Next Article in Journal
City Corporation Activities for Creating Sustainable Population Development in the Opinion of University Students in Gdansk (Poland)
Next Article in Special Issue
Supporting Environment Sustainability: Purchasing Intentions Relating to Battery Electric Vehicles in Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
A Schematic Model for Implementing Industries High Risk Projects through the Agent of Human Capital
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Competitiveness of Food Industry in the Era of Digital Transformation towards Agriculture 4.0

by
Ismael Cristofer Baierle
1,*,
Francisco Tardelli da Silva
1,
Ricardo Gonçalves de Faria Correa
1,
Jones Luís Schaefer
2,
Matheus Becker Da Costa
3,
Guilherme Brittes Benitez
4 and
Elpidio Oscar Benitez Nara
4
1
Graduate Program in Agro-Industrial Systems and Processes, Federal University of Rio Grande, Rio Grande 96203-900, Brazil
2
Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Santa Maria 97105-900, Brazil
3
Department of Industrial Systems and Processes, University of Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Santa Cruz do Sul 96815-900, Brazil
4
Polytechnic School, Pontifical Catholic University of Parana (PUCPR), Londrina 86072-360, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11779; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811779
Submission received: 29 August 2022 / Revised: 13 September 2022 / Accepted: 15 September 2022 / Published: 19 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green and Digital Transformation in Operations Management)

Abstract

:
Industry 4.0 and its technologies can potentially increase business competitiveness in the age of digital transformation through the implementation of its technologies. These digital technologies are increasingly present in the food industry, characterizing the concept of Agriculture 4.0. This digital transformation is a reality; however, it is unclear which digital technologies are most useful for each industry sector. Therefore, this paper seeks to explore the current state of implementation of digital technologies in different industrial sectors and which digital technologies should be leveraged to increase the performance of the agribusiness system. To do so, we used secondary data from a large-scale survey of 28 industrial sectors, representing 2225 companies in the Brazilian industry. Analyzing the different industrial sectors allowed us to present a framework of digital transformation to boost food industry competitiveness towards Agriculture 4.0. The results show that the food industry usually uses only one digital technology, showing the need for simultaneous and joint investments in the other technologies presented in this research. Public policies must be directed to encourage the expansion of digital technologies in the food industry.

1. Introduction

The advance in the competitiveness of industries passing through the new industrial revolution, the digitalization of manufacturing, called Industry 4.0, is driven by groups of emerging and disruptive technologies [1]. Through technological advances, there have been significant increases in industrial productivity since the first industrial revolution until where we are now, in the midst of a new industrial transformation driven by some key technologies such as big data, the cloud, and IoT [2], bringing important contributions in terms of scalability and interoperability of solutions [3]. The development of advanced electronic, information, and manufacturing technologies is changing the production process of companies [4], which transforms traditional manufacturing into intelligent manufacturing, increasing the competitiveness and flexibility of organizations [5,6]. It is proven that the process of Industry 4.0 and digital transformation in emerging countries has its peculiarities and differs from developed countries [7]. Consequently, emerging countries have their perceptions and particularities of Industry 4.0 technologies [8]. Digital transformation and innovation processes are also making their way into the food industry, giving rise to Agriculture 4.0 [2,9].
The food industry encompasses different players, from farmers to food manufacturing and processing companies. As the world population grows [10,11], one of the challenges for agriculture and the food industry is to increase or optimize production and processing [12,13] sustainably. Agriculture plays a very important role in many countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) [14]. In the world, agriculture accounts for 6.4% of GDP, and in some countries, it is the dominant sector [15]. In emerging countries such as Brazil, agriculture is critical to improving economic performance in the coming years [16,17]. In countries with more developed economies, agriculture can also be used to leverage their international market share of agricultural products [18]. In this context, digital transformation is emerging as an enabler for agricultural development and the food industry, transforming traditional food systems into advanced, technology-based systems [19,20].
Through Industry 4.0 technologies and digital transformation, conventional agriculture and the food industry will give rise to Agriculture 4.0 [20,21]. Digital transformation is defined as a process of change in the use of digital technologies that generates better performance in the processes of a business [22]. Digital transformation is important because it stimulates the industry to seek changes [23,24,25,26]. On the other hand, digital transformation can increase uncertainty, as managers need to know what to commit to and what needs to be adapted faster [27,28,29], generating results faster. Although digital transformation is becoming a strategic imperative in traditional industry sectors [30,31], how these industries will digitally transform remains unclear. There is a need to understand digital transformation and identify which digital technologies are most suitable for each industry sector [32].
Moreover, the impacts of digital transformation can be measured to help verify improvements in competitiveness. The measurement of competitiveness can be used as a tool for strategic management, making it possible to monitor and optimize a company’s performance [33,34]. From this measurement, companies in the food industry can make comparisons. To improve their competitiveness, they must correctly invest their resources, adapt to the market, manage knowledge, and integrate new technologies [35]. Still, the uncertainties of which Industry 4.0 digital technologies should be adopted in each industrial sector concern managers, making it difficult to invest in such technologies, especially in the food industry. The uncertainties worldwide affect all industrial sectors and are the main barrier to going forward with Industry 4.0/Agriculture 4.0, especially in emerging countries. Emerging countries do not have the economic empowerment and technical knowledge to bet in an environment with many uncertainties [36,37]. Measuring digital technologies’ impact on competitiveness might be an approach to guide industries to advance in their journey towards development.

1.1. Digital Technologies Adoption in Industrial Sectors

To advance in Agriculture 4.0, digital technologies from previous stages are required [20]. As stated by the CNI report [38] and Refs. [39,40], technologies such as sensors, CAD-CAM systems, and MES-SCADA systems from the third industrial revolution are still fundamental to Industry 4.0. It is important to highlight this due to the need for a minimum technological architecture to implement the integration and digitization concepts from Industry 4.0 [2]. Based on this, Table 1 presents a list of eleven technologies frequently associated with the Industry 4.0 concept [38,41,42].
The digital technologies presented in Table 1 are directly related to digital transformation and were used in the CNI survey; they comprise concepts such as vertical integration, horizontal integration, and end-to-end engineering [24,40]. Vertical integration refers to integrating all elements at the factory level until management-level decision-making [43]. Horizontal integration refers to collaborating with different actors (e.g., suppliers and manufacturing enterprises) in the value chain, exchanging information and resources in real-time [44]. End-to-end engineering integrates the entire value chain of the product, from its raw material until after-sales, to optimize the product and industrial processes [45].
These three integrations are fundamental to achieving better results in industrial performance in the fourth industrial revolution [46,47]. However, which digital technologies should be integrated to achieve these results is a concern to managers. The adoption of Industry 4.0 digital technologies depends on the context of each industrial sector [39]. Moreover, this adoption also depends on the country’s context [48]. Despite the industrial sectors having similar manufacturing and process characteristics apart from the country, the context of each country should be considered, especially when related to their R&D investment level and technology acquisition. Therefore, the competitiveness and technology adoption levels will differ from sector to sector [49].
The use of digital technologies arising mainly from Industry 4.0 has been the subject of research for over a decade, but there are still questions about how to apply them in practice. In this sense, this article seeks to explore the current status of implementation and knowledge of the leading technologies in different industry sectors in an emerging country, focused on the food industry, which is one of the links that make up the Agriculture 4.0 concept. To achieve the goal, two questions arise: (i) What is the current status of digital technology implementation in different industry sectors? (ii) Which digital technologies can be leveraged to increase the food industry’s performance towards Agriculture 4.0? The research questions take into account that different industry sectors have particularities. Still, it is important to analyze all sectors, seeking to understand how one sector can contribute to others [39], and especially how other sectors can contribute to the digital transformation of the food industry, an integral part of Agriculture 4.0.
These questions were answered by ranking the competitiveness of different industrial sectors when implementing digital technologies to understand into which level the food industry fits. In answering the research questions, we present a framework of digital transformation to boost food industry competitiveness towards Agriculture 4.0. To do this framework, we analyze secondary data from a large-scale survey applied in Brazil by the National Confederation of Industries (CNI), comprising a sample of 2225 companies from different industrial segments in this emerging country. We used the multiobjective optimization by ratio analysis (MOORA) method, considering two weighting emphases for the criteria. The first emphasizes the alternatives and criteria with different weights, while the second considers the Fuzzy Delphi method’s integration for the weights’ unification. These procedures allowed us to provide an overview of the most prominent digital technologies for each industrial sector, always focusing on the food industry and giving an initial perspective to managers in an emerging country like Brazil. Finally, this study provides insights into how the 28 industrial sectors can contribute to the advancement of digital transformation in the food industry, contributing to developing the concept of Agriculture 4.0.
The results show that the most developed industries regarding digital technologies are the electrical, electronics, plastics, and vehicle industries, while the food industry is one of the industries that uses digital technologies the least. Emerging countries can contribute to developing digital technologies by doing groundwork and preparation, which can be replicated in other countries. Finally, the presented framework shows which technologies are the greatest drivers of competitiveness in the food industry towards Agriculture 4.0. This information should be the target of future research, showing how it should and can be used in practice to become accessible to any type or size of company. The advancement of research focused on certain technologies and applications contributes to the advancement of digital transformation in the food industry and the development of the concept of Agriculture 4.0.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 3 details the methodological procedures used, Section 4 presents the results obtained, Section 5 brings a broad discussion about the findings, and Section 6 presents the paper’s conclusions.

2. Correlated Works

The current literature has provided us with the most important digital technologies responsible for transitioning from classical (current) digitization to Agriculture 4.0. The present work sought to investigate research on how the food industry can contribute to advancing the concept of Agriculture 4.0. Agriculture and the food industry are becoming increasingly innovative with new infrastructures, computing platforms, and biotechnologies such as gene editing or synthetic food production [50]. Digital technologies are changing how companies do business and establish deeper relationships with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders [51,52,53]. For example, the food industry comprises many companies and represents the largest contributing industry in the European Union regarding economic output and employment [54,55]. In this context, Brazil is a major food supplier for the world market, which is constantly increasing. The rapid growth and development of digital technologies in the agriculture and food industry will lead to profound modernization in key sectors of the world economy [56]. Despite its importance, studies on the agri-food sector are scarce [57], as is information regarding digital transformation, which is a challenge for companies that were not originally digital and are on the verge of migrating to Agriculture 4.0 [58,59]. Agriculture 4.0 consists of the adoption of digital technologies to manage agricultural or industrial processes [60,61] to monitor different parameters [62] based on a data set [63,64,65]. The data can power food from crop cultivation to processing [66,67], lowering production costs and eliminating non-essential inputs [68,69]. The authors of [70] report that adopting new digital technologies promotes a sustainable agricultural production chain. Agriculture 4.0 is also defined as the implementation of information and communication technologies (IoT, GPS, big data) on farms by farmers seeking to improve the quality and increase the productivity of their farms [71,72]. For [9], Agriculture 4.0 should follow the examples of the evolution of European industries. The authors of [73] add that Agriculture 4.0 represents an excellent opportunity to consider the variability and uncertainties in the agricultural and food chain. For the authors [74,75], economic development and digital technologies concern the sustainable environment. This evidence of the importance of studies focused on economic development will also bring sustainable development in the whole productive chain in which the food industry is inserted.

3. Materials and Methods

The data collection of this research is characterized by the extraction of the answers to a questionnaire conducted by the CNI with Brazilian companies, titled “Special survey on Industry 4.0 in Brazil”. The CNI is an agency representing Brazilian industries in 31 industrial sectors with 1250 employers’ unions, with approximately 700 thousand industries affiliated [38]. Its main role is supporting companies in issues that impact industrial performance and the country’s economy and stimulating research, innovation, and technological development. Figure 1 summarizes our research method in four main steps.

3.1. Step 1—Sampling and Measures

The CNI questionnaire aimed to identify the situation of Brazilian industries in the context of Industry 4.0 digital technologies [38]. The importance of these technologies to boost competitiveness, the use of these digital technologies, expected benefits, internal and external barriers in implementing the respective digital technologies, and government policies to foster Industry 4.0 in Brazil were evaluated. The questionnaire was sent to 7836 randomly selected companies within the population, comprised of manufacturing-related industries. The total number of responses obtained was 2225, representing a response rate of 28.39%. The sample of companies was composed of 910 small companies (up to 99 employees), 815 medium-sized companies (up to 499 employees), and 500 large companies (over 500 employees).

3.2. Step 2—Variables Definition

We used 11 digital technologies from the CNI survey (see Table 1). We utilized acronyms (e.g., 3D for additive manufacturing) to identify Industry 4.0-related digital technologies. Initially, the CNI surveyed 31 industrial sectors, but some sectors did not answer the survey. Therefore, three sectors were withdrawn for not presenting information: “Mining of coal and extraction of petroleum”, “Mining support service activities”, and “Tobacco products”. Table 2 presents the final list of industrial sectors considered in our analysis.
For both research questions, answers related to “None of the items listed”, “Do not know”, and “No response” were withdrawn because they were not relevant to the study.

3.3. Step 3—Competitiveness Ranking

Two approaches were performed, one according to the opinion of the specialists of each sector and the second with industry in general. The MOORA method was used with two weight approaches for the criteria. The first approach treats the alternatives and criteria with different weights. In contrast, in the second approach, there is the integration of the Fuzzy Delphi method to unify the weights. MOORA approaches were applied to establish the ranking of the most competitive industrial sectors against the use of the digital technologies of Industry 4.0. The method chosen is an important factor for executing different types of information and problems [76]. MOORA was chosen since other multiple objective methods are criticized for the weighted linearity of different objectives [77]. The MOORA method is more powerful than other methods when considering its computational time, simplicity, mathematical calculations, stability, and types of information [78]. In this linear method, multiple objectives are replaced by a super-objective, prioritizing powerful alternative solutions, while an intermediate alternative does not rank first [77].
On the other hand, the need for the fuzzy theory arose because human judgments about preferences are always difficult to estimate from numerical values [79]. The main advantage of Fuzzy Delphi for group decision-making is that each expert opinion will be considered and integrated to reach a consensus on decision-making [33].
The MOORA method with changes in weight assignments for the criteria is detailed in Step 3.1. The MOORA method with Fuzzy Delphi for consensus of the attribution of weights in the criteria is described in Step 3.2.

3.3.1. Step 3.1—MOORA Method

According to [77], the MOORA method starts with a decision matrix (1) showing the performance of different alternatives (industrial sector) about the criteria (level of digital technologies utilization).
X i j = X 11 X 12 X 1 n X 21 X 22 X 2 n X m 1 X m 2 X m n
where Xij is the measure of performance of the industrial sectors j in given technology i, m is the number of industrial sectors analyzed (alternatives), and n is the number of technologies (criteria). Next, a relationship system is developed where each industrial sector is compared to the other profiles for each analyzed technology index. This results in a denominator of performance for the respective technology. This denominator is calculated by the square root of the sum of the squares of each industrial sector in each digital technology listed. This relation is expressed by Equation (2).
X i j = X i j j = 1 m X i j 2
where Xij is a dimensionless number that belongs to the interval [0, 1], representing the industrial profile j in digital technology i; for multiobjective optimization, these normalized performances are added in maximization and subtracted in case of minimization. Thus, Equation (3) becomes:
Y i = i = 1 i = g w i X i j i = g + 1 i = n w i X i j
where g is the utilization rate of the technologies to be maximized, (ng) is the technologies to be minimized, Yi is the normalized valuation value of the alternative concerning all the criteria, and wi is the weight for each criterion. In this study, all digital technology indexes were considered maximized. However, unlike the traditional MOORA method, in this step, the weights will be assigned individually for each criterion i according to alternative j. For example, for companies in the plastics industry, only the index of importance that this industry profile has assigned to the 11 technologies will be used. That is, the opinion of the plastic sector respondents regarding the importance of technology does not interfere with any other type of industrial sector (alternative). In this method, each industry sector defined the importance of the digital technologies of Industry 4.0 for their respective business. Thus, the value of wi is replaced by wij, resulting in Equation (4):
Y i = i = 1 i = g w i j X i j i = g + 1 i = n w i j X i j
With the addition of this difference in weight assignment, considering the distinction between criteria and alternatives, the method is called w-MOORA.

3.3.2. Step 3.2—Fuzzy Delphi Method

The Fuzzy Delphi method consolidates the different response indexes of the industrial sectors and the importance of using digital technologies to boost competitiveness. In this way, the opinion of all the industrial sectors was considered to assign a single weight to the importance of each digital technology. The method was operationalized through Equation (1):
G i = U i L i + M i L i 3 + L i
In this equation, Gi is the consensus score among the experts, Ui is the maximum value between the answers, Li is the minimum value between the answers, and Mi is the geometric mean calculated from the expert opinions. However, in this study, no alternative was removed after finding the Gi value. With the consensus value among the experts of the different industries, Equation (3) was changed, with Gi replacing the value of wi, and Equation (6) was obtained.
Y i = i = 1 i = g G i X i j i = g + 1 i = n w i X i j
With this substitution in the attribution of weights through the integration of the Fuzzy Delphi method, this second ranking is called FD-MOORA.

3.4. Data Analysis

The first step of data analysis was to identify the weights of the digital technologies using our mathematical procedures. The w-MOORA method provided evidence of the adoption patterns of each industrial sector, while the FD-MOORA method provided an overview of the most relevant digital technologies. Then, we ranked the industrial sectors and compared the results from the two procedures using the Yi value concerning all criteria. We also verified the discrepancies in the results by plotting a graphic analyzing the two procedures (w-MOORA and FD-MOORA). All these steps were performed using Question (i) from the CNI survey. Afterward, we provided an overview of the implemented technologies in each industrial sector using questions (i) and (ii). Finally, we support our findings by presenting a framework illustrating the adoption patterns of Industry 4.0 for each industrial sector.

4. Results

We used the w-MOORA method to define the weights for the competitiveness of each Industry 4.0 digital technology using Question (i). We evaluated the scores of 11 digital technologies related to Industry 4.0 in 28 industrial sectors from the CNI survey [38]. Table 3 shows our categorizations of the considered variables in our analysis.
We used the following criteria to determine the relevance of each technology: low ≤ 10 (not highlighted); medium = 11–18 (light gray highlighted); and high ≥ 19 (dark gray highlighted). As can be seen, most industrial sectors have at least one digital technology on a large scale (i.e., with the greatest potential to boost the competitiveness of the Brazilian industry over the next five years). Besides, most industrial sectors have two or more digital technologies on a medium scale. These findings show that the respondents expect good results in competitiveness from adopting Industry 4.0 digital technologies within five years. However, some digital technologies such as DAwS and Simulation are not expected to provide good results, with low scale as the main answer. The Fuzzy Delphi method helped us to obtain the weights for use in the FD-MOORA method. In other words, the opinion of all the industrial sectors was considered to assign a single weight to the importance of each digital technology. We used this procedure to understand the general importance level of digital technologies. Table 4 presents the overall ranking of the most relevant digital technologies.
The digital technologies considered with the greatest potential for increasing competitiveness were: IES (integrated engineering systems), DAS (digital automation with sensors), Flex (flexible lines), Big Data, and MES-SCADA. Technologies such as flexible lines and big data are considered some of the most disruptive in Industry 4.0 [39,46]. At the same time, MES-SCADA, IES, and DAS are called integrative digital technologies and support the integration and connection of all elements of the factory [40]. As evidenced, DAwS and Simulation have a low weight (lowest potential) when we incorporated FD-MOORA with w-MOORA, corroborating the previous results. Based on these data, we elaborated on the ranking of the Brazilian industry sectors with the most potential for competitiveness utilizing Question (i). The results of the two rankings are presented in Table 5.
In the w-MOORA ranking, the five most competitive industrial sectors in Brazil regarding the use of digital technologies of Industry 4.0 are (1) electrical equipment, (2) computers, electronics, and optical products, (3) motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailers, (4) machinery and equipment, and (5) plastics products. These five industrial sectors had higher indexes, Yi > 35. From the sixth position in this ranking, the final indexes have smaller differences, all under Yi < 31. The five least competitive industrial sectors are (25) rubber products, (26) other transport equipment, (27) mining of non-metal ores, and (28) repair and installation, all under Yi < 12. In the FD-MOORA ranking, the top five positions are (1) computers, electronics, and optical products, (2) electrical equipment, (3) plastics products, (4) motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailers, and (5) basic metals with Yi > 26.5.
The rankings obtained by the two methods have differences and similarities. These differences and similarities are because, while the w-MOORA method considers only the specialists’ view of the industrial sector to calculate their respective competitiveness, the FD-MOORA method covers the opinion of all specialists, converging on a single weight to each technology. When different opinions are considered, it is possible to identify that the range of the final ranking is higher, with a standard deviation of 12.17. On the other hand, utilizing a single weight, the competitiveness index between the sectors is more leveled with a smaller amplitude, resulting in a standard deviation of 7.77. The ranking difference obtained between the two methods is detailed in Figure 2.
It is observed that in both rankings, the first positions do not suffer excessive differences, showing that the opinion of the specialists of these companies converges with the general opinion of the Brazilian industry. The sharpest differences (above three positions) are in the sectors of pulp and paper (four positions), machinery and equipment (four positions), chemicals (four positions), and wood products (four positions), with the largest differences in the HPPC (nine positions) and printing and reproduction of recorded media (nine positions).
The companies that obtained a better position in the FD-MOORA ranking compared to w-MOORA are the companies in the pulp and paper, chemicals, and wood products industrial sectors. On the other hand, the industrial sectors that obtained a better position in the w-MOORA ranking and greater differences in comparison to the other ranking are machinery and equipment, HPPC, and printing and reproduction of recorded media. To summarize and complement the findings, Figure 3 represents the level of competitiveness of all analyzed sectors and the utilization rate of digital technologies.
We used Question (i) from the CNI survey to illustrate which sectors of the Brazilian industry could achieve better competitiveness results using Industry 4.0 digital technologies. We also used Question (ii) to show what digital technologies are most utilized in each sector. The combination of Questions (i) and (ii) allowed us to understand the relationship between digital technologies already in use and the most prominent from the w-MOORA and FD-MOORA methods. The industrial sectors on the left are the most competitive, while those on the right are the least competitive. The circles represent the utilization rate of each digital technology for each industrial sector. On the left side, the important weight of each digital technology to boost competitiveness is represented. The range size illustrates the difference among weights. It is noted that the CAD-CAM, DAS, and IES technologies are the most utilized in Brazilian companies. The others do not have a high utilization percentage, with their thresholds below 21. All these analyses helped us to build Table 6, which illustrates the adoption patterns and digital technologies with high implementation in each industrial sector.
We used the same criteria for ‘boost competitiveness’ in the w-MOORA method. In the case of ‘already in use’, we used the criteria in Figure 3 for utilization percentage. Some digital technologies such as Big Data and DAwS have a considerable percentage in some industrial sectors, but we did not include them in Table 6 due to our criteria utilization. Next, we discuss these findings with our final framework.

5. Discussion

We summarized our findings in Figure 4, illustrating which industrial sectors align more with Industry 4.0 digital technologies. Moreover, we presented three levels for digital technologies, using the works [39,40] to support our discussion. Finally, we showed what digital technologies the five most prominent industrial sectors should invest in to achieve the Industry 4.0 level.
We used this framework (Figure 4) with the support of Table 6 to guide discussions of our findings and clarify what digital technologies each industrial sector should invest in to boost its competitiveness. Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 will answer the research questions (i) and (ii) presented at the end of Section 1.1.

5.1. Current Status of Digital Technologies Implementation in Different Industry Sectors

Firstly, we set up three levels for digital technologies towards Industry 4.0 using prior works as a basis [40,41,42]. The first level refers to consolidated digital technologies in the third industrial revolution. CAD-CAM systems and DAwS (digital automation without sensors) have been digital technologies since the third industrial revolution [38,41]. In other words, these digital technologies are in the early stages of classic automation. Nowadays, most industries use CAD-CAM systems in manufacturing and product planning through computerized systems [42,43]. Moreover, DAwS refers to automatized systems not using sensors in any industry with a minimum of automation architecture [38]. In the Brazilian industry, most of the sectors have CAD-CAM systems in their manufacturing and product planning, while DAwS has low adoption, but is still present.
The second level refers to integration and collaborative digital technologies, i.e., digital technologies which support the industries to create gateways in their manufacturing to achieve better results in industrial performance. At this level are MES-SCADA, IES, and Simulation technologies to support the industries in integrating and evaluating their internal processes. As stated, IES is considered the most important technology to boost competitiveness in the Brazilian industry. IES is considered the most important technology because most industrial sectors use it in their manufacturing processes. However, MES-SCADA technology supporting vertical integration [80] has low adoption in the Brazilian industry. This lack of adoption is a problem in achieving good results in industrial performance since MES-SCADA systems are technologies that have significant importance in achieving vertical integration in manufacturing [39]. Moreover, the industries have not used their full potential despite simulation being present since the third industrial revolution, according to the Industry 4.0 related literature [81,82]. In other words, this technology refers to the simulation of virtual environments and their analysis. Ref. [83] states that most companies still do not have proper systems to analyze the data from the simulated environments. In the Brazilian industry, most industrial sectors do not use simulation as an analysis tool to improve their internal processes. In most cases, a simulation is a tool only for demand forecasting. This is a barrier for Brazilian industries since one of the goals of Industry 4.0 is the integration of the real with the virtual, making simulation a fundamental tool to achieving digital-twin systems [84].
The third level refers to the most disruptive technologies in Industry 4.0, i.e., integrated technologies that can greatly improve industrial performance [39]. At this level are Flex, Big Data, IoT-PSS, Cloud, and 3D technologies, to help the industries to achieve the Industry 4.0 stage. As can be perceived, all these technologies have low adoption in Brazilian industry. We could highlight the electronics and electrical sectors, which have a higher adoption level (but still low) of both 3D and Flex compared to other sectors. In the Industry 4.0 context, flexible lines and additive manufacturing are technologies that give a higher competitive advantage due to their countless opportunities for modularization and mass customization in the manufacturing processes and products [43,80]. As stated by [40], in an Industry 4.0 context, technologies such as big data and the cloud are integrated through IoT to enhance industrial performance. Therefore, most Brazilian industrial sectors do not have a high utilization percentage of big data and the cloud due to their difficulty integrating these technologies. In addition, in [39], the authors identified big data as negatively associated with the expected benefits for product performance. According to the authors, one possible explanation is that the Brazilian industry still does not perceive value in this technology for storage and analyzing data. This explains the low adoption of IoT-PSS in the Brazilian industry. IoT-PSS is a technology that incorporates product services through IoT platforms [85]. This technology is strongly related to product services through the connection of IoT and the use of big data and the cloud to enhance product performance. Since the Brazilian industries have low adoption of big data and the cloud, they will have low adoption of IoT-PSS technology due to the need to integrate these two technologies. Lastly, we understand that DAS is a technology that comprises the three levels presented in our framework. DAS has been present since the third industrial revolution and is a prerequisite to achieving Industry 4.0, being fundamental in the transition level [39,40].
These analyses and our previous results support us in understanding the alignment level of each Brazilian industrial sector with Industry 4.0. We found seven misaligned sectors: (1) HPPC (soap, detergents, and other cleaning preparations products; (2) leather and related products; (3) mining of non-metal ores; (4) non-metallic mineral products; (5) other transport equipment; (6) pharmaceutical chemicals and pharmaceuticals; and (7) printing and reproduction of recorded media. In other words, these sectors do not have a good implementation rate of any technology considered important to boosting their competitiveness. Therefore, these industrial sectors are considered the most misaligned with Industry 4.0 in Brazilian industry. None of these sectors are in the top ten in competitiveness in our two rankings using w-MOORA and FD-MOORA methods. Some results are surprising. For instance, pharmaceutical chemicals and pharmaceuticals is a sector that requires high technological infrastructure to develop medicine. Its misalignment with Industry 4.0 digital technologies concerns Brazilian industry, society, and government [38]. Other sectors such as HPPC and leather and related products are known in the Brazilian industry as industries with low technological architecture, lacking classic automation in their manufacturing process.
Although we illustrated three digital technology levels, we found that many industrial sectors are in a pre-transition period. In other words, industrial sectors are between Industry 3.0 and the transition period. We found 14 partially aligned sectors: (1) basic metals; (2) beverages; (3) chemicals (exc. HPPC); (4) food products; (5) footwear and parts; (6) furniture; (7) metal products (except machinery and equipment); (8) plastics products; (9) pulp and paper; (10) repair and installation; (11) rubber products; (12) textiles products; (13) wearing apparel; and (14) wood products. These industrial sectors already incorporate digital technologies in their manufacturing process, but not at a high utilization rate. We can see that some industrial sectors (plastics, basic metals, textile and paper, and pulp) considered very competitive by the w-MOORA and FD-MOORA methods are present in this group. Although our mathematical procedures give these industrial sectors good prospects for competitiveness in the next five years, we can see that they still lack many digital technologies to be considered in the transition period. Table 6 in Section 4 presents the digital technologies that these industrial sectors should invest in in the next years to achieve the transition level and Industry 4.0. For instance, plastics and basic metals industrial sectors should invest more in IES and Flex technologies.
Concerning the most aligned industrial sectors towards Industry 4.0 direction, we found seven: (1) electrical; (2) electronics; (3) vehicles; (4) machinery; (5) coke and refined petroleum products; (6) other manufacturing; and (7) mining of metal ores. Most of these seven industrial sectors are ranked in the top 10 of w-MOORA and FD-MOORA methods. We showed that these sectors have a good utilization percentage in CAD-CAM, IES, and DAS technologies. Although none of the Brazilian industrial sectors are at an Industry 4.0 level, this group of industrial sectors is the most likely to achieve this competitive level in the following years. Furthermore, we noticed that these industrial sectors are in the transition period towards Industry 4.0, with a good adoption rate of fundamental digital technologies. However, as illustrated in Figure 4, these industrial sectors must invest in disruptive technologies to achieve this competitive level, as disruptive technologies have a low utilization rate in the Brazilian industry. Therefore, we selected five of our best-ranked industrial sectors from both mathematical procedures using the mean to indicate which digital technologies these sectors should invest in in the next years. According to our results, electronics and electrical are the most competitive and aligned sectors with Industry 4.0. Even though these two sectors have advantages over the others, they still lack investments in disruptive technologies in the Brazilian industry [38]. Finally, machinery and equipment, vehicles (automotive), and coke and refined petroleum products are characterized as industrial sectors with good utilization rates and a good competitiveness perspective. Despite these industrial sectors having good competitiveness perspectives in the following years, they still need more investments in disruptive technologies to foster the economic and technological development of the country.

5.2. Framework of Digital Technologies in the Food Industry

Brazilian industry is known as one of the largest exporters of food in the world and, therefore, investments in digital technologies for have vertical and horizontal integration are fundamental for the future, especially when thinking about productivity increases from the field to the industry, developing the concept of Agriculture 4.0 [37]. Figure 4 shows that the food industry is one of the industrial sectors that is partially aligned with the implementation of digital technologies of Industry 4.0 and is still in the process of knowledge and transition. Based on Table 6, Figure 5 was developed to illustrate the digital transformation process to boost food industry competitiveness towards Agriculture 4.0.
As stated in Figure 5, the food industry uses only DAS digital technology, i.e., sensors in food production and industry. However, using sensors alone may not bring great gains in competitiveness, especially if there are no other tools and technologies for control and integration. For DAS to be successful and for the food industry to boost competitiveness quickly, it is recommended to use DAS integrated with IES, giving rise to integrated engineering systems that can use the data obtained by the sensors to bring gains and improvements to the processes. This sensor data can come from primary production to processing by the industry. According to the results, for the food industry to enhance results in a consolidated manner and migrate to Agriculture 4.0, it should invest in a combined and simultaneous way in technologies such as IES, Flex, MES-SCADA, and Big Data. These combined technologies will ensure a process with control, traceability, and feedback capability. Feedback is possible through big-data, where all decisions will feed back into the systems and serve as a basis for future decisions. This way, processes will no longer be based on experience, but on real data.
In this way, Agriculture 4.0 can be explained by the digital transformation and use of digital technologies in the field, which allows crop growth, monitoring, and control of an irrigation system, and assists in choosing fertilizers [86]. On the flip side, Agriculture 4.0 and digital transformation in the food industry are changing how companies do business, establishing new relationships with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders [51,53].

6. Conclusions

In this article, we analyze the level of competitiveness of 28 industrial sectors based on their perspectives on Industry 4.0 digital technologies. We evidenced that no sector of the Brazilian industry is engaged with disruptive technologies in their manufacturing processes. In addition, we defined three profiles (misaligned, partially aligned, and aligned) in the Brazilian industry, explaining their relationship with digital technologies in Industry 4.0. We discuss the reasons for these patterns, providing examples of behaviors in different industrial sectors in an emerging country, in this case Brazil. After defining these profiles, we further analyze the food industry, a key player in the global agro-industrial system. After the analysis and comparisons with other sectors, it was possible to identify that the food industry is partially aligned with digital technologies arising from advances in Industry 4.0 and Agriculture 4.0. This led us to conclude that the food industry needs attention to keep up with the technological development of other sectors to increase productivity and efficiency and enhance competitiveness.
The analysis of different industry sectors allowed us to visualize and indicate which technologies be leveraged for the competitiveness of the food industry, thus also taking a large step towards the development of the concept of Agriculture 4.0, which has the premise of applying technologies from primary food production to its processing. Agriculture 4.0, through technologies and digital transformation, can contribute to the sustainable increase of food production, especially in current times when the world population is growing rapidly and the adaptation of different crops and production systems to different demands must be faster. The industry is not engaged with disruptive technologies in its manufacturing processes.
The current literature has provided us with the most important digital technologies that are enablers of the concept of Agriculture 4.0. The present paper sought to investigate how the food industry can contribute to advancing the concept of Agriculture 4.0. To do so, we started with studies about the implementation of digital technologies in different industry sectors to understand the positioning of the food industry in this context. The results showed that the food industry has a low application of digital technologies and that to improve its performance, some technologies are more suitable for developing the industry. The food industry is one of the links in the Agriculture 4.0 concept. It was found that research in this area is more recent than the research on Industry 4.0, so this paper sought to explore this gap. As a result, we present a framework composed of three phases; classical automation represents the first phase, that is, with the technologies currently used by the food industry. The second phase is the transition to Agriculture 4.0, indicating which digital technologies are fundamental to starting a digitalization process in the food industry. The third phase is Agriculture 4.0 because the basic and essential technologies that permeate this concept are already in place, ensuring better communication throughout the food production chain. The novelty of this article is highlighted in the framework of Figure 5. This figure can guide future research to enhance the transition of the food industry towards digitalization and implementation of technologies that make up Agriculture 4.0.
The investigation of several industry sectors was necessary to have an overview of the industry, finding patterns of technology adoption that could be shared across different sectors. In Figure 4, we present this overview based on CNI’s database. Through Figure 4, it was possible to find adoption patterns for the food industry, which gave rise to Figure 5. Figure 5 can be very useful for the companies and producers that make up the food industry and can also serve as a basis for consultation by policymakers and universities. For the managers in the food industry, it serves as a basis for the diagnosis and preparation of companies to make investments in new technologies, bringing gains to production and processing and making the transition to Agriculture 4.0. For policymakers and universities, Figure 5 indicates which technologies would be more interesting to focus investments on, either through funding or research, because these are the technologies that most contribute to a rapid transition to Agriculture 4.0 according to the patterns studied in different sectors. In this sense, Figure 5 can serve as a guide for the digital transformation of the food industry in the transition to Agriculture 4.0.

Limitations and Future Trends

The technologies presented in the framework of Figure 5 are interconnected and allow the simulation of processes through virtual environments and their analysis. In emerging countries such as Brazil, the actors of the agroindustrial system still make little use of simulation and virtual systems as analysis tools to improve processes, improve productivity, or reduce production and processing costs. The identification of barriers and potential drivers for the application of these digital transformation technologies and making the transition to Agriculture 4.0 in Brazil’s agroindustrial system can be the target of future research, since Brazil is one of the largest food producers in the world and can serve as a model for the application and development of these technologies in other countries. Another important area of research is to analyze the social and environmental impacts that the use of digital technologies in the industry brings to other links in the food production chain.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; methodology, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; software, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; validation I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; formal analysis, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; investigation, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; resources, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; data curation, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; writing—original draft preparation, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; writing—review and editing, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; visualization, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; supervision, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; project administration, I.C.B., F.T.d.S., R.G.d.F.C., J.L.S., M.B.D.C., G.B.B. and E.O.B.N.; funding acquisition, I.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by CAPES—Brazil under the grant CAPES process Baierle No. 88887.464876/2019-00; and FAPERGS—Brazil under the grant FAPERGS process Baierle No. 22/2551-0000650-7.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Riera, B.; Messai, N.; Dossou, P.-E.; Laouénan, G.; Didier, J.-Y. Development of a Sustainable Industry 4.0 Approach for Increasing the Performance of SMEs. Process 2022, 10, 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Koumas, M.; Dossou, P.-E.; Didier, J.-Y. Digital Transformation of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Production Manufacturing. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 2021, 14, 607–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schaefer, J.L.; Siluk, J.C.M.; de Carvalho, P.S. An MCDM-Based Approach to Evaluate the Performance Objectives for Strategic Management and Development of Energy Cloud. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dos Santos, L.M.A.L.; da Costa, M.B.; Kothe, J.V.; Benitez, G.B.; Schaefer, J.L.; Baierle, I.C.; Nara, E.O.B. Industry 4.0 Collaborative Networks for Industrial Performance. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 32, 245–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Pham, Q.V.; Prabadevi, B.; Deepa, N.; Dev, K.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Ruby, R.; Liyanage, M. Industry 5.0: A Survey on Enabling Technologies and Potential Applications. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 26, 100257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hughes, L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Williams, M.D.; Raghavan, V. Perspectives on the Future of Manufacturing within the Industry 4.0 Era. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 33, 138–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tolstoy, D.; Nordman, E.R.; Hånell, S.M.; Özbek, N. The Development of International E-Commerce in Retail SMEs: An Effectuation Perspective. J. World Bus. 2021, 56, 101165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K. Evaluating Challenges to Industry 4.0 Initiatives for Supply Chain Sustainability in Emerging Economies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Da Silveira, F.; Lermen, F.H.; Amaral, F.G. An Overview of Agriculture 4.0 Development: Systematic Review of Descriptions, Technologies, Barriers, Advantages, and Disadvantages. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 189, 106405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lidicker, W.Z. A Scientist’s Warning to Humanity on Human Population Growth. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tamburino, L.; Bravo, G.; Clough, Y.; Nicholas, K.A. From Population to Production: 50 Years of Scientific Literature on How to Feed the World. Glob. Food Sec. 2020, 24, 100346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Singh, N.; Singh, A.N. Odysseys of Agriculture Sensors: Current Challenges and Forthcoming Prospects. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 171, 105328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fu, L.; Gao, F.; Wu, J.; Li, R.; Karkee, M.; Zhang, Q. Application of Consumer RGB-D Cameras for Fruit Detection and Localization in Field: A Critical Review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 177, 105687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abioye, E.A.; Abidin, M.S.Z.; Mahmud, M.S.A.; Buyamin, S.; Ishak, M.H.I.; Rahman, M.K.I.A.; Otuoze, A.O.; Onotu, P.; Ramli, M.S.A. A Review on Monitoring and Advanced Control Strategies for Precision Irrigation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 173, 105441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pathan, M.; Patel, N.; Yagnik, H.; Shah, M. Artificial Cognition for Applications in Smart Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2020, 4, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mueller, B.; Mueller, C. The Political Economy of the Brazilian Model of Agricultural Development: Institutions versus Sectoral Policy. Q. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2016, 62, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gusarova, S. Role of China in the Development of Trade and FDI Cooperation with BRICS Countries. China Econ. Rev. 2019, 57, 101271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Veeck, G.; Veeck, A.; Yu, H. Challenges of Agriculture and Food Systems Issues in China and the United States. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Klerkx, L.; Begemann, S. Supporting Food Systems Transformation: The What, Why, Who, Where and How of Mission-Oriented Agricultural Innovation Systems. Agric. Syst. 2020, 184, 102901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, Y.; Ma, X.; Shu, L.; Hancke, G.P.; Abu-Mahfouz, A.M. From Industry 4.0 to Agriculture 4.0: Current Status, Enabling Technologies, and Research Challenges. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 4322–4334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fielke, S.J.; Garrard, R.; Jakku, E.; Fleming, A.; Wiseman, L.; Taylor, B.M. Conceptualising the DAIS: Implications of the ‘Digitalisation of Agricultural Innovation Systems’ on Technology and Policy at Multiple Levels. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Verhoef, P.C.; Kannan, P.K.; Inman, J.J. From Multi-Channel Retailing to Omni-Channel Retailing. Introduction to the Special Issue on Multi-Channel Retailing. J. Retail. 2015, 91, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Appio, F.P.; Frattini, F.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Neirotti, P. Digital Transformation and Innovation Management: A Synthesis of Existing Research and an Agenda for Future Studies. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2021, 38, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hanelt, A.; Bohnsack, R.; Marz, D.; Antunes Marante, C. A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. J. Manag. Stud. 2021, 58, 1159–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nambisan, S.; Luo, Y. Toward a Loose Coupling View of Digital Globalization. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2021, 52, 1646–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Luo, Y. A General Framework of Digitization Risks in International Business. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2022, 53, 344–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Afuah, A. Redefining Firm Boundaries in the Face of the Internet: Are Firms Really Shrinking? Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nambisan, S. Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 41, 1029–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Roetzel, P.G. Information Overload in the Information Age: A Review of the Literature from Business Administration, Business Psychology, and Related Disciplines with a Bibliometric Approach and Framework Development. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 479–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chanias, S.; Myers, M.D.; Hess, T. Digital Transformation Strategy Making in Pre-Digital Organizations: The Case of a Financial Services Provider. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Baierle, I.C.; Benitez, G.B.; Nara, E.O.B.; Schaefer, J.L.; Sellitto, M.A. Influence of Open Innovation Variables on the Competitive Edge of Small and Medium Enterprises. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shahi, C.; Sinha, M. Digital Transformation: Challenges Faced by Organizations and Their Potential Solutions. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2021, 13, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schaefer, J.L.; Baierle, I.C.; Sellitto, M.A.; Siluk, J.C.M.; Furtado, J.C.; Nara, E.O.B. Competitiveness Scale as a Basis for Brazilian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. EMJ Eng. Manag. J. 2021, 33, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nara, E.O.B.; Schaefer, J.L.; de Moraes, J.; Tedesco, L.P.C.; Furtado, J.C.; Baierle, I.C. Sourcing Research Papers on Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises’ Competitiveness: An Approach Based on Authors’ Networks. Rev. Esp. Doc. Cient. 2019, 42, e230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Baierle, I.C.; Siluk, J.C.M.; Gerhardt, V.J.; De Freitas Michelin, C.; Neuenfeldt, Á.L.; Nara, E.O.B. Worldwide Innovation and Technology Environments: Research and Future Trends Involving Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Müller, J.M.; Buliga, O.; Voigt, K.I. Fortune Favors the Prepared: How SMEs Approach Business Model Innovations in Industry 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moeuf, A.; Pellerin, R.; Lamouri, S.; Tamayo-Giraldo, S.; Barbaray, R. The Industrial Management of SMEs in the Era of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 56, 1118–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Indicadores Industriais—Portal Da Indústria—CNI. Available online: https://www.portaldaindustria.com.br/estatisticas/indicadores-industriais/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
  39. Dalenogare, L.S.; Baseggio, M.M.; Ayala, N.F.; Le Dain, M.A.; Frank, A.G. The Contribution of Smart Glasses for PSS. Procedia CIRP 2019, 83, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dalenogare, L.S.; Benitez, G.B.; Ayala, N.F.; Frank, A.G. The Expected Contribution of Industry 4.0 Technologies for Industrial Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 204, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gilchrist, A. Introducing Industry 4.0; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jeschke, S.; Brecher, C.; Meisen, T.; Özdemir, D.; Eschert, T. Industrial Internet of Things and Cyber Manufacturing Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cañas, H.; Mula, J.; Díaz-Madroñero, M.; Campuzano-Bolarín, F. Implementing Industry 4.0 Principles. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 158, 107379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Strange, R.; Zucchella, A. Industry 4.0, Global Value Chains and International Business. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2017, 25, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, Y.; Wang, L. Chaos in a Duopoly Model of Technological Innovation with Bounded Rationality Based on Constant Conjectural Variation. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2019, 120, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tortorella, G.L.; Cawley Vergara, A.M.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Sawhney, R. Organizational Learning Paths Based upon Industry 4.0 Adoption: An Empirical Study with Brazilian Manufacturers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 219, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sony, M.; Naik, S. Critical Factors for the Successful Implementation of Industry 4.0: A Review and Future Research Direction. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 799–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cennamo, C.; Dagnino, G.B.; Di Minin, A.; Lanzolla, G. Managing Digital Transformation: Scope of Transformation and Modalities of Value Co-Generation and Delivery. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2020, 62, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rauch, E.; Unterhofer, M.; Dallasega, P. Industry Sector Analysis for the Application of Additive Manufacturing in Smart and Distributed Manufacturing Systems. Manuf. Lett. 2018, 15, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bakhtin, P.; Khabirova, E.; Kuzminov, I.; Thurner, T. The Future of Food Production—A Text-Mining Approach. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 516–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Scuotto, V.; Santoro, G.; Bresciani, S.; Del Giudice, M. Shifting Intra- and Inter-Organizational Innovation Processes towards Digital Business: An Empirical Analysis of SMEs. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2017, 26, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Scuotto, V.; Nicotra, M.; Del Giudice, M.; Krueger, N.; Gregori, G.L. A Microfoundational Perspective on SMEs’ Growth in the Digital Transformation Era. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 129, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Matarazzo, M.; Penco, L.; Profumo, G. How Is Digital Transformation Changing Business Models and Internationalisation in Made in Italy Smes? Ital. J. Manag. 2020, 38, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zouaghi, F.; Sánchez, M. Has the Global Financial Crisis Had Different Effects on Innovation Performance in the Agri-Food Sector by Comparison to the Rest of the Economy? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ciasullo, M.V.; Montera, R.; Mercuri, F.; Mugova, S. When Digitalization Meets Omnichannel in International Markets: A Case Study from the Agri-Food Industry. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yakovlev, P. Latin American Economy at the Start of Digital Modernization. Mirovaya Ekon. Mezhdunarodnye Otnos. 2022, 66, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Serrano, R.; Fernández-Olmos, M.; Pinilla, V. Internationalization and Performance in Agri-Food Firms. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 16, e0107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wamba, S.F.; Queiroz, M.M. Industry 4.0 and the Supply Chain Digitalisation: A Blockchain Diffusion Perspective. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 33, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Elia, S.; Giuffrida, M.; Mariani, M.M.; Bresciani, S. Resources and Digital Export: An RBV Perspective on the Role of Digital Technologies and Capabilities in Cross-Border e-Commerce. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pivoto, D.; Barham, B.; Waquil, P.D.; Foguesatto, C.R.; Corte, V.F.D.; Zhang, D.; Talamini, E. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Smart Farming by Brazilian Grain Farmers. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 571–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fielke, S.; Taylor, B.; Jakku, E. Digitalisation of Agricultural Knowledge and Advice Networks: A State-of-the-Art Review. Agric. Syst. 2020, 180, 102763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Balducci, F.; Impedovo, D.; Pirlo, G. Machine Learning Applications on Agricultural Datasets for Smart Farm Enhancement. Machines 2018, 6, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lioutas, E.D.; Charatsari, C.; La Rocca, G.; De Rosa, M. Key Questions on the Use of Big Data in Farming: An Activity Theory Approach. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Van der Burg, S.; Bogaardt, M.J.; Wolfert, S. Ethics of Smart Farming: Current Questions and Directions for Responsible Innovation towards the Future. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Baierle, I.C.; Sellitto, M.A.; Frozza, R.; Schaefer, J.L.; Habekost, A.F. An Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge-Based System to Support the Decision-Making Process in Sales. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2019, 30, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lee, Y.Y.; Falahat, M.; Sia, B.K. Impact of Digitalization on the Speed of Internationalization. Int. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nawandar, N.K.; Satpute, V.R. IoT Based Low Cost and Intelligent Module for Smart Irrigation System. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 162, 979–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Moon, A.; Kim, J.; Zhang, J.; Son, S.W. Evaluating Fidelity of Lossy Compression on Spatiotemporal Data from an IoT Enabled Smart Farm. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 154, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Quiroz, I.A.; Alférez, G.H. Image Recognition of Legacy Blueberries in a Chilean Smart Farm through Deep Learning. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 168, 105044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gacar, A.; Aktas, H.; Ozdogan, B. Digital Agriculture Practices in the Context of Agriculture 4.0. Pressacademia 2017, 4, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Janc, K.; Czapiewski, K.; Wójcik, M. In the Starting Blocks for Smart Agriculture: The Internet as a Source of Knowledge in Transitional Agriculture. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mistry, I.; Tanwar, S.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N. Blockchain for 5G-Enabled IoT for Industrial Automation: A Systematic Review, Solutions, and Challenges. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2020, 135, 106382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zambon, I.; Cecchini, M.; Egidi, G.; Saporito, M.G.; Colantoni, A. Revolution 4.0: Industry vs. Agriculture in a Future Development for SMEs. Process 2019, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gan, Y.; Liang, C.; Hamel, C.; Cutforth, H.; Wang, H.; Gan, Y.; Hamel, C.; Cutforth, H.; Wang, H.; Liang, C. Strategies for Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Field Crops for Semiarid Areas. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 643–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Arunrat, N.; Sereenonchai, S.; Chaowiwat, W.; Wang, C.; Hatano, R. Carbon, Nitrogen and Water Footprints of Organic Rice and Conventional Rice Production over 4 Years of Cultivation: A Case Study in the Lower North of Thailand. Agronomy 2022, 12, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Izadikhah, M.; Tavana, M.; Di Caprio, D.; Santos-Arteaga, F.J. A Novel Two-Stage DEA Production Model with Freely Distributed Initial Inputs and Shared Intermediate Outputs. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 99, 213–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Brauers, W.K.M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Vilutiene, T. Multi-Objective Contractor’s Ranking by Applying the Moora Method. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2008, 9, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Baierle, I.C.; Schaefer, J.L.; Sellitto, M.A.; Fava, L.P.; Furtado, J.C.; Nara, E.O.B. Moona Software for Survey Classification and Evaluation of Criteria to Support Decision-Making for Properties Portfolio. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2020, 24, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kumar, S.; Kumar, S.; Barman, A.G. Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Multi Criteria Model for a Small Scale Steel Manufacturing Unit. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 133, 905–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ulas, D. Digital Transformation Process and SMEs. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 158, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Da Rosa Righi, R.; Goldschmidt, G.; Kunst, R.; Deon, C.; André da Costa, C. Towards Combining Data Prediction and Internet of Things to Manage Milk Production on Dairy Cows. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 169, 105156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ghadge, A.; Er Kara, M.; Moradlou, H.; Goswami, M. The Impact of Industry 4.0 Implementation on Supply Chains. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 31, 669–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Uotila, J. Punctuated Equilibrium or Ambidexterity: Dynamics of Incremental and Radical Organizational Change over Time. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2018, 27, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tao, F.; Zhang, H.; Liu, A.; Nee, A.Y.C. Digital Twin in Industry: State-of-the-Art. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 15, 2405–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Almadani, B.; Mostafa, S.M. IIoT Based Multimodal Communication Model for Agriculture and Agro-Industries. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 10070–10088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kolmykova, T.S.; Obukhova, A.S.; Klykova, S.V.; Mashegov, P.N.; Zaitsev, A.G.; Popova, O.V. Features and Benefits of Digital Technologies in Agricultural Enterprises. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, Hangzhou, China, 13–15 August 2021; Volume 247. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Research steps.
Figure 1. Research steps.
Sustainability 14 11779 g001
Figure 2. Ranking differences between w-MOORA and FD-MOORA.
Figure 2. Ranking differences between w-MOORA and FD-MOORA.
Sustainability 14 11779 g002
Figure 3. Level of competitiveness of the industrial sectors in Brazil in the Industry 4.0 scenario.
Figure 3. Level of competitiveness of the industrial sectors in Brazil in the Industry 4.0 scenario.
Sustainability 14 11779 g003
Figure 4. A framework of digital technologies for competitiveness.
Figure 4. A framework of digital technologies for competitiveness.
Sustainability 14 11779 g004
Figure 5. A framework of digital transformation to boost food industry competitiveness towards Agriculture 4.0.
Figure 5. A framework of digital transformation to boost food industry competitiveness towards Agriculture 4.0.
Sustainability 14 11779 g005
Table 1. Digital technologies of Industry 4.0.
Table 1. Digital technologies of Industry 4.0.
Digital TechnologiesID
Computer-aided manufacturing projects CAD/CAMCAD-CAM
Integrated engineering systems for product development and product manufacturingIES
Digital automation without sensorsDAwS
Digital automation with process control sensorsDAS
Digital automation with sensors for product and operating condition identification, flexible linesFlex
Remote monitoring and control of production through systems such as MES and SCADAMES-SCADA
Simulations/analysis of virtual models (finite element, computational fluid dynamic, etc.) for design and commissioningSimulation
Collection, processing, and analysis of large quantities of data (big data)Big Data
Incorporation of digital services into products (“Internet of Things” or product service systems)IoT-PSS
Additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, or 3D printing3D
Use of cloud services associated with the productCloud
Table 2. Industrial sectors.
Table 2. Industrial sectors.
Industrial SectorID
Basic metalsB_Metals
BeveragesBeverages
Chemicals (exc. HPPC)Chemicals
Coke and refined petroleum productsCoke_Petrol
Computers, electronics, and optical productsElectronics
Electrical equipmentElectrical
Food productsFood
Footwear and partsFootwear
FurnitureFurniture
HPPC (Soap, detergents, and other cleaning preparations products)HPPC
Leather and related productsLeather
Machinery and equipmentMachinery
Metal products (except Machinery and equipment)Metal
Mining of metal oresMin_Metals
Mining of non-metal oresMin_Nmetals
Motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailersVehicles
Non-metallic mineral productsNon_Metals
Other manufacturingOther_Mfg
Other transport equipmentTransport
Pharmaceutical chemicals and pharmaceuticals Pharmaco
Plastics productsPlastics
Printing and reproduction of recorded mediaPrinting
Pulp and paperPaper
Repair and installationRepair
Rubber productsRubber
Textiles productsTextile
Wearing apparelW_Apparel
Wood productsWood
Table 3. Weight of each digital technology in the w-MOORA method.
Table 3. Weight of each digital technology in the w-MOORA method.
SectorDigital Technologies
CAD-CAMIESDAwSDASFlexMES-SCADASimulationBig DataIoT-PSS3DCloud
Min_Metals0217212921029070
Min_Nmetals721911913771039
Food51931917136137310
Beverages82241612162126210
Textile826417251031212613
W_Apparel1614291711411479
Leather21952695295016
Footwear1727220171021021210
Wood14233151611114841
Paper32153418133121387
Printing78318169313171518
Coke_Petrol2172361517913929
Chemicals41321716114181149
HPPC519324308118161116
Pharmaco7103131710317101313
Rubber11116141419383116
Plastics924121251641516912
Non_Metals6213192010291156
B_Metals725620261562291013
Metal173341412761111810
Electronics720711221527221120
Electrical11332272416157151313
Machinery2838319229111411187
Vehicles1231330242010168205
Transport102731773010103103
Furniture1834215178681099
Other_Mfg152101818858152313
Repair13310996316636
Table 4. Weight of each digital technology in the FD-MOORA method.
Table 4. Weight of each digital technology in the FD-MOORA method.
Digital TechnologyWeight%
IES22.3617.0
DAS20.9415.9
Flex17.9613.6
Big Data15.8912.1
MES-SCADA15.5911.8
CAD-CAM9.337.1
3D7.675.8
IoT-PSS7.335.6
Cloud6.675.1
Simulation5.003.8
DAwS3.002.3
Table 5. Ranking of industrial sectors.
Table 5. Ranking of industrial sectors.
Rankingw-MOORAFD-MOORA
SectorYiSectorYi
1Electrical55.1651Electronics40.7834
2Electronics49.8173Electrical40.5772
3Vehicles43.1807Plastics30.5929
4Machinery42.8381Vehicles29.8761
5Plastics35.3683B_Metals26.6010
6B_Metals30.9763Paper26.2447
7Coke_Petrol29.9994Textile26.1726
8Textile28.4796Machinery25.7714
9Other_Mfg27.0488Coke_Petrol25.0509
10Paper26.5999Chemicals23.9830
11Metal23.8004Other_Mfg22.4028
12Min_Metals23.2289Metal22.0490
13HPPC20.4258Min_Metals20.7159
14Chemicals20.3841Pharmaco20.5062
15Footwear20.2343Footwear19.1770
16Pharmaco19.8585Wood17.6642
17Furniture19.7492Food17.5584
18Printing16.5232Furniture17.5274
19Food16.2552Beverages16.3678
20Wood15.1437HPPC15.2053
21Beverages14.9040W_Apparel14.7414
22Leather13.8279Non_Metals14.3364
23W_Apparel13.1194Rubber14.2562
24Non_Metals13.0229Transport14.1023
25Rubber11.6315Leather13.8862
26Transport11.3127Min_Nmetals13.7942
27Min_Nmetals10.9498Printing13.2767
28Repair9.4295Repair10.2689
Average23.69Average21.20
Standard Deviation12.17Standard Deviation7.77
Table 6. Adoption patterns and digital technologies with high implementation per sector.
Table 6. Adoption patterns and digital technologies with high implementation per sector.
Industrial SectorCompetitiveness BoostAlready in Use
HighMediumHigh
Basic metals[IES] [DAS] [Flex] [Big data][MES-SCADA] [Cloud][CAD-CAM] [DAS]
Beverages[IES][DAS] [Flex] [MES-SCADA] [Big Data][DAS]
Chemicals (exc. HPPC) [IES] [DAS] [Flex] [MES-SCADA] [Big Data] [IoT-PSS][DAS]
Coke and refined petroleum [DAS][IES] [Flex] [MES-SCADA] [Big Data][DAS]
Computers, electronics, and optical products[IES] [Flex] [IoT-PSS] [Cloud][DAS] [MES-SCADA] [3D][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [IES]
Electrical equipment[IES] [DAS] [Flex][CAD-CAM] [MES-SCADA] [Simulation] [IoT-PSS] [3D] [Cloud][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [IES]
Food products[IES] [DAS][Flex] [MES-SCADA] [Big Data][DAS]
Footwear and parts[IES] [DAS][CAD-CAM] [Flex] [3D][CAD-CAM]
Furniture[IES][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [Flex][CAD-CAM]
HPPC (soap, detergents, and other cleaning preparations)[IES] [DAS] [Flex][Simulation] [IoT-PSS] [3D] [Cloud]
Leather and related[IES] [DAS][Cloud]
Machinery and equipment[CAD-CAM] [IES] [DAS] [Flex][Simulation] [Big Data] [IoT-PSS] [3D][CAD-CAM] [IES]
Metal products (except Machinery and equipment)[IES][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [Flex] [Big Data] [IoT-PSS][CAD-CAM]
Mining of metal ores[IES] [DAS] [Flex] [MES-SCADA] [Big Data] [DAS] [IES]
Mining of non-metal ores[IES][DAS] [MES-SCADA]
Motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailers[IES] [DAS] [Flex] [MES-SCADA] [3D][CAD-CAM] [Big Data][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [IES]
Non-metallic mineral products[IES] [DAS] [Flex][IoT-PSS]
Other manufacturing[IES] [3D][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [Flex] [IoT-PSS] [Cloud][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [IES]
Other transport equipment[IES] [MES-SCADA][DAS][CAD-CAM]
Pharmaceutical chemicals and pharmaceuticals [DAS] [Flex] [Big Data] [3D] [Cloud]
Plastics products[IES] [DAS] [Flex][MES-SCADA] [Big Data] [IoT-PSS] [Cloud][CAD-CAM] [DAS]
Printing and reproduction of recorded media [DAS] [Flex] [Big Data] [IoT-PSS] [3D] [Cloud]
Pulp and paper[IES] [DAS][Flex] [MES-SCADA] Big Data] [IoT-PSS][DAS]
Repair and installation[IES][CAD-CAM] [Big Data][CAD-CAM]
Rubber products[MES-SCADA][CAD-CAM] [IES] [DAS] [Flex] [3D][CAD-CAM]
Textiles products[IES] [Flex][DAS] [Big Data] [IoT-PSS] [Cloud][DAS]
Wearing apparel [CAD-CAM] [IES] [Flex] [MES-SCADA] [Big Data][CAD-CAM]
Wood products[IES][CAD-CAM] [DAS] [Flex] [MES-SCADA] [Big Data]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Baierle, I.C.; da Silva, F.T.; de Faria Correa, R.G.; Schaefer, J.L.; Da Costa, M.B.; Benitez, G.B.; Benitez Nara, E.O. Competitiveness of Food Industry in the Era of Digital Transformation towards Agriculture 4.0. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811779

AMA Style

Baierle IC, da Silva FT, de Faria Correa RG, Schaefer JL, Da Costa MB, Benitez GB, Benitez Nara EO. Competitiveness of Food Industry in the Era of Digital Transformation towards Agriculture 4.0. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811779

Chicago/Turabian Style

Baierle, Ismael Cristofer, Francisco Tardelli da Silva, Ricardo Gonçalves de Faria Correa, Jones Luís Schaefer, Matheus Becker Da Costa, Guilherme Brittes Benitez, and Elpidio Oscar Benitez Nara. 2022. "Competitiveness of Food Industry in the Era of Digital Transformation towards Agriculture 4.0" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811779

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