Keywords

1 Introduction

Sustainable improvements aim to revolutionize the way that products are producing and using. In this line, novel technologies emerging under the Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 (I4.0) are creating new opportunities for solving sustainability-related needs [1, 2]. For example, I4.0 can help factories to improve sustainability efforts through real-time control of resource consumption, increased logistical efficiency, the extension of the product lifecycles by pro-active maintenance and remanufacturing [3]. Moreover, I4.0 can stimulate mass customization and product diversification strategies [4]. This brings new sides to customer-focused approaches because information systems (IS) can have a significant role to redesign products and business processes across the enterprise to turn its results more sustainable [2, 5, 6]. As a result, it can build or regenerate a cross-linked value chain of actors that compose a business activity [2].

This argumentation helps us to understand why the overlap between Sustainability and I4.0 has been one of the most important industrial debates in recent years [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. But, although the I4.0 revolution can be described as a facilitator for sustainable development, this union remains underdeveloped in many aspects [11, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. One of these aspects is about Sustainable Business Models (SBM) into the I4.0 revolution [7, 8, 11, 13, 23].

There is still a lack of understanding about the impacts of I4.0 in many different issues of business to redesigning value chain configurations and adoption or creation of new business models focused more on sustainability goals [17, 24,25,26,27]. Sustainability is a concept that does not have a unique definition [28]. Due to this, its concrete implementation is considered difficult because there is a high degree of complexity concerning the depth and specifications of actions [11, 28]. Likewise, I4.0 is also a paradigm whose unique definition is not possible due to its wide range of approaches [8, 22, 29]. The business model concept is an abstract representation of the value flow and the workflow of an organizational unit [30].

As Stock et al. [11] and Dao [6] emphasized, there is still a lack of research on how I4.0 impacts the stabilization of business models according to sustainable development objectives. Some researchers add the concept of a maturity model to try to help understand the discussion, for example, Allais et al. [31], Gouvinhas et al. [32], Gaziulusoy [33], Romero and Molina [34], Murillo-Luna et al. [35]. The maturity models aim to develop and build knowledge in an evolutionary way so that a company can progress more solidly and securely. Based on this argument, it can be said that the literature is scarce on these conceptions. Teixeira et al. [2] presented a Systematic Literature Review (RSL) between May 2015 until May 2020. However, the investigation of this theme is still necessary and relevant for both academics and society. Due to this, the purpose of this article is to present the SLR update developed by Teixeira et al. [2]. In summary, this article addresses the set of issues:

  • (Q1) What are the opportunities for the future research agenda?

  • (Q2) Where is this matter being investigated?

  • (Q3) What is the current situation in this field of research?

To achieve the proposed objective, the article consists of four sections, the introduction of which is the first. In the second section, the review methodology is described. The results obtained to answer the set of questions are presented in Sect. 3 and analyzed in Sect. 4. Finally, the final considerations are presented in Sect. 5.

2 Review Methodology

Teixeira et al. [2] implemented a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) according to the procedures described by Seuring et al. [36], Durach et al. [37], and Tranfield et al. [38]. These procedures were reused to develop the update presented now. To keep rigorous of the result, an SLR must follow a set of steps. Durach et al. [37] describe six steps to build an SLR: (1) defining the research question (goal), (2) determining the required characteristics of primary studies (inclusion criteria), (3) retrieving a sample of potentially relevant literature (collect data), (4) selecting the pertinent literature (exclusion criteria), (5) synthesizing the literature (analyze data), and (6) reporting the results. Similar recommendations are made from Seuring et al. [36] who describe an SRL by four elements: (1) definition - who and what (goal), (2) boundaries and limitations – when and where (inclusion criteria), (3) variables and causalities – why and how (collect data), (4) predictions – could, should and would (analyze data).

Table 1. Keyword pairwise query.
Full size table

Moreover, to secure the validity and transparency of SLR, choose a database is also an important point. In this study, were selected specific databases: Scopus and Web of Science. Then, the second step was the selection of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In this line, the review process considered only formal literature that was written full-texts in English and peer-review published papers.

Equal as Teixeira et al. [2] the choice of the time cut was based on evidence found in a previous analysis that the number of publications about SBM increased during the past two decades. However, a significant concentration of publications is observed between 2016 to now because the number of studies about I4.0 is more substantial during this same period [30]. In this way, the first review was limited to find papers published between May 2015 and May 2020. This second review was extended to find papers published until February 2021. The scope of this extension is to monitor the development of the topic and to check if there has been any progress, as well as to verify whether the findings are still valid. Then, was conducted a structured keyword search executed through a pairwise query, focusing on titles, abstracts, and keywords. The same keywords were used for this second review (Table 1).

3 Results

Before answering the questions listed, the results of the survey carried out in the two databases are presented. According to Table 2, the result of this extension of the SLR reached 279 articles. This represents an increase of approximately 81.17% concerning the previous number of the first SLR. Scopus was the database that brought the most results. Figure 1 illustrates which searches with the keywords obtained the highest and lowest results in each database.

With this, it is possible to observe that the combination of keywords 14 obtained better results in both databases and reviews. In the Scopus database, combinations of keywords with superior results was, respectively, 1, 2, 8, 13, 9, 12, and 4. The lowest results at Scopus were with keyword combinations 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 15. The combination of keywords 7 did not add new research.

In the Web of Science database, combinations of keywords with superior results was, respectively, 7, 6, 9, 12, and 13. The combinations of keywords 4 and 5 did not add new research. On the contrary, the lowest results were with keyword combinations 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11 and 15.

Of the total number of new articles found, only 19 articles met the criteria and objectives of the SLR. Therefore, adding the results of both reviews, 55 is the final number of articles that answer the listed questions. From the analysis of the content of these new contributions, the questions were answered according to their order.

Table 2. Different between the results in each review
Full size table

4 Analysis

Started by (Q1) What are the opportunities for future research agenda? not all authors present directions for future research. However, in this second SLR three new opportunities for future investigation were identified: how to manage the transition, develop a scale to measure transition, and, how to make data analytics infrastructure. With these new notes, the total of appointments to future investigations is now seventeen (see Table 3).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Difference between the results.

Full size image
Table 3. Opportunities for future research
Full size table

Comparing with the previous review it is possible to observe that the first three possibilities remained in the same order. However, the third was the most mentioned by the new studies. Among the possibilities of research that risen in the ranking are, respectively: how to keep job security stable, more research qualitative/quantitative, what are the transformations in the identity of a manufacturing company promote by I4.0, and, what are the risks of implementing the advances in I4.0. Those possibilities of research that were least cited by the new authors are, respectively: what is the impact of I4.0 on managing customer channels, how I4.0 will change the competition, and, how to measure cost-benefit analysis of I4.0 solutions. The remaining opportunities identified followed with the same percentage.

Data to answer (Q2) Where this topic is being investigated? reveal some changes (Fig. 2). First, the predominance of authors has now reverted to authors from Italy and later from Germany. In this update, contributions by authors from Germany were one of the smallest. Compared to the previous SLR, the countries with the largest contributions are, respectively, Spain, the USA, Hungary, and India. Also, 10 new countries were added to the list, respectively, in terms of the number of authors: France, Malaysia, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Lebanon, and Pakistan. The increase in the number of countries demonstrates that the interest in investigating this field of research is increasingly global. Also, it is being discussed in countries with different levels of development.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Authors’ affiliations countries.

Full size image
Fig. 3.
figure 3

Authors’ affiliations school.

Full size image

According to the authors’ affiliations, Fig. 3 shows which school each author is. In the first SLR, most of them were researchers in Business and Management and Industrial Engineering schools. This total number has not changed, but the number of new authors from the Industrial Engineering school is greater than those from the Business and Management school. The third school that added more authors was the School of Economics. In this second SLR, two new schools were added to the list: School of Mathematics and Computer Science. This result demonstrates that investigations are being developed by more diverse teams, expanding the multidisciplinary of discussion.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Chronology of article publications.

Full size image

The chronologic data to answer (Q3) What is the current status of this research field? shows a growing trend, although there was a regression in 2019 (Fig. 4). The growth trend can be observed when comparing the numbers of 2020 in the first SLR with those of 2021. Even though it is in the first quarter of the year, the result is already higher. Also, the final result for 2020 is the highest in the entire sample. It is observed that 43,6% of total papers were published in the year 2015–2018 and 56,4% from 2019 until 2021.

5 Final Considerations

Results showed state of the art and a research agenda, allowing us to conclude that the topic is still legitimated but not consolidated because it is a phenomenon relatively new. Based on the relative scarce of investigations, the central importance of the study here is to be one-step further for the profound development of literature.

In addition, observing the notes for future investigations, it is possible to analyze that the study on the links between the I4.0 and the Sustainable Business Model is still at an early stage. Therefore, discussions on this topic restricted to market segments are opportunities for advancing the study. Another step forward in the discussion of the topic would be studies on the link between topics in countries with different development rates. As well as the observation of how topics could foster the creation of regulations and legislation in different industrial sectors. Regarding the new regulations, further studies could observe whether technological advances would be able to make global trade more equitable and fair.

Due to the qualitative nature of this study, our results had some limitations. The first limitation is related to the decision to not use statistical analysis against the limited number of papers analyzed. The second limitation is related to the selection of keywords because they may have other interesting articles outside the sample that have not been reviewed.