Evaluating the Impact of University-Led Experiential Learning on Rural Development and Sustainable Manufacturing in Louisiana

Abstract

This paper seeks to establish the impact of university experiential learning programs on small- to medium-sized enterprises while emphasizing the benefit to rural workforce development and sustainable manufacturing practices. Data were collected from diverse partners of Louisiana State University’s experiential learning program over the last 7 years to illustrate the types of recommendations and implementation statistics for sustainable manufacturing practices. The study found that rural enterprises favored the adoption of short-term, high-saving solutions to mitigate the impact of utility costs resulting from geographical isolation, while there was low implementation of long-term, large investment projects. This highlighted the practical feasibility of a project over a focus on long-term sustainability plans, which require significant capital investment, management planning, and employee training. This study outlines a university-led experiential learning program’s engagement through academic–industrial partnerships that serve student development and the economic advancement of small- to medium-sized enterprises. The data can direct future incentive opportunities for sustainability projects that have more immediate payback, to increase the adoption rate in rural facilities. The larger implication provides a framework and validation that can support the development of similar programs for extension and enterprise engagement to impact sustainable manufacturing practices.

1. Introduction

The intersection of higher education, experiential learning, and sustainable manufacturing represents a critical frontier in addressing contemporary environmental and economic challenges. Manufacturing remains a cornerstone of many rural economies, providing employment and income that is proportionally more significant than in urban areas. In the United States, manufacturing in rural regions accounts for approximately 14% of private nonfarm employment and 21% of labor earnings, compared to just 7% and 11% in urban areas, respectively [1]. With a contribution of nearly $2.3 trillion to the national GDP in 2023, the sector’s vitality is intrinsically linked to national economic health [2]. However, as global awareness of environmental sustainability intensifies, these enterprises face increasing pressure to adopt sustainable practices while maintaining competitiveness. This challenge is particularly pronounced in rural areas, where manufacturing operations often serve as economic anchors but may lack the immediate access to advanced sustainability knowledge, technologies, and a skilled workforce that their urban counterparts enjoy.

Rural manufacturers today face a confluence of acute sustainability challenges, both economic and environmental. Many operate with slim profit margins and aging infrastructure, making large capital investments in green technology a significant hurdle. Compounding this is a persistent workforce crisis. In a 2022 National Association of Manufacturers survey, 64% of rural manufacturers reported difficulty attracting new employees to their areas. This is largely due to limited local labor pools and an aging workforce, with over 25% of employees aged 55 or older, portending a substantial skill gap as retirements accelerate [3]. The workforce gap is exacerbated by a phenomenon known as rural “brain drain,” where younger, educated individuals migrate to urban centers for greater opportunities, further depleting the local talent pool [4]. These constraints have tangible economic consequences; the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that manufacturing-dependent rural counties experience 20–30% lower GDP growth rates than their urban counterparts during economic downturns [5]. This is largely due to slower workforce replenishment and technological adoption, a gap with real-world impacts. For example, manufacturers that had integrated digital monitoring systems during the COVID-19 pandemic reported recovering production volumes 25% faster than those without such systems [6]. Furthermore, rural firms often lack proximity to technical consultants, making it more difficult to innovate [7].

Bridging this workforce and innovation gap requires creative, collaborative approaches. Recognizing the difficulty of external recruitment, many rural manufacturers are investing internally; a 2021 Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) survey found that 47% of rural manufacturers had increased spending on in-house training over the past three years. University-led work-integrated learning (WIL) programs have emerged as a powerful mechanism to amplify these efforts. These programs create a symbiotic relationship; students gain invaluable real-world skills, while companies gain access to technical expertise and a direct pipeline to emerging talent. Studies have shown that students participating in WIL programs demonstrate up to a 20% increase in employment rates in their field post-graduation [8]. A notable national model is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Industrial Training and Assessment Centers (ITAC) program. This initiative deploys faculty and students to conduct no-cost technical assessments for SMEs, aiming to identify energy and productivity savings while providing students with applied learning experiences [9].

The ITAC program has a long and successful history. Since its inception in 1976, it has conducted over 22,000 assessments, resulting in more than 164,000 recommended actions for improvement [10]. On average, each assessment identifies approximately $140,000 in potential annual savings for the manufacturer. This model directly bolsters the sustainability of SMEs, which are the backbone of rural economies. For students, the program is a transformative workforce development platform. A DOE-sponsored evaluation found that ITAC alumni possess, on average, 72% more energy-efficiency-related skills than their peers [11]. By extending technical assistance to areas that might otherwise lack such expertise, programs such as ITAC play a pivotal role in supporting rural manufacturers. This study evaluates the impact of one such program, the Louisiana State University Industrial Training Assessment Center (LSU-ITAC), on SMEs in Louisiana, seeking to establish the tangible impact of this model on rural workforce development and sustainable manufacturing.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Manufacturing Sustainability Initiatives

The pursuit of sustainability in manufacturing has evolved from a niche concern into a strategic imperative, driven by a combination of increasing environmental awareness, stringent regulatory pressures, and a growing recognition of the business benefits associated with sustainable practices. The concept of “green manufacturing” encompasses a range of practices, including waste reduction, the adoption of eco-friendly techniques, the use of reusable resources, and a general commitment to environmental stewardship. Research demonstrates that these practices are increasingly prevalent among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and can significantly enhance business performance by improving competitive standing, bolstering social perception, and ultimately leading to increased product awareness and customer demand. The implementation of sustainable practices is influenced by a complex web of internal and external drivers. A systematic literature review identified 87 distinct drivers, categorized into internal factors such as top management support and environmental orientation, and external factors such as regulatory requirements, customer demands, and competitive pressures [12].

The evidence consistently shows that sustainable manufacturing practices contribute to enhanced environmental, economic, and social performance. Through cleaner production processes and eco-efficiency measures, these initiatives lead to a reduced environmental impact and improved operational efficiency [13]. However, the path to sustainability is not without significant obstacles, particularly for SMEs in rural contexts. These enterprises face substantial barriers, including limited financial resources for capital-intensive green technologies, a lack of in-house technical expertise, insufficient knowledge about available technologies, and inadequate support from supply chain partners [7,14]. These challenges are often more pronounced in developing countries, where infrastructure limitations and regulatory uncertainty add further complications. Despite these hurdles, the successful implementation of sustainable manufacturing has been documented across diverse geographic and industrial settings. This suggests that with appropriate support mechanisms such as university partnerships, government incentives, and knowledge-sharing platforms, many of the barriers to adoption can be effectively overcome, allowing SMEs to reap the benefits of a more sustainable operational model.

2.2. Rural Workforce Development

The rural U.S. manufacturing sector faces a unique and pressing set of human capital challenges that threaten its long-term competitiveness. Geographic isolation and lower population densities inherently reduce the size of the available labor pool. Rural counties, on average, have 35% fewer workers in the prime age range of 25–44 compared to urban counties, limiting the supply of mid-career skilled labor [15]. This demographic deficit is compounded by high outmigration rates among younger adults, with some rural regions experiencing net losses of 15–20% of their 20-to-34-year-old population over the last decade, a trend often referred to as “brain drain” [4]. Furthermore, the existing workforce is aging rapidly, with retirement eligibility concentrated in critical technical roles. This creates a looming skills gap that is difficult to fill from the local population.

A significant portion of the demand in this sector is for “middle-skill” jobs, those requiring more than a high school diploma but less than a four-year degree. Education degrees for manufacturing jobs in rural areas fall into this category, and the shortage of qualified workers has been identified as a primary bottleneck to industrial productivity growth [16]. Skill development programs are, therefore, crucial for enabling economic growth and promoting livelihood opportunities for rural youth. However, the effectiveness of these programs hinges on a strong alignment between training content and the specific, evolving needs of local industries—a connection that is often a persistent challenge in isolated regions. In some cases, agricultural industries favor temporary employment or guest-working programs to supplement labor shortages [17]. The shift to guest-working programs generates a different set of challenges, including a validated productivity increase, uncertainty regarding employee development, and a remaining technological disconnect from skilled labor [18].

Technology adoption is becoming increasingly vital for the competitiveness of rural manufacturers. Studies indicate that rural plants adopting advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) can achieve labor productivity gains of up to 18% within two years [19]. However, adoption rates lag significantly behind urban counterparts. The USDA (2022) notes that only 38% of rural manufacturers have implemented at least one form of digital manufacturing technology, compared to 59% of urban manufacturers [5]. This gap is driven by barriers such as limited access to capital, a lack of technical expertise, and uncertainty about the return on investment. This technological divide has profound implications for export performance, market diversification, and resilience to supply chain shocks. Partnerships with universities and technical centers have been shown to accelerate technology adoption by providing the necessary expertise, prototyping capabilities, and workforce training that would otherwise be inaccessible, thereby addressing both the skills gap and the technology gap simultaneously.

2.3. Experience Learning Programs

Experiential learning programs, often operationalized as WIL, have gained significant recognition as highly effective pedagogical approaches for developing practical skills, enhancing student engagement, and creating meaningful connections between academic theory and real-world application. These programs are particularly valuable in the context of sustainability education, where complex, interdisciplinary challenges demand integrated, hands-on problem-solving capabilities that transcend traditional classroom learning [20]. The core principle of experiential learning is that direct experience, coupled with structured reflection, leads to deeper and more durable learning outcomes.

The benefits of these programs extend to all stakeholders. For students, participation in WIL is strongly correlated with improved post-graduation employment outcomes. A meta-analysis by Jackson (2015) found that graduates with WIL experience were 15% more likely to secure full-time employment within six months of graduation [21]. They also report enhanced practical skills, greater confidence, and improved problem-solving abilities. For industry partners, especially SMEs, these collaborations provide a low-cost, high-value infusion of talent and innovation [22]. They gain access to fresh perspectives, cutting-edge academic knowledge, and potential future employees who have already demonstrated practical competencies [23]. Case studies of university–industry partnerships have documented substantial operational benefits for participating companies, with annual savings often exceeding $60,000, largely through projects focused on process optimization and waste reduction [24,25].

The success of experiential learning programs depends heavily on several key factors. Chief among them is the cultivation of authentic, meaningful industry partnerships. The most effective collaborations are characterized by a balanced relationship that leverages both “exploitation” (focusing on production and efficiency) and “exploration” (focusing on innovation and research) to create mutual value. A strong alignment of inter-organizational values, particularly around community service and social responsibility, also contributes significantly to the sustainability and effectiveness of the partnership. While these programs present challenges in coordination, resource allocation, and the need for sustained commitment, their proven ability to develop a skilled workforce while simultaneously driving industry innovation makes them an indispensable tool for advancing rural manufacturing sustainability.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. University Data Collection

The data from the Louisiana State University Industrial Training and Assessments Center (LSU-ITAC) is publicly available from the Department of Energy Industrial Training and Assessment Center database [26]. Each unique assessment with corresponding industrial identification information and recommendations is uploaded within 60 days of the conducted visit. From here, cumulative or university-specific datasets can be downloaded from the public website. For the impact analysis, all sites visited by the LSU-ITAC program were separated into rural and urban designated areas using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Eligibility Map [27]. The USDA uses this map to identify businesses eligible for federal grant funding for water and energy infrastructure. Areas are distinguished based on the United States census area and are updated yearly for eligibility for program areas. Additionally, the three parameters used to estimate the impact of the program on SMEs include the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, assessment recommendation code (ARC), and implementation statistics. The NAICS and ARC codes are consistently reported across each independent university program, while implementation statistics is a measure of a facilities adoption of recommendations through university survey 270 days after the assessment report is shared with the facility.

The NAICS codes were established for federal agencies to collect and analyze data across businesses [28]. For this analysis, the LSU-ITAC partnering facilities were organized (in

Table 1. Manufacturing NAICS classification and secondary categories for the LSU-ITAC program comparison.

NAICS Code	Description	Secondary Category
3111	Animal Food	Agricultural
3112	Grain and Oilseed Milling
3113	Sugar and Confectionery Product
3114	Fruit, Vegetable Preserving, and Specialty Food
3116	Animal Slaughtering and Processing
3117	Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging
3118	Bakeries and Tortilla	Food and Beverage
3119	Other Food
3121	Beverage
3133	Textile and Fabric Finishing and Fabric Coating Mills	Textile
3149	Other Textile Products
3211	Sawmills and Wood Preservation	Wood and Paper
3219	Other Wood Product Manufacturing
3221	Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills
3222	Converted Paper Product Manufacturing
3231	Printing and Related Support Activities
3241	Petroleum and Coal Products	Chemical
3251	Basic Chemical
3252	Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments
3253	Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical
3256	Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation
3259	Other Chemical Product and Preparation
3261	Plastics Product
3273	Cement and Concrete Product	Concrete and Aggregate
3274	Lime and Gypsum Product
3313	Alumina and Aluminum Production/Processing	Metal and Steel
3314	Other Nonferrous Metal Production/Processing
3323	Architectural and Structural Metals
3324	Boiler, Tank, and Shipping Container
3327	Machine Shops; Turned Product; and Screw, Nut, and Bolt
3329	Other Fabricated Metal Product
3331	Agriculture, Construction, and Mining Machinery
3332	Industrial Machinery
3334	Ventilation, Heating, Air Conditioning, and Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
3339	Other General Purpose Machinery
3345	Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control
3353	Electrical Equipment

) according to the NAICS codes and separated into secondary categories based on primary products to compare datasets from rural and urban SMEs.

The recommendation categories are strategically arranged based on major operating systems and equipment [29]. Each university with an ITAC program utilizes the codes for uniform entry into the public database. The ARC numbers are 5 digits that indicate the focus area (energy, waste minimization, or productivity), type of system (combustions, thermal, motor, etc.), specific equipment, primary location, and a brief description of recommendations, as can be seen in

Table 2. An example recommendation would be listed by the following coding.

Number	Recommendation Area
2.	Energy Management
2.4	Motor Systems
2.42	Air Compressors
2.423	Operations
2.4236	Eliminate leaks in inert gas and compressed air lines/values

. This allows for standardized recommendations for university comparison within the ITAC program.

For the analysis of recommendation impacts,

Table 3. ARC focus areas and types of systems for relevant recommendations.

ARC	Type of System
2-Energy Management
2.1	Combustion Systems
2.2	Thermal Systems
2.3	Electrical Power
2.4	Motor Systems
2.6	Operations
2.7	Building and Grounds
2.8	Ancillary Costs
2.9	Alternative Energy Usage
3-Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention
3.1	Operations
3.2	Equipment
3.3	Post Generation Treatment/Minimization
3.4	Water Use
3.5	Recycling
3.6	Waste Disposal
3.7	Maintenance
3.8	Raw Materials
4-Direct Productivity Enhancement
4.1	Manufacturing Enhancements
4.3	Inventory
4.4	Labor Optimization
4.5	Space Utilization
4.6	Reduction in Downtime
4.8	Other Administrative Savings

classifies the ARC codes by the focus area and type of system. Each ARC code is universal throughout the ITAC programs, allowing for uniform student training and data base analysis. Data will be discussed with more descriptive ARC where necessary.

The university assessment processes document on-site technical assistance using the NAICS and ARC values to protect partners’ confidentiality on the public database. A uniform set of recommendations [29] is provided by the Department of Energy for standardization and comparability between programs. During the assessment processes, the facilities are required to share utility data and other basic information, such as operation hours and total employees, for university personnel to conduct analyses, generate sustainability reports, and record them in the database. A 12-month utility analysis (energy, gas, water, etc.) is performed by university teams to establish a baseline, and data collected from the single day site visit using various in situ tools are applied for calculations. An example of data collection includes infrared cameras to measure heat reclamation, digital light meters used to recommend decreasing over lit spaces, and water quality sondes for chemical treatment optimization. In some cases, if the recommendation requires continued data, facilities will allow for dataloggers to monitor utility usage for calculations to be generated. The sustainability report is then shared with the facility for the next phase of implementation for identified recommendations. University programs are encouraged to identify rebate programs through utility providers and federal funding opportunities to promote the adoption of recommendations for utility savings. In 2023, the DOE MESC opened an implementation grant program for industrial facilities that partnered with university programs or strategic third-party providers. This grant was a match funding opportunity for large capital projects. The aim was to increase implementation rates and provide access to SMEs for energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades. Implementation statistics are tracked by individual university programs through follow-up surveys or meetings hosted with partnering facilities. Many assessments build the foundation for long-term collaborations for academic research and workforce development for graduating students through implemented projects.

3.2. Statistical Analysis

For the presented LSU-ITAC data, a statistical analysis was conducted on JMP Statistical Discover Edition 18 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). A series of distributive analysis techniques was used to generate the basic mean values and confidence intervals for the data. The analysis was also used to determine a one-way analysis of rural versus urban datasets to establish data significance at the “<0.05” threshold. This analysis provides validation for significant difference in trends of recommendations at rural and urban SMEs.

4. Results

4.1. Distribution of Manufacturing Assessments

Geographically, the LSU-ITAC conducts assessments within a 150 mile radius of the university. Since 2017, there have been 198 assessments conducted across various industries. A commercial assessment program was added in 2021 to focus specifically on NAICS codes outside of the 31–33 manufacturing classification. For the purpose of this dataset, any facilities outside of the Table 1 classifications and secondary categories were excluded. The excluded data include on-site technical assistance at drinking water supply (221310), wastewater treatment (221320), warehouses (452311), schools (611110), hotels (721110), and museums (712110) that are listed on the public university database [30]. The distribution of SME communities that partner with the program is critical to building diverse recommendations, expanding academic collaborations, and providing a larger network for student experiential learning. Based on the secondary classification of sites visited by the LSU-ITAC program, Figure 1 shows the percentage of industries assessed by the team in rural and urban designated areas. This figure provides a visual comparison and indicates a trend of the distribution of SME types in the designated areas that were assessed by the team. This includes the top three facility types in the rural areas are metal and steel (31%), agriculture (29%), and chemical (19%). For urban areas, the top three facility types were food and beverage (32%), metal and steel (23%), and chemical (19%). In total, there were 127 assessments used for this analysis, with 74 in rural areas and 53 in urban areas.

There was a clear distinction in the average size of the company when separated by area. In rural areas, the average number of employees was 154 and the plant size was 989,729 square feet. For the urban areas, the average number of employees was 98 and the plant size was 331,012 square feet. It was also seen that in rural areas, approximately 72% used the state’s largest energy provider, while in urban areas approximately 79% were contracted with the same company. The two areas share similar characteristics of yearly production hours and average recommendations per site. These metrics provide additional insight for assessing the impact of the recommendations on SMEs. The statistical analysis performed on the general data collected at the site (seen in

Table 4. Average values and one-way analysis t-test results for rural and urban SME general data.

Comparison Metric	Rural SME Average	Urban SME Average	T-Test Probability
Number of Employees	154 Employees	98 Employees	0.0133 *
Plant Size	989,729 Sqrt. Ft.	331,012 Sqrt. Ft.	0.0869
Production Hours	5291 h	4713 h	0.0915
Total Energy Cost	$1,767,850	$769,256	0.0321 *
Total Expected Energy Savings	984,932 kWh	604,390 kWh	0.1273
Recommended Savings	$151,280	$60,925	0.0012 *

* Indicates the one-way analysis had a statistical difference at the <0.05 threshold.

) indicates a significant difference in the number of employees and total energy costs between rural and urban areas. In contrast, the plant sizes and production hours were not statistically different between the distinct areas.

4.2. Recommendation Statistics from Program History

Across the 127 assessments in the defined NAICS parameters, the average energy cost was $1,351,114 per year for the participating SMEs. When split into areas, the average energy cost for rural facilities was calculated as $1,767,850, while urban areas had a lower cost of $769,256. Even though the average yearly hours for rural facilities were slightly higher at 5291 compared to urban areas working 4713, the higher energy cost could be more associated with the size and location of the facility. The technical assistance provided by LSU-ITAC outlines the opportunities to save on energy, waste, water, and productivity through the recommendation process. An average of six recommendations are given per site in both designated areas. This equates to 763 recommendations at partnering manufacturing facilities, with an estimated energy reduction of 104,917,685 kilowatt-hours (kWh) for $14,423,783 in savings. Rural facilities benefited from average energy reductions of 984,932 kWh and $151,280, while urban locations averaged 604,390 kWh and $60,925 in estimated savings. Table 4 shows there were no statistical difference in the total energy saved in kWh between areas, but the recommend savings in dollars were significantly different. These values are calculated based on all recommendations offered to the facility assuming full implementation. The recommendations range across all focus areas, including energy management, waste minimization, and direct productivity enhancements. Most recommendations are concentrated on energy management. Of the 763 recommendations made, only 45 were focused on waste minimization, and an additional 40 for direct productivity enhancement. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of recommendations in rural and urban facilities based on the energy management system type and to the total percentage of recommendations in the waste minimization and direct productivity enhancement focus area. This provides information into major areas of improvement identified by the LSU-ITAC team and indicates trends for future incentive areas.

In both rural and urban areas, the motor systems (2.4) and building and grounds (2.7) ARCs were the largest recommended areas. In a recent impact assessment for the ITAC program, it was seen that these recommendations are statistically higher in most university-based programs [11]. For partnering facilities, the feasibility of recommendations based on implementation costs, savings, and payback periods promotes the implementation of projects.

4.3. Trends for Implementation

The LSU-ITAC has had increasing implementation statistics since the center started in 2017. Taking into consideration all the assessments conducted with implementation surveys completed, from 2017 to 2020 the program ranged from 21.7 to 34.5% for recommendation implementation. As the program became more established, LSU-ITAC has increased implementation to an average of 51.3% across all 8 years, with the highest in 2024 at 68.5% implementation. This is in part due to the addition of the commercial program in 2021, which increased the total number of assessments completed. For the following analysis, manufacturers that had completed the survey and fell into the 31–33 NAICS range were separated based on rural and urban areas to determine the implementation statistics for the program. To assess the effectiveness of recommendations for manufacturers, each of the ARCs was totaled and a percent implementation for each category was calculated (

Table 5. Total recommendation and percent implementation statistics for LSU-ITAC recommendations.

Assessment Recommendation Code	Rural Manufacturers		Urban Manufacturers
	Total Recommendations	Percent Implemented	Total Recommendations	Percent Implemented
2-Energy Management	331	44.1	277	48.7
2.1-Combustion Systems	8	12.5	9	33.3
2.2-Thermal Systems	16	25.0	25	36.0
2.3-Electrical Power	8	0.0	2	0.0
2.4-Motor Systems	128	44.5	102	52.0
2.6-Operations	10	40.0	11	36.4
2.7-Building and Grounds	148	52.0	115	53.9
2.8-Ancillary Costs	3	66.7	6	33.3
2.9-Alternative Energy Usage	10	10.0	7	28.6
3-Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention	23	26.1	14	35.7
4-Direct Productivity Enhancement	12	33.3	17	64.7
Total Implementations Rate	42.6%		49.0%

). This provides insight into the likeness of an SME adopting the recommendations to guide future assessments and targeted recommendations. Due to low total recommendations for waste minimization/pollution prevention and direct productivity enhancement focus areas, each individual ARC in these areas was summed together to make one category.

In each of the designated areas, the 2.7 building and grounds ARC had the most total recommendations, with 52.0% and 53.9% for rural and urban SMEs, respectively. The next highest was 2.4 motor systems, where rural and urban had a 44.5% and 52.0% implementation rate for these ARCs. Another noticeable difference between the areas was the implementation of any recommendations in the direct productivity enhancement area. For rural facilities, there was only 33.3% implementation (of 12 recommendations) compared to 64.7% (of 17 recommendations) in the urban designated areas. A large portion of the direct product enhancement recommendations is for equipment replacement and integration of the industrial Internet of Things (IIOT). Since the implementation cost is a driver of project executions,

Table 6. Energy and cost savings for LSU-ITAC recommendations, with * indicating significant difference.

Assessment Recommendation Code	Rural Manufacturers		Urban Manufacturers
	Implemented Recommendations	Rejected Recommendations	Implemented Recommendations	Rejected Recommendations
Average Implementation Cost ($)	$40,643	$88,341	$30,229	$44,419
Average Cost Saved ($)	$16,897	$23,926	$9271	$9845
Average Energy Conserved (kWh)	211,989 *	177,202	85,623 *	135,960

* Indicates the one-way analysis had a statistical difference at the <0.05 threshold.

shows the average implementation cost, cost savings, and energy savings of implemented and rejected recommendations in designated rural and urban areas. This can be impactful when illustrating the different cost for rural manufacturers on average compared to projects in the urban setting. The average energy saved in kWh was the only data statistically different between the rural and urban facilities.

4.4. Workforce Development Training

The university programs seek to provide technical assistance to expand sustainable practices in manufacturing facilities while engaging students in place-based learning for workforce development training. This approach fosters practical and creative problem-solving for the sustainability challenges of local stakeholders. There have been 102 students who participated in the LSU-ITAC program with various backgrounds, including engineering (mechanical, industrial, construction management, etc.), environmental management systems, and business. The program has both undergraduate and graduate student interns who are able to learn from peers, faculty, and industry personnel as they enhance communication skills, broaden critical thinking, and develop local networks for career opportunities. The DOE-ITAC program has established the ITAC Student Certificate of Achievement for students who complete assessment milestones and develop core skills in energy management. This includes achieving at least 6 site visits, generating reports with utility analyses, developing recommendations, and communicating as student leads for assessments. Through the first nine years of the program, LSU has generated 43 students with the DOE Student Certificate for their work with local manufacturers. More than 10 students have transitioned from the LSU-ITAC program into positions affiliated with assessments or manufacturing assessments.

5. Discussion

5.1. Rural and Urban Designation of SME Partnerships and Workforce Advancement

In the current consumer markets, there is an immediate push for sustainable manufacturing. For some companies, resources for life cycle analyses (LCAs) and project implementation funding are more feasible with national corporate infrastructure and an available workforce [7,31]. Although standards have been set for certain industries, the SSMs in rural areas lack the training for sustainability concepts and capital for the implementation of newer technologies. This can be mitigated by training students using place-based learning or incorporating lean manufacturing practices into curricula [32]. The university ITAC programs allow students hands-on engagement opportunities to work with manufacturers on immediate problems faced with labor, resources, capital investment, and training, which is evident from the programs’ impacts since its inception in 1978 [10]. On average, the university programs host approximately 11 undergraduates per year, while 30% will successfully receive the student energy certificate [26]. The LSU-ITAC has a 50% student energy certificate rate for an average of 18 undergraduate students per year, which increases the skills of the future workforce leaving the university. For the state of Louisiana, the rural and urban landscape shows different opportunities for impacts in a wide range of industrial sectors, while the university extension networks maximize the engagement of students and manufacturing enterprises. Specifically, through agricultural centers, the impact of experiential learning programs can be tailored to rural communities to advance rural development strategies through technical assistance, guidance for funding opportunities, and the introduction of a student workforce to isolated industries. This structure bridges classroom learning with hands-on field experience and promotes communication with stakeholders to address persistent issues with practical solutions.

For rural SSMs, the metal and steel industries are primarily shipbuilding companies for the coastal maritime industry, while agriculture processors are a staple for Louisiana’s diverse crop and aquaculture economy. These businesses tend to be larger sized with more personnel due to the availability of low-cost land and storage space for products. The geographic location of SSMs can complicate access to resources and the workforce. Many of the agricultural industries express to students the difficulty of maintaining continuous employment. The investment made in temporary employment is necessary for the work to be completed but inadequate for long-term business success due to uncertainty in technological adoption and management-level development [33]. An additional issue for these facilities is increased utility costs from smaller utility grids and larger, more intensive practices. This is supported by the statistical difference in Table 4, showing a one-way analysis of rural and urban industries, and a commonality in comparison to both industrialized and developing countries [34,35]. Most of the rural SSMs were in need of recommendations to outline cost savings and effective implementation plans based on project payback periods to reduce overhead costs.

In contrast, the urban site visits from the program were smaller facilities with fewer employees. These groups were in highly urbanized city areas where expansion and storage were major issues. A large percentage of these companies had national corporate footprints, allowing them access to funding and resources if needed for projects. Another benefit of the national market is access to sustainability plans that prioritize projects with immediate payback potential, such as LED retrofits and air compressor leak remediation. In these facilities, students and faculty were challenged to showcase recommendations to enhance technology adoption. Many studies have been conducted to focus on the influence of implemented technology on manufacturing industries and its positive impact in advancement [36]. In certain cases, it has been seen that companies willing to promote technological change for environmental or workforce goals outside of their traditional responsibilities are more successful at attracting employees and expanding their business [37]. With technology rapidly evolving for manufacturers, managers must utilize resources to better understand applications of IIOT in unique industrial settings [38]. Technology-based recommendations tend to have longer payback windows from high implementation cost. By leveraging off-campus learning programs, academics can educate the future workforce through alternative methods of learning and expose students to rural SSMs in need of resources and urban facilities with sustainable focuses to build foundation knowledge in best manufacturing practices. Extension services through university networks provide the framework to engage industries in need of technical assistance, promote the adoption of new technology through demonstration projects, and provide access for industries to the future engineering and science workforce.

5.2. Feasibility of Recommendations and Implementation for Rural Development

For the program to have an impact on partnering SMEs, the recommendations should be feasible within current operations, and a clear implementation plan should be forecasted. The technical assistance provided takes into consideration partners’ immediate facility needs and interest in future projects based on familiarity with sustainability and the ability to pursue federal funding resources or incentives from local utilities. Studies have shown that assessment coupled with rebates, incentives, or other funding improves the likelihood of recommendations being implemented [39,40]. Many of the federal agencies that fund university-based programs offer additional pathways for SMEs to apply for implementation grants using recommendations forecasted during site visits. These stakeholder grants provide funding for projects that align with energy efficiency or sustainability-based projects that have a positive environmental impact.

The LSU-ITAC recommendations overlapped with trends seen at other universities [11]. These include the highest recommendation areas in 2.4 motor systems and 2.7 buildings and grounds, while also having lower total recommendations in the waste minimization/pollution prevention and direct productivity enhancement focus areas. The energy recommendations for rural and urban SMEs are consistent, with the most common areas being 2.4 and 2.7. These two ARCs encompass 71% of the energy recommendations and maintain lower payback periods for forecasted projects for the LSU-ITAC program. These areas include motor replacement, air compressor leak remediation, air compressor pressure optimization, adding thermostats, and LED retrofits. In comparison, these ARCs represent 67% of the energy recommendations for other universities [26], while Patterson et al. [25] cites motors (2.4) and building envelopes (2.7) as major opportunities for manufacturing energy savings. Each of these recommendation areas includes incentives from local utility companies for implementation. The largest difference in the energy recommendation for LSU-ITAC partners is seen in rural SMEs having twice the number of recommendations in combustion systems (2.1), electrical power (2.3), and alternative energy usage (2.9). This correlates largely to geographical locations. The combustion systems ARCs emphasize a shift from fossil fuel (natural gas) to electrical equipment due to demand issues, while the electrical power system power factor optimization ARC is in response to grid instability. Patterson et al. [25] and Miera et al. [10] list machine drive combustion systems as high-energy-using equipment in manufacturing facilities. Additionally, the increase in alternative energy recommendations is due to land availability on many rural sites. Although energy recommendations dominate the reporting process, since the second round of program funding in 2021, the LSU-ITAC has recommended ~5% less compared to the national average. This is in response to SMEs’ needs for recycling and technology recommendations. The recommendation stats show 16.7% and 15.6% non-energy recommendations for rural and urban SMEs, respectively. These are focused on the ARCs for recycling (3.5), maintenance (3.7), labor optimization (4.4), and reducing downtime (4.6). Rural SMEs have a higher recommendation percentage (11.6%) in pollution prevention compared to urban SMEs (10.1%), while direct productivity enhancements have ~5% of the recommendation dedicated to this focus area.

The implementation rate is the main indicator of the impact of university-based recommendations on SMEs. Overall, rural SMEs have a 6.4% lower adoption rate of recommendation. Previous economic studies support the barriers and hesitations for rural SME adoption, due to resource constraints [41]. For instance, in areas 2.1, 2.3, and 2.9, the rural facilities had double recommendations and yielded lower percent implementation for these ARCs. Alternative energy usage is ideal in rural settings where there is space available and uncertainty with the local grid power, yet the urban implementation rate of solar was 28.6% compared to the rural rate of 10.0%. In a study conducted on barriers for new technology adoption, it was seen that 13% of firms were willing to adopt renewable energy, which was the lower than other equipment such as precision machinery and monitoring sensors [41]. For direct productivity enhancements, codes 4.4 (labor optimization) and 4.6 (reducing downtime) primarily represent new equipment or the implementation of IIOT recommendations with large capital costs. For this focus area, rural SMEs had 33.3% implementation compared to 64.7% at urban facilities. Table 6 provides critical insight into recommendation adoption in rural and urban SMEs. Averaging all implemented and rejected ARCs for each designated area, it was seen that the rural facilities implementation cost was higher by $10,000 for accepted recommendations compared to urban areas but yielded higher cost savings and more kWh conserved. The average kWh savings at rural SMEs was 211,989 kWh for implemented projects compared to 85,623 kWh in urban SMEs, which was statistically different from the one-way analysis. Another noticeable difference in statistics was the implementation cost-per-kWh saved ratio. For rural SMEs to implement recommendations had a $0.19 ratio, while rejected recommendations were at $0.50, with over twice the implementation cost and 16% fewer average kWh savings. This indicates that facilities took advantage of recommendations with better energy-saving returns for implementation costs. The $0.50 ratio for rejected recommendations shows that there would be more capital investments without the corresponding energy savings. For instance, the case of alternative energy usage, such as through solar panels, suits longer-term sustainability than an immediate benefit at a lower cost, which is supported by studies in barriers of renewable energy systems in geographically isolated areas [42]. The urban SMEs having a $0.35 ratio for implemented initiatives and $0.33 for rejected initiatives, with increases of 46% in implementation cost and 58% in kWh conserved. This data indicate that urban SMEs are selective with recommendations that align with future sustainability plans. High implementation rates for larger-impact ARCs such as through direct productivity enhancements (64.7%) and alternative energy usage (28.6%) show willingness to pay for projects although they may have longer payback periods. Compared to an average payback period of 2.4 years in rural SMEs, urban projects take 3.26 years, with almost 60% less kWh savings. This would suggest rural SMEs are willing to implement ARCs with high savings and prioritize immediate payback compared to long-term sustainable options, while urban SMEs are more targeted with recommendations that suit sustainability action plans. Gennitsaris et al. [43], in a case study–best practices review, cites that up to 25% energy reduction can come from projects under 1.5 years of payback, which furthers the conclusion for rural development; this emphasized the need for short-term projects with high-impact savings to build a foundation for future projects. This also puts an emphasis on policy and incentives as drivers for the implementation of larger projects, which is prevalent in the current literature [44]. For the 59 rural facilities with completed implementation surveys, the total economic value of implemented projects was $2.64 M compared to $1.40 M over 53 urban sites surveyed during the same time. The drastic increase in economic impact for rural areas has pushed for more assessments to be performed for these SMEs, including 15 conducted in the 2024–2025 funding cycle to date.

6. Conclusions

The use of experiential learning programs for rural development provides SMEs with a valuable opportunity to understand sustainability-based projects and federal grant opportunities for implementation. The resource-saving recommendation can provide insight into short-term solutions and long-term goals for sustainable practices. For the universities, the SME partnership provides networks to build the future workforce through student interaction and place-based learning for immediate issues in manufacturing. An initial barrier for building university programs is access to resources. By looking at the historical recommendations and implementation of the LSU-ITAC program, there are trends that can help establish pathways for future rural development and technology adoption assistance. The analysis provides data supporting the need for short-term, high-energy-saving solutions for rural SMEs to reduce the impact of energy costs from geographical isolation. The low implementation of long-term, large investment projects in rural SMEs shows the focus is more practical and economically feasible for projects. This would increase the need for grant funding or incentives for the adoption of larger projects. Investing in the short term immediately saves money on energy consumption and can provide a foundation for future implementation. Building sustainability plans for rural SMEs may generate higher long-term investment interest once more critical projects are completed. This would mimic the data seen from urban SMEs, where there was greater implementation for targeted recommendations such as direct productivity enhancements and the use of alternative energy. These site-specific initiatives in sustainability-based projects can be further disseminated to showcase best management practices for rural manufacturing, with an emphasis on immediate cost and energy savings to promote capital growth. The limitations to the presented study are the regionally specific manufacturers, which could be expanded on in future research by incorporating the publicly available datasets from universities across the United States. Additionally, a systematic review of sustainability-based planning and adoption for rural SMEs could be a valuable resource for facility managers to access for the implementation of recommendations. This technique of university-led technical assistance promotes the innovative growth of SMEs through targeted recommendations in energy management, pollution prevention, and productivity enhancement while fostering connectivity to surrounding communities and students for workforce development.