sustainability-16-10002

Article
The Interplay Between Digital Technologies and Sustainable

Performance: Does Lean Manufacturing Matter?
Mohammed Ibrahim Buhaya 1 and Abdelmoneim Bahyeldin Mohamed Metwally 1,2, *
1 Department of Accounting, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University,

Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia; mbuhaya@kfu.edu.sa
2 Department of Accounting, Faculty of Commerce, Assiut University, Assiut 71515, Egypt
* Correspondence: abmetwally@kfu.edu.sa
Abstract: This study examines how digital technologies can improve a company’s overall sustain-
ability. It also explores whether lean manufacturing practices can mediate the connection between
digital technologies and sustainability. Data were collected from 319 senior managers, production
managers, and general managers at Egyptian manufacturing companies and examined using the
software Smart-PLS 4. The results show that digital technologies (i.e., blockchain, the Internet of
Things, big data analytics, cloud computing, and the digital twins) have a positive impact on all three
aspects of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic. Additionally, lean manufacturing
was found to play a key role in this relationship. The model explained 34.3% of lean manufacturing
practices, 59.7% of sustainable economic performance, 40.3% of sustainable social performance, and
40.6% of sustainable environmental performance. The findings of this study have some implications
for companies, investors, and policymakers regarding how to improve economic, social, and envi-
ronmental performance through fostering LMP and proper implementation of Digital Technologies
(DTs). The current investigation extends the discourse on the role of digital technologies and new
manufacturing techniques like lean manufacturing and how they can lead to sustainable performance.
Positioned as one of the initial studies to examine the mediating role of lean manufacturing in the
association between digital technologies and sustainable performance, this study provides insights
within an emerging market context.
Citation: Buhaya, M.I.; Metwally,
A.B.M. The Interplay Between Digital
Keywords: digital technologies; sustainable performance; lean manufacturing; sustainability; emerging
Technologies and Sustainable
economy; Egypt
Performance: Does Lean
Manufacturing Matter? Sustainability
2024, 16, 10002. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su162210002
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Ismael Cristofer
The concept of “sustainability” in industrial organizations means more than just fi-
Baierle and Felipe Fehlberg
Herrmann
nancial success. It involves making significant improvements in revenue, profits, product
development, market share, and overall industry knowledge. It also involves fostering a
Received: 8 October 2024 supportive and healthy workplace while minimizing the organization’s adverse effects on
Revised: 12 November 2024 the environment [1]. Sustainability is connected to achieving the “triple bottom line” (3BL),
Accepted: 13 November 2024 namely, social responsibility, economic performance, and environmental protection [2].
Published: 16 November 2024
Unfortunately, the industrial sector is a major contributor to environmental pollution and
resource depletion [3]. This is largely due to its high energy consumption, excessive use
of resources, and the harmful gases it releases into the atmosphere, creating air pollution,
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
global warming, and biodiversity decline [4]. As the world’s population grows and con-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. sumption increases, it is clear that traditional business practices are negatively impacting
This article is an open access article the planet’s sustainability and stand against achieving the 3BLs [5].
distributed under the terms and In response to these environmental challenges, researchers and business leaders are
conditions of the Creative Commons focusing on developing strategies that help companies stay competitive while also protect-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ing the environment [6–8]. This includes efforts to reduce pollution and improve overall
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ environmental performance. By incorporating ecological considerations into all aspects of
4.0/). their operations, these industries aim to achieve long-term sustainability goals [9].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 10002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210002 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 10002 2 of 23
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental initiatives were not widely adopted.
However, the pandemic significantly impacted decision making in businesses, govern-
ments, and public policy [10,11]. This led to increased focus on sustainability and balancing
local and global market needs [12]. In this context, environmental concerns became more
important, shifting from being neglected to a critical focus [11,13]. This emphasizes the
crucial role the external environment plays in an organization’s success. Maintaining
cleanliness and ensuring safety are key elements, as they have a direct influence on public
health, safety, environmental protection, economic stability, and social welfare. Achieving
clean and safe surroundings demands a holistic strategy that incorporates effective poli-
cies, active community participation, and the implementation of sustainable practices [7].
Moreover, integrating environmental factors has become critical for gaining and sustain-
ing a competitive edge. These considerations are now a strategic imperative, not just a
choice [14].
Egypt has emerged as a key center of the COVID-19 crisis in the MENA region,
bearing some of the heaviest consequences among African nations [15]. The pandemic
created substantial hurdles for numerous businesses, especially small and medium enter-
prises (SMEs), that form the backbone of the Egyptian economy [16]. These companies
encountered workforce shortages, disruptions in their supply chains, market volatility,
rising costs, and shifts in consumer habits. Even after government restrictions were eased,
many businesses struggled to regain their footing, resulting in further financial strain and
threatening their survival [17]. Some case studies conducted in the Egyptian context have
emphasized the need for Egyptian companies to embrace digital tools and remote work
practices. Implementing these approaches can strengthen supply chains, making them
more resilient and adaptable while also safeguarding the long-term sustainability of the
companies involved [18,19].
Recent studies in sustainability and management accounting literature have increas-
ingly focused on the rise of digital technologies and the shift towards Industry 4.0. These
advancements include a variety of smart supply chain tools, as well as manufacturing
techniques such as blockchain, the Internet of Things, big data analytics, cloud com-
puting, and digital twins. These technologies improve connectivity between the supply
chain and markets but also automate many processes and transactions in production
processes [20–23]. In manufacturing, digital innovations allow for the execution of strate-
gies that rely on vast amounts of data [24], promoting greater integration inside the manu-
facturing ecosystem [21].
The use of DTs offers both advantages and challenges for fostering sustainable per-
formance in manufacturing businesses. By adopting these technologies, companies can
improve product innovation, increase production efficiency, strengthen the resilience and ro-
bustness of supply chains, and enhance customer satisfaction [22–27]. Moreover, DT allows
for more efficient resource allocation, potentially unlocking significant benefits for sustain-
able performance [24,28]. However, implementing these technologies can also heighten
competition and introduce financial and environmental difficulties for manufacturers [29].
As such, the impact of DT on sustainable performance, particularly in less developed
countries (LDCs), needs further exploration to understand its broader implications.
Many industries around the world have adopted lean manufacturing methods, which
have proven to be effective in reducing waste, boosting efficiency, and promoting ongoing
improvement [30–32]. Lean manufacturing is defined as a collection of management strate-
gies aimed at eliminating unnecessary elements in the production process and enhancing
the flow of operations that directly add value to the final product from the customer’s per-
spective [33–35]. Numerous studies have explored the relationship between lean practices
and sustainability across various sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, automotive, and leather
manufacturing. By cutting down on waste and operational costs, lean manufacturing not
only increases productivity but also leads to higher profitability [36].
Lean manufacturing principles play a critical role in helping organizations reach sus-
tainability targets [37,38]. On the environmental side, these practices have been shown to
improve product quality and reduce the amount of stored materials, leading to lower pollu-
tion levels and slower depletion of natural resources [39]. Tools like value stream mapping
allow companies to track the use of raw materials, energy, and water, helping to cut down
on waste and lessen environmental impact [40]. Economically, lean manufacturing tech-
niques help reduce waste, which in turn boosts market share and profitability [41]. Socially,
these principles improve workplace safety and health, leading to better living conditions
for employees and the broader community [42,43]. Numerous studies have explored how
lean manufacturing impacts sustainability and confirmed that it has a positive impact on
sustainability [1,44].
While numerous studies have examined the effects of DT on sustainable perfor-
mance [24,28,45] and the role of lean manufacturing in driving sustainability [1,35,44],
there is limited research on how lean manufacturing practices mediate the relationship
between DT and sustainable performance. Understanding these relationships is essential
in today’s evolving industrial landscape. To address this gap, current research investigates
the role of lean manufacturing in mediating the association between DT and sustainable
performance. This research is particularly unique as it explores these dynamics in the
context of a developing African market, offering fresh insights into whether earlier find-
ings apply or diverge in this setting. The research aims to answer several key questions:
(1) How does DT influence the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sus-
tainable performance? (2) What is the impact of DT on lean manufacturing practices?
(3) How do lean manufacturing practices affect the three dimensions of sustainable per-
formance? (4) Do lean manufacturing practices mediate the relationship between DT and
sustainable performance?
Most studies on digital technologies tend to rely on frameworks such as agency theory,
the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), or the Technology-Organization-Environment
(TOE) framework to create a solid theoretical base and explain the effects of DT adoption
on organizations. In contrast, research on environmental performance and corporate
social responsibility (CSR) often uses agency, legitimacy, stakeholder, institutional, or
Foucauldian perspectives, with limited attention given to information processing theory
(IPT) [6–8,46–49]. The current study aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion by
adopting IPT as a theoretical lens. By doing so, we can better understand and explain the
interactions between the study’s key variables.
The current study is based on the framework of IPT as initially outlined by ref. [50]
and further developed by ref. [51]. Both operational and environmental management pro-
cesses involve handling large amounts of information [24]. According to IPT, organizations
function as open systems within their socio-economic environment, and they can achieve
better performance by improving their ability to process and manage information effec-
tively [50,51]. In this regard, digital technologies (DTs) play a central role in shaping a firm’s
internal information systems, reflecting its capacity to process data efficiently. The integra-
tion of internal and external information flows strengthens a company’s ability to achieve
sustainability and long-term growth. This study, grounded in IPT, examines how DTs
influence sustainable performance. IPT suggests that an organization’s ability to process
information must align with its external environment to maximize performance [8]. Previ-
ous studies indicate that the effectiveness of DTs is heavily impacted by the surrounding
business context [8,24].
To sum up, the current study presents a new research framework aimed at under-
standing the key factors that affect sustainable performance while examining the role
of lean manufacturing as a mediator between digital technologies (DT) and sustainable
performance. The focus on Egypt’s industrial sector, a critical area in a developing economy,
adds further relevance to the research. The rest of this paper is organized in the following
manner: Section 2 outlines the theoretical foundations that support this study. Section 3
reviews existing literature, identifies gaps, and formulates research hypotheses. Section 4
describes this study’s design and explains the methods used in the investigation. Section 5
reveals the results of the analysis and provides an in-depth discussion of their significance.
The final section offers the conclusion, this study’s broader implications, limitations, and
directions for future research.
2. Theoretical Framework
Information Processing Theory (IPT) was first introduced in the 1970s. IPT was
originally focused on solving internal organizational challenges. However, its scope has
since broadened to encompass interactions between organizations, particularly in the
relationships between buyers and suppliers [50]. The central idea behind IPT is that
a business functions as an information processing system, with its primary goal being
to reduce uncertainty by gathering, analyzing, and efficiently using information [52].
Uncertainty, in this context, arises from the gap between the information a company needs
to complete a task and what it already has at its disposal [50–52].
IPT emphasizes the importance of aligning an organization’s information needs with
its ability to process that information in order to achieve optimal performance [51]. Infor-
mation needs are shaped by external factors, while an organization’s ability to manage that
information is influenced by its available resources, digital technology infrastructure, and
other tools that support the gathering, processing, and sharing of information [50,53]. To
cope with a dynamic environment, organizations can adopt two key strategies: (1) collect
more accurate and relevant data to reduce uncertainty and (2) improve their information
processing capabilities to make better decisions [54]. In recent years, IPT has been applied
across various fields, including information systems, technology integration, and produc-
tion management, including lean manufacturing practices, maintenance, and supply chain
operations [24,54].
Previous studies have consistently identified digital technologies as key tools for
managing information flow [24]. Building on IPT, ref. [51] suggests that information
technology enhances an organization’s ability to handle information effectively. In this
context, DT systems are designed to manage large volumes of data, representing the
company’s information processing capabilities. Additionally, digitally assisted production
systems allow for efficient information sharing, giving businesses access to valuable internal
and external data, which helps them meet their information needs [24]. According to IPT,
uncertainty is inherent in external and internal operations [50]. Companies operating in
open systems often face uncertainties in supply chain operations and production processes,
such as shifting customer preferences, unexpected competitive moves, and disruptions
caused by natural disasters or other unforeseen events [52,55].
In recent decades, advances in information technology have driven significant changes
in production systems and supply chains [18,56]. Despite these developments, uncertainty
in the business environment can disrupt information sharing and reduce transparency,
which hampers collaboration. This challenge is central to IPT, which focuses on improving
a company’s ability to process information to navigate uncertainties effectively [56]. By
enhancing their information processing capabilities, firms can better manage these uncer-
tainties, leading to improved performance [52,55]. In this context, effective information
management becomes crucial for building sustainable performance and being more flexible
in production processes. Having said this, IPT includes many discussions regarding DT
and its impact on enhancing business performance. The role of digital technologies in
enhancing information capabilities and their influence on sustainable performance and lean
manufacturing practices remains underexplored, which is the primary focus of this study.
3. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

3.1. Digital Technologies Impact on Sustainable Performance
Manufacturing processes and sustainable performance are closely tied to effective
supply chain management, which relies on high-quality information and its availability for
smooth operations and environmental responsibility [57,58]. According to the Information
Processing Theory (IPT), digital technologies enhance a company’s ability to manage and
analyze information, improving decision making in both operational efficiency and envi-
ronmental sustainability. As Industry 4.0 progresses, these innovations are expected to lead
to greater economic gains and environmental improvements by facilitating more efficient
data utilization and analysis. By streamlining information management, DTs enhance
production planning, improve operational efficiency, reduce costs, and ultimately increase
profitability [59]. Modern manufacturing systems often incorporate cloud computing, the
Internet of Things (IoT), and big data analytics to more effectively capture and process
production-related information [24].
In manufacturing, the ability to generate, collect, and integrate large amounts of data
can be harnessed through big data analytics to extract valuable insights, helping companies
make more informed decisions [45,60]. Strengthening a firm’s information processing
capabilities is key to enhancing production efficiency and maintaining a competitive ad-
vantage [61]. Digital technologies (DTs) also support critical decisions around demand
forecasting, pricing strategies, and product development [62], enabling firms to better meet
customer needs while increasing market share and revenue.
However, some qualitative and quantitative studies in the literature highlight the
significant costs associated with fully implementing DTs, emphasizing that achieving full
digital transformation is expensive but necessary to unlock its full potential. Partial dig-
ital integration often fails to deliver the expected benefits, particularly in supply chains,
production processes, and achieving sustainability 3BLs [63–65]. Additionally, other re-
search has focused on the managerial and workforce challenges that arise from shifting
business models during digital transformation, pointing to difficulties in adapting to these
changes [19,24].
Despite the concerns raised, many manufacturing companies are steadily integrating
DT throughout their value chain [66], offering crucial insights into both product perfor-
mance and market trends, allowing firms to quickly adjust to customer needs by optimizing
products and predicting demand more accurately. Additionally, DTs give companies the
flexibility to effectively reorganize manufacturing lines and resources, making it easier to
produce customized products [67]. By leveraging digital infrastructure and diverse data
sources, firms can better align their offerings with customer preferences and identify new
market opportunities [68]. This ability to offer personalized products provides a strong
competitive edge and enhances the perceived value of their offerings [24].
DTs have been shown to significantly improve environmental performance, partic-
ularly when environmental factors are integrated into traditional product development
and manufacturing [69]. This integration, while adding complexity to decision making
and operations, enables more sustainable practices. DTs offer effective tools for designing,
manufacturing, and maintaining eco-friendly products that minimize harmful emissions
and reduce the use of natural resources across their life cycle. Technologies like cloud-based
design, IoT, and big data analytics help streamline information management, supporting
the creation and innovation of greener products [24,28,70].
Emerging technologies like blockchain and digital twins offer supply chain stake-
holders real-time access to data, seamlessly connecting the digital and physical aspects of
operations [71,72]. Blockchain, in particular, enhances transparency and trust among sup-
ply chain partners, allowing for quicker and more efficient responses to disruptions [73,74].
These technologies also contribute to supply chain resilience by minimizing issues such as
shipment losses, damages, and fulfillment errors, as highlighted by Min [71]. As a result,
disruptions in production processes are reduced, which positively impacts both the social
and economic dimensions of sustainability.
Research on innovative technologies has extended beyond blockchain and digital
twins, with many studies exploring the influence of IoT and cloud computing on infor-
mation sharing, production, and firm performance. These studies highlight that IoT and
cloud computing help companies collect, store, transmit, and share vast amounts of data,
enhancing adaptability, teamwork, and transparency in operations [75–77]. Additionally,
IoT has been shown to significantly enhance risk management by detecting rare but critical
risks, thereby strengthening both reactive and proactive risk strategies [77].
Contrary to this positive view of IOT and other DTs, many studies in the literature
have discussed the threats and problems related to DT implementation [78–82]. These
include but are not limited to integration problems, high costs of those technologies, which
need huge initial investment, and finally, the most important limitation is the cybersecurity
issues as putting DTs such as IOT on the company systems makes the full system vulnerable
to cyberattacks, even if there are firewalls they can reduce the frequency of the risk while
it cannot eliminate it [78,80–84]. This negative view of the DT implementation tries to
alert from the dark side of using DTs and AI technologies on the operational systems
of companies as it may negatively impact the business continuity plans and privacy of
information [85].
Further, digital technology research has also examined how big data analytics improve
data quality, which, in turn, boosts resilience by facilitating quicker adjustments and re-
ducing unexpected disruptions [76]. Many studies have confirmed that big data analytics
strengthen both business and supply chain resilience [23,73]. It also plays a key role in pro-
cessing data from various digital technology sources like IoT [21] and cloud computing, and
it fosters greater engagement from customers, employees, and stakeholders in supporting
sustainable initiatives [86–88]. Accordingly, we posit the subsequent hypotheses:
H1. Digital technologies have a positive impact on sustainable economic performance.
H2. Digital technologies have a positive impact on sustainable social performance.
H3. Digital technologies have a positive impact on sustainable environmental performance.
3.2. The Impact of Digital Technologies on Lean Manufacturing

Lean manufacturing has become a widely adopted framework due to its focus on
streamlining processes and eliminating waste, making it a cornerstone for companies
seeking efficiency and competitiveness [30–32]. By emphasizing value-added activities
and reducing non-value-added steps, lean manufacturing allows organizations to cut
unnecessary expenses, which directly translates to reduced production costs and improved
profitability [89]. Beyond cost savings, lean practices play a critical role in enhancing
product quality by focusing on continuous improvement and error reduction. This ensures
that defects are minimized, leading to higher customer satisfaction and reduced rework or
waste [90].
Another key advantage of lean manufacturing is its ability to increase responsiveness
within the production process. By minimizing lead times, companies can react more quickly
to changes in demand, market conditions, or customer preferences, which is particularly
valuable in today’s fast-paced, globalized markets [91]. This increased agility helps man-
ufacturers better manage inventory, reduce storage costs, and avoid overproduction, all
of which contribute to a more efficient and cost-effective operation [90]. Moreover, lean
manufacturing fosters greater flexibility within production systems. This flexibility enables
firms to adapt their processes quickly in response to new product requirements or shifts in
production volumes without the need for extensive reconfiguration [92].
While lean manufacturing has enabled many businesses to reduce waste and improve
various aspects of performance, a significant number of companies still face challenges
in fully adopting lean principles [93]. Some organizations attempt to apply lean methods
without considering whether these practices are suitable for their particular strategic
environment, leading to implementation failures [94]. In some cases, firms may find that
the basic tools of lean manufacturing fall short of addressing their specific operational needs,
limiting their effectiveness [95]. Additionally, even companies that initially succeeded in
adopting lean practices struggle to maintain the momentum needed to sustain long-term
improvements [96]. To tackle these difficulties, some recent studies concentrated on the
impact of DT on supporting and enhancing lean initiatives [90,97].
In that sense, lean manufacturing holds significant promise for incorporating advanced
automation technologies into production processes [95]. Some researchers suggest that
digital technologies help manufacturing companies overcome obstacles typically associated
with implementing lean principles [98]. The real-time data provided by digital tools are
particularly valuable for creating precise value stream maps, which are a critical first step in
lean manufacturing [99,100]. A value stream map outlines the steps that take a product or
service from its inception to delivery, helping to analyze current inefficiencies and design
a more streamlined future state with reduced waste [44,101]. Digital technologies are
believed to positively impact the effectiveness of lean manufacturing practices [98,102].
Successful implementation of Just-in-Time (JIT), a key pillar of lean manufacturing,
relies heavily on accurate and timely information sharing [90,103]. Since lean supply chains
minimize large buffers and safety stocks, maintaining precise inventory data becomes cru-
cial. A digitalized supply chain can support this need by providing real-time, accurate data
regarding inventory levels and locations [103]. Autonomation, which involves equipping
machines with the ability to identify normal and abnormal operations, plays a pivotal role
in lean processes. This ensures that machines halt production when issues arise, preventing
defective products from being made [104]. The integration of digital technologies into
production systems further enhances autonomation by giving machines the intelligence
to detect deviations quickly, analyze their causes, and autonomously initiate corrective
actions [83,90].
To sum up, the adoption of DTs does not replace lean manufacturing but instead en-
hances the development and sophistication of a company’s lean initiatives [105]. Moreover,
DTs are introduced incrementally, integrating into established lean systems, ultimately
boosting the flexibility and adaptability of lean practices [90,106]. Based on this, the follow-
ing hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Digital Technologies have a positive impact on lean manufacturing practices.
3.3. The Mediating Role of Lean Manufacturing Practices

Many companies have improved their performance and competitiveness by imple-
menting lean manufacturing practices, though some have struggled to maintain long-
term success [43]. Organizations adopting lean manufacturing practices not only aim
for operational improvements but also seek recognition for their commitment to social
responsibility [107]. Sustainability is increasingly seen as the next step in lean manufac-
turing evolution [108]. While productivity gains and cost reductions are essential for a
company’s economic survival, these objectives should be pursued in a way that minimizes
environmental harm, enhances social well-being, and contributes to a more sustainable
future [109].
Lean manufacturing principles have consistently demonstrated their effectiveness
in helping manufacturers tackle sustainability challenges. These principles have been
widely adopted across various industries to achieve operational excellence by utilizing
tools that focus on reducing waste, optimizing production, and fostering continuous im-
provement [31]. In essence, lean manufacturing aims to eliminate waste and maximize
output by refining processes, equipment, and workforce efficiency [35]. Lean manufactur-
ing principles define any elimination of waste in seven forms: overproduction, waiting
time, transportation inefficiencies, excess inventory, unnecessary processing, motion waste,
and defects in products [1,34].
The relationship between lean manufacturing and sustainable performance has been
widely explored, showing a strong connection between the two [1]. Lean manufacturing
tools and strategies directly contribute to sustainability by reducing waste and driving
continuous improvement, resulting in more efficient operations and increased revenue for
manufacturers [36]. These lean approaches are crucial for firms aiming to meet sustainabil-
ity goals [38]. When analyzing the three dimensions of sustainability in relation to lean
manufacturing, it becomes clear that lean has a positive impact on each of the three pillars
of sustainability (i.e., economic, social, and environmental) [107].
On the environmental side, by focusing on waste reduction, lean principles lead to
better resource management and lower emissions of hazardous pollutants [41]. Moreover,
some studies suggest that companies implementing lean manufacturing practices are more
likely to support environmental management, which can lead to improved environmental
performance [110,111]. Additionally, ref. [112] notes that lean manufacturing practices help
reduce environmental impacts and enhance ecological benefits. Other studies have found
that lean manufacturing positively influences environmental management initiatives [113].
In a similar vein, other studies found that lean manufacturing practices will reduce energy
consumption from non-renewal energy resources and increase the implementation of a
circular economy [1,114].
On the economic side, lean practices help companies lower costs and boost profit
margins, improving their overall financial performance [42]. This is performed by en-
hancing many of the company practices, including increasing the market share [107,109],
decreasing the operational costs [115–117], increasing process performance efficiency [110],
and, in return, increasing profitability [109]. Socially, lean manufacturing optimizes work-
flow, enhancing workplace conditions and supporting health and safety standards for
employees [98]. Thus, we hypotheses the following:
H5. Lean manufacturing practices have a positive impact on sustainable economic performance.
H6. Lean manufacturing practices have a positive impact on sustainable social performance.
H7. Lean manufacturing practices have a positive impact on sustainable environmental performance.
H8. Lean manufacturing practices mediate the relationship between digital technologies and
sustainable economic performance.
H9. Lean manufacturing practices mediate the relationship between digital technologies and
sustainable social performance.
H10. Lean manufacturing practices mediate the association between digital technologies and
sustainable environmental performance.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 23
Our study model is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The study’s
study’s framework
framework model.
model.
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Data Collection and Survey Design
In order to determine if implementing digital technology with lean manufacturing
techniques can improve the sustainability performance of Egyptian manufacturing com-
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Data Collection and Survey Design
In order to determine if implementing digital technology with lean manufacturing
techniques can improve the sustainability performance of Egyptian manufacturing compa-
nies, a questionnaire-based survey is created and dispersed across a list of these companies.
Three accounting professors with expertise in the topic and three practicing accountants
participated in the initial pretest of the questionnaire. To make the questionnaire more
understandable and clearer, we made a number of adjustments to the instructions, question
structure, and phrasing based on their suggestions. Second, we conducted a web-based
pilot test of the questionnaire with five reputable, active accountants and made a few more
small adjustments.
In order to gather the necessary data, a convenience sample technique was used, and
the study population was made up of Egyptian manufacturing enterprises. To obtain
a representative sample of the population, the manufacturing enterprises were chosen
at random from among the industrial companies listed on the Egyptian Stock Exchange
(ESE). The senior manager directly involved in the manufacturing process, production man-
agers, and general manager all received a well-structured questionnaire. Their expertise
and experience make them the most qualified to adapt to lean processes. Since lean is a
multifaceted methodology, managers from several departments were involved, including
the engineering, supply chain, logistics, customer service, and human resources depart-
ments [1,44,118]. The survey was administered using both online and manual techniques.
In the survey, participants were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement on a 5-point
Likert scale, with 1 denoting they completely disagreed and 5 denoting they definitely
agreed. This scale was applied in order to measure the participants’ responses to the survey
questions. The study’s data collection period was four months, starting in March 2024. A
63.8% response rate was achieved, as 319 out of the 500 surveys that were issued were
returned. A breakdown of the respondents’ demographics is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic information.
Freq. %
1–5 years 35 11
6–10 years 79 24.7
Experience (years) 11–15 years 92 28.8
More than 15 years 113 35.5
Total 319 100
Bachelor 102 32
Masters 161 50.5
Educational Level
PhD 56 17.5
Total 319 100
Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals 58 18.2
Food, Beverages, and Tobacco 51 16
Textile and Durables 37 11.6
Industry Type Basic Resources 49 15.4

Building Materials 67 21
Industrial Goods, Services, and Automobiles 57 17.8
Total 319 100
4.2. Measures and Scale Development

This study’s authors used a survey approach. The survey is divided into four sections,
each of which is tailored to this study’s particular goals. Based on prior research, the
instrument underwent extensive revisions to guarantee its applicability to the current study
setting. The created survey was improved and validated through discussions with special-
ists from Egypt’s academic and business sectors in order to meet this study’s objectives.
After that, the questionnaire was used in pilot research, including 15 experts who were
knowledgeable about lean manufacturing and digital technology. The purpose of the pilot
research was to guarantee the high validity and reliability of the created questions.
The four distinct survey sections included in this study were thoughtfully created
to meet the particular needs of the inquiry. The initial portion of this study focused on
obtaining the informed permission of study participants, who explicitly expressed their
desire to take part in the investigation. Following began the collection of the respondents’
personal information. Then, six questions in the second section dealt with the application
of digital technologies (DTs), encompassing the six technological domains that have been
covered in the literature (augmented reality, robotic systems, IoT, big data analytics, cloud
computing, and additive manufacturing) [1,44,118]. A total of 22 questions regarding lean
manufacturing practices (LMP) encompassing the four main lean manufacturing factors
(supplier, customer, process, and control and human factors) was included in the third
section of the instrument. These questions were derived from research works by [1,44].
Ultimately, the sustainability performance was assessed using 16 questions that addressed
the economic, social, and environmental aspects of the 3BL [1,8,44]. In Table 2, we provide
a detailed list of every item on the scale.
Table 2. Results of validity and reliability analysis.
Constructs/Indicators Loading Alpha CR AVE

1. Digital Technologies (DTs) 0.856 0.893 0.583
Cloud computing is being used by our company.
Big data analytics are used by our firm.
The Internet of Things is being used by our company.
We have added additive manufacturing to our business.
Our company has robotic systems in place.
We are using augmented reality in our company.
2. Lean Manufacturing Practices (LMP) 0.938 0.945 0.561
2.1 Supplier factors (SF) 0.847 0.887 0.569
All of our major suppliers receive comments on quality and
delivery performance from our company.
Our company works hard to develop a long-term
relationship with our major suppliers.
Our factory receives Just-in-Time deliveries from our
main suppliers.
Our suppliers work hard to achieve an annual reduction
in costs.
Our plants are in close proximity to our primary suppliers.
Supplier evaluation is based on the purchase’s overall cost,
not the price per unit.
Table 2. Cont.

2.2 Customer Involvement (CI) 0.840 0.893 0.675
Our company maintains tight relationships with
its customers.
Customer feedback on quality and delivery performance is
gathered by our firm.
Customers are actively involved in both the process of
developing new products and improving current ones at
our company.
Our clients provide our company with information about
their past, current, and future needs.
2.3 Process factors (PF) 0.873 0.908 0.665
We have switched to a pull production system.
Products that need comparable processing processes are
categorized into relevant groups.
The product families serve as the foundation for the
factory layout.
Our staff members use a variety of setup time
reduction strategies.
Our company’s equipment setup times are minimal.
2.4 Control and human factors (C and HF) 0.854 0.889 0.534
We cover most machinery and procedures that fall within
statistical process control.
We think that members of our shop floor staff are important
contributors to teams that solve problems.
Our shop floor workers are in charge of the efforts to
enhance the product and the process.
Our shop floor staff receive cross-functional training from us.
All equipment is regularly maintained by our company.
Every piece of equipment has comprehensive, current
maintenance records kept by our company.
All workers on the shop floor have access to the equipment
maintenance records, allowing for active engagement.
3. Economic Performance (EP) 0.830 0.873 0.598
Our company cut its production costs.
Profits for our company increased.
Our company cut costs associated with
product development.
Our company’s energy costs dropped.
Our company lowers its inventory costs.
Rework and rejection costs were decreased by our company.
The cost of waste treatment was reduced by our company.
4. Social Performance (SP) 0.789 0.856 0.545
The working environment was enhanced by
our organization.
The morale of our employees has increased.
Table 2. Cont.

Our company places a high priority on employee health
and safety.
Labor relations were enhanced by our organization.
The work pressure was lessened by our company.
5. Environmental Performance (ENP) 0.785 0.861 0.607
Waste reduction in solid, liquid, and energy was established
by our company.
The decrease in gas emissions was established by
our company.
Our company reduces the use of dangerous, damaging, and
poisonous products.
Our company’s enhancement in the environmental state of
our business.
4.3. Data Analysis Methods

Version 4 of SmartPLS was used to conduct the analysis. The partial least square-
structural equation model (PLS-SEM) analysis was used to assess each research hypothesis.
Many academics have indicated that the PLS-SEM method is appropriate because it can
test “mediation effects”, progress quickly in testing a theory with a good fit, and allow
researchers to test relationships among variables at the same time [8,119,120]. The statistical
significance of these associations was determined using the bootstrapping approach with
5000 resamples. Whereby the results of the mediating test could fall into one of three
categories: fully mediating, in which only the indirect influence is determined to be valid;
partial mediation, in which the direct and indirect influences are determined to be valid; or
no mediations, in which the direct and indirect influences are determined to be invalid [121].
The next part provides a detailed presentation of the analytical results, which were good in
terms of discriminant validity, convergent validity, and model dependability.
5. Results
5.1. Measurement Model Assessment
A measuring methodology was developed to evaluate the validity and reliability of
the latent components by defining indicators for each one. Table 2 displays the factor
loadings for each component of the variable assessed together with the average variance
extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and Cronbach alpha (α) of each latent variable.
The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was calculated for each latent variable in order to
test for collinearity. Taking into account the recommended range of VIF < 5 [120], no
significant collinearity was found. The factor loadings of the selected metrics are also
shown in Table 3. Every factor loading was found to be over 0.70, with Table 3’s results
indicating that outer-loadings for every latent variable greatly exceeded cross-loadings.
Nonetheless, the existence of cross-loadings in certain indicators (such as SF5, C and HF1)
has no appreciable effect on the model’s reliability or the general robustness of its findings,
as outlined by ref. [119], and every model measurement was determined to be statistically
significant at p < 0.01. Consequently, the structural model produced outcomes that were
satisfactory. Furthermore, as the findings obtained (α > 0.70, CR > 0.70, and AVE > 0.50)
above the relevant threshold values, the α, CR, and AVE values in Table 2 further validate
the convergent validity. Thus, the convergent validity of the scales is confirmed.
Table 3. Cross-loadings Indicators.
DT SF CI PF C and HF EP SP ENP
DT1 0.705 0.242 0.288 0.247 0.263 0.285 0.246 0.304
DT2 0.719 0.446 0.427 0.469 0.386 0.442 0.373 0.366
DT3 0.8 0.328 0.412 0.465 0.382 0.446 0.427 0.402
DT4 0.819 0.346 0.406 0.489 0.405 0.457 0.413 0.416
DT5 0.835 0.422 0.501 0.525 0.374 0.48 0.372 0.408
DT6 0.722 0.265 0.287 0.372 0.336 0.397 0.406 0.382
SF1 0.297 0.784 0.532 0.496 0.382 0.397 0.305 0.242
SF2 0.338 0.825 0.587 0.53 0.452 0.522 0.321 0.329
SF3 0.358 0.796 0.611 0.512 0.432 0.455 0.324 0.291
SF4 0.416 0.742 0.514 0.56 0.462 0.528 0.435 0.438
SF5 0.347 0.698 0.5 0.558 0.519 0.517 0.464 0.479
SF6 0.287 0.701 0.448 0.454 0.329 0.463 0.299 0.265
CI1 0.466 0.508 0.838 0.492 0.568 0.504 0.368 0.436
CI2 0.437 0.521 0.845 0.52 0.458 0.45 0.349 0.402
CI3 0.446 0.543 0.806 0.538 0.452 0.486 0.417 0.394
CI4 0.334 0.539 0.796 0.547 0.382 0.468 0.357 0.33
PF1 0.382 0.517 0.533 0.74 0.491 0.512 0.418 0.366
PF2 0.448 0.545 0.526 0.82 0.526 0.528 0.46 0.504
PF3 0.451 0.526 0.529 0.828 0.501 0.474 0.447 0.437
PF4 0.514 0.519 0.544 0.841 0.477 0.492 0.507 0.491
PF5 0.537 0.527 0.487 0.845 0.511 0.538 0.499 0.514
C and HF1 0.521 0.489 0.454 0.492 0.727 0.524 0.536 0.501
C and HF2 0.377 0.443 0.466 0.533 0.709 0.494 0.452 0.395
C and HF3 0.32 0.402 0.427 0.423 0.72 0.421 0.378 0.416
C and HF4 0.216 0.381 0.373 0.432 0.733 0.428 0.39 0.372
C and HF5 0.288 0.339 0.308 0.399 0.765 0.465 0.4 0.394
C and HF6 0.327 0.362 0.308 0.38 0.789 0.445 0.371 0.443
C and HF7 0.267 0.336 0.346 0.388 0.762 0.435 0.391 0.46
EP1 0.456 0.526 0.503 0.485 0.518 0.77 0.491 0.485
EP2 0.483 0.525 0.509 0.533 0.468 0.741 0.394 0.388
EP3 0.443 0.386 0.394 0.502 0.491 0.705 0.521 0.485
EP4 0.351 0.264 0.205 0.39 0.451 0.822 0.509 0.497
EP5 0.363 0.422 0.367 0.506 0.477 0.737 0.521 0.471
EP6 0.314 0.548 0.439 0.534 0.483 0.722 0.462 0.468
EP7 0.314 0.43 0.389 0.487 0.375 0.783 0.448 0.392
SP1 0.288 0.301 0.315 0.429 0.464 0.516 0.767 0.538
SP2 0.296 0.236 0.253 0.347 0.437 0.467 0.781 0.512
SP3 0.403 0.39 0.335 0.424 0.38 0.476 0.71 0.473
SP4 0.411 0.426 0.381 0.462 0.471 0.506 0.825 0.525
SP5 0.41 0.379 0.374 0.439 0.404 0.498 0.795 0.531
Table 3. Cont.
DT SF CI PF C and HF EP SP ENP
ENP1 0.389 0.304 0.375 0.439 0.452 0.495 0.509 0.772
ENP2 0.365 0.262 0.309 0.382 0.416 0.399 0.489 0.776
ENP3 0.403 0.404 0.379 0.464 0.435 0.46 0.525 0.76
ENP4 0.398 0.427 0.413 0.476 0.525 0.522 0.474 0.807
The average variance extracted (AVE > 0.50) quantifies how much of the variation
caused by measurement error is collected by a construct. Convergent validity is established
when construction explains more than half of the variance in its indicators, as shown by an
AVE greater than 0.50. Comparable to Cronbach’s alpha, Composite Reliability (CR > 0.70)
measures the internal consistency of a construct’s indicators and is less affected by the
number of indicators. When the indicators consistently reflect the same concept, as shown
by a CR larger than 0.70, the model’s validity and reliability are strengthened.
Second, we employed the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) criteria
and the Fornell and Larcker criterion to assess the discriminant validity [119]. Table 4
shows that all of the HTMT values were below the cutoff value of 0.90 [122], indicating
the discriminant validity. These results indicate robust consistency across the observed
variables, suggesting a high level of validity and reliability in the measurement model.
Table 4. Discriminant Validity.
Fornell–Larcker HTMT
DT EP ENP LMP SP DT EP ENP LMP SP
1. DT 0.764
2. EP 0.555 0.773 0.646
3. ENP 0.500 0.640 0.779 0.606 0.794
4. LMP 0.586 0.741 0.613 0.749 0.635 0.844 0.707
5. SP 0.495 0.681 0.734 0.612 0.738 0.590 0.848 0.837 0.709
5.2. Hypotheses Testing

This study consists of ten hypotheses: three (H8, H9, and H10) aim to assess the
mediating impact of LMP, while the remaining seven (H1 to H7) target direct influences.
Statistics, p-value, and path estimates for the hypothesis. In order to verify hypotheses,
path coefficients (β) are employed; the statistical significance of these coefficients’ values
signifies the acceptance of the hypothesis. In PLS-SEM, a hypothesis is deemed accepted if
the p-value is less than 5% and the t-value is more than 1.96.
The findings of the hypothesis testing are presented in Table 5. This study’s direct
effects (H1, H2, H3, and H4) are supported by the results, which also indicate a positive
relationship between digital technologies and lean manufacturing practices and sustain-
ability performance (economic, social, and environmental). Moreover, the results show that
DTs have a significant and positive impact on EP (β = 0.167; t-value = 3.315), supporting
hypothesis H1, supporting the theoretical belief that cost-effectiveness and operational effi-
ciency can be improved by digital Technologies, resulting in economic gains. Furthermore,
DTs have a positive and significant impact on SP (β = 0.208; t-value = 2.452); this supports
hypothesis H2, which demonstrates how digital technologies may enhance working con-
ditions and community involvement, bolstering theories that relate the use of technology
to results in social responsibility. Moreover, DTs have a significant and positive effect on
ENP (β = 0.215; t-value = 3.044); this supports hypothesis H3, which supports the idea
that eco-friendly actions are made easier by digital technology, which in turn promotes
sustainability. Furthermore, DTs had a significant and positive influence on LMP (β = 0.586;
t-value = 14.386); this supports hypothesis H4 and demonstrates how digital technologies
can decrease waste, simplify operations, and promote continuous improvement, supporting
the theories of lean manufacturing.
Table 5. Parameter Estimates.
Hypothesized Relationships Beta (β) t-Statistics p-Values Results

Direct Effects
H-1 DT -> EP 0.167 *** 3.315 0.001 Accepted
H-2 DT -> SP 0.208 ** 2.452 0.014 Accepted
H-3 DT -> ENP 0.215 *** 3.044 0.002 Accepted
H-4 DT -> LMP 0.586 *** 14.386 0.000 Accepted
H-5 LMP -> EP 0.663 *** 13.085 0.000 Accepted
H-6 LMP -> SP 0.490 *** 5.777 0.000 Accepted
H-7 LMP -> ENP 0.486 *** 6.955 0.000
Mediating Effects (Partial Mediation)
H-8 DT -> LMP -> EP 0.388 *** 9.506 0.000 Accepted
H-9 DT -> LMP -> SP 0.287 *** 5.182 0.000 Accepted
H-10 DT -> LMP -> ENP 0.285 *** 6.116 0.000 Accepted
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05.
Furthermore, lean manufacturing practices have a positive correlation with sustainabil-

ity performance (economic, social, and environmental) as supported by the results, which
also show that LMP has a significant and positive impact on EP (β = 0.663; t-value = 13.085),
thereby accepting hypothesis H5, backs the idea that lean techniques reduce costs and
increase productivity, which leads to financial gains. Furthermore, LMP has a significant
and positive effect on SP (β = 0.490; t-value = 5.777); this supports hypothesis H6 and pro-
motes the notion that lean methods improve working conditions and social responsibility.
Moreover, LMP has a significant and positive influence on ENP (β = 0.486; t-value = 6.955);
this means that the study supports hypothesis H7, proposing that lean manufacturing
minimizes waste and uses fewer resources, which is consistent with environmental goals.
Similarly, Table 5 presents the mediation’s results. We developed hypothesis H8
(DTs -> LMP -> EP), which postulates that the link between DTs and EP is partially medi-
ated by LMP. This is supported by hypothesis H8 (β = 0.388; t-value = 9.506). Furthermore,
hypothesis H9 (DTs -> LMP -> SP) states that LMP functions as a partial mediator in the
association between DTs and SP. This is validated by the hypothesis result H9 (β = 0.287;
t-value = 5.182). Furthermore, hypothesis H10 (DTs -> LMP -> ENP) states that LMP
functions as a partial mediator in the association between DTs and ENP. This is validated
by the hypothesis result H10 (β = 0.285; t-value = 6.116).
Strong explanatory power is indicated by the computed R2 values of 0.343, 0.597, 40.3,
and 0.406. This shows that 34.3% of lean manufacturing practices, 59.7% of sustainable
economic performance, 40.3% of sustainable social performance, and 40.6% of sustainable
environmental performance could all be explained by the whole model.
As shown in Table 5 and Figure 2, these results collectively demonstrate the impor-
tant role that lean manufacturing techniques and digital technology play in improving
sustainability performance across economic, social, and environmental dimensions.
Sustainability 2024,
2024, 16,
16, 10002
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16
16of 23
of 23
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Research Model.
Research Model.
6. Conclusions,
6. Conclusions, Limitations,
Limitations, and Future Research
and Future Research
The current
current research
researchexamined
examinedthe theimpact
impactofofDT DTon onaacompany’s
company’soverall
overallsustainability.
sustainabil-
ity. It also investigated whether lean manufacturing practices
It also investigated whether lean manufacturing practices can mediate the can mediate the relationship
between DT DTandandsustainability
sustainabilityininthree
threedimensions
dimensions (economic,
(economic, social, andand
social, environmental).
environmen-
The findings
tal). showed
The findings the following
showed the followingsignificant and and
significant positive association
positive between:
association DT and
between: DT
sustainable
and economic
sustainable performance;
economic performance;DT andDT sustainable
and sustainablesocialsocial
performance;
performance;DT andDT sus-
and
tainable environmental
sustainable environmental performance;
performance; DTDT andandlean
leanmanufacturing
manufacturingpractices;
practices;lean
lean manu-
manu-
facturing practices and sustainable economic performance, lean manufacturing practices
and sustainable social performance; and and finally,
finally, lean manufacturing
manufacturing practices
practices andand sustain-
sustain-
able environmental performance. Hence, Hence, the the seven
seven hypotheses
hypotheses were accepted. Further, Further,
the findings also revealed that lean manufacturing practices were found to mediate the
relationship between:
between:DT DTandandsustainable
sustainable economic
economic performance;
performance; DTDTandand sustainable
sustainable so-
social performance;and
cial performance; andfinally,
finally, DT
DT andand sustainable environmental
environmental performance.
performance. The
study’s model explained 34.3% of lean manufacturing practices, 59.7% 59.7% ofof sustainable
sustainable eco-
eco-
nomic performance, 40.3% of sustainable social performance, and 40.6% of sustainable
environmental
environmental performance.
performance.
Additionally,
Additionally, our our research
research confirmed
confirmed hypotheses
hypotheses H1, H1, H2,
H2, and
and H3,
H3, showing
showing thethe posi-
pos-
tive effect of digital technologies on the three aspects of sustainability:
itive effect of digital technologies on the three aspects of sustainability: economic, social,economic, social,
and
and environmental.
environmental. This This aligns
aligns with
with findings
findings fromfrom earlier
earlier studies
studies [1,8,35,44,107],
[1,8,35,44,107], which
which
show that digital technologies have a beneficial effect on
show that digital technologies have a beneficial effect on all dimensions ofall dimensions of sustainability,
sustainability,
particularly
particularly by by enhancing
enhancing sustainable
sustainable economic
economic outcomes.
outcomes. This
This was indicated by
was indicated by boosting
boosting
profits, fostering value creation, improving efficiency and adaptability,
profits, fostering value creation, improving efficiency and adaptability, optimizing optimizing process
pro-
performance, increasing the use of renewable resources, promoting the
cess performance, increasing the use of renewable resources, promoting the circular econ- circular economy,
and
omy,reducing operational
and reducing expenses
operational [107,110].
expenses Moreover,
[107,110]. the current
Moreover, studystudy
the current affirmant early
affirmant
studies results that DTs were found to significantly improve environmental performance,
particularly when environmental factors are integrated into traditional product devel-
opment and manufacturing [69]. This integration, while adding complexity to decision
making and operations, enables more sustainable practices by offering effective tools for
designing, manufacturing, and maintaining eco-friendly products that minimize harmful
emissions and reduce the use of natural resources across their life cycle [24,28]. As a re-
sult, DTs reduce disruptions in production processes, which positively impacts both the
social and economic dimensions of sustainability [71,107]. These findings also support the
theoretical claim by IPT that DTs improve a company’s capacity to process information,
thereby aiding in both operational and environmental decision making [24,28,45,57–61,69].
With the rise of Industry 4.0, these technologies are expected to boost both economic
and environmental outcomes by enabling more advanced data collection and processing.
By streamlining information management, DTs enhance production planning, improve
operational efficiency, reduce costs, and ultimately increase profitability [24,55,59].
H4, illustrating a positive and significant association between DT and lean manufac-
turing practices, was supported by our study. In line with prior research, DTs are found
to support and enhance lean manufacturing practices [90,95,97]. Also, the results confirm
early studies’ findings that DTs help manufacturing companies overcome obstacles typi-
cally associated with implementing lean principles [98]. The real-time data provided by
digital tools are particularly valuable for creating precise value stream maps, which are a
critical first step in lean manufacturing [99,100]. Also, the results support the studies that
concluded that DTs help in the successful implementation of JIT, a key pillar of lean manu-
facturing, which relies heavily on accurate and timely information sharing [90,103]. The
integration of DTs into production systems further enhances autonomation by giving ma-
chines the intelligence to detect deviations quickly, analyze their causes, and autonomously
initiate corrective actions [83,90,106].
This study also validated H5, H6, and H7, reinforcing the positive influence of lean
manufacturing practices on the three aspects of sustainable performance: economic, social,
and environmental. Additionally, our findings supported H8, H9, and H10, confirming
that lean manufacturing practices play a mediating role in the relationship between digital
technologies and sustainable performance across all three dimensions. These results are
important as lean manufacturing practices are found to improve performance and competi-
tiveness and maintain long-term success [43]. Organizations adopting lean manufacturing
practices not only aim for operational improvements but also seek recognition for their
commitment to social responsibility [107]. Sustainability is increasingly seen as the next
step in lean manufacturing evolution [108]. While productivity gains and cost reductions
are essential for a company’s economic survival, these objectives should be pursued in a
way that minimizes environmental harm, enhances social well-being, and contributes to a
more sustainable future [109]. Finally, the results of this study suggest that the implemen-
tation of DTs in firms that have lean thinking and lean practices will enhance sustainable
performance through waste reduction, reducing energy consumption, increasing profits,
and enhancing work conditions.
This research offers several theoretical contributions, particularly by developing a
model that examines how digital technologies (DT), lean manufacturing practices, and
the three pillars of sustainable performance (economic, social, and environmental) interact
within Egypt’s industrial sector. Unlike earlier studies, which often focused on DT or lean
manufacturing in isolation, this research delves into the relationship between DT and lean
practices and their combined effect on sustainability outcomes. A major insight from this
study is the highlighted mediating role of lean manufacturing in linking DT to improved
economic, social, and environmental performance, showing how lean practices can act as
key drivers in boosting all three dimensions of sustainability.
Based on the framework of Information Processing Theory (IPT), this study reinforces
existing research that improvements in lean manufacturing practices contribute to sustain-
ability by enhancing economic, social, and environmental performance. Additionally, this
work delves into the intricate relationship between digital technologies (DT) and lean man-
ufacturing practices and how their interplay influences sustainable performance, moving
beyond earlier research that largely focused on direct links. The role of lean manufacturing
as a mediator in achieving sustainable performance and development is highlighted as an
important avenue for future research, offering new insights into how lean practices can
drive sustainability.
This study contends that Information Processing Theory (IPT) offers a more robust
framework for analyzing sustainable performance than other perspectives like the resource-
based view (RBV), dynamic capabilities, agency theory, actor–network theory, transaction-
cost economics, or game theory. The central argument is that by prioritizing lean manufac-
turing and its focus on waste reduction and adaptable production processes, companies can
boost performance and secure a sustainable future. Digital technologies (DTs) play a key
role by providing real-time data that strengthen lean practices, leading to better sustainable
outcomes. These findings have important implications for practitioners and policymakers,
advocating that fostering lean practices and improving sustainability is possible through
technological integration and advancement.
This study uncovers the strong connection between lean manufacturing and enhanced
sustainable performance, emphasizing how technological advancements can lead to sig-
nificant environmental, social, and economic gains for companies. It demonstrates that
lean practices are just as important as technology in driving sustainability improvements.
The findings point to a comprehensive approach for boosting corporate sustainability:
(1) embracing innovative digital technologies and (2) cultivating lean manufacturing prac-
tices with a clear focus on sustainability outcomes. This strategy involves investing in
modern technologies and dedicating resources to strengthen lean processes, enabling firms
to not only improve their performance but also meet the growing sustainability expectations
of stakeholders.
While the findings of this study are noteworthy, there are several limitations to keep
in mind. The reliance on cross-sectional data restricts the ability to draw broad conclusions,
and future research could gain deeper insights by utilizing longitudinal or panel data
to explore the evolving nature of the relationships studied. Additionally, expanding the
research to encompass different countries, industries, and cultural contexts would offer
a more well-rounded understanding of the link between digital technologies (DT) and
sustainable performance. Using qualitative techniques, such as interviews or case stud-
ies, alongside the quantitative approach could provide richer context and more nuanced
insights. Moreover, instead of treating DT as a single variable, examining the distinct
components of DT individually and their specific effects on lean manufacturing practices
would deepen our understanding of which technologies have the most significant impact,
particularly in the Egyptian industrial sector. Finally, investigating the potential mediating
role of institutional pressures in the DT-sustainable performance link could clarify the
causal mechanisms and offer a more comprehensive view, blending quantitative data with
contextual insights that numbers alone may not fully capture.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.I.B. and A.B.M.M.; methodology, M.I.B. and A.B.M.M.;
software, M.I.B. and A.B.M.M.; validation M.I.B. and A.B.M.M.; analysis and interpretation of the
data M.I.B. and A.B.M.M.; the drafting of this paper M.I.B. and A.B.M.M.; revising it critically for
intellectual content M.I.B. and A.B.M.M.; funding acquisition, M.I.B. and A.B.M.M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate
Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Project No. KFU242017].
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of the scientific research ethical committee,
King Faisal University (project number: KFU242017, date of approval: 1 October 2024).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available upon request from researchers who meet the
eligibility criteria. Kindly contact the corresponding author privately through e-mail.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ghaithan, A.M.; Alshammakhi, Y.; Mohammed, A.; Mazher, K.M. Integrated Impact of Circular Economy, Industry 4.0, and Lean
Manufacturing on Sustainability Performance of Manufacturing Firms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5119. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2. Elkington, J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 1998,
8, 37–51. [CrossRef]
3. Herva, M.; Franco, A.; Carrasco, E.F.; Roca, E. Review of corporate environmental indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1687–1699.
[CrossRef]
4. Joshi, S.; Sharma, M. Impact of sustainable supply chain management on performance of SMEs amidst COVID-19 pandemic:
An Indian perspective. Int. J. Logist. Econ. Glob. 2022, 9, 248–276. [CrossRef]
5. Mohamed, M. Green Intellectual Capital and Business Sustainability in the Egyptian Industrial Companies: The Mediating Role
of Green Innovation. Sci. J. Financ. Commer. Stud. Res. (SJFCSR) 2023, 4, 1059–1096. [CrossRef]
6. Alnaim, M.; Metwally, A.B.M. Institutional Pressures and Environmental Management Accounting Adoption: Do Environmental
Strategy Matter? Sustainability 2024, 16, 3020. [CrossRef]
7. Buhaya, M.I.; Metwally, A.B.M. Green intellectual capital and green supply chain performance: Do external pressures matter?
Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2349276. [CrossRef]
8. Metwally, A.B.; Ali, H.A.; Aly, S.A.; Ali, M.A. The Interplay between Digital Technologies, Supply Chain Resilience, Robustness
and Sustainable Environmental Performance: Does Supply Chain Complexity Matter? Sustainability 2024, 16, 6175. [CrossRef]
9. Ahmed, N.M.M. The Moderating Effect of Environmental Management Accounting Practices on the Relationship Between Green
Supply Chain Management Practices and Corporate Performance of Egyptian Manufacturing Firms. Sci. J. Financ. Commer. Stud.
Res. (SJFCSR) 2022, 3, 475–507.
10. Naseeb, H.; Diab, A.A.; Metwally, A. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical and travel insurance pricing and fraud
risks: An exploratory study. J. Risk Manag. Financ. Inst. 2020, 14, 59–71. [CrossRef]
11. Metwally, A.B.M.; Diab, A. An institutional analysis of the risk management process during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence
from an emerging market. J. Account. Organ. Chang. 2023, 19, 40–62. [CrossRef]
12. Muhammad, N.; Upadhyay, A.; Kumar, A.; Gilani, H. Achieving operational excellence through the lens of lean and Six Sigma
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022, 33, 818–835. [CrossRef]
13. Metwally, A.B.M.; Ali, H.; Diab, A.A.; Hussainey, K. The hype of risk-based management control: A phronetic approach. Risk Gov.
Control: Financ. Mark. Inst. 2019, 9, 18–33. [CrossRef]
14. Al-Khatib, A.W.; Shuhaiber, A. Green Intellectual Capital and Green Supply Chain Performance: Does Big Data Analytics
Capabilities Matter? Sustainability 2022, 14, 10054. [CrossRef]
15. Lone, S.A.; Ahmad, A. COVID-19 pandemic—An African perspective. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2020, 9, 1300–1308. [CrossRef]
16. Zaazou, Z.A.; Salman Abdou, D. Egyptian small and medium sized enterprises’ battle against COVID-19 pandemic: March–July
2020. J. Humanit. Appl. Soc. Sci. 2022, 4, 94–112. [CrossRef]
17. Abu Hatab, A.; Lagerkvist, C.-J.; Esmat, A. Risk perception and determinants in small- and medium-sized agri-food enterprises
amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Egypt. Agribusiness 2021, 37, 187–212. [CrossRef]
18. Hamdy, A. Supply chain capabilities matter: Digital transformation and green supply chain management in post-pandemic
emerging economies: A case from Egypt. Oper. Manag. Res. 2024, 17, 963–981. [CrossRef]
19. Metwally, A.B.M.; Diab, A.; Mohamed, M.K. Telework operationalization through internal CSR, governmentality and account-
ability during the Covid-19: Evidence from a developing country. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022, 30, 1441–1464. [CrossRef]
20. Ardolino, M.; Rapaccini, M.; Saccani, N.; Gaiardelli, P.; Crespi, G.; Ruggeri, C. The role of digital technologies for the service
transformation of industrial companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2116–2132. [CrossRef]
21. Frank, A.G.; Dalenogare, L.S.; Ayala, N.F. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2019, 210, 15–26. [CrossRef]
22. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Parekh, H.; Mani, V.; Belhadi, A.; Sharma, R. Digital twin for sustainable manufacturing supply
chains: Current trends, future perspectives, and an implementation framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 176, 121448.
[CrossRef]
23. Alvarenga, M.Z.; Oliveira, M.P.V.d.; Oliveira, T.A.G.F.d. The impact of using digital technologies on supply chain resilience and
robustness: The role of memory under the covid-19 outbreak. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2023, 28, 825–842. [CrossRef]
24. 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. [CrossRef]
25. Atieh Ali, A.A.; Sharabati, A.-A.A.; Allahham, M.; Nasereddin, A.Y. The Relationship between Supply Chain Resilience and
Digital Supply Chain and the Impact on Sustainability: Supply Chain Dynamism as a Moderator. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3082.
[CrossRef]
26. Ben Abdelaziz, F.; Chen, Y.-T.; Dey, P.K. Supply chain resilience, organizational well-being, and sustainable performance:
A comparison between the UK and France. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 444, 141215. [CrossRef]
27. Sharma, M.; Antony, R.; Sharma, A.; Daim, T. Can smart supply chain bring agility and resilience for enhanced sustainable
business performance? Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2024, ahead-of-print.
28. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J.; Papadopoulos, T.; Luo, Z.; Wamba, S.F.; Roubaud, D. Can big data and predictive
analytics improve social and environmental sustainability? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 534–545. [CrossRef]
29. Kiel, D.; MÜLler, J.M.; Arnold, C.; Voigt, K.-I. SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIAL VALUE CREATION: BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES
OF INDUSTRY 4.0. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 21, 1740015. [CrossRef]
30. Panizzolo, R.; Garengo, P.; Sharma, M.K.; Gore, A. Lean manufacturing in developing countries: Evidence from Indian SMEs.
Prod. Plan. Control 2012, 23, 769–788. [CrossRef]
31. Singh Sangwan, K.; Bhamu, J.; Mehta, D. Development of lean manufacturing implementation drivers for Indian ceramic industry.
Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2014, 63, 569–587. [CrossRef]
32. Thanki, S.J.; Thakkar, J. Status of lean manufacturing practices in Indian industries and government initiatives. J. Manuf. Technol.
Manag. 2014, 25, 655–675. [CrossRef]
33. Womack, J.P.; Jones, D.T. Lean Thinking—Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your Corporation. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1997, 48, 1148.
[CrossRef]
34. Taj, S. Lean manufacturing performance in China: Assessment of 65 manufacturing plants. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2008,
19, 217–234. [CrossRef]
35. Ghaithan, A.; Khan, M.; Mohammed, A.; Hadidi, L. Impact of Industry 4.0 and Lean Manufacturing on the Sustainability
Performance of Plastic and Petrochemical Organizations in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11252. [CrossRef]
36. Todorut, A.V.; Paliu-Popa, L.; Tselentis, V.; Cirnu, D. Sustainable cost reduction by lean management in metallurgical processes.
Metalurgija 2016, 55, 846–848.
37. Mollenkopf, D.; Stolze, H.; Tate, W.L.; Ueltschy, M. Green, lean, and global supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2010,
40, 14–41. [CrossRef]
38. Wong, W.P.; Wong, K.Y. Synergizing an ecosphere of lean for sustainable operations. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 51–66. [CrossRef]
39. King, A.A.; Lenox, M.J. Lean and Green? An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Lean Production and
Environmental Performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2001, 10, 244–256. [CrossRef]
40. Vinodh, S.; Arvind, K.R.; Somanaathan, M. Tools and techniques for enabling sustainability through lean initiatives. Clean Technol.
Environ. Policy 2011, 13, 469–479. [CrossRef]
41. Ratnayake, R.M.C.; Chaudry, O. Maintaining sustainable performance in operating petroleum assets via a lean-six-sigma approach.
Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2017, 8, 33–52. [CrossRef]
42. Camuffo, A.; De Stefano, F.; Paolino, C. Safety Reloaded: Lean Operations and High Involvement Work Practices for Sustainable
Workplaces. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 143, 245–259. [CrossRef]
43. Souza, J.P.E.; Alves, J.M. Lean-integrated management system: A model for sustainability improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172,
2667–2682. [CrossRef]
44. Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Dhone, N.C. Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing practices for sustainable organisational perfor-
mance in Indian manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1319–1337. [CrossRef]
45. Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Dubey, R.; Wamba, S.F.; Childe, S.J.; Hazen, B.; Akter, S. Big data and predictive analytics for
supply chain and organizational performance. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 308–317. [CrossRef]
46. Abdelmotaleb, M.; Mohamed Metwally, A.B.E.; Saha, S.K. Exploring the impact of being perceived as a socially responsible
organization on employee creativity. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 2325–2340. [CrossRef]
47. Diab, A.; Metwally, A.B.M. Institutional complexity and CSR practices: Evidence from a developing country. J. Account. Emerg.
Econ. 2020, 10, 655–680. [CrossRef]
48. Metwally, A.B.M.; Elsharkawy, A.A.M.; Salem, M.I. The impact of corporate social responsibility on operating cash flow opacity:
The moderating role of tax avoidance. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2390692. [CrossRef]
49. Metwally, A.B.; Aly, S.A.; Ali, M.A. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Cash Holdings: The Moderating Role of
Board Gender Diversity. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2024, 12, 104. [CrossRef]
50. Galbraith, J. Designing Complex Organizations; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1973.
51. Premkumar, G.; Ramamurthy, K.; Saunders, C.S. Information Processing View of Organizations: An Exploratory Examination of
Fit in the Context of Interorganizational Relationships. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2005, 22, 257–294. [CrossRef]
52. Yan, F.; Chen, L.; Jia, F.; Liu, Y. Building supply chain resilience through collaborative innovation: An information processing
theory perspective. J. Digit. Econ. 2023, 2, 233–243. [CrossRef]
53. Lawrence, P.R.; Lorsch, J.W. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1967.
54. Fan, H.; Li, G.; Sun, H.; Cheng, T.C.E. An information processing perspective on supply chain risk management: Antecedents,
mechanism, and consequences. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 185, 63–75. [CrossRef]
55. Wong, C.W.Y.; Lirn, T.-C.; Yang, C.-C.; Shang, K.-C. Supply chain and external conditions under which supply chain resilience
pays: An organizational information processing theorization. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 226, 107610. [CrossRef]
56. Busse, C.; Meinlschmidt, J.; Foerstl, K. Managing Information Processing Needs in Global Supply Chains: A Prerequisite to
Sustainable Supply Chain Management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 53, 87–113. [CrossRef]
57. Lai, K.-h.; Wong, C.W.Y.; Lam, J.S.L. Sharing environmental management information with supply chain partners and the
performance contingencies on environmental munificence. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 164, 445–453. [CrossRef]
58. Addo-Tenkorang, R.; Helo, P.T. Big data applications in operations/supply-chain management: A literature review. Comput. Ind.
Eng. 2016, 101, 528–543. [CrossRef]
59. Nguyen, T.; Zhou, L.; Spiegler, V.; Ieromonachou, P.; Lin, Y. Big data analytics in supply chain management: A state-of-the-art
literature review. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 98, 254–264. [CrossRef]
60. Wamba, S.F.; Gunasekaran, A.; Akter, S.; Ren, S.J.-f.; Dubey, R.; Childe, S.J. Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of
dynamic capabilities. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 356–365. [CrossRef]
61. Cao, G.; Duan, Y.; Cadden, T. The link between information processing capability and competitive advantage mediated through
decision-making effectiveness. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 121–131. [CrossRef]
62. Joshi, A.D.; Gupta, S.M. Evaluation of design alternatives of End-Of-Life products using internet of things. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019,
208, 281–293. [CrossRef]
63. Vern, P.; Miftah, N.; Panghal, A. Digital Technology: Implementation Challenges and Strategies in Agri-Food Supply Chain.
In Agri-Food 4.0; Mor, R.S., Kumar, D., Singh, A., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; Volume 27, pp. 17–30.
64. Benevento, E.; Stefanini, A.; Aloini, D.; Dulmin, R.; Mininno, V. Beyond Digital Technologies: Investigating the Barriers to Supply
Chain Integration of Healthcare Organizations. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2023, 71, 13660–13672. [CrossRef]
65. Oh, I.; Kim, J. Frontiers and laggards: Which firms benefit from adopting advanced digital technologies? Manag. Decis. Econ.
2023, 44, 753–766. [CrossRef]
66. Curran, R.; Gomis, G.; Castagne, S.; Butterfield, J.; Edgar, T.; Higgins, C.; McKeever, C. Integrated digital design for manufacture
for reduced life cycle cost. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2007, 109, 27–40. [CrossRef]
67. 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. [CrossRef]
68. Fosso Wamba, S.; Akter, S.; Edwards, A.; Chopin, G.; Gnanzou, D. How ‘big data’ can make big impact: Findings from a
systematic review and a longitudinal case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 165, 234–246. [CrossRef]
69. Schniederjans, D.G.; Hales, D.N. Cloud computing and its impact on economic and environmental performance: A transaction
cost economics perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 86, 73–82. [CrossRef]
70. Zhao, L.; Rao, X.; Lin, Q. Study of the impact of digitization on the carbon emission intensity of agricultural production in China.
Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 903, 166544. [CrossRef]
71. Min, H. Blockchain technology for enhancing supply chain resilience. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 35–45. [CrossRef]
72. Ivanov, D.; Das, A. Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) and supply chain resilience: A research note. Int. J. Integr. Supply
Manag. 2020, 13, 90–102. [CrossRef]
73. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Bryde, D.J.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Papadopoulos, T. Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust,
collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 3381–3398. [CrossRef]
74. Manupati, V.K.; Schoenherr, T.; Ramkumar, M.; Panigrahi, S.; Sharma, Y.; Mishra, P. Recovery strategies for a disrupted supply
chain network: Leveraging blockchain technology in pre- and post-disruption scenarios. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 245, 108389.
[CrossRef]
75. Ben-Daya, M.; Hassini, E.; Bahroun, Z. Internet of things and supply chain management: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res.
2019, 57, 4719–4742. [CrossRef]
76. Al-Talib, M.; Melhem, W.Y.; Anosike, A.I.; Garza Reyes, J.A.; Nadeem, S.P.; Kumar, A. Achieving resilience in the supply chain by
applying IoT technology. Procedia Cirp 2020, 91, 752–757. [CrossRef]
77. Birkel, H.S.; Hartmann, E. Internet of Things—The future of managing supply chain risks. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2020,
25, 535–548. [CrossRef]
78. Lu, Y.; Xu, L.D. Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Research: A Review of Current Research Topics. IEEE Internet Things J.
2019, 6, 2103–2115. [CrossRef]
79. Cheung, K.-F.; Bell, M.G.H.; Bhattacharjya, J. Cybersecurity in logistics and supply chain management: An overview and future
research directions. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 146, 102217. [CrossRef]
80. Lone, A.N.; Mustajab, S.; Alam, M. A comprehensive study on cybersecurity challenges and opportunities in the IoT world. Secur.
Priv. 2023, 6, e318. [CrossRef]
81. Möller, D.P.F. (Ed.) Cybersecurity in Digital Transformation. In Guide to Cybersecurity in Digital Transformation: Trends, Methods,
Technologies, Applications and Best Practices; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–70.
82. Saeed, S.; Altamimi, S.A.; Alkayyal, N.A.; Alshehri, E.; Alabbad, D.A. Digital Transformation and Cybersecurity Challenges for
Businesses Resilience: Issues and Recommendations. Sensors 2023, 23, 6666. [CrossRef]
83. Thoben, K.; Veigt, M.; Lappe, D.; Franke, M.; Kück, M.; Kolberg, D.; Fahl, I.; Zimmerling, R.; Schlick, J.; Stephan, P. Towards
Networking Logistics Resources to Enable a Demand-Driven Material Supply for Lean Production Systems—Basic Concept
and Potential of a Cyber-Physical Logistics System. In Proceedings of the 7th International Scientific Symposium on Logistics,
Cologne, Germany, 4–5 June 2014; 2014; pp. 42–69.
84. Metwally, A.B.; Abdelazim, S.I.; Almarji, M.T. Internal Auditors’ Role in Confronting Cyber and Fraud Risks Related to
Outsourcing Insurance: An Exploratory Study. Alex. J. Account. Res. 2022, 6, 1–31.
85. Metwally, A.B.M.; Ali, S.A.M.; Mohamed, A.T.I. Thinking Responsibly About Responsible AI in Risk Management: The Darkside
of AI in RM. In Proceedings of the 2024 ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent
Systems (ICETSIS), Manama, Bahrain, 28–29 January 2024; pp. 1–5.
86. Kassa, A.; Kitaw, D.; Stache, U.; Beshah, B.; Degefu, G. Artificial intelligence techniques for enhancing supply chain resilience:
A systematic literature review, holistic framework, and future research. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 186, 109714. [CrossRef]
87. Kassa, M.K.; Wube, H.D. Benefits and Challenges of Industry 4.0 in African Emerging Economies. In Pan-African Conference on
Artificial Intelligence; Girma Debelee, T., Ibenthal, A., Schwenker, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 261–276.
88. Negri, M.; Cagno, E.; Colicchia, C. Building sustainable and resilient supply chains: A framework and empirical evidence on
trade-offs and synergies in implementation of practices. Prod. Plan. Control 2024, 35, 90–113. [CrossRef]
89. Bhamu, J.; Singh Sangwan, K. Lean manufacturing: Literature review and research issues. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2014,
34, 876–940. [CrossRef]
90. Buer, S.-V.; Strandhagen, J.O.; Chan, F.T.S. The link between Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing: Mapping current research and
establishing a research agenda. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2924–2940. [CrossRef]
91. Chauhan, G.; Singh, T.P. Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2012, 16, 57–71. [CrossRef]
92. James-Moore, S.M.; Gibbons, A. Is lean manufacture universally relevant? An investigative methodology. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 1997, 17, 899–911. [CrossRef]
93. Jadhav, J.R.; Mantha, S.S.; Rane, S.B. Exploring barriers in lean implementation. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2014, 5, 122–148. [CrossRef]
94. Azadegan, A.; Patel, P.C.; Zangoueinezhad, A.; Linderman, K. The effect of environmental complexity and environmental
dynamism on lean practices. J. Oper. Manag. 2013, 31, 193–212. [CrossRef]
95. Kolberg, D.; Zühlke, D. Lean Automation enabled by Industry 4.0 Technologies. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 1870–1875.
[CrossRef]
96. Netland, T.H. Critical success factors for implementing lean production: The effect of contingencies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54,
2433–2448. [CrossRef]
97. Pagliosa, M.; Tortorella, G.; Ferreira, J.C.E. Industry 4.0 and Lean Manufacturing. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 32, 543–569.
[CrossRef]
98. Sanders, A.; Elangeswaran, C.; Wulfsberg, J.P. Industry 4.0 implies lean manufacturing: Research activities in industry 4.0 function
as enablers for lean manufacturing. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Decis. 2016, 9, 811–833. [CrossRef]
99. Chen, J.C.; Chen, K.-M. Application of ORFPM system for lean implementation: An industrial case study. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2014, 72, 839–852. [CrossRef]
100. Meudt, T.; Metternich, J.; Abele, E. Value stream mapping 4.0: Holistic examination of value stream and information logistics in
production. CIRP Ann. 2017, 66, 413–416. [CrossRef]
101. Rother, M.; Shook, J. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Add Value and Eliminate Muda; Lean Enterprise Institute: Boston, MA,
USA, 2003.
102. Tortorella, G.L.; Fettermann, D. Implementation of Industry 4.0 and lean production in Brazilian manufacturing companies. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 2975–2987. [CrossRef]
103. Zelbst, P.J.; Green, J.K.W.; Sower, V.E.; Abshire, R.D. Impact of RFID and information sharing on JIT, TQM and operational
performance. Manag. Res. Rev. 2014, 37, 970–989. [CrossRef]
104. Ohno, T. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production; Productivity Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
105. Roy, D.; Mittag, P.; Baumeister, M.J.P.M. Industrie 4.0-Einfluss der Digitalisierung auf die fünf Lean-Prinzipien-Schlank vs.
Intelligent. Product. Manag. 2015, 20, 27–30.
106. Rüttimann, B.G.; Stöckli, M.T. Lean and Industry 4.0—Twins, partners, or contenders? A due clarification regarding the supposed
clash of two production systems. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. Decis. 2016, 9, 485–500. [CrossRef]
107. Varela, L.; Araújo, A.; Ávila, P.; Castro, H.; Putnik, G. Evaluation of the Relation between Lean Manufacturing, Industry 4.0, and
Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1439. [CrossRef]
108. Martínez-Jurado, P.J.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. Lean Management, Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: A Literature Review.
J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 134–150. [CrossRef]
109. Pampanelli, A.B.; Found, P.; Bernardes, A.M. A Lean & Green Model for a production cell. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 19–30.
110. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Jabbour, A.B.L.d.S.; Govindan, K.; Teixeira, A.A.; Freitas, W.R.d.S. Environmental management and operational
performance in automotive companies in Brazil: The role of human resource management and lean manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod.
2013, 47, 129–140. [CrossRef]
111. Jabbour, A.B.L.d.S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Teixeira, A.A.; Freitas, W.R.d.S. Adoption of lean thinking practices at Brazilian auto part
companies. Int. J. Lean Think. 2012, 3, 47–53.
112. Ng, R.; Low, J.S.C.; Song, B. Integrating and implementing Lean and Green practices based on proposition of Carbon-Value
Efficiency metric. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 242–255. [CrossRef]
113. Yang, M.G.; Hong, P.; Modi, S.B. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on business performance:
An empirical study of manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 129, 251–261. [CrossRef]
114. Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Saija, G.; Ciraolo, L. Industrial Ecology and Environmental Lean Management: Lights
and Shadows. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6362–6376. [CrossRef]
115. Sezen, B.; Karakadilar, I.S.; Buyukozkan, G. Proposition of a model for measuring adherence to lean practices: Applied to Turkish
automotive part suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 3878–3894. [CrossRef]
116. Gupta, V.; Narayanamurthy, G.; Acharya, P. Can lean lead to green? Assessment of radial tyre manufacturing processes using
system dynamics modelling. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 89, 284–306. [CrossRef]
117. Díaz-Reza, J.R.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Martínez-Loya, V.; Blanco-Fernández, J.; Jiménez-Macías, E.; Avelar-Sosa, L. The Effect of
SMED on Benefits Gained in Maquiladora Industry. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1237. [CrossRef]
118. Awan, F.H.; Dunnan, L.; Jamil, K.; Mustafa, S.; Atif, M.; Gul, R.F.; Guangyu, Q. Mediating role of green supply chain management
between lean manufacturing practices and sustainable performance. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 810504. [CrossRef]
119. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019,
31, 2–24. [CrossRef]
120. Hair, J.; Hair, J.F.; Hult GT, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM);
Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2021.
121. Leguina, A. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221.
[CrossRef]
122. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

sustainability-16-10002

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability-16-10002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability-16-10002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

The Interplay Between Digital Technologies and Sustainable

1 Department of Accounting, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University,

Sustainability 2024, 16, 10002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210002 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

3. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

H1. Digital technologies have a positive impact on sustainable economic performance.

H2. Digital technologies have a positive impact on sustainable social performance.

H3. Digital technologies have a positive impact on sustainable environmental performance.

3.2. The Impact of Digital Technologies on Lean Manufacturing

H4. Digital Technologies have a positive impact on lean manufacturing practices.

3.3. The Mediating Role of Lean Manufacturing Practices

Table 1. Demographic information.

Industry Type Basic Resources 49 15.4

4.2. Measures and Scale Development

Table 2. Results of validity and reliability analysis.

Constructs/Indicators Loading Alpha CR AVE

Constructs/Indicators Loading Alpha CR AVE

Constructs/Indicators Loading Alpha CR AVE

4.3. Data Analysis Methods

Table 3. Cross-loadings Indicators.

Table 4. Discriminant Validity.

5.2. Hypotheses Testing

Table 5. Parameter Estimates.

Hypothesized Relationships Beta (β) t-Statistics p-Values Results

Furthermore, lean manufacturing practices have a positive correlation with sustainabil-

You might also like