Implementing Industry 4.0 through Cleaner Production and Social Stakeholders: Holistic and Sustainable Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research focuses on an interesting topic, suggesting a sustainable implemented model to include the cleaner production strategies (this aspect is missing in the title).

Introduction, methodology and engagement with existing literature are very good, however, the discussion and presentation of the most important section "4.4 Proposed model" is limited. The model lacks truly innovative elements, apart from the introduction of the "cleaner production strategy".

I invite the authors to consider a more detailed representation of the networked connections among the elements of the model. Currently, each element considered looks like a stand-alone factor, rather than a part of a holistic model.

 

Author Response

Letter to reviewer #1

 

Dear Reviewer #1,

Thank you for your time and cooperation to improve our manuscript entitled “Industry 4.0 implementation: holistic and sustainable model”.

Below are comments on your suggestions for improvements, which we appreciate in advance. Manuscript improvements to meet your suggestions are in blue in the manuscript, as are the answers to your considerations.

1) The research focuses on an interesting topic, suggesting a sustainable implemented model to include the cleaner production strategies (this aspect is missing in the title).

Thank you for your remarks.

Please see if this new title is acceptable.

“Implementing Industry 4.0 through cleaner production and social stakeholders: holistic and sustainable model”.

2) Introduction, methodology and engagement with existing literature are very good, however, the discussion and presentation of the most important section "4.4 Proposed model" is limited. The model lacks truly innovative elements, apart from the introduction of the "cleaner production strategy".

We appreciate your considerations.

Introduce at the beginning of section 4.4 to present the innovative elements:

The proposed model is centered on cleaner production strategy and on social stakeholders, as a basis for the implementation process, and not as a consequence of this implementation, as seen in some approaches.

The model shows the need for an integrated and participatory approach for the implementation of Industry 4.0, presenting the flow of processes that interact with each other, described below. It is designed to present a holistic view of the complexity surrounding the implementation of Industry 4.0, going beyond the purely technology-centric approach that has dominated academic studies, but considering the relevance of technology.

 

3) I invite the authors to consider a more detailed representation of the networked connections among the elements of the model. Currently, each element considered looks like a stand-alone factor, rather than a part of a holistic model.

Thank you for your remarks.

The network connections were included at the end of section "4.4 Proposed model", succinctly, as its full exposure would require another paper.

The processes that make up the holistic model are networked, influencing and being influenced by other processes. Depending on the stage of the industry, the greater the investment effort in the implementation process will be, which is influenced by the determination of Governments to support their industries for the implementation of Industry 4.0, through different mechanisms and/or actions.

The holistic model presents the network where top executives are influenced in their decisions about the implementation of Industry 4.0 by the cleaner production strategies, associated with the ease of finding qualified labor, affordable technology prices, which will determine the manufacturing processes, as well as internal and external infrastructure of the environment of the company.

The joint determination of social stakeholders to generate industrial development through the use of cleaner production strategies while preserving sustainable development and social harmony, ends up connecting to generate a positive impact on the Sustainable Development Goals.

 

The English was reviewed by a specialized English teacher.

 

Thank you for your remarks, time and support to improve our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is topical and very interesting. However, the presented method is somewhat outdated. Looking at its launch time, 2011. Nevertheless, the work is acceptable for further editing. The introduction provides a rich overview of the literature. Unfortunately, many items included in the literature at the end of the work are not cited, eg item [88] has no reference. There are many such examples. Chapter 2 contains a comprehensive literature review. Unfortunately, the drawings are largely cited. The same is true for most of the material contained in the work. Consider whether the authors own the copyrights to these drawings. Chapter 3. Material and method. In my opinion, the topic is quite narrowly presented. More should be elaborated on the topic where the scientific gap was filled while writing this work. Where is the science news? Where are your own ideas? Chapter 4 is another example of a scientific review with no results of its own. It should therefore be corrected. In chapters 4.3.1. format must be changed fonts. The same is true in the following subsections. Conclusions - the chapter is too long should only contain information on what has been achieved based on the results. What breakthrough in science has been achieved. Ideally, it should contain some references in the form of numbers. All work is largely data-free. So it is difficult to relate to other works. These are merely unconfirmed hypotheses. I would also ask you to supplement the literature with a few new items. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2020-0354; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082314; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082131

Author Response

Letter to reviewer #2

 

Dear Reviewer #2,

Thank you for your time and support to improve our manuscript entitled “Industry 4.0 implementation: holistic and sustainable model”.

Below are comments on your suggestions for improvements, which we appreciate in advance. Manuscript improvements to meet your suggestions are in blue in the manuscript, as are the answers to your considerations.

 

1) The topic is topical and very interesting. However, the presented method is somewhat outdated. Looking at its launch time, 2011. Nevertheless, the work is acceptable for further editing.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve the manuscript.

2) The introduction provides a rich overview of the literature. Unfortunately, many items included in the literature at the end of the work are not cited, eg item [88] has no reference. There are many such examples.

Thank you for your remarks.

It was made a revision in the reference list and its correspondence in the text., thank you.

Reference [88] was already in the original manuscript, p. 9 (penultimate line in the submitted manuscript):

“(5) Lu et al. [87], suggested that industries should consider in their business strategy, since the initial phase of implementing Industry 4.0, that in all decisions, policies, actions and practices, the following components should be analyzed: environmental, philanthropic, legal, ethical and economical. This reinforces the role of corporate social responsibility and organizational innovation in contributing to organizational performance [88], which is relevant to the adoption of an environmentally sustainable manufacturing.”

88. de Guimarães, J.C.F.; Severo, E.A.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Rosa, A.F.P. The journey towards sustainable product development: why are some manufacturing companies better than others at product innovation? Technovation 2021, 103, 1-15, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102239.

 

Figure 3 was wrongly referenced, our mistake. Thank you.

3) Chapter 2 contains a comprehensive literature review. Unfortunately, the drawings are largely cited. The same is true for most of the material contained in the work. Consider whether the authors own the copyrights to these drawings.

Thank you for your comments.

Figure 1 and 2 were designed by us and Figure 3 (The 17 Sustainable Development Goals) is a free to use picture from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Thank you.

4) Chapter 3. Material and method. In my opinion, the topic is quite narrowly presented. More should be elaborated on the topic where the scientific gap was filled while writing this work. Where is the science news? Where are your own ideas?

Thank you very much for this remark.

Changed the first paragraphs of Chapter 3 to suit your considerations:

3. Materials and Methods

As it was not possible to find in the literature a model that could take into account cleaner production and social stakeholders to help increase the sustainable transformation of companies towards the implementation of Industry 4.0 and, at the same time, achieve relevant Sustainable Development Goals, a literature review was used as the basis for the development of the model.

The initial model was presented to two Production Engineering Professors, each with more than 20 years of teaching and research experience, for validation, to ensure that the findings are relevant to achieving the objectives. They made minimal changes to the model, which were incorporated into the first model to be presented to specialists. (Reviewer #4)

The Delphi technique was used to ask specialists to evaluate the model. The Delphi technique is an interactive and systematic research technique to gather the consensus of opinion of a group of specialists on a specific subject [73].

Five experts were invited to evaluate the proposed model and the consensus among specialists was reached in a two-round Delphi survey. These specialists were strategically invited to participate, as they have more than 10 years of experience and are involved in the process of implementing Industry 4.0 in their companies.

 

5) Chapter 4 is another example of a scientific review with no results of its own.

We appreciate your considerations.

Introduced in the beginning of item 4.4 The proposed model:

The proposed model is centered on cleaner production strategy and on social stakeholders, as a basis for the implementation process, and not as a consequence of this implementation, as seen in some approaches.

The model shows the need for an integrated and participatory approach for the implementation of Industry 4.0, presenting the flow of processes that interact with each other, described below. It is designed to present a holistic view of the complexity surrounding the implementation of Industry 4.0, going beyond the purely technology-centric approach that has dominated academic studies, but considering the relevance of technology.

 

6) In chapters 4.3.1. format must be changed fonts. The same is true in the following subsections.

Thank you for the remark.

The template provided by the journal Sustainability (MDPI) informs that Subsections are in Italics, but Subsubsection are not. Example presented in the template:

3.1. Subsection

3.1.1. Subsubsection

Removed the space between subsubsections 4.3.1; 4.3.2 and the writings, thank you.

7) Conclusions - the chapter is too long should only contain information on what has been achieved based on the results. What breakthrough in science has been achieved. Ideally, it should contain some references in the form of numbers.

We appreciate your considerations.

In order to reduce the size of the Conclusion chapter size, not wasting content, Subsections 4.6 Contributions to theory and 4.7 Contributions to practice were introduced.

Breakthrough in science informed and references added to this new short Conclusion chapter.

8) All work is largely data-free. So it is difficult to relate to other works. These are merely unconfirmed hypotheses. I would also ask you to supplement the literature with a few new items.

https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2020-0354;

https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082314;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612;

https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082131.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Included in the manuscript:

95. Tripathi, S., Gupta, M. A holistic model for Global Industry 4.0 readiness assessment. Benchmarking. Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi:10.1108/BIJ-07-2020-0354.
96. Wróblewski, P., Drożdż, W., Lewicki, W., Miązek, P. Methodology for assessing the impact of aperiodic phenomena on the energy balance of propulsion engines in vehicle electromobility systems for given areas. Energies, 2021, 14(8), doi:10.3390/en14082314.
97. 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, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612.
98. Wróblewski, P., Drożdż, W., Lewicki, W., Dowejko, J. Total cost of ownership and its potential consequences for the devel-opment of the hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle market in Poland. Energies, 2021, 14, doi:10.3390/en14082131.

 

The English was reviewed by a specialized English teacher.

Thank you for your time and support to help us to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This research focuses on the presenting a holistic model for implementing Industry 4.0 based on cleaner production and social stakeholders. The literature research and Delphi technique are used to got the conclusions. 

Literature citation and exposition are sufficient. The structure design of the thesis is reasonable. The conclusions can be analyzed comprehensively. The publication requirement of a review paper has been met.

Author Response

Letter to reviewer #3

 

Dear Reviewer #3,

Thank you for your time and cooperation to improve our manuscript entitled “Industry 4.0 implementation: holistic and sustainable model”.

Below are comments on your suggestions for improvements, which we appreciate in advance. Manuscript improvements to meet your suggestions are in blue in the manuscript, as are the answers to your considerations.

1) This research focuses on the presenting a holistic model for implementing Industry 4.0 based on cleaner production and social stakeholders. The literature research and Delphi technique are used to got the conclusions.

Thank you.

2) Literature citation and exposition are sufficient. Thank you.

3) The structure design of the thesis is reasonable. Thank you.

4) The conclusions can be analyzed comprehensively. Thank you.

5) The publication requirement of a review paper has been met. Thank you.

 

The English was reviewed by a specialized English teacher.

Thank you very much for your appreciation of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper discussed a holistic model for implementing Industry 4.0 based on cleaner production and social stakeholders that cooperate with this implementation process, helping to develop sustainable infrastructure, processes and technologies to increase the sustainable transformation of these companies towards Industry 4.0 using Delphi model. The research is very much relevant to the needs of developing the sustainable infrastructure ecosystems. There are some comments on the sections of the paper as follows:

Abstract:

The outcomes of the research paper should highlight what kind of contributions could be established from the analysis using Deplhi model?  The explaination on how digital production ecosystems base will  reduce the inequalities must also be highlighted clearly.

Introduction Section :

Define "scanty studies"? also, the reason of selecting the proposed research questions 1 and 2, should be clearly highlighted here.

Literature review section: 

Should include latest references as follows:

1. S.I. Tay, J. Alipal, T.C. Lee,
   Industry 4.0: Current practice and challenges in Malaysian manufacturing firms, Technology in Society, Volume 67, 2021, 101749, ISSN 0160-791X,
2. Michael Sony, Jiju Antony, Olivia Mc Dermott, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes,
   An empirical examination of benefits, challenges, and critical success factors of industry 4.0 in manufacturing and service sector, Technology in Society,
   Volume 67, 2021, 101754, ISSN 0160-791X
3. Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Maresova, P., Krejcar, O., David, O.O. Industry 4.0 for the construction industry: Review of management perspective (2019) Economies, 7 (3), art. no. 68
4. Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Ali, K.N., Maresova, P., Krejcar, O. Industry 4.0 for the construction industry-How ready is the industry? (2019) Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 9 (14), art. no. 2819

Furthermore, the findings of the paper need to also include the threat of validity to ensure the findings are relevant to the given objectives. 

 

Author Response

Letter to reviewer #4

 

Dear Reviewer #4,

Thank you for your time and cooperation to improve our manuscript entitled “Industry 4.0 implementation: holistic and sustainable model”.

Below are comments on your suggestions for improvements, which we appreciate in advance. Manuscript improvements to meet your suggestions are in blue in the manuscript, as are the answers to your considerations.

1) This paper discussed a holistic model for implementing Industry 4.0 based on cleaner production and social stakeholders that cooperate with this implementation process, helping to develop sustainable infrastructure, processes and technologies to increase the sustainable transformation of these companies towards Industry 4.0 using Delphi model. The research is very much relevant to the needs of developing the sustainable infrastructure ecosystems.

Thank you.

2) There are some comments on the sections of the paper as follows:

Abstract:

2.1) The outcomes of the research paper should highlight what kind of contributions could be established from the analysis using Deplhi model? 

Introduced in the Abstract:

… The method used was literature research, and the Delphi technique was used to ask specialists to contribute with their experience to evaluate and propose improvements to the model, in the form of a consensus…

 

2.2) The explanation on how digital production ecosystems base will reduce the inequalities must also be highlighted clearly.

Introduced at the last line of the Abstract

more efficient and collaborative digital production ecosystems base, seeking to reduce inequalities, through the joint effort of social stakeholders to find ways to restore and/or improve social harmony, impacted by Industry 4.0.

 

3) Introduction Section:

Define "scanty studies"? also, the reason of selecting the proposed research questions 1 and 2, should be clearly highlighted here.

Thank you for your comments.

The word “scanty” was removed and the corrections below were made.

The few studies found in the literature that take into account cleaner production for the implementation of Industry 4.0 do not consider the social stakeholders in this implementation process, what is a gap that this study seeks to address to the theory on Industry 4.0 production paradigm. In order to fill this gap, the following research questions were formulated:

4) Literature review section:

Should include latest references as follows:

1. S.I. Tay, J. Alipal, T.C. Lee,

Industry 4.0: Current practice and challenges in Malaysian manufacturing firms, Technology in Society, Volume 67, 2021, 101749, ISSN 0160-791X,

2. Michael Sony, Jiju Antony, Olivia Mc Dermott, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes,

An empirical examination of benefits, challenges, and critical success factors of industry 4.0 in manufacturing and service sector, Technology in Society,

Volume 67, 2021, 101754, ISSN 0160-791X

3. Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Maresova, P., Krejcar, O., David, O.O. Industry 4.0 for the construction industry: Review of management perspective (2019) Economies, 7 (3), art. no. 68
4. Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Ali, K.N., Maresova, P., Krejcar, O. Industry 4.0 for the construction industry-How ready is the industry? (2019) Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 9 (14), art. no. 2819

Thank you for your suggestions.

The four references were included.

 

91. Sony, M., Antony, J., Mc Dermott, O., Garza-Reyes, J.A. An empirical examination of benefits, challenges, and critical success factors of industry 4.0 in manufacturing and service sector. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67; doi:org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101754.
92. Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Maresova, P., Krejcar, O., David, O.O. Industry 4.0 for the construction industry: Review of management perspective. Economies 2019, 7, 68; doi:10.3390/economies7030068.
93. Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Ali, K.N., Maresova, P., Krejcar. Industry 4.0 for the construction industry—How ready is the industry? Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2819; doi:10.3390/app9142819.
94. Tay, S.I., Alipal, J., Lee, T.C. Industry 4.0: Current practice and challenges in Malaysian manufacturing firms. Technol. Soc., 2021, 67; doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101749.

 

5) Furthermore, the findings of the paper need to also include the threat of validity to ensure the findings are relevant to the given objectives.

 

Thank you for the remark.

Included as a second paragraph in the section 3. Materials and Methods:

The initial model was presented to two Production Engineering Professors, each with more than 20 years of teaching and research experience, for validation, to ensure that the findings are relevant to achieving the objectives. They made minimal changes to the model, which were incorporated into the first model to be presented to specialists.

 

The English was reviewed by a specialized English teacher.

Thank you so much for your time and support in helping to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept the article as it stands, all corrections have been made

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2

Thank you for accepting our manuscript.