Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing the Social Impacts of Additive Manufacturing Using Hierarchical Evidential Reasoning Approach

Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript


In recent times, the wider adoption and development of additive manufacturing is prominent in society, but the information regarding the social impacts of this technology is very limited. Due to this, assessing the social impacts of additive manufacturing technology is crucial. The assessment process to determine the social impacts of additive manufacturing information from factors, which are qualitative, incomplete, and uncertain in nature, is observed. The evidential reasoning (ER) approach is a method that can handle subjective, uncertain, and incomplete data. In this paper, the ER approach along with the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is incorporated for the first time to build up a model for assessing the social impacts of additive manufacturing technology. Based on the experts’ opinion, AHP is applied to the relevant attributes of social impacts to rate and structure the attributes. In this research, the model will be tested using subjective judgmental belief structure data. The data will be aggregated using the ER approach and the attributes will be illustrated in a distributed manner. In the proposed model, Yager’s combination method is applied to compare the output of the D–S approach. The model output is comprised of the average state of social impact from additive manufacturing along with a level of uncertainty for each attribute. The proposed model is now available for utilization by the decision maker to assess the social impacts of additive manufacturing technology. Furthermore, the model could be used as a baseline for planning mitigation of impacts to or improvement to a current state of social impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  • Ahmadzadeh, F., & Bengtsson, M. (2017). Using evidential reasoning approach for prioritization of maintenance-related waste caused by human factors—A case study. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 90(9–12), 2761–2775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attaran, M. (2017). The rise of 3-D printing: The advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Business Horizons, 60(5), 677–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bappy, M. M., Ali, S. M., Kabir, G., & Paul, S. K. (2019). Supply chain sustainability assessment with Dempster–Shafer evidence theory: Implications in cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birtchnell, T., & Hoyle, W. (2014). 3D printing for development in the global south: The 3D4D challenge. In 3D printing for development in the global south: The 3D4D challenge.

  • Bonilla-Alicea, R. J., & Fu, K. (2019). Systematic map of the social impact assessment field. Sustainability (Switzerland).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, I., Bourell, D., & Gibson, I. (2012). Additive manufacturing: Rapid prototyping comes of age. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 18(4), 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Heyer, S., Ibbotson, S., Salonitis, K., Steingrímsson, J. G., & Thiede, S. (2015). Direct digital manufacturing: Definition, evolution, and sustainability implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 615–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contador, J. C., Satyro, W. C., Contador, J. L., & Spinola, M. D. M. (2020). Flexibility in the Brazilian industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21, 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A. P. (1967). Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued Mapping. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38(2), 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diegel, O., Singamneni, S., Reay, S., & Withell, A. (2010). Tools for sustainable product design: Additive manufacturing. Journal of Sustainable Development.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, A., Agrawal, D., Jha, A., Gastaldi, M., Paul, S. K., & D’Adamo, I. (2021). Addressing the challenges to sustainable initiatives in value chain flexibility: Implications for sustainable development goals. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22(2), 179–197.

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, Oxford.

  • Esteves, A. M., Franks, D., & Vanclay, F. (2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Amrani, S., Hossain, N. U. I., Karam, S., Jaradat, R., Nur, F., Hamilton, M. A., & Ma, J. (2021). Modelling and assessing sustainability of a supply chain network leveraging multi Echelon Bayesian Network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 302, 126855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, S., & Despeisse, M. (2016). Additive manufacturing and sustainability: An exploratory study of the advantages and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 1573–1587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, W. E. (2014). Metal additive manufacturing: A review. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, 23(6), 1917–1928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebler, M., Schoot Uiterkamp, A. J. M., & Visser, C. (2014). A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy, 74(2014), 158–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershenfeld, N., & Gershenfeld, N. (2015). How to make almost anything machine! SIGGRAPH 2015: Studio. SIGGRAPH, 2015,.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godina, R., Ribeiro, I., Matos, F., Ferreira, B. T., Carvalho, H., & Peças, P. (2020). Impact assessment of additive manufacturing on sustainable business models in industry 4.0 context. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, P., & Kar, A. K. (2017). Big data analytics: A review on theoretical contributions and tools used in literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(3), 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S. H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., & Hou, L. (2013). Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: A literature review. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 67(5–8), 1191–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Leu, M. C., Mazumder, J., & Donmez, A. (2015). Additive manufacturing: Current state, future potential, gaps and needs, and recommendations. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, 137(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, R., Kleer, R., & Piller, F. T. (2017). Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal implications of 3D printing for 2030. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M., Jain, R., Brennan-Tonetta, P., Swartz, E., Silver, D., Paolini, J., & Hill, C. (2021). Impact of big data and artificial intelligence on industry: Developing a workforce roadmap for a data driven economy. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22(3), 197–217.

  • Kong, G., Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., & Ma, X. (2015). Combined medical quality assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(13), 5522–5530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurfess, T., & Cass, W. J. (2014). Rethinking additive manufacturing and intellectual property protection. Research Technology Management, 57(5), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, H., Kim, J., & Park, Y. (2017). Applying LSA text mining technique in envisioning social impacts of emerging technologies: The case of drone technology. Technovation, 60, 15-28

  • Ma, J., Harstvedt, J. D., Dunaway, D., Bian, L., & Jaradat, R. (2018). An exploratory investigation of additively manufactured product life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malshe, H., Nagarajan, H., Pan, Y., & Haapala, K. (2015). Profile of sustainability in additive manufacturing and environmental assessment of a novel stereolithography process. In: International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference (Vol. 56833, p. V002T05A012). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

  • Mani, V., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2016). Impediments to social sustainability adoption in the supply chain: An ISM and MICMAC analysis in Indian manufacturing industries. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(2), 135–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos, F., Godina, R., Jacinto, C., Carvalho, H., Ribeiro, I., & Peças, P. (2019). Additive manufacturing: Exploring the social changes and impacts. Sustainability (Switzerland).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos, F., & Jacinto, C. (2019). Additive manufacturing technology: Mapping social impacts. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(1), 70–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mokline, B., & Ben Abdallah, M. A. (2022). The mechanisms of collective resilience in a crisis context: The case of the ‘COVID-19’ crisis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 23(1), 151–163.

  • Naghshineh, B., Lourenço, F., Godina, R., Jacinto, C., & Carvalho, H. (2020). A social life cycle assessment framework for additive manufacturing products. Applied Sciences (Switzerland).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naghshineh, B., Ribeiro, A., Jacinto, C., & Carvalho, H. (2021). Social impacts of additive manufacturing: A stakeholder-driven framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 120368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, S., Walkinshaw, N., Kelly, T., & De La Vara, J.L. (2015). An evidential reasoning approach for assessing confidence in safety evidence. In: 2015 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2015, pp. 541e552.

  • Niaki, M. K., Torabi, S. A., & Nonino, F. (2019). Why manufacturers adopt additive manufacturing technologies: The role of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberoi, J. S., Khamba, J. S., & Kiran, R. (2007). Impact of new technology and sourcing practices in managing tactical and strategic manufacturing flexibilities—An empirical study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 8(3), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, G., Domínguez-Gómez, J. A., Aledo, A., & Urgeghe, A. M. (2018). Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis for prioritizing impacts in environmental and social impact assessments. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 14(1), 6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. S., Mendis, G. P., Nies, L., & Sutherland, J. W. (2019). A method for economic input-output social impact analysis with application to U.S. advanced manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, A. P. S., Khamba, J. S., & Kiran, R. (2007). Linkages of technology adoption and adaptation with technological capability, flexibility and success of AMT implementation in Indian manufacturing industry: An empirical study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 8(3), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settembre-Blundo, D., González-Sánchez, R., Medina-Salgado, S., & García-Muiña, F. E. (2021). Flexibility and resilience in corporate decision making: A new sustainability-based risk management system in uncertain times. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22(2), 107–132.

  • Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence (Vol. 42). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, Y. (2015). Decision making study: methods and applications of evidential reasoning and judgment analysis. Retrieved from

  • Singh, R. K., & Acharya, P. (2013). Supply chain flexibility: A frame work of research dimensions. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 14(3), 157–166.

  • Soares, B., Ribeiro, I., Cardeal, G., Leite, M., Carvalho, H., & Peças, P. (2021). Social life cycle performance of additive manufacturing in the healthcare industry: The orthosis and prosthesis cases. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 34, 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2017). Multi-criteria valuation of flexibility initiatives using integrated TISM–IRP with a big data framework. Production Planning & Control, 28(11–12), 999–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesfamariam, S., Sadiq, R., & Najjaran, H. (2010). Decision making under uncertainty—An example for seismic risk management. Risk Analysis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M. A., & Lim, J. S. (1999). Manufacturing technology and strategy formulation: Keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tumpa, T. J., Ali, S. M., Rahman, M. H., Paul, S. K., Chowdhury, P., & Rehman Khan, S. A. (2019). Barriers to green supply chain management: An emerging economy context. Journal of Cleaner Production,.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzoka, E., & Seleka, G. (2005). MCDA decision support model for measuring performance of professional organizations. The International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 3(2), 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwa, S., & Rao, K. S. (2004). A unified framework for manufacturing and supply chain flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 5(1), 29–36.

  • Yang, J., & Xu, D. (2002). On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 32(3), 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X., & Xu, Z. (2018). An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach based on hybrid information aggregation. Sustainability, 10, 2543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical Approval

Due to the confidentially integrated with this sensitive research, the data were collected anonymously based on the randomly generated ID.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bappy, M.M., Key, J., Hossain, N.U.I. et al. Assessing the Social Impacts of Additive Manufacturing Using Hierarchical Evidential Reasoning Approach. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 23, 201–220 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: