Next Article in Journal
Growth, Nutrient Accumulation, and Drought Tolerance in Crop Plants with Silicon Application: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Trust Evaluation Method of E-Commerce Enterprises with High-Involvement Experience Products
Previous Article in Journal
A Theoretical Analysis of Managerial Growth in the Context of Organizational Change
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/su14084524
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Technological Revolution and Circular Economy Practices: A Mechanism of Green Economy

by
Syed Abdul Rehman Khan
1,*,
Muhammad Umar
2,
Alam Asadov
3,
Muhammad Tanveer
4 and
Zhang Yu
5,6
1
School of Management and Engineering, Xuzhou University of Technology, Xuzhou 221006, China
2
Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu 21030, Malaysia
3
College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University, Rafha Street, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
4
Prince Sultan University, Rafha Street, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
5
School of Economics and Management, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
6
Department of Business Administration, ILMA University, Karachi 75190, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(8), 4524; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084524
Submission received: 1 March 2022 / Revised: 1 April 2022 / Accepted: 7 April 2022 / Published: 11 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Business Analytics and Big Data for Business Sustainability II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Rising environmental concerns, Industry 4.0 technologies, and circular economy (CE) practices are the prevailing business considerations of the current time, and they are transforming business models. Keeping in view the importance of these considerations, this work looks into the role of Industry 4.0 technologies in adoption of CE practices and the impact of CE practices on firms’ performance. The current study collected data from 213 automotive firms located in Eastern European countries including Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. Using Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modelling (CB-SEM), the current study provides some important findings. Firstly, Industry 4.0 technologies significantly enhance circular economy practices. Secondly, circular economy practices are found to be positively related with environmental and operational performance. Lastly, higher economic and operational performance boost organizational performance. Hence, the current study provides deeper understanding regarding performance implications of Industry 4.0 technologies and offers insights about ways of promoting sustainable performance in the current age of digitization.

1. Introduction

Europe (EU) is at the pinnacle of innovation, design, and performance in manufacturing of automobiles [1]. Many countries that are now part of the European Union are still leading in this sector. According to the United Nations, Eastern Europe includes Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia, Poland, Russia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Belarus, Hungary, and Czechia [2]. The automotive industry in EU has evolved for a century and continues to grow in all industrial measures. In addition to producing high-functionality products, the industry also provides jobs and contributes to its respective countries’ GDP [3]. For instance, automotive sector contributes 14%, 8% and 3% of GDP in Romania, Poland, and Ukraine, respectively [4,5].
In the 21st century, businesses have faced many challenges, among which the obligation to develop sustainable business operations for conserving the environment and resources for future generations [6] have become the topmost priority for many companies, especially for EU transport manufacturers [7]. Sustainability in the automotive industry is complex compared to other manufacturing sectors, as the industry and its products significantly impact the environment [8,9]. The components used in assembling automobiles vary, including metals, plastics, rubbers, and other numerous synthetic materials. In addition to the industry’s massive consumption of raw materials, the manufacturing and assembling of the components require a large amount of energy consumption to operate the plants, which emit significant carbon footprints. Moreover, the wastage during the assembling process also adversely affects the environment. As stated earlier, the vehicles impact the environment during their life cycle: most vehicles use refined fossil fuels to run engines. The burning of fuel emits CO2, NO2, PM2.5, and unburned hydrocarbons, which directly pollute the air and have fatal effects on human health and ecology. According to Reference [10], vehicles are directly responsible for emitting 15% of CO2 in the Europe (EU). The automotive industry needs a solution to all such problems, which have tremendous consequences for the environment, people, and society. Companies need to tread towards sustainability and circular economy to reduce the adverse effects and increase the triple bottom line of sustainability.
EU companies are trying to pursue sustainability in automobile manufacturing. For this purpose, the concept of circular economy (CE), which includes moving from linear to circular consumption, has been adopted to revolutionize automobile manufacturing [11,12]. However, the idea of CE is still developing in the sector; it is helping to transform the automotive industry towards development of vehicle components through recycling of products and material, thus enabling the 3 Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) [9]. However, the transformation discussed needs the support of Industry 4.0 technologies that play a catalyst role in targeting overall sustainability and firm performances [13,14]. In the modern era, digital transformation through Industry 4.0 technologies is proliferating across all industries [15], leading to the rise of business model innovation and new forms of economies (circular economy, sharing economy) [16] in response to the dynamically changing environment in modern times [17]. Industry 4.0 includes blockchain technology (BCT), the Internet of Things (IOT), digital sensors, and business analytics (BDA) [18,19], which provide the platform for transforming automobile factories into data hubs that integrate all stakeholders and machines in the supply chain as a cohesive information network [20,21]. Massive real-time information is now available throughout the network between internal functions of the organization and suppliers to better understand customers and environmental requirements for the development of vehicles which fit the criteria set by EU regulations.
For the research at hand, out of a long list of EU countries in automotive manufacturing, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine were selected as medium-size economies and stand at ranks 10, 19, and 23 in the EU [22]. The automotive companies in Poland, Ukraine, and Romania are ranked 17, 9, and 7, respectively [3]. Poland and Romania stand in the top 10 countries, with the highest share of production volume [23]. All three countries selected are implementing circular economy practices in the automotive sector, to abide by EU regulations to reduce waste and adverse material usage [24,25,26]. The Polish, Romanian, and Ukrainian automotive industry have been modernizing their plants by using technologies of Industry 4.0 similar to AI, augmented reality (AR), and high-quality upgraded component materials to produce their products [27,28,29].
Industry 4.0 technologies are integrating and helping businesses to improve productivity [30,31]. The previous conventional method to gauge performances was restricted to profit; however, the scope has been extended to people and the planet (triple bottom line) [32,33]. Sustainability concepts and circular economy envelop the complete manufacturing processes from the extraction of raw material to product usage [34]. Industry 4.0 technologies, through digital transformation, enable automobile manufacturers to connect at every stage of the product life cycle with all stakeholders [35,36]. The processing information collected through data in the network can increase sustainability and improve circular economy performances of the manufacturers in automobile industries [24,37].
The following points constitute the contribution/novelty of the current study: first, this study will assist in identifying Industry 4.0 technologies’ effect on CE practices to enhance the environment and operational performances of the automotive sector, which will determine the organizational performance of this industry. Second, the current research uses the resource-based view (RBV) theory to provide insight on companies improvising resources and their capacities to gain competitive advantage according to the dynamics of Poland, Romania, and Ukraine’s automotive industry. Third, based on empirical testing and evidence, the study contributes to the literature by combining Industry 4.0, CE practices, operational and eco-environmental performance, and organizational performance. The identified effects of integrating technology, circular economy, and corporate performance according to the dynamics of the automotive industry in the three studied countries are identified at the end. The study also serves as a general guideline for the automotive industries in other countries which are trying to achieve circular economy and sustainability objectives with increased organizational performance.
The rest of the paper is structured in the following fashion. Section 2 provides a review of literature and hypotheses related to CE practices and Industry 4.0. Section 3 discusses the data sources and research methodology. Section 4 presents results and discusses the key findings with relevant published articles. Lastly, the conclusion section presents policy relevance and possibilities for future research work.

2. Theoretical under Pinning and Hypotheses Development

The RBV theory is the most widely used theory that provides a theoretical underpinning for investigating the role of various resources in organizational outcomes [38,39]. It is crucial for the management of any firm to investigate and analyze the roles of and associations among all resources and capabilities [40,41]. Researchers have illustrated that the performance of any firm depends on its capability for handling vital resources [42,43]. In today’s dynamic business environment, firms should actively focus on their resources to reduce risk [44]. Similarly, the firms also need to augment their various resources and make proper use of them to be able to survive in a competitive business environment.
In the current research, Industry 4.0 technologies such as BDA, BCT, and AI are considered as valuable organizational resources [45]. These technologies help in transforming traditional manufacturing systems into new production lines, which includes remanufacturing and design reengineering [46]. Along with Industry 4.0, several other resources such as ecological awareness and knowledge, green HR management, robotics, and green manufacturing can also play a substantial role in enhancing operational, ecological, and financial performance.

2.1. Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 involves the integration of smart technologies such AI, BCT and BDA with traditional technological practices [47]. These technologies are provoking dynamic changes in sustainability development and promoting CE practices in different industries such as beverage, automotive, food, and medical industries [31,48]. Researchers have examined Industry 4.0 technologies as a foundation for CE, as they improve the circular use of resources in production processes [49] and make manufacturing processes smarter. Reference [50] has elaborated that the adoption of Industry 4.0 enhances the effectiveness of manufacturing systems and decision-making power of managers.
Moreover, Industry 4.0 enables better product design, predictive maintenance, customer service, and product upgrades [45] and benefits supply chain through response time optimization [51]. In addition, Industry 4.0 also provides transparency in business operation and reduces data tempering and double spending [52]. The application of Industry 4.0 creates value in business operations, resolves the issues in supply chain management, and promotes circular manufacturing that aids firms in circulating their waste for remanufacturing [19]. For instance, the use of BDA is crucial in enabling CE, as it helps in enhancing the decision-making process in regards to sustainability [53].
Various research works have shown that the use of the Internet of Things in CE can enhance resource availability, optimize response time, and reduce adverse emission [54]. In addition to this, BCT plays a key role in CE procedures; for instance, the adoption of BCT supports the whole supply chain process through integration of data, which helps in improving flow of product or material [55]. It also enables high security for the protection of data and avoids false ownership [56]. Reference [57] has also elaborated that the application of BCT creates values and resolve the problems in supply chain which helps in enhancing firms’ performance in the context of CE. Thus, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1
(H1). Industry 4.0 has positive effect on circular economy practices.

2.2. CE Practices and Environmental Performance

The increase in globalization has caused substantial increase in consumption of natural resources such as food, water, and energy [58]. In addition to this, traditional manufacturing practices have also caused adverse effects on environmental sustainability [59]. Metamorphosis towards circular practices can be viewed as an effective solution for reducing the negative effect of manufacturing and globalization on the environment [60]. In this regard, Konietzko [61] has affirmed that the adoption of CE practices enhances firms’ environmental performance.
Moreover, researchers such as Morais and Silvestre [62] have elaborated that the adoption of CE practices enables sustainable consumption and enhances environmental performance. Similarly, Song [63] also affirmed CE practices as effective tools, as they mitigate the negative effects of traditional manufacturing activities. The embracing of circular practices reduces the use of hazardous chemicals and adverse pollutants and conserves resources through recycling and remanufacturing. In addition, Brydges [64] also elaborated that CE practices cut production cost, lower system waste, increase productivity, and save the environment. Previous research work illustrates that the selection of green supplier and green design is a crucial step in stimulating ecological performance [65]. Moreover, if green/circular practices are implemented, it could reduce cost and enhance environmental performance of the firms [66,67]. Thus, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2
(H2). Circular economy practices have positive effect on firms’ environmental performance.

2.3. CE Practices, Economic and Operational Performance

CE is a closed-loop supply chain which is focused on regenerative and restorative aspects [68], while sharing economy is a type of digital economy that employs data as the key production factor to provide users with temporary access to tangible and intangible resources to efficiently meet their highly individualized needs [69,70]. The current study is focused on the CE concept, which is linked with transforming the traditional manufacturing system of produce, use, and dispose towards circularity of resources [71]. The main objective of CE practices is to target the triple bottom line of sustainability, aiming at environmental, social, and economic goals [19]. Several studies have shown that the adequate adoption of CE practices can enhance financial and environmental performance [72]. More specifically, they focus on efficient delivery of product and effective utilization of resources to enhance the quality of product, thus boosting firms’ operational performance [73,74].
Researchers such as [75] have elaborated that CE practices also help in efficient management of finance, conserve resources, and reduce wastage, consequently boosting economic value. Specifically, the use of environmentally friendly practices in supply chain helps firms in enhancing economic and operational performance through reducing wastage from production processes and enhancing delivery and quality of product. Literature also indicates that the adoption of green practices helps firms in improving their financial performance [11] and operational performance [76]. On the contrary, previous studies have also illustrated contradictory findings regarding the positive effect of green practices on operational and economic performance. For instance, researchers such as Choudhary and Sangwan [77] studied the effect of green practices on economic performance in ceramic enterprises of India and found that green practices is insignificantly related with economic performance. Similar results are reiterated by [78,79] in different contexts and economies. However, recent studies have also proved positive relationship of green practices with economic performance [80] and operational performance [9,76].
Hypothesis 3
(H3). Circular economy practices have positive effect on economic performance.
Hypothesis 4
(H4). Circular economy practices have positive effect on operational performance.

2.4. Organizational Performance

The positive impact of CE practices on environmental, operational, and economic performance has resulted in improved organizational performance [19]. Researchers have identified CE as a potential tool for sustainable organizational growth, because it has lessened resource-intensive consumption [81]. This indicates that CE practices with the collaboration of industries accomplish economic, environmental, and operational benefits that have substantial effects on organizational performance [82].
The adoption of green practices helps firms to attain benefit from the legal authorities in terms of low tariffs and tax exemption [83,84]. The environmental efforts made by firms to help in reducing waste production, energy usage, and harmful material ultimately improve the firms’ image [78]. Moreover, ecological efforts also aid firms in achieving competitiveness. References [19,31] also illustrated that the adoption of CE practices enables firms to improve their market share and positive image. Similar results are reiterated by [85], in which the researchers affirmed the positive association between organizational performance and green practices. Reference [86] also elaborated that an increase in financial performance enhances organizational performance. Despite this, firms need to develop and adopt such strategies that are compatible with firms’ competencies. Reference [87] stated that those firms who adopted such strategies that are compatible with firms’ competencies can better improve their organizational performance. Moreover, Reference [88] also affirmed that improved economic and environmental performance boost organizational performance. Thus, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5
(H5). Operational performance has positive effect on organizational performance.
Hypothesis 6
(H6). Economic performance has positive effect on organizational performance.
Hypothesis 7
(H7). Environmental performance has positive effect on organizational performance.

3. Research Methodology

This research used digital survey as a tool to collect data. The respondents were taken from manufacturing firms of Eastern European countries including Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. Convenience sampling was utilized by this cross-sectional study, in which 400 questionnaires were sent through different means of communication including WhatsApp, LinkedIn, telegram, and emails to different firms involved in the automotive sector. From 229 responses, 16 were not valid, which were excluded from the study sample. Thus, the remaining 213 questionnaire responses were included in analysis for the testing of hypotheses, which reflect the response rate of 53.25%. Figure 1 indicates the conceptual idea of the current study. The items of blockchain technology were developed on the bases of prior literature [89,90,91].
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is the most appropriate statistical technique for the testing of hypotheses and structural models based on answers obtained from questionnaires [92]. Being a second-generation technique, SEM can analyze the complex relationships among latent constructs [93]. However, Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modelling (CB-SEM) was used for the analyses of the current research model. In general, researchers agreed that CB-SEM is more appropriate for the testing of hypotheses. Moreover, it also precisely measures the co-variance matrix and provides different indices such as GFI, CFI, and RMSEA, which can help us identify good fitness of the model. Along with that, SEM has some limitations, such as struggling with model identifications due to a multitude of parameters.
Table 1 illustrates the results of instrument reliability and validity of CB-SEM, which is deemed vital for the validity of systematic results [94]. Convergent validity is determined via loadings, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). According to [93], value greater than 0.60 is acceptable for loading component, and any value below 0.50 is unsuitable. Likewise, the threshold value for AVE, which measures association of construct, is 0.50 [95]. Our AVE values range between 0.567 and 0.689, which is greater than the threshold. All constructs’ Cronbach’s alphas (CA) and CR meet the set threshold criteria of being greater than 0.70, with the lowest CA and CR being equal to 0.81 and 0.738, respectively.

4. Results and Discussion

The discriminant validity results of the selected constructs are presented in Table 2. The values of CA, AVE, and CR are greater than the cutoff values. The discriminant validity results also seem to be normal, as each individual construct is distinct from the other constructs.
The results in Table 3 indicate model fitness results, in which the values of NNFI, NFI, CFI, GFI, AGFI, and TLI meet the threshold criteria ≥ 0.90 in both measurement and structural model. Moreover, the values of RMSEA also meet the recommended criteria ≤ 0.08, which means that the value of our model is a good fit. The SEM model results are shown in Figure 2.
The findings of the current study in Table 4 indicate that Industry 4.0 is significantly related to CE practices (β = 0.6235, p < 0.05). The result of H1 is in line with the outcomes of [48], in which the scholars affirmed that the adoption of Industry 4.0 affects CE through reducing waste from production, enhancing remanufacturing, and efficient use of natural resources. Researchers such as [30,96] have also echoed similar findings that digital technologies including sensors, IOT, and BDA enable recycling processes and innovative lifecycle strategies. Reference [97] found that technological advancement should be treated as important in CE practices, as much advancement has been made in industrial revolution. Moreover, ref. [46] studied the effect of Industry 4.0 on CE practices in Malaysian manufacturing firms. Their findings have also shown that the adoption of Industry 4.0 promotes recycling and remanufacturing and enhance firms’ performance. Additionally, Reference [98] also elucidated that the adoption of circular practices not only improves firm performance, but also supports in attaining sustainable development goals. Similarly, ref. [99] also investigated the importance of Industry 4.0 in CE practices through a case study. Their findings showed that Industry 4.0 provides material and energy traceability and helps users to make plans about remanufacturing and redesign. The researchers also affirmed Industry 4.0 as a novel approach for embracing CE practices.
The findings of the current work reiterate that CE practices enable environmental, economic, and operational performance. The outcomes also indicate that a 1% increase in CE practices will cause a change of 0.521 in environmental performance, 0.483 in economic performance, and 0.516 in operational performance. Moreover, the outcomes of the study also demonstrate that improved economic and operational performance leads towards enhanced organizational performance. The result of H2 and H3 are supported by the findings of [80], in which the researcher examined the effect of CE practices on environmental and economic performance in manufacturing enterprises located in India and showed that the adoption of CE practices enhance firms’ environmental and economic performance by reducing waste from production and improving product quality. Reference [100] has also indicated that green or CE practices help firms protect the environment through improving resource efficiency. Moreover, the researchers also elaborated CE as a valuable source to implement, explore, and guide in service-oriented organizations. Similarly, ref. [101] also examined the automobile firms in Pakistan to investigate the importance of circular practices in achieving sustainability. The researchers agreed that the implementation of digital technologies and circular economy practices help firms to reach their different goals. Moreover, the researchers also discussed that the adoption of green criteria in manufacturing and design helps firms to lower their harmful effect on the environment. Similarly, References [102,103] also elaborated that CE practices help enterprises to take responsibility for societal and environmental along with financial benefit.
Moreover, ref. [104] conducted a study on the Chinese automotive industry with an aim to analyze the effect of green practices on operational and environmental performance. The researchers stated green practices constitute an effective strategy that can improve firms’ environmental and operational performance. Moreover, Reference [81] also stated CE practices are potential tools to enhance sustainable growth and reduce intensive consumption of resources. The researchers also elaborated that CE practices with the collaboration of industries provide firms with economic and operational benefits, which improve organizational performance. The ecological efforts by firms which aid in reducing adverse material and energy consumption from production ultimately improve firm image [78,80].
Reference [85] conducted a study in Indian manufacturing firms in which the impact of green practices on organizational performance was discussed. The findings of the study showed that green practices help in reducing waste and use of toxic material from production activities and enable recycling, which improves organizational performance of firms. Similarly, References [86,88] also investigated the role of green practices in organizational performance in manufacturing firms of Pakistan. Their findings stated that green practices improve economic and operational performance, which improve firms overall performance. Additionally, refs. [105,106] stated that circular business designs can increase the market share and goodwill of the firm. Researchers such as [9,107,108,109] have also stated that CE practices help to reduce waste from production, conserve resources, enhance good will and market share, and provide firms with governmental recognition and support; these factors lead towards improved organizational performance.

5. Conclusion Remarks, Policy Implications, and Future Research Directions

The current research investigates the effect of Industry 4.0 on CE practices with the aim of enhancing organizational performance. The cross-sectional data were collected using questionnaires from Eastern European countries including Poland, Romania, and Ukraine via different means of communication. CB-SEM technique was employed for the testing of hypotheses. The obtained results from the analysis meet the threshold criteria of internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity. The results show that Industry 4.0 has a positive effect on CE practices. Furthermore, the findings also illustrate that CE practices are found to have a significant positive effect on environmental, economic, and operational performance of the firm. The study findings also report positive association of economic and operational performance with organizational performance. On the other hand, the current study also reports an insignificant effect of environmental performance on organizational performance.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The results show that Industry 4.0 has a positive effect on CE practices. This means technological innovations contributed to furthering of implementation of CE in East European automobile manufacturers. Furthermore, the findings also illustrate that CE practices are found to have a significant positive effect on environmental, economic, and operational performance of firms. This is evidence that CE practices do directly contribute to the enhancement of triple bottom lines of firms in the automotive industry, making them more sustainable as a result. The study findings also report positive association of economic and operational performance with organizational performance. This is not surprising, since firms which generally do well in economic and operational matters do perform well by metrics of organizational performance too. On the other hand, the current study also reports an insignificant effect of environmental performance on organizational performance. This finding could be expected according to the sustainability pyramid theory, since it is difficult to expect environmental concerns, which are at the top of the pyramid, to have impact on organizational performance, which is on its base.

5.2. Managerial Implications

The findings of the current work also provide policy implications for managers and stakeholders. In general, the current research work provides benefit to Industry 4.0 technologies’ application in CE practices to minimize and reduce carbon footprint without compromising the financial health of firms. The current research work should motivate managers to inject Industry 4.0 technologies to achieve economic, environmental, and operational benefit. In the context of Eastern European countries, governmental bodies should push technological infrastructure for environmental legislation, as the adoption of technological infrastructure enables governmental bodies to effectively manage the mechanism of rewards and punishment for firms as well as aid in managing the history of firms regarding their ecological initiatives. The current research work also suggests that legislators should provide tax exemption and interest-free loans to firms for the efficient adoption and installation of Industry 4.0 technologies in their operations.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are also some limitations of the current study, which opens the door for further research. Firstly, the current study is cross-sectional in nature, as the data were collected through an online survey questionnaire. Future research can use qualitative approaches using interviews or focus groups to provide more in-depth results. Secondly, the current study collected data from Eastern European countries, particularly Ukraine, Poland, and Romania, the results of which can only be generalized to these countries. Future research can collect data from both Eastern and Western European countries to come up with more robust results. Thirdly, the scope of this study was mainly limited to two out of the three dimensions, i.e., economic and environmental but not social, of sustainability, due to limitations of the data. Therefore, new research in the field may consider exploring the social dimension of sustainability in the automotive industry as a future research direction. Lastly, the current research work employed CB-SEM for testing the hypotheses. Future research can use other mathematical and simulation techniques and can extend similar work by adding other CE practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.R.K. and M.U.; methodology, M.U. and A.A.; software, M.T.; validation, A.A. and M.U.; formal analysis, M.T.; investigation, S.A.R.K. and M.U.; resources, A.A. and Z.Y.; data curation, M.U.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.R.K., M.U., A.A. and M.T.; writing—review and editing, Z.Y. and M.T.; visualization, A.A.; supervision, M.T., M.U. and S.A.R.K.; project administration, A.A.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Spatial Information Engineering (No. 20210218).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prince Sultan University for their support and paying the Article Processing Charges (APC) of this publication in “Sustainability”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Santos, H.; Lannelongue, G.; Gonzalez-Benito, J. Integrating green practices into operational performance: Evidence from Brazilian manufacturers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. United Nation. List of Eastern European Countries. Available online: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/eastern-europe-countries (accessed on 9 September 2021).
  3. ACEA. Share of Direct Automotive Employment in the EU, by Country. Available online: https://www.acea.auto/figure/share-of-direct-automotive-employment-in-the-eu-by-country/ (accessed on 9 September 2021).
  4. Popovici, O.C. The Impact of the International Auto Market’s Evolution in Romania. Available online: https://china-cee.eu/2019/12/16/romania-economy-briefing-the-impact-of-the-international-auto-markets-evolution-in-romania/ (accessed on 9 September 2021).
  5. Wojciechowski, M. The Automobile Performance in Poland. Available online: https://internationalfleetworld.com/country-profile-poland/ (accessed on 9 September 2021).
  6. Malik, R.S. Educational challenges in 21st century and sustainable development. J. Sustain. Dev. Educ. Res. 2018, 2, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wolff, S.; Brönner, M.; Held, M.; Lienkamp, M. Transforming automotive companies into sustainability leaders: A concept for managing current challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Goswami, M.; De, A.; Habibi, M.K.K.; Daultani, Y. Examining freight performance of third-party logistics providers within the automotive industry in India: An environmental sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 7565–7592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yu, Z.; Khan, S.A.R.; Umar, M. Circular economy practices and industry 4.0 technologies: A strategic move of automobile industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 31, 796–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Commission. State of the Union: Commission Raises Climate Ambition and Proposes 55% Cut in Emissions by 2030; Press Release: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
  11. Agrawal, R.; Wankhede, V.A.; Kumar, A.; Luthra, S. Analysing the roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector: Reducing waste and environmental perspectives. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1051–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kamble, S.S.; Belhadi, A.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ganapathy, L.; Verma, S. A large multi-group decision-making technique for prioritizing the big data-driven circular economy practices in the automobile component manufacturing industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 165, 120567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Umar, M.; Khan, S.A.R.; Muhammad Zia-ul-haq, H.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Farooq, K. The role of emerging technologies in implementing green practices to achieve sustainable operations. TQM J. 2021, 34, 232–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Awan, U.; Sroufe, R.; Shahbaz, M. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A literature review and recommendations for future research. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 2038–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Quévat, A.; Heinze, A. The digital transformation of preventive telemedicine in France based on the use of connected wearable devices. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excel. 2020, 39, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sandberg, E.; Abrahamsson, M. Exploring organizational learning and experimental logistics development at the global fashion retailer H&M. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excel. 2021, 41, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Katou, A.A. Building a multilevel integrated framework of ambidexterity: The role of dynamically changing environment and human capital management in the performance of Greek firms. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2021, 40, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A.; Sokolov, B. The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 57, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khan, S.A.R.; Zia-Ul-Haq, H.M.; Umar, M.; Yu, Z. Digital technology and circular economy practices: An strategy to improve organizational performance. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2021, 4, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tiwari, S. Supply chain integration and Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. Benchmarking Int. J. 2020, 26, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, Y.; Dai, J.; Cui, L. The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental performance in the context of industry 4.0: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Statistics Times Automobile Industry Statistics World Wide-Statistics & Facts. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/1487/automotive-industry/ (accessed on 12 September 2021).
  23. Statista Motor Vehicle Production Volume in Europe. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585024/leading-car-automotive-manufacturer-europe-by-country/ (accessed on 9 September 2021).
  24. Botezat, E.A.; Dodescu, A.O.; Vaduva, S.; Fotea, S.L. An Exploration of Circular Economy Practices and Performance Among Romanian Producers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Shpak, N.; Kuzmin, O.; Melnyk, O.; Ruda, M.; Sroka, W. Implementation of a Circular Economy in Ukraine: The Context of European Integration. Resources 2020, 9, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zaleski, P.; Chawla, Y. Circular Economy in Poland: Profitability Analysis for Two Methods of Waste Processing in Small Municipalities. Energies 2020, 13, 5166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boichuk, N. Identification and evaluation of Industry 4.0 solutions in the automotive industry—A case study. Zesz. Naukowe. Organ. Zarządzanie/Politech. Śląska. 2020, 147, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Naudé, W.; Surdej, A.; Cameron, M. The Past and Future of Manufacturing in Central and Eastern Europe: Ready for Industry 4.0? 2019. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3390128 (accessed on 18 September 2021).
  29. Guzik, R.; Domański, B.; Gwosdz, K. Automotive Industry Dynamics in Central Europe. In New Frontiers of The Automobile Industry, Exploring Geographies, Technology, and Institutional Challenges; Covarrubias, V., Ramírez Perez, S., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2020; pp. 377–400. [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, Q.; Trevisan, A.H.; Yang, M.; Mascarenhas, J. A framework of digital technologies for the circular economy: Digital functions and mechanisms. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khan, S.A.R.; Umar, M.; Muhammad Zia-ul-haq, H.; Yu, Z. Technological Advancement and Circular Economy Practices in Food Supply Chain. In Agri-Food 4.0; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  32. Glavas, A.; Mish, J. Resources and Capabilities of Triple Bottom Line Firms: Going Over Old or Breaking New Ground? J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 127, 623–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Henriques, A.; Richardson, J. (Eds.) The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  34. Govindan, K.; Hasanagic, M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 278–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Manavalan, E.; Jayakrishna, K. A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 127, 925–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Khan, S.A.R.; Umar, M.; Tanveer, M.; Yu, Z.; Janjua, L.R. Business Data Analytic and Digital Marketing: Business Strategies in the Era of COVID-19. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Data Science and Machine Learning Applications (CDMA), Riyadh, United Arab Emirates, 1–3 March 2022; pp. 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stawiarska, E.; Szwajca, D.; Matusek, M.; Wolniak, R. Diagnosis of the Maturity Level of Implementing Industry 4.0 Solutions in Selected Functional Areas of Management of Automotive Companies in Poland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wernerfelt, B. The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strateg. Manag. J. 1995, 16, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Samad, M.S.E.A.; Othman, R. Exploring the factors that hinder Lean improvement initiatives in a job shop environment: A qualitative case study of a Malaysian company. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excel. 2022, 41, 6–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bag, S.; Yadav, G.; Dhamija, P.; Kataria, K.K. Key resources for industry 4.0 adoption and its effect on sustainable production and circular economy: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 125233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ong, E.C.; Tan, C.L. Soft TQM, agility, and knowledge management deliver organizational performance: A study of Malaysian manufacturing organizations in the electrical and electronics sector. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2022, 41, 28–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yilmaz, M.K.; Hacioglu, U.; Nantembelele, F.A.; Sowe, S. Corporate board diversity and its impact on the social performance of companies from emerging economies. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2021, 41, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Umar, M.; Khan, S.A.R.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ali, S.; Yu, Z. Industry 4.0 and green supply chain practices: An empirical study. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2021, 71, 814–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Perona, M.; Saccani, N. Exploring How Usage-Focused Business Models Enable Circular Economy through Digital Technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Saidani, M.; Yannou, B.; Leroy, Y.; Cluzel, F. How to Assess Product Performance in the Circular Economy? Proposed Requirements for the Design of a Circularity Measurement Framework. Recycling 2017, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ćwiklicki, M.; Wojnarowska, M. Circular economy and industry 4.0: One-way or two-way relationships? Eng. Econ. 2020, 31, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Massaro, M.; Secinaro, S.; Dal Mas, F.; Brescia, V.; Calandra, D. Industry 4.0 and circular economy: An exploratory analysis of academic and practitioners’ perspectives. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 30, 1213–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rajput, S.; Singh, S.P. Industry 4.0 Model for circular economy and cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mittal, S.; Khan, M.A.; Romero, D.; Wuest, T. Smart manufacturing: Characteristics, technologies and enabling factors. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part. B J. Eng. Manuf. 2019, 233, 1342–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Morrar, R.; Arman, H.; Mousa, S. The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4): A social innovation perspective. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2017, 7, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ahmad, R.W.; Hasan, H.; Jayaraman, R.; Salah, K.; Omar, M. Blockchain applications and architectures for port operations and logistics management. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 41, 100620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Latan, H. Green supply chain practices and environmental performance in Brazil: Survey, case studies, and implications for B2B. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 66, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Mastos, T.D.; Nizamis, A.; Vafeiadis, T.; Alexopoulos, N.; Ntinas, C.; Gkortzis, D.; Papadopoulos, A.; Ioannidis, D.; Tzovaras, D. Industry 4.0 sustainable supply chains: An application of an IoT enabled scrap metal management solution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alexandris, G.; Katos, V.; Alexaki, S.; Hatzivasilis, G. Blockchains as enablers for auditing cooperative circular economy networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 23rd International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), Barcelona, Spain, 17–19 September 2018; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. At the nexus of blockchain technology, the circular economy, and product deletion. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Godinho Filho, M.; Roubaud, D. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 270, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Umar, M.; Zia-ul-haq, H.M.; Ali, S.; Yusliza, M.Y. Post COVID-19 Development of Sustainable Production and Consumption Systems. In Sustainable Production and Consumption Systems; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 59–86. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bag, S.; Pretorius, J.H.C. Relationships between industry 4.0, sustainable manufacturing and circular economy: Proposal of a research framework. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 934-8835, 1934–8835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Khan, S.A.R.; Ponce, P.; Thomas, G.; Yu, Z.; Al-Ahmadi, M.S.; Tanveer, M. Digital Technologies, Circular Economy Practices and Environmental Policies in the Era of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Konietzko, J.; Bocken, N.; Hultink, E.J. Circular ecosystem innovation: An initial set of principles. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 253, 119942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Morais, D.O.; Silvestre, B.S. Advancing social sustainability in supply chain management: Lessons from multiple case studies in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 222–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Song, W.; Chen, Z.; Liu, A.; Zhu, Q.; Zhao, W.; Tsai, S.-B.; Lu, H. A Study on Green Supplier Selection in Dynamic Environment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Brydges, T. Closing the loop on take, make, waste: Investigating circular economy practices in the Swedish fashion industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bag, S.; Gupta, S.; Telukdarie, A. Exploring the relationship between unethical practices, buyer–supplier relationships and green design for sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2018, 11, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 2004, 22, 265–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lin, H.-F. IT resources and quality attributes: The impact on electronic green supply chain management implementation and performance. Technol. Soc. 2021, 68, 101833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 703–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lim, W.M. The Sharing Economy: A Marketing Perspective. Australas. Mark. J. 2020, 28, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chen, Y.; Wang, L. Commentary: Marketing and the Sharing Economy: Digital Economy and Emerging Market Challenges. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 28–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Batista, L.; Bourlakis, M.; Liu, Y.; Smart, P.; Sohal, A. Supply chain operations for a circular economy. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Moric, I.; Jovanović, J.; Đoković, R.; Peković, S.; Perović, Đ. The Effect of Phases of the Adoption of the Circular Economy on Firm Performance: Evidence from 28 EU Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Dev, N.K.; Shankar, R.; Qaiser, F.H. Industry 4.0 and circular economy: Operational excellence for sustainable reverse supply chain performance. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sehnem, S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Pereira, S.C.F.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. Improving sustainable supply chains performance through operational excellence: Circular economy approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Mishra, N.; Singh, A.; Rana, N.P.; Dora, M.; Dwivedi, Y. Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 551–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Ahmed, W.; Ashraf, M.S.; Khan, S.A.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Arhin, F.K.; Kusi-Sarpong, H.; Najmi, A. Analyzing the impact of environmental collaboration among supply chain stakeholders on a firm’s sustainable performance. Oper. Manag. Res. 2020, 13, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Choudhary, K.; Sangwan, K.S. Benchmarking Indian ceramic enterprises based on green supply chain management pressures, practices and performance. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018, 25, 3628–3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Çankaya, S.Y.; Sezen, B. Effects of green supply chain management practices on sustainability performance. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 98–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Le, T. The effect of green supply chain management practices on sustainability performance in Vietnamese construction materials manufacturing enterprises. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag. 2020, 8, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tang, Y.M.; Chau, K.Y.; Fatima, A.; Waqas, M. Industry 4.0 technology and circular economy practices: Business management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sarfraz, M.; Ivascu, L.; Belu, R.; Artene, A. Accentuating the interconnection between business sustainability and organizational performance in the context of the circular economy: The moderating role of organizational competitiveness. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 2108–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Singh, R.K.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Uniyal, S. Applications of information and communication technology for sustainable growth of SMEs in India food industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 147, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Khan, S.A.R.; Yu, Z.; Umar, M. How environmental awareness and corporate social responsibility practices benefit the enterprise? An empirical study in the context of emerging economy. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2021, 32, 863–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sahoo, S.; Vijayvargy, L. Green supply chain management practices and its impact on organizational performance: Evidence from Indian manufacturers. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 32, 862–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mwangi, E.N.; Wekesa, S. Influence of Economic Factors on Organizational Performance of Airlines: A Case Study Kenya Airways Ltd. IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2017, 22, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Miles, R.E.; Snow, C.C.; Meyer, A.D.; Coleman, H.J., Jr. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1978, 3, 546–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Khan, S.A.R.; Yu, Z. Assessing the eco-environmental performance: An PLS-SEM approach with practice-based view. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2020, 24, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Queiroz, M.M.; Wamba, S.F. Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 46, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jardim, L.; Pranto, S.; Ruivo, P.; Oliveira, T. What are the main drivers of Blockchain Adoption within Supply Chain?—An exploratory research. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lai, J.-Y.; Wang, J.; Chiu, Y.-H. Evaluating blockchain technology for reducing supply chain risks. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 2021, 19, 1089–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Afthanorhan, A.; Awang, Z.; Aimran, N. An extensive comparison of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for reliability and validity. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2020, 4, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  94. Nisar, Q.A.; Nasir, N.; Jamshed, S.; Naz, S.; Ali, M.; Ali, S. Big data management and environmental performance: Role of big data decision-making capabilities and decision-making quality. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 34, 1061–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ahmed, W.; Omar, M. Drivers of supply chain transparency and its effects on performance measures in the automotive industry: Case of a developing country. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2019, 33, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Urbinati, A.; Chiaroni, D.; Terzi, S. Assessing relations between Circular Economy and Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1662–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Bergendahl, J.A.; Sarkis, J.; Timko, M.T. Transdisciplinarity and the food energy and water nexus: Ecological modernization and supply chain sustainability perspectives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 133, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Patyal, V.S.; Sarma, P.; Modgil, S.; Nag, T.; Dennehy, D. Mapping the links between Industry 4.0, circular economy and sustainability: A systematic literature review. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2022, 35, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shojaei, A.; Ketabi, R.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Wang, J. Enabling a circular economy in the built environment sector through blockchain technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Heyes, G.; Sharmina, M.; Mendoza, J.M.F.; Gallego-Schmid, A.; Azapagic, A. Developing and implementing circular economy business models in service-oriented technology companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 621–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Agyemang, M.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Khan, S.A.; Mani, V.; Rehman, S.T.; Kusi-Sarpong, H. Drivers and barriers to circular economy implementation: An explorative study in Pakistan’s automobile industry. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 971–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Halkos, G.; Skouloudis, A. Corporate social responsibility and innovative capacity: Intersection in a macro-level perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Bai, C.; Orzes, G.; Sarkis, J. Exploring the impact of Industry 4.0 technologies on social sustainability through a circular economy approach. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 101, 176–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Feng, M.; Yu, W.; Wang, X.; Wong, C.Y.; Xu, M.; Xiao, Z. Green supply chain management and financial performance: The mediating roles of operational and environmental performance. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2018, 27, 811–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Zuo, J. Considering life-cycle environmental impacts and society’s willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste management fee: An empirical study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 1004–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Walker, A.M.; Opferkuch, K.; Lindgreen, E.R.; Simboli, A.; Vermeulen, W.J.; Raggi, A. Assessing the social sustainability of circular economy practices: Industry perspectives from Italy and the Netherlands. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 831–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Khan, S.A.R.; Ponce, P.; Tanveer, M.; Aguirre-Padilla, N.; Mahmood, H.; Shah, S.A.A. Technological Innovation and Circular Economy Practices: Business Strategies to Mitigate the Effects of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Khan, S.A.R.; Yu, Z.; Umar, M.; Tanveer, M. Green capabilities and green purchasing practices: A strategy striving towards sustainable operations. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022. early view. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Khan, S.A.R.; Hassan, S.; Khan, M.A.; Khan, M.R.; Godil, D.I.; Tanveer, M. Nexuses between Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy Consumption, Foreign Direct Investment, Energy Consumption, Global Trade, Logistics and Manufacturing Industries of Emerging Economies: In the Era of COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 04524 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 14 04524 g001
Sustainability 14 04524 g002 550
Figure 2. The results of the structural model.
Figure 2. The results of the structural model.
Sustainability 14 04524 g002
Table
Table 1. Instrument reliability and validity.
Table 1. Instrument reliability and validity.
ConstructsSymbolItemsFactor Loading RangesCAAVECR
Circular economy practicesCEP110.739–0.8910.890.6350.861
Industry 4.0 technologiesIR4.090.757–0.9320.910.6890.899
Environmental performanceEPP50.721–0.8120.870.6180.855
Operational performanceOPP30.695–0.8410.850.6480.781
Economic performanceECP40.686–0.8720.880.6720.832
Organizational performanceORP40.582–0.8170.810.5670.738
Table
Table 2. Discriminant validity analysis.
Table 2. Discriminant validity analysis.
ConstructsORPCEEPPOPPECPIR4.0MeanS.D.
ORP- 3.510.620
CE0.521 **- 2.970.494
EPP0.338 *0.261 **- 2.390.337
OPP0.395 *0.311 *0.225- 3.490.611
ECP0.532 **0.425 *0.271 *0.331 **- 3.610.687
I4.00.2820.515 **0.3910.2580.219-4.550.753
Note: * and ** shows significant on 1% and 5% respectively.
Table
Table 3. Model fitness results.
Table 3. Model fitness results.
Fit InducesNNFINFICFIGFIAGFITLIχ2/dfRMSEASRMR
Criteria≥0.90≥0.90≥0.90≥0.90≥0.90≥0.90≤3≤0.08≤0.08
Measurement model0.9120.9100.9110.9080.9260.9311.9220.0410.032
Structural model0.9210.9220.9330.9130.9280.9391.3210.0430.030
Table
Table 4. Regression results of structural model.
Table 4. Regression results of structural model.
HypothesisPathsStandardized Estimatep-ValueResults
H1IR4.0 → CEP0.6230.000Supported
H2CEP → EPP0.5210.000Supported
H3CEP → ECP0.4830.011Supported
H4CEP → OPP0.5160.000Supported
H5OPP → ORP0.3950.001Supported
H6ECP → ORP0.4150.003Supported
H7EPP → ORP0.2640.651Not supported
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, S.A.R.; Umar, M.; Asadov, A.; Tanveer, M.; Yu, Z. Technological Revolution and Circular Economy Practices: A Mechanism of Green Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084524

AMA Style

Khan SAR, Umar M, Asadov A, Tanveer M, Yu Z. Technological Revolution and Circular Economy Practices: A Mechanism of Green Economy. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084524

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Syed Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Umar, Alam Asadov, Muhammad Tanveer, and Zhang Yu. 2022. "Technological Revolution and Circular Economy Practices: A Mechanism of Green Economy" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084524

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