Advertisement

Industrie 4.0 aus Perspektive der nachhaltigen industriellen Wertschöpfung

  • Kai-Ingo Voigt
  • Daniel Kiel
  • Julian Marius Müller
  • Christian Arnold
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Nutzenpotenziale und Herausforderungen für Industrieunternehmen hinsichtlich Industrie 4.0 aus ökonomischer, ökologischer und sozialer Perspektive der Nachhaltigkeit. Die Grundlage bilden Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Studie, in der Vertreter 46 deutscher Industrieunternehmen aus den drei Branchen Maschinen- und Anlagenbau, Elektrotechnik und Automobilindustrie mittels Experteninterviews befragt wurden. Als Ergebnis werden unterschiedliche Nutzenpotenziale und Herausforderungen im Kontext der Nachhaltigkeit dargelegt, die um die Kategorien Daten und Informationen, technische Integration sowie Handlungsbedarf des Staates als übergeordnete, sich auf mehrere Dimensionen der Nachhaltigkeit auswirkende Kategorien, ergänzt werden. Abschließend zeigt der Beitrag übergeordnete Handlungsempfehlungen für Industrieunternehmen bei der Umsetzung einer nachhaltigen Wertschöpfung durch Industrie 4.0 auf.

Literatur

  1. Aguinis H, Glavas A (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility. A review and research agenda. J Manage 38(4):932–968Google Scholar
  2. Al-Najjar B, Anfimiadou A (2012) Environmental policies and firm value. Bus Strateg Environ 21(1):49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambec S, Lanoie P (2008) Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Acad Manage Perspect 22(4):45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold C, Kiel D, Voigt KI (2016) How the industrial Internet of things changes business models in different manufacturing industries. Int J Innov Manag 20(8):1640015-1–1640015-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer W, Schlund S, Marrenbach D, Ganschar O (2014) Industrie 4.0 – Volkswirtschaftliches Potenzial für Deutschland. BITKOM/Fraunhofer IAO, Berlin/StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckmann M, Hielscher S, Pies I (2014) Commitment strategies for sustainability: how business firms can transform trade-offs into win-win outcomes. Bus Strateg Environ 23(1):18–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomgren A (2011) Does corporate social responsibility influence profit margins? A case study of executive perceptions. Corp Soc Resp Env Manage 18(5):263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonekamp L, Sure M (2015) Consequences of industry 4.0 on human labour and work organisation. J Bus Media Psychol 6(1):33–40Google Scholar
  9. Brettel M, Friederichsen N, Keller M, Rosenberg M (2014) How virtualization, decentralization and network building change the manufacturing landscape: an industry 4.0 perspective. Int J Mech Aerosp Ind Mechatron Eng 8(1):37–44Google Scholar
  10. Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 11(2):130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenhardt K, Graebner M (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manage J 50(1):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation. Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manage Rev 36(2):90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elkington J (1998) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ Qual Manag 8(1):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fullerton RR, Wempe WF (2009) Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures, and financial performance. Int J Oper Prod Manage 29(3):214–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabriel M, Pessel E (2016) Industry 4.0 and sustainability impacts: critical discussion of sustainability aspects with a special focus on future of work and ecological consequences. Ann Fac Eng Hunedoara Int J Eng 1(16):131–136Google Scholar
  16. Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Meth 16(1):15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glavas A, Mish J (2015) Resources and capabilities of triple bottom line firms: going over old or breaking new ground? J Bus Ethics 127(3):623–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glavič P, Lukman R (2007) Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. J Clean Prod 15(18):1875–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrmann C, Schmidt C, Kurle D, Blume S, Thiede S (2014) Sustainability in manufacturing and factories of the future. Int J Precis Eng Manuf Green Technol 1(4):283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holsti OR (1968) Content analysis. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E (Hrsg) The handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hubbard G (2009) Measuring organizational performance. Beyond the triple bottom line. Bus Strateg Environ 18(3):177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jick T (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24(4):602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kagermann H, Wahlster W, Helbig J (2013) Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0 – final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Communication Promoters Group of the Industry-Science Research Alliance, acatech, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiel D, Arnold C, Collisi M, Voigt K-I (2016) The impact of the industrial Internet of things on established business models. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT) conference, Orlando, S 673–695Google Scholar
  25. Krippendorff K (2013) Content analysis. Sage, Los AngeleszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Lasi H, Fettke P, Kemper H-G, Feld T, Hoffmann M (2014) Industry 4.0. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(4):239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee J, Bagheri B, Kao H-A (2015) A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manuf Lett 3(1):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehtonen M (2004) The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecol Econ 49(2):199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liao Y, Deschamps F, de Loures E, Ramos LFP (2017) Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 – a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. Int J Prod Res 55(12):3609–3629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Littig B, Griessler E (2005) Social sustainability. A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int J Sustain Dev 8(1/2):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markley MJ, Davis L (2007) Exploring future competitive advantage through sustainable supply chains. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 37(9):763–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mason J (2002) Qualitative researching. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  33. McWilliams A, Parhankangas A, Coupet J, Welch E, Barnum DT (2016) Strategic decision making for the triple bottom line. Bus Strateg Environ 25(3):193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miles MB, Huberman MA (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  35. Milne MJ, Gray R (2013) W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J Bus Ethics 118(1):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norman W, MacDonald C, Arnold DG (2004) Getting to the bottom of „triple bottom line“. Bus Ethics Q 14(2):243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ Stud 24(3):403–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ozanne LK, Phipps M, Weaver T, Carrington M, Luchs M, Catlin J (2016) Managing the tensions at the intersection of the triple bottom line: a paradox theory approach to sustainability management. J Public Policy Mark 35(2):249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peloza J (2009) The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. J Manage 35(6):1518–1541Google Scholar
  40. Peukert B, Benecke S, Clavell J, Neugebauer S, Nissen NF, Uhlmann E (2015) Addressing sustainability and flexibility in manufacturing via smart modular machine tool frames to support sustainable value creation. Procedia CIRP 29:514–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pfeffer J (2010) Building sustainable organizations. The human factor. Acad Manage Perspect 24(1):34–45Google Scholar
  42. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev 84(12):78–92Google Scholar
  43. Schlechtendahl J, Keinert M, Kretschmer F, Lechler A, Verl A (2015) Making existing production systems Industry 4.0-ready. Prod Eng 9(1):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schulz SA, Flanigan RL (2016) Developing competitive advantage using the triple bottom line: a conceptual framework. J Bus Ind Mark 31(4):449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seow C, Jamali D (2006) Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective. Bus Process Manage J 12(6):809–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stock T, Seliger G (2016) Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 40:536–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wagner M (2010) The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance. A firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecol Econ 69(7):1553–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wan J (2011) Advances in cyber-physical systems research. KSII Trans Internet Inf Syst 5(11):1891–1908Google Scholar
  49. Weston C, Gandell T, Beauchamp J, McAlpine L, Wiseman C, Beauchamp C (2001) Analyzing interview data: the development and evolution of a coding system. Qual Sociol 24(3):381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai-Ingo Voigt
    • 1
  • Daniel Kiel
    • 1
  • Julian Marius Müller
    • 1
  • Christian Arnold
    • 1
  1. 1.Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergNürnbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations