinodh, S.; Antony, J. Analysis of the relationship among Industry 4.0 technologies, sustainable manufacturing practices, and organizational sustainable performance using structural modeling. TQM J. 2025, 37, 42–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ghadimi, P.; Wang, C.; Lim, M.K.; Heavey, C. Intelligent sustainable supplier selection using multi-agent technology: Theory and application for Industry 4.0 supply chains. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 127, 588–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R. Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sustainability. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2022, 3, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Furstenau, L.B.; Sott, M.K.; Kipper, L.M.; Machado, E.L. Link between sustainability and Industry 4.0: Trends, challenges, and new perspectives. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 140079–140096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ghadge, A.; Kara, M.E.; Moradlou, H. The impact of Industry 4.0 implementation on supply chains. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 31, 669–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ciliberto, C.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K. Enabling the Circular Economy transition: A sustainable lean manufacturing recipe for Industry 4.0. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3255–3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kayikci, Y.; Subramanian, N.; Dora, M. Food supply chain in the era of Industry 4.0: Blockchain technology implementation opportunities and impediments from the perspective of people, process, and technology. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 33, 301–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sharma, R.; Jabbour, C.J.C. Sustainable manufacturing and Industry 4.0: What we know and what we don’t. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 34, 230–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, C.-N.; Viet, V.T.H.; Ho, T.P.; Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, V.T. Multi-criteria decision model for the selection of suppliers in the textile industry. Symmetry 2020, 12, 979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kandakoglu, A.; Frini, A.; Ben Amor, S. Multicriteria decision making for sustainable development: A systematic review. J. Multi-Criter. Decis. Anal. 2019, 26, 202–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Beyaz, H.F.; Yildirim, N. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Digital Transformation in Manufacturing: A Case Study from Automotive Supplier Industry. In Proceedings of the International Symposium for Production Research 2019; Durakbasa, N., Gençyılmaz, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Abdullah, F.M.; Al-Ahmari, A.M.; Anwar, S. A Hybrid Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Evaluating the Influence of Industry 4.0 Technologies on Manufacturing Strategies. Machines 2023, 11, 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Almeida, R.; Ayala, N.F.; Benitez, G.B.; Kliemann, F.J. How to Assess Investments in Industry 4.0 Technologies? A Multiple-Criteria Framework for Economic, Financial, and Sociotechnical Factors. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 34, 1583–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rezaei, J. A Systematic Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Applications in Reverse Logistics. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 10, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stoycheva, S.; Marchese, D.; Paul, C.; Padoan, S.; Juhmani, A.-S.; Linkov, I. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework for Sustainable Manufacturing in Automotive Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kannan, D.; Gholipour, P.; Bai, C. Smart Manufacturing as a Strategic Tool to Mitigate Sustainable Manufacturing Challenges: A Case Approach. Ann. Oper. Res. 2023, 331, 543–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sánchez-Garrido, A.J.; Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Applied to the Sustainability of Building Structures Based on Modern Methods of Construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Eltarabishi, F.; Omar, O.H.; Alsyouf, I. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and Their Applications—A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM), Dubai, UAE, 10–12 March 2020; pp. 2654–2663. [Google Scholar]
  49. Garcia-Orozco, S.; Vargas-Gutierrez, G. Using multi-criteria decision making in quality function deployment for offshore renewable energies. Energies 2023, 16, 6533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Broniewicz, E.; Ogrodnik, K. A comparative evaluation of multi-criteria analysis methods for sustainable transport. Energies 2021, 14, 5100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Karanam, M.; Lanka, K.; Pattela, S.N.; Manupati, V.K. Investigating the Key Enablers in Perishable Food Supply Chain Using DEMATEL and AHP—PROMETHEE. In Applications of Emerging Technologies and AI/ML Algorithms; Tiwari, M.K., Kumar, M.R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2023; pp. 217–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sallum, F.S.V.; Gomes, L.F.A.M. A Hybrid Approach to Apply DEMATEL in a Multi-Criteria Setting. Ind. J. Manag. Prod. 2020, 11, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nguyen, H.T.; Chu, T.-C. Ranking Startups Using DEMATEL-ANP-Based Fuzzy PROMETHEE II. Axioms 2023, 12, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Torbacki, W. A Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP and PROMETHEE II Methods for the Assessment of Cybersecurity in Industry 4.0. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Verdecchia, R.; Cruz, L.; Sallou, J.; Lin, M.; Wickenden, J.; Hotellier, E. Data-Centric Green AI An Exploratory Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S), Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 13–17 June 2022; pp. 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fu, X.; Song, H.; Li, S.; Lu, Y. Digital twin technology in modern machining: A comprehensive review of research on machining errors. J. Manuf. Syst. 2025, 79, 134–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ding, S.; Tukker, A.; Ward, H. Opportunities and risks of internet of things (IoT) technologies for circular business models: A literature review. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 336, 117662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ali, S.; Wang, J.; Leung, V.C.M. AI-driven fusion with cybersecurity: Exploring current trends, advanced techniques, future directions, and policy implications for evolving paradigms—A comprehensive review. Inf. Fusion 2025, 118, 102922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Krüger, J.; Lien, T.K.; Verl, A. Cooperation of human and machines in assembly lines. CIRP Ann. 2009, 58, 628–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lu, Y.; Xu, X.; Wang, L. Smart manufacturing process and system automation—A critical review of the standards and envisioned scenarios. J. Manuf. Syst. 2020, 56, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kleeberger, K.; Bormann, R.; Kraus, W.; Huber, M.F. A Survey on Learning-Based Robotic Grasping. Curr. Robot. Rep. 2020, 1, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Loganathan, A.; Ahmad, N.S. A systematic review on recent advances in autonomous mobile robots navigation. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2023, 40, 101343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dey, A.; Jain, R.; Ghosh, S.K. A comprehensive review on energy management strategies used in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Rep. 2025, 11, 2349–2371. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jain, A.; Yadav, A.; Gaurav, A.; Ghosh, A.; Soni, M.; Garcia-Nieto, J.; Shukla, P.K. Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches for energy forecasting and optimization: A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 182, 113332. [Google Scholar]
  65. Belnoue, J.P.-H.; Hallett, S.R. Process models: A cornerstone to composites 4.0. Compos. Part B Eng. 2024, 283, 111621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kunovjanek, M.; Knofius, N.; Reiner, G. Additive manufacturing and supply chains—A systematic review. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 33, 1231–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Djavadian, S.; Tu, R.; Farooq, B.; Hatzopoulou, M. Multi-objective eco-routing for dynamic control of connected & automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 87, 102513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tamke, F.; Buscher, U. The vehicle routing problem with drones and drone speed selection. Comput. Oper. Res. 2023, 152, 106112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Azzi, R.; Chamoun, R.K.; Sokhn, M. The power of a blockchain-based supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 135, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wu, W.; Shen, L.; Zhao, Z.; Harish, A.R.; Zhong, R.Y.; Huang, G.Q. Internet of Everything and Digital Twin enabled Service Platform for Cold Chain Logistics. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2023, 33, 100443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yin, F.; Xiao, Y.; Cao, R.; Zhang, J. Impacts of ESG Disclosure on Corporate Carbon Performance: Empirical Evidence from Listed Companies in Heavy Pollution Industries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pourmehdi, M.; Paydar, M.M.; Ghadimi, P.; Azadnia, A.H. Analysis and evaluation of challenges in the integration of Industry 4.0 and sustainable steel reverse logistics network. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 163, 107808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, Y.; Ropke, S.; Wen, M.; Bergh, S. The mobile production vehicle routing problem: Using 3D printing in last mile distribution. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2023, 305, 1407–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yadav, A.; Garg, R.K.; Sachdeva, A. Artificial intelligence applications for information management in sustainable supply chain management: A systematic review and future research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights 2024, 4, 100292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lackner, T.; Hermann, J.; Kuhn, C.; Palm, D. Review of autonomous mobile robots in intralogistics: State-of-the-art, limitations and research gaps. Procedia CIRP 2024, 130, 930–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cristóbal, J.; Albizzati, P.F.; Giavini, M.; Caro, D.; Manfredi, S.; Tonini, D. Management practices for compostable plastic packaging waste: Impacts, challenges and recommendations. Waste Manag. 2023, 170, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Wang, L.; Zuñiga, E.R.; Wang, X.V.; Flores-García, E. Dynamic multi-tour order picking in an automotive-part warehouse based on attention-aware deep reinforcement learning. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2025, 94, 102959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gabus, A.; Fontela, E. Perceptions of the World Problematique: Communication Procedure, Communicating with Those Bearing Collective Responsibility; Battelle Geneva Research Institute: Geneva, Switzerland, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  79. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P.; Mareschal, B. How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1986, 24, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Legendre, P. Species associations: The Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2005, 10, 226–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R.B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on method-ologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ozdemir, Y.S. A Spherical Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Industry 4.0 Performance Measurement. Axioms 2022, 11, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kumar, V.; Vrat, P.; Shankar, R. Prioritization of Strategies to Overcome the Barriers in Industry 4.0: A Hybrid MCDM Approach. OPSEARCH 2021, 58, 711–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Albayrak, Ö.; Erkayman, B. A Multi-Criteria Analysis for Critical Success Factors Through Industry 4.0. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2023, 25, 1530–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Singh, M.; Singh, J.; Bhagat, V.; Kumar, J. Prioritization of Enablers for Industry 4.0 Adoption in Manufacturing Industries Using MCDM Approach. AIP Conf. Proc. 2025, 3185, 020007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. He, Z.; Tran, K.P.; Thomassey, S.; Zeng, X.; Xu, J.; Chen, H. A Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Textile Manufacturing Process Optimization. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2012.14794. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14794 (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  87. Ziemba, P.; Piwowarski, M.; Nermend, K. Visualization of uncertain data in the NEAT F-PROMETHEE method. MethodsX 2023, 10, 102166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Two-stage methodological procedure: DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II.
Figure 1. Two-stage methodological procedure: DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II.
Sustainability 17 05082 g001
Figure 2. Cause-effect diagram for the manufacturing and supply chain and logistics Industry 4.0 parts.
Figure 2. Cause-effect diagram for the manufacturing and supply chain and logistics Industry 4.0 parts.
Sustainability 17 05082 g002
Figure 3. Cause–effect diagram for manufacturing and supply chain and logistics Industry 4.0 part technologies.
Figure 3. Cause–effect diagram for manufacturing and supply chain and logistics Industry 4.0 part technologies.
Sustainability 17 05082 g003
Table 1. Technologies and spheres of Industry 4.0.
Table 1. Technologies and spheres of Industry 4.0.
Industry 4.0 SphereIndustry 4.0 SubsphereIndustry 4.0 Subsphere CodeIndustry 4.0 TechnologyIndustry 4.0 Technology CodeReference
ManufacturingDigital transformation and intelligent management systemsI1Big data and AI and machine learningD11[55]
Digital twinD12[56]
Internet of Things (IoT)D13[57]
CybersecurityD14[58]
Advanced automation and roboticsI2Robots cooperating (cobots)D21[59]
Autonomous systems productionD22[60]
Vision systems and AI in roboticsD23[61]
Autonomous mobile robots (AMR)D24[62]
Optimising energy consumption—intelligent energy management in factoriesI3Intelligent energy monitoring and management Systems (EMS) and smart grid and digital twinsD31[63]
Integration with renewable energy sources and energy storageD32[64]
Sustainable materials and eco-friendly production processesI4Modern, ecological materials and raw materialsD41[65]
Ecological and energy-efficient production processes that reduce the consumption of raw materialsD42[66]
Supply Chain and LogisticsSmart logistics and transport optimisationS1Dynamic optimisation of transport routesG11[67]
Green logisticsG12[68]
Digital supply chain tracking and transparencyS2Blockchain in supply chainG21[69]
IoT and RFID for real-time product condition monitoringG22[70]
ESG systems and CO2 emission reportingG23[71]
Circular supply chain and circular economyS3Reverse logisticsG31[72]
3D printing in distributionG32[73]
Minimising warehouse and raw material losses using AI and big dataG33[74]
Smart warehouses and distribution hubsS4Autonomous warehouse systems (AGV and AMR)G41[75]
Ecological packagingG42[76]
Intelligent warehouse space managementG43[77]
Table 2. Sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Table 2. Sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Sustainable Industry 4.0 PerspectiveSustainable Industry 4.0 Perspective CodeDescription
Ecological–EnvironmentalL1Sustainability in the context of Industry 4.0 entails minimising the impact of manufacturing activities on the environment through efficient resource management, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and optimising product life cycles. Key enabling technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and big data analytics facilitate improved monitoring and control of raw material, energy, and water consumption. Smart manufacturing systems enable the dynamic adjustment of processes, thereby minimizing waste, and increasing energy efficiency. In addition, the adoption of circular economy principles and advanced recycling methods support the reuse of raw materials, thereby reducing dependence on virgin resources and mitigating negative environmental impacts.
SocialL2The social dimension of sustainability within Industry 4.0 encompasses both employee well-being and corporate social responsibility. While automation and digitalization can enhance working conditions by eliminating repetitive and hazardous tasks, they simultaneously necessitate employee reskilling and adaptation to evolving labour market demands. Investing in comprehensive training programmes to ensure long-term employment and foster workforce development is, therefore, essential. Furthermore, an ethical supply chain includes respecting human rights, equitable trading practices, and transparency in supplier relations. Implementing initiatives such as fair trade and sustainable sourcing enables the creation of a more just and resilient production system that benefits both local and global communities.
Economic and FinancialL3The economic and financial dimension in sustainable Industry 4.0 emphasises the long-term profitability and cost-effectiveness of implementing innovative technologies. The digitalization of production and logistics processes allows for the optimisation of operating costs and increased predictability of expenditures through real-time data analysis. The integration of AI and IoT-based systems facilitates better resource allocation, loss reduction and optimization of inventory management, which translates into increased efficiency and competitiveness of enterprises. Investments in green technologies, such as renewable energy sources, eco-friendly materials, and low-emission production processes, can yield long-term financial gains by lowering compliance costs and mitigating the impact of rising raw material prices. Furthermore, the implementation of ESG (environmental, social, governance) strategies increases the attractiveness of enterprises for investors and allows access to preferential forms of financing.
OperationalL4Sustainable operations in Industry 4.0 involve the optimisation of production and logistics processes through the application of advanced digital technologies. Intelligent manufacturing systems (MES), digital twins, and machine learning enable predictive maintenance and dynamic adjustment of production parameters to increase efficiency. The implementation of automated and flexible production lines enables rapid adaptation to changing market conditions, thereby reducing waste and improves operational efficiency. Integration of digital supply chains is also critical, as technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) enhance transparency, material flow traceability, and collaboration among business partners. The optimisation of logistical processes, reduction in empty runs, and use of intelligent warehouses based on robotics and automation support both operational efficiency and sustainability goals by reducing CO2 emissions and lowering transportation costs.
Table 3. Causality and centrality indices.
Table 3. Causality and centrality indices.
Industry 4.0
Subsphere Code
D i R i D i R i D i + R i Industry 4.0 Technology Code D i R i D i R i D i + R i
I11.6291.5740.0553.203D114.6224.749−0.1279.371
D124.1714.322−0.1518.493
D135.0064.1880.8199.194
D144.9824.9540.0289.936
I21.4051.436−0.0312.841D213.8114.219−0.4088.031
D224.8994.4930.4059.392
D233.9473.4570.4907.404
D243.6174.443−0.8268.060
I31.4011.505−0.1042.906D314.6894.5590.1309.248
D323.4494.191−0.7427.640
I41.5151.4010.1142.917D413.6443.816−0.1727.459
D425.1704.3580.8129.529
S11.2951.339−0.432.634G114.2323.6370.5957.869
G123.2714.128−0.8577.399
S21.4661.430.0362.896G214.1144.0390.0758.152
G225.0874.6660.4219.753
G233.4903.674−0.1837.164
S31.3191.452−0.1332.772G313.6173.839−0.2237.456
G323.1234.251−1.1297.374
G334.6624.4890.1739.152
S41.4331.3280.1062.761G414.1973.9990.1988.196
G423.5614.018−0.4587.579
G434.6534.0180.6358.672
Table 4. Industry 4.0 technology ranking.
Table 4. Industry 4.0 technology ranking.
Industry 4.0 Technology CodeWRanking
D1148,6755
D1244,11410
D1347,7557
D1451,6091
D2141,71414
D2248,7844
D2338,45820
D2441,86513
D3148,0366
D3239,68416
D4138,74318
D4249,4953
G1140,87315
G1238,43221
G2142,34312
G2250,6592
G2337,21123
G3138,72819
G3238,30222
G3347,5378
G4142,57211
G4239,36717
G4345,0449
Table 5. The impact of Industry 4.0 technology on sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Table 5. The impact of Industry 4.0 technology on sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Industry 4.0 Technology CodeL1L2L3L4
D113.7274.6364.7274.273
D123.2734.3643.2733.545
D131.6364.5453.0914.636
D142.1822.3644.9093.909
D213.4552.9093.9092.273
D221.9093.7274.5454.273
D231.2732.1821.8182.273
D241.9092.3644.1823.091
D311.7273.7273.1824.545
D323.4551.7272.8182.091
D411.6362.6362.0912.091
D421.9094.9094.7273.909
G112.9091.9093.4552.727
G121.9090.9093.1822.364
G214.0912.0914.4553.636
G222.0912.3643.9094.909
G230.8181.8182.9091.818
G312.5450.5453.5454.273
G321.5451.2733.6363.909
G332.0913.7274.3643.545
G414.1823.4553.1823.636
G420.9091.2734.0912.727
G432.1823.4554.2734.364
Table 6. Industry 4.0 technologies, preference functions, and sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Table 6. Industry 4.0 technologies, preference functions, and sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Industry 4.0 TechnologiesIndustry 4.0 Technologies CodeType of Preference FunctionClass of Preference FunctionParameter ValueUnit of Preference FunctionSustainable Industry 4.0 Perspectives
Big data and AI and machine learningD11Qualitative21 L4
Digital twinD12Quantitative32Share of usage in the total number of processesL3
Internet of Things (IoT)D13Quantitative10Number of sensorsL4
CybersecurityD14Quantitative31Number of regulations, hardware redundancies, and software safeguardsL4
Robots cooperating (cobots)D21Quantitative10Number of robotsL3
Autonomous systems productionD22Quantitative32Share of usage in the total number of processesL3
Vision systems and AI in roboticsD23Qualitative21 L4
Autonomous mobile robots (AMR)D24Quantitative10Number of robotsL2
Intelligent energy monitoring and management systems (EMS) and smart grid and digital twinsD31Quantitative32The share of renewable sources in the entire energy systemL2
Integration with renewable energy sources and energy storageD32Qualitative21 L4
Modern, ecological materials, and raw materialsD41Qualitative21 L1
Ecological and energy-efficient production processes that reduce the consumption of raw materialsD42Qualitative21 L3
Dynamic optimisation of transport routesG11Qualitative21 L4
Green logisticsG12Quantitative10Number vehiclesL1
Blockchain in supply chainG21Qualitative21 L2
IoT and RFID for real-time product condition monitoringG22Quantitative10Number of sensorsL4
ESG systems and CO emission reportingG23Qualitative21 L1
Reverse logisticsG31Quantitative32Reverse share logistics in total material turnoverL4
3D printing in distributionG32Qualitative21 L3
Minimising warehouse and raw material losses using AI and big dataG33Qualitative21 L3
Autonomous warehouse systems (AGV and AMR)G41Qualitative21 L2
Ecological packagingG42Qualitative21 L1
Intelligent warehouse space managementG43Qualitative21 L4
Table 7. Leaving flow, entering flow, and net flow for sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Table 7. Leaving flow, entering flow, and net flow for sustainable Industry 4.0 perspectives.
Sustainable Industry 4.0 PerspectiveSustainable Industry 4.0 Perspective CodeLeaving Flow
Φ + ( i )
Entering Flow
Φ ( i )
Net Flow
Φ ( i )
Ranking
Ecological–EnvironmentalL1365.7441788.51−1422.764
SocialL2678.421107.08−428.6633
Economic and FinancialL31419.63278.7981140.831
OperationalL41158.12447.527710.5972
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

Torbacki, W. Towards Sustainable Industry 4.0: An MCDA-Based Assessment Framework for Manufacturing and Logistics. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5082. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115082

AMA Style

Torbacki W. Towards Sustainable Industry 4.0: An MCDA-Based Assessment Framework for Manufacturing and Logistics. Sustainability. 2025; 17(11):5082. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115082

Chicago/Turabian Style

Torbacki, Witold. 2025. "Towards Sustainable Industry 4.0: An MCDA-Based Assessment Framework for Manufacturing and Logistics" Sustainability 17, no. 11: 5082. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115082

APA Style

Torbacki, W. (2025). Towards Sustainable Industry 4.0: An MCDA-Based Assessment Framework for Manufacturing and Logistics. Sustainability, 17(11), 5082. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115082

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