چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی

چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی

شناسایی و طراحی مدل ساختاری نوتروسوفیکِ چالش‌های سیستم تولید پایدار در صنعت پتروشیمی ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
امین عسکری 1
محسن جلالی مجیدی 2
آرنوش شاکری 3
حسین شیرازی 4
1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، واحد طبس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، طبس، ایران.
3 استادیار، گروه مدیریت و اقتصاد، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
4 استادیار، گروه مدیریت تکنولوژی، واحد قم، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قم، ایران.
10.48308/jimp.16.2.205
چکیده
مقدمه و اهداف: تشدید فشارهای زیست​محیطی، الزامات نهادی و رقابت‌پذیری جهانی، صنایع انرژی‌بر را ناگزیر از گذار به سیستم‌های تولید پایدار کرده است. صنعت پتروشیمی ایران به‌عنوان یکی از ارکان اصلی اقتصاد ملی و در عین حال از کانون‌های مصرف منابع و تولید آلاینده‌ها، با چالش‌های چندوجهی در پذیرش و استقرار این سیستم‌ها مواجه است. با وجود گستره ادبیات در حوزه تولید پایدار، در بافت صنعت پتروشیمی ایران هنوز چارچوبی بومی و ساختارمند که بتواند چالش‌های این حوزه را به‌صورت نظام‌مند و با تبیین روابط علّی و سلسله‌مراتبی میان آن‌ها تحلیل کند، به‌طور کافی توسعه نیافته است. ازاین‌رو، هدف پژوهش حاضر شناسایی، غربال‌سازی و طراحی مدل ساختاری نوتروسوفیک چالش‌های سیستم تولید پایدار در صنعت پتروشیمی ایران و تبیین روابط اثرگذاری و اثرپذیری میان وجوه آن‌ها در شرایط عدم‌قطعیت است.
روش‌ها: پژوهش حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی-توسعه‌ای و از حیث ماهیت تحلیلی است و با رویکردی دو مرحله‌ای انجام شده است. در مرحله نخست، با انجام مطالعات عمیق کتابخانه‌ای و شناسایی ۴۵ چالش در ۱۲ وجه، این چالش​ها با بهره‌گیری از رویکرد تحلیل عاملی تأییدی مرتبه دوم در قالب مدل شکل​گیرنده-انعکاسی در نمونه‌ای ۲۲۵ نفری از خبرگان صنعت و دانشگاه اعتبارسنجی و غربال شدند. در این راستا، روایی همگرا و واگرا، پایایی ترکیبی و آزمون هم‌خطی برای سازه‌های شکل‌گیرنده مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. در مرحله دوم، روابط علّی و سطح‌بندی وجوهِ چالش​ها با استفاده از رویکرد مدل‌سازی ساختاری تفسیری نوتروسوفیک (N-ISM) و بر مبنای قضاوت ۱۹ صاحب​نظر صنعت پتروشیمی، در قالب ماتریس‌های ارتباطات مستقیم و اعمال روابط تعدی تحلیل گردید تا ساختار سلسله‌مراتبی وجوهِ چالش‌ها در شرایط ابهام تبیین شود.
یافته‌ها: نتایج تحلیل عاملی نشان داد از میان ۴۵ چالش اولیه، ۴۱ چالش در صنعت پتروشیمی ایران معنادار بوده و در شکل‌گیری سازه کلان «چالش‌های سیستم تولید پایدار» نقش دارند. شاخص‌های پایایی و روایی، کفایت مدل اندازه‌گیری را تأیید کرده و ضرایب مسیر بیانگر آن بود که وجوه منابع انسانی (33/0=β)، اقتصادی-مالی (316/0=β) و سازمانی (247/0=β) کانون‌های حساس گذار به سیستم​ تولید پایدار در این صنعت محسوب می​شوند. در ادامه، مدل‌سازی ساختاری نوتروسوفیک، ساختار وجوهِ چالش‌ها را در سه سطح سلسله‌مراتبی آشکار ساخت. در این رویکرد، کاربرد منطق نوتروسوفیک با کمی‌سازی درجات تأیید، رد و بی‌اطلاعی، امکان تحلیل روابط علّی در شرایط قضاوتی مبهم را فراهم ساخته و دقت مدل‌سازی را تقویت کرد. یافته​های این بخش حاکی از آن بود که در سطح سوم (محرک‌های ریشه‌ای)، وجوه چالش​های سازمانی، منابع انسانی، اجتماعی، اقتصادی/مالی و فناوری قرار گرفتند که زیربنای سایر چالش‌ها را شکل می‌دادند و نقش گلوگاهی داشتند. در سطح دوم (وجوه واسطه‌ای)، وجوهِ چالش​های دولتی و مدیریتی به‌عنوان حلقه اتصال میان زیرساخت‌های ریشه‌ای و پیامدهای عملیاتی شناسایی شدند. در سطح اول (وجوه پیامدی)، چالش‌های اطلاعاتی، بازار، پیچیدگی، خارجی و زیست‌محیطی قرار گرفتند که عمدتاً بازتابی از وضعیت سطوح زیرین‌ بودند. این سطح‌بندی نشان داد که تمرکز بر اقدامات سطحی نظیر اصلاحات بازاری یا پروژه‌های مقطعی زیست‌محیطی، بدون اصلاح بنیان‌های انسانی، اقتصادی و فناورانه، به کاربست اثربخش سیستم تولید پایدار در صنعت پتروشیمی منجر نخواهد شد.
نتیجه‌گیری: یافته‌ها بیانگر آن بود که گذار به تولید پایدار در صنعت پتروشیمی ایران مستلزم اصلاحات ساختاری در سطوح ریشه‌ای، به‌ویژه در حوزه سرمایه انسانی، تأمین مالی و بلوغ سازمانی و فناورانه است و سیاست‌ها و اقدامات مدیریتی باید بر این گلوگاه‌ها متمرکز شوند. مدل ارائه‌شده با تبیین روابط علّی و سلسله‌مراتبی وجوهِ چالش‌ها، چارچوبی بومی و قابل اتکا برای اولویت‌بندی مداخلات و طراحی نقشه راه گذار به تولید پایدار فراهم نموده و می‌تواند مبنای مطالعات توسعه‌ای و تطبیقی در سایر صنایع فرایندی قرار گیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
سیستم‌ تولید پایدار
صنایع پتروشیمی
تحلیل عاملی تأییدی
نظریه مجموعه​های نوتروسوفیک
مدل​سازی ساختاری تفسیری نوتروسوفیک
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Identification and Neutrosophic Structural Modeling of Sustainable Production System Challenges in Iran’s Petrochemical Industry

نویسندگان English

Amin Askari 1
Mohsen Jalali Majidi 2
Arnoosh Shakeri 3
Hossein Shirazi 4
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Industrial Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Tabas Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabas, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Technology Management, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran.
چکیده English

Introduction: Increasing environmental pressures, institutional requirements, and global competitiveness have compelled energy‑intensive industries to move toward sustainable production systems. The Iranian petrochemical industry, as a key pillar of the national economy and a major resource consumer and polluter, faces multifaceted challenges in adopting such systems. Despite extensive literature on sustainable production, a localized and structured framework for systematically analyzing these challenges and clarifying their causal and hierarchical relationships in Iran’s petrochemical industry remains underdeveloped. Therefore, this study aims to identify, screen, and design a neutrosophic structural model of the challenges of sustainable production systems in this industry and to explain the influence–dependence relationships among their dimensions under uncertainty.
Methods: This research is applied–developmental in purpose and analytical in nature and was conducted through a two‑stage approach. In the first stage, 45 challenges categorized into 12 dimensions were identified through literature review and validated using second‑order confirmatory factor analysis within a formative–reflective measurement model based on data from 225 industry and academic experts. Convergent and discriminant validity, composite reliability, and collinearity diagnostics for formative constructs were assessed to ensure the adequacy of the measurement model. In the second stage, causal relationships and hierarchical structuring of the challenge dimensions were analyzed using the Neutrosophic Interpretive Structural Modeling (N‑ISM) approach. Based on the judgments of 19 petrochemical experts, direct‑relationship matrices were developed and transitivity relationships were applied to determine the hierarchical structure of the challenge dimensions under ambiguity and uncertainty.
Results and discussion: The results of the factor analysis showed that among the 45 initially identified challenges, 41 were statistically significant in the context of Iran’s petrochemical industry and contributed to the construct of “challenges of sustainable production systems.” Reliability and validity indices confirmed the adequacy of the measurement model, and the path coefficients indicated that the human resources (β = 0/33), economic–financial (β = 0/316), and organizational (β = 0/247) dimensions are the most critical focal points for the transition toward sustainable production systems in this industry. Subsequently, neutrosophic structural modeling revealed the hierarchical structure of the challenge dimensions across three levels. In this approach, the use of neutrosophic logic, through the quantification of degrees of truth, falsity, and indeterminacy, enabled the analysis of causal relationships under ambiguous expert judgments and strengthened the robustness of the modeling process. The findings showed that at the third level (root driving factors), the dimensions of organizational, human resource, social, economic/financial, and technological challenges were positioned, forming the fundamental drivers underlying other challenges and functioning as critical bottlenecks. At the second level (intermediate dimensions), governmental and managerial challenges were identified as linking mechanisms between underlying infrastructures and operational outcomes. At the first level (outcome dimensions), informational, market, complexity, external, and environmental challenges were positioned, largely reflecting the conditions of the underlying levels. This hierarchical structure suggests that focusing only on superficial actions, such as market adjustments or temporary environmental projects, without addressing the underlying human, economic, and technological foundations will not lead to the effective implementation of sustainable production systems in the petrochemical industry.
Conclusions: The findings indicated that the transition toward sustainable production in Iran’s petrochemical industry requires structural reforms at foundational levels, particularly in human capital, financial capacity, and organizational and technological maturity. Accordingly, policy and managerial interventions should focus on these key leverage points. By clarifying the causal and hierarchical relationships among the challenge dimensions, the proposed model offers a localized and reliable framework for prioritizing interventions and designing a strategic roadmap for sustainable production, and can serve as a basis for future developmental and comparative studies in other process‑based industries.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Neutrosophic Interpretive Structural Modeling
Neutrosophic Set Theory
Petrochemical Industry
Sustainable Production Systems
1.     Abbasi, M., & Dehghani, M. R. (2022). Structuring and weighting sustainable and green production indicators of the country's thermal power plants using the Best-Worst Method. Industrial Management Perspective, 12(2), 199-225. [In Persian]
2.     Abdel-Basset, M., Gunasekaran, M., Mohamed, M., & Smarandache, F. (2019). A novel method for solving decision-making problems with hesitant bipolar-valued neutrosophic soft expert sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(6), 5855–5869.
3.     Abdullah, M., Ullah, A., Jamal, M. F., Aldakheel, E. A., Khafaga, D. S., Sana, & Rasool, Z. (2026). How metaverse-enabled digital transformation drives sustainable supply chain innovation: evidence from Pakistan’s textile industry. Scientific Reports.
4.     Ahmad, S., Wong, K. Y., & Butt, S. I. (2023). Status of sustainable manufacturing practices: literature review and trends of triple bottom-line-based sustainability assessment methodologies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(15), 43068-43095.
5.     Ajali, M., & Tabarzadi, A. (2023). Evaluating green production drivers from the perspective of experts with the aim of improving the environment. Journal of Environment and Development, 14(27), 3-19. [In Persian]
6.     Akram, S., & Ali, M. (2026). Impact Of Industry 4.0 Technologies On Sustainable Performance With Mediating Effect Of Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Annual Methodological Archive Research Review, 4(5), 19-30.
7.     Alayón, C. L., Säfsten, K., & Johansson, G. (2022). Barriers and enablers for the adoption of sustainable manufacturing by manufacturing SMEs. Sustainability, 14(4), 2364.
8.     Aliakbari Nouri, F., & Shafiei Nikabadi, M. (2025). Exploring the causal relationships between factors affecting taxpayer adoption of e-invoicing: application of interval neutrosophic DEMATEL. Kybernetes.
9.     Alqahtani, A. Y., & Makki, A. A. (2022). Barriers to the Sustainable Implementation of Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing: A Contextual-Based Interpretive Structural Model. Sustainability, 14(16), 10066.
10.  Ayber, S., & Erginel, N. (2020). Developing the neutrosophic fuzzy FMEA method as evaluating risk assessment tool. In Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making: Proceedings of the INFUS 2019 Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, July 23-25, 2019 (pp. 1130-1137). Springer International Publishing.
11.  Azad, M. A. (2025). Sustainable manufacturing practices in the apparel industry: Integrating eco-friendly materials and processes. Authorea Preprints.
12.  Balci, G., & Surucu-Balci, E. (2021). Blockchain adoption in the maritime supply chain: Examining barriers and salient stakeholders in containerized international trade. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 156, 102539.
13.   Bambam, A. K., & Gajrani, K. K. (2023). Challenges in achieving sustainability during manufacturing. In Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (pp. 108-124). CRC Press.
14.  Batwara, A., Sharma, V., & Makkar, M. (2024). Prioritization of the approaches for overcoming smart sustainable manufacturing barriers using stochastic fuzzy EDAS method. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 1-23.
15.  Biswas, P., Pramanik, S., & Giri, B. C. (2015). Cosine similarity measure based multi-attribute decision-making with trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic numbers. Neutrosophic sets and systems, 8, 46-56.
16.  Broumi, S., Bakali, A., Talea, M., Smarandache, F., & Vladareanu, L. (2016). Shortest path problem under triangular fuzzy neutrosophic information. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 841, 184–191.
17.  Brown, R. (2020). The social identity approach: Appraising the Tajfellian legacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 5-25.
18.  Budi, P. N., Afa, Y. M. F., & Fanani, R. Z. (2020). Green Manufacturing Challenge in Small and Medium Industries (SMEs) Batik Laweyan Surakarta. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 202, p. 03011). EDP Sciences.
19.  Cai, Q., Han, J., Zhou, X., Zhao, S., Li, L., Liu, H., … & Zhu, H. (2026). A Comprehensive Review of Human-Robot Collaborative Manufacturing Systems: Technologies, Applications, and Future Trends. Sustainability (2071-1050), 18(1).
20.  Çelikbilek, Y. (2025). Evaluation of the renewable energy sources with an integrated neutrosophic DEMATEL‐ANP‐VIKOR approach. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, e14589.
21.  Ching, N. T., Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P., & Asadi, S. (2022). Industry 4.0 applications for sustainable manufacturing: A systematic literature review and a roadmap to sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 334, 130133.
22.  Chourasiya, R., Pandey, S., & Malviya, R. K. (2024). Investigation and Assessment of the Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing Adoption in the Indian Textile Industry. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 8(1), 81-109.
23.  Çipi, A., Ferreira, A. C., Ferreira, F. A., & Ferreira, N. C. (2025). Using interpretive structural modeling (ISM) to detect and define initiatives that facilitate hemodynamic laboratory management. International Transactions in Operational Research, 32(4), 2117-2138.
24.  Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155.
25.  Dabbagh, R., & Soltanmohammadi, M. (2021). Identifying and ranking factors affecting the achievement of sustainable production (Case study: A selected food industry company). Commercial Surveys, 19(106), 25-40. [In Persian]
26.  Dağıstanlı, H. A. (2025). Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) using Neutrosophic Best Worst Method (BWM): A Case Study of Helicopter Assembly Line for Military Aviation Area. Journal of Intelligent Decision Making and Information Science, 2, 174-185.
27.  Debnath, B., Taha, M. R., Siraj, M. T., Jahin, M. F., Ovi, S. I., Bari, A. M., … & Raihan, A. (2024). A grey approach to assess the challenges to adopting sustainable production practices in the apparel manufacturing industry: Implications for sustainability. Results in Engineering, 22, 102006.
28.  Deli, I., & Şubaş, Y. (2017a). Some weighted geometric operators with SVTrN-numbers and their application to multi-criteria decision making problems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(1), 291-301.
29.  Deli, I., & Şubaş, Y. (2017b). A ranking method of single valued neutrosophic numbers and its applications to multi-attribute decision making problems. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 8(4), 1309-1322.
30.  Edalatpanah, S. A., Sıcakyüz, Ç., Nourkhah, S. A., & Pamucar, D. (2025). Prioritizing critical success factors for wind turbine suppliers: a neutrosophic hybrid DEMATEL and ANP approach. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1-25.
31.  Farokh, M. (2023). Designing a sustainable closed-loop supply chain model by investigating carbon tax and technology selection in the battery industry. Industrial Management Perspective, 13(4), 46-84. [In Persian]
32.  Ghag, N., Acharya, P., & Khanapuri, V. (2023). Analyzing the sustainable international competitiveness factors of SMEs by Fuzzy Delphi and Neutrosophic DEMATEL. Business Strategy & Development.
33.  Guo, Y., & Wang, J. (2021). Neutrosophic decision-making and its application in complex systems: A comprehensive review. Complexity, 2021, Article 6698452.
34.  Gupta, S., Raj, S., Garg, A., & Gupta, S. (2025). Analyzing shopping cart abandonment enablers: an ISM and MICMAC approach. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 42(1), 61-85.
35.  Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate data analysis, 7, 100-100.
36.  Harikannan, N., & Vinodh, S. (2025). State of art review on sustainable manufacturing and Industry 4.0. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(1), 872-913.
37.  Hariyani, D., Mishra, S., Hariyani, P., & Sharma, M. K. (2023a). Drivers and motives for sustainable manufacturing system. Innovation and Green Development, 2(1), 100031.
38.  Hariyani, D., Mishra, S., & Sharma, M. K. (2023b). A descriptive statistical analysis of barriers to the adoption of integrated sustainable-green-lean-six sigma-agile manufacturing system (ISGLSAMS) in Indian manufacturing industries. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 30(8), 2705-2733.
39.  Hariyani, D., Mishra, S., Sharma, M. K., & Hariyani, P. (2023c). Organizational barriers to the sustainable manufacturing system: A literature review. Environmental Challenges, 100606.
40.  Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial management & data systems, 116(1), 2-20.
41.  Isik, M. (2025). Prospects and challenges of the metaverse in pursuing sustainable development. Journal of Operations Intelligence, 3(1), 256-266.
42.  Jamwal, A., Agrawal, R., Sharma, M., Kumar, A., Luthra, S., & Pongsakornrungsilp, S. (2021). Two decades of research trends and transformations in manufacturing sustainability: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Production Engineering, 1-25.
43.  Kannan, D., Gholipour, P., & Bai, C. (2023). Smart manufacturing as a strategic tool to mitigate sustainable manufacturing challenges: a case approach. Annals of Operations Research, 331(1), 543-579.
44.  Karadayi-Usta, S. (2022). A Novel Neutrosophic Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach: Hierarchical Visual Graphs of Indeterminate Causalities.
45.  Khan, S. A., Shankar, A., Singh, A. K., Gupta, S., Chaudhary, V., Gupta, P., … & Kumar, S. (2022). Analyzing Barriers of Industry 4.0 Enabled Sustainable Manufacturing to Achieve Circular Economy. In Biennial International Conference on Future Learning Aspects of Mechanical Engineering (pp. 287-291). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
46.  Khang, A., & Akhai, S. (2024). Green Intelligent and Sustainable Manufacturing: Key Advancements, Benefits, Challenges, and Applications for Transforming Industry. Machine Vision and Industrial Robotics in Manufacturing, 405-417.
47.  Kitila, L. G., Duc, E., Durieux, S., & Taddese, G. A. (2026). An integrated fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS approach for multi-criteria decision-making framework in sustainable manufacturing process selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 142(1), 559-583.
48.  Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
49.  Kumar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2022). Sustainability of operations through disruptive technologies in the petroleum supply chain. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 29(5), 1640-1676.
50.  Luo, M., Wu, L., Zhou, K., & Zhang, H. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making method based on the single valued neutrosophic sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(2), 2403-2417.
51.  Mathiyazhagan, K., Sengupta, S., & Poovazhagan, L. (2018). A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyse the challenges to environmentally sustainable manufacturing in Indian automobile industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 16, 58-67.
52.  Md Rodzi, Z. B., Mohd Amın, F. A., Jamiatun, N., Qaiyyum, A., Al-Sharqi, F., Zaharudin, Z. A., & Khair, M. H. M. (2023). Integrated Single-Valued Neutrosophic Normalized Weighted Bonferroni Mean (SVNNWBM)-DEMATEL for Analyzing the Key Barriers to Halal Certification Adoption in Malaysia. International Journal of Neutrosophic Science (IJNS), 21(3).
53.  Mousavinezhad Moghaddam, S. A., Safari, H., & Bayati, A. (2025). Network analysis of hierarchical impacts and risk assessment of the petrochemical industry using Neutrosophic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Industrial Management Perspective, 15(4), 9-34. [In Persian]
54.  Niewiadomski, P., & Stachowiak, A. (2024). Identification of Barriers to Sustainable Manufacturing Implementation—The Perspective of Manufacturers of Parts and Components for Agricultural Transport. Sustainability, 16(6), 2244.
55.  Opoku, R. K., & Li, X. (2025). Sustainable management practices, operational and sustainable performance in manufacturing contexts: empirical evidence from a developing economy. Journal of Responsible Production and Consumption, 2(1), 50-84.
56.  Pathak, S. K., Karwasra, K., Sharma, V., & Sharma, V. (2021). Analysis of barriers to green manufacturing using hybrid approach: an investigatory case study on Indian automotive industry. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 5, 545-560.
57.  Pati, S., & Agrawal, R. (2025). Enabling sustainable circular economy in Indian municipal solid waste management system: an ISM and fuzzy MICMAC approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 36(2), 406-424.
58.  Porvaziri, Z., Hashemzadeh Khorasgani, G., Modiri, M., & Farsijani, H. (2022). Designing a sustainable production model in the automotive industry under sanctions and with a world-class approach. Journal of Management Development and Transformation, 14(48), 87-103. [In Persian]
59.  Prasad, S., Rao, A. N., & Lanka, K. (2022). Analysing the barriers for implementation of lean-led sustainable manufacturing and potential of blockchain technology to overcome these barriers: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 7(6), 791.
60.  Priarone, P. C., & Magnanini, M. C. (2026). An approach for integrating performance evaluation and environmental sustainability assessment for hybrid additive-subtractive manufacturing. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 64, 65-78.
61.   Reig-Mullor, J., & Salas-Molina, F. (2022). Non-linear neutrosophic numbers and its application to multiple criteria performance assessment. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 24(6), 2889-2904.
62.  Sadeghi, K., Ojha, D., Kaur, P., Mahto, R. V., & Dhir, A. (2025). Metaverse technology in sustainable supply chain management: Experimental findings. Decision Support Systems, 191, 114423.
63.  Saeidi, M., Ebrahimpour Azbari, M., & Ramezanian, M. R. (2023). Performance improvement model for sustainable small and medium enterprises in the food industry of Guilan province. Industrial Management Studies, 21(71), 43-78. [In Persian]
64.  Sari, M. S., & Muhammad, F. (2018). Flare gas recovery as one of the clean development mechanism (CDM) practices. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 200, No. 1, p. 012023). IOP Publishing.
65.  Sartal, A., Bellas, R., Mejías, A. M., & García-Collado, A. (2020). The sustainable manufacturing concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: A literature review. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 12(5), 1687814020925232.
66.  Setyadi, A., Soekotjo, S., Lestari, S. D., Pawirosumarto, S., & Damaris, A. (2025). Trends and opportunities in sustainable manufacturing: a systematic review of key dimensions from 2019 to 2024. Sustainability, 17(2), 789.
67.  Shabur, M. A., Shahriar, A., & Ara, M. A. (2025). From automation to collaboration: exploring the impact of industry 5.0 on sustainable manufacturing. Discover sustainability, 6(1), 341.
68.  Shahbandarzadeh, H., & Karami, H. (2021). Evaluating factors affecting sustainable production using the DEMATEL technique. 7th International Conference on Management, Accounting and Economic Development, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
69.  Sharan, S. M. I., Taimun, M. T. Y., Azad, M. A., & Joarder, M. M. I. (2025). Sustainable manufacturing and energy-efficient production systems. Saudi Journal of Engineering and Technology, 10(4), 179-188.
70.  Siriphatcharachot, P., Sukkamart, A., Thongkaw, A., Pimdee, P., & Moto, S. (2025). High school student creativity, innovation, and teamwork skills from teacher’s perspective: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 18(1), 39-60.
71.  Sim, M. J. C., Talon, M. S., Tandag, J. N., Duites, A. D., Garcia, J. M. S., Tirol, G. S., & Himang, M. (2026, May). ISM-MICMAC analysis of brittle systems components in sustainable higher education. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 11, p. 1819680). Frontiers Media SA.
72.  Smarandache, F. (1998). Neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set, and logic: analytic synthesis & synthetic analysis.
73.  Theng, M. L., Tan, L. S., Liew, P. Y., Tan, J., & Nasef, M. M. (2026). Applying life cycle assessment for sustainable manufacturing and net zero carbon goal. Climate Change Impacts on the Water-Energy-Food Nexus, 397-406.
74.  Vijay Kumar, V., & Shahin, K. (2025). Artificial intelligence and machine learning for sustainable manufacturing: current trends and future prospects. Intelligent and Sustainable Manufacturing, 2(1), 10002.
75.  Virmani, N., Bera, S., & Kumar, R. (2021). Identification and testing of barriers to sustainable manufacturing in the automobile industry: a focus on Indian MSMEs. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(3), 857-880.
76.  Wang, H., Smarandache, F., Zhang, Y., & Sunderraman, R. (2010). Single valued neutrosophic sets. Infinite study.
77.  Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy, and complexity. New York: Wiley.
78.  Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge.
79.  Ye, J. (2015). Trapezoidal neutrosophic set and its application to multiple attribute decision-making. Neural Computing and Applications, 26(5), 1157-1166.
80.  Yip, W. S., Zhou, H., & To, S. (2023). A critical analysis on the triple bottom line of sustainable manufacturing: key findings and implications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(14), 41388-41404.
81.  Zientek, L. R. (2008). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications.
چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی
دوره 16، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 62
تابستان 1405
صفحه 205-235