energies

Review
An Analysis of Research Trends in the Sustainability of
Production Planning
Mohamed Saeed Khaled 1 , Ibrahim Abdelfadeel Shaban 1,2, *, Ahmed Karam 3,4, *, Mohamed Hussain 1 ,
Ismail Zahran 1 and Mohamed Hussein 2

1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Helwan University, Helwan,

Cairo 11795, Egypt; [email protected] (M.S.k.);
[email protected] (M.H.); [email protected] (I.Z.)
2 Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999666, China;
[email protected]
3 Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering at Shoubra, Benha University, Banha,
Cairo 11629, Egypt
4 Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark
* Correspondence: [email protected] (I.A.S.); [email protected] (A.K.)

Abstract: Sustainability has become of great interest in many fields, especially in production systems
due to the continual increase in the scarcity of raw materials and environmental awareness. Recent
literature has given significant attention to considering the three sustainability pillars (i.e., environ-
mental, economic, and social sustainability) in solving production planning problems. Therefore,
the present study conducts a review of the literature on sustainable production planning to ana-
lyze the relationships among different production planning problems (e.g., scheduling, lot sizing,
aggregate planning, etc.) and the three sustainability pillars. In addition, we analyze the identified



studies based on the indicators that define each pillar. The results show that the literature most


frequently addresses production scheduling problems while it lacks studies on aggregate production
Citation: Khaled, M.S.; Shaban, I.A.;
planning problems that consider the sustainability pillars. In addition, there is a growing trend
Karam, A.; Hussain, M.; Zahran, I.;
Hussein, M. An Analysis of Research
towards obtaining integrated solutions of different planning problems, e.g., combining production
Trends in the Sustainability of planning problems with maintenance planning or energy planning. Additionally, around 45% of the
Production Planning. Energies 2022, identified studies considered the integration of the economic and the environmental pillars in differ-
15, 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ent production planning problems. In addition, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
en15020483 are the most frequent sustainability indicators considered in the literature, while less attention has
Academic Editor: Dimitrios
been given to social indicators. Another issue is the low number of studies that have considered all
A. Georgakellos three sustainability pillars simultaneously. The finidings highlight the need for more future research
towards holistic sustainable production planning approaches.
Received: 29 November 2021
Accepted: 6 January 2022
Keywords: sustainability; production planning; sustainability indicators; sustainability objectives;
Published: 11 January 2022
review; sustainable production planning
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. 1. Introduction
Production planning is the process of making a set of decisions or a plan to ensure the
correct and efficient flow of production processes according to specific objectives. These
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
objectives mostly focus on achieving the desired product quality with the least possible
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
production cost within the planned production schedules [1]. Production planning is a
This article is an open access article
complex task that includes many decision-making problems related to various production
distributed under the terms and stages such as aggregate production planning, lot sizing, and scheduling [2,3]. For example,
conditions of the Creative Commons aggregate production planning aims to match plant capacity with demand while consider-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ing lower costs [4,5]. Due to increasing the world population and production capacities,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the resources of our planet are excessively consumed. Methods to safeguard these resources
4.0/). from vanishing are necessarily required [6,7]. Furthermore, increase of global temperatures

Energies 2022, 15, 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020483 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

 Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19

Energies 2022, 15, 483 population and production capacities, the resources of our planet are excessively 2 of 19

consumed. Methods to safeguard these resources from vanishing are necessarily required
[6,7]. Furthermore, increase of global temperatures and changes in weather patterns have
increased
and changes theinseverity
weather of the issue [8].
patterns have Inincreased
2015, the United Nations
the severity of proposed
the issue 17 [8].sustainable
In 2015,
development
the United Nations goals.proposed
Since then, sustainability
17 sustainable has becomegoals.
development of great
Sinceinterest
then,in many fields,
sustainability
especially
has becomeinofproduction
great interest systems,
in many because
fields,the scarcity in
especially of production
raw materials and environmental
systems, because the
regulations
scarcity of raw arematerials
continuously increasing. This
and environmental has madeare
regulations production
continuously planning one of
increasing. the
This
most important research topics to support the three sustainability pillars (3Ps) (i.e.,
has made production planning one of the most important research topics to support the
environmental,
three sustainability economic, and(i.e.,
pillars (3Ps) social sustainability)economic,
environmental, [9] as most andof social
the sustainability
sustainability) issues
[9]
ascan be of
most found through all issues
the sustainability productioncan beplanning
found throughstages all such as aggregate
production planningproduction
stages
planning,
such scheduling,
as aggregate etc. [10].planning,
production In addition, the eruption
scheduling, etc. of COVID-19
[10]. has caused
In addition, several
the eruption
ofsocioeconomic
COVID-19 has disruptions
caused several in thesocioeconomic
manufacturingdisruptions
and industrial firm
in the sectors [11]. These
manufacturing and
sectors have adopted several strategies and polices to reduce the undesirable impacts. One
industrial firm sectors [11]. These sectors have adopted several strategies and polices to
of these strategies is to modify their production plans to apply the social distancing [12].
reduce the undesirable impacts. One of these strategies is to modify their production plans
toHowever,
apply thethesesocialstrategies
distancing have[12].led
However,
to manythese strategies
drawbacks have led
because to many
of the drawbacks
complexity of the
because of the complexity of the production planning process.
production planning process. Moreover, production planning is connected to the product Moreover, production
planning
life cycleisthrough
connected to the
process productproduct
planning, life cycledesign,
through and process planning,
recycling, product
and it is design,
also connected
and recycling, and it is also connected with social aspects of
with social aspects of employees and customers. Hence, many scholars have studied the employees and customers.
Hence, manyplanning
production scholars problems
have studied whiletheconsidering
productionthe planning
3Ps of problems
sustainabilitywhile considering
[9,10].
the 3Ps of sustainability [9,10].
Considering at least one of the sustainability 3Ps in the traditional production
Considering at least one of the sustainability 3Ps in the traditional production plan-
planning extends its scope towards sustainable production planning [13], as shown in
ning extends its scope towards sustainable production planning [13], as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The 3Ps of sustainability could be achieved by minimizing energy consumption,
The 3Ps of sustainability could be achieved by minimizing energy consumption, greenhouse
greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing health and safety or training of employees [13].
gas emissions, and increasing health and safety or training of employees [13]. For example,
For example, a low carbon process design strategy is considered a sustainable production
a low carbon process design strategy is considered a sustainable production planning
planning objective [14]. Wichmann et al. [15] studied lot-sizing and scheduling operations
objective [14]. Wichmann et al. [15] studied lot-sizing and scheduling operations to im-
to improve energy consumption by minimizing the machining time. In addition, it is of
prove energy consumption by minimizing the machining time. In addition, it is of great
great importance that a company makes joint or integrated decisions combining various
importance that a company makes joint or integrated decisions combining various aspects
aspects of a planning process such as pricing, retailer selection, labor time, etc., while
of a planning process such as pricing, retailer selection, labor time, etc., while consid-
considering a more sustainable environment [16]. Some studies have reported difficulties
ering a more sustainable environment [16]. Some studies have reported difficulties in
in combining management and planning requirements with the 3Ps of sustainability [17],
combining management and planning requirements with the 3Ps of sustainability [17],
especiallysocial
especially socialsustainability.
sustainability. In In
thisthis regard,
regard, it is itimportant
is important to revise
to revise the theoretical
the theoretical back-
background
ground of sustainability,
of sustainability, sustainable sustainable
development, development,
productionproduction
planning, and planning,
sustainableand
sustainable production
production planning. planning.

Figure1.1.Converting
Figure Convertingtraditional
traditionalproduction
productionplanning
planningtotosustainable
sustainableproduction
productionplanning.
planning.

Gaps in the Existing Reviews and Contributions

In recent years, some scholars have conducted review studies relevant to the sus-
tainability aspects in manufacturing and production processes. Table 1 summarizes the
previous reviews and presents the number of papers reviewed, the covered period, and the
Energies 2022, 15, 483 3 of 19

objective of each review. We found that only three review studies [18] considered pro-
duction planning as a tool for implementing the 3Ps of sustainability. Giret, et al. [18]
covered the period from 2008 to 2014 and considered only one production planning prob-
lem, i.e., scheduling. They found that the link between tactical and operational levels
wasvery neglected and further studies areneeded, especially for planning activities. As for
the objectives of these problems, they reported that the input-oriented energy parameters
were the focus of most studies, while less attention had been given to social sustainability.
Biel and Glock [19] mainly focused on energy-oriented production planning. They also
reported an increase in the research of energy-oriented production planning approaches.
Moreover, they concluded that most articles mainly focused on job allocation and sequenc-
ing more than any other planning problem. Bóna and Korkulu [20] addressed only one
production problem, i.e., lot-sizing and its impact on social sustainability. Thus, the contri-
bution of this work stems from the existing literature gaps. The existing literature lacks a
holistic review study that analyzes the relationships among different production planning
problems (e.g., scheduling, lot sizing, aggregate planning, etc.) and 3Ps of sustainability.
Unlike previous review studies, the present review study focuses on all production plan-
ning problems and considers all pillars of sustainability, i.e., economic, environmental,
and social sustainability.

Table 1. Classification of previous review studies.

Reference Focus Objective Covered Period No of Articles

- Addressing sustainable manufacturing from a
scheduling perspective
- Classifying sustainable operation scheduling
[18] Sustainable according to the orientation of the approach, 2008–2014 45
manufacturing the method of scheduling,
operations scheduling and multi-objective considered

- Addressing sustainable production planning

but only from the economical perspective,
specifical energy
- Addressing decision support models that
[19] Energy-efficient integrate energy considerations Until 2015 89
production planning - Classifying reviewed articles mainly
according to the type of production
planning problem

- Addressing different decision-making

methods and different sustainable indicators
used in sustainable manufacturing from a
product and production life cycle perspective
[13] Decision support - The resulted papers were categorized by 2007–2017 23
system for sustainable methods, sustainable indicators, and life
manufacturing cycle phase.

- A scoping methodology was used to address

tools available for sustainable
development goals.
- The review sought three main properties of
[21] Tools available for each tool nature or type of the tool, purpose of 2000–2018 50
implementing the tool, and background to its development.
sustainable - The resulting studies were categorized based
development goals on three main categories: mapping tools,
reporting tools, and aligning tools.
Energies 2022, 15, 483 4 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Reference Focus Objective Covered Period No of Articles

- Addressing a comparison of sustainable
production and consumption considering
[22] Sustainable differences and challenges between 1998–2018 90
consumption and developed and developing countries
production
- Addressing ergonomics as a sustainable
[20] Social sustainability social objective in lot-sizing problems Until 2019 36
lot sizing

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present an

overview of the different production planning problems and explain the sustainability
pillars used to classify the relevant studies; in Section 3, we discuss the review methodology;
in Section 4, we present the results; in Section 5, we suggest implications for future research;
in Section 6, we present the conclusions.

2. Production Planning and Sustainability Pillars

2.1. Production Planning Problems
A thriving production process mainly depends on appropriate allocation of available
resources [23]. Production planning is the ultimate tool for meeting increasing customer
requirements, diversity of products, and a decrease in resources [24,25]. It can also enable
utilizing available resources to obtain the desired quality at the least possible cost [26].
Hence, production planning plays a vital role in the production process by increasing
its efficiency [27]. Production planning is considered to be a non-isolated function that
depends on multiple parameters. Hence, information obtained from procurement and
selling or the parameters assumed by manufacturing, engineering, finance, and material
management, even marketing functions, are crucial to production planning [28] and are
connected with all production stages. These parameters can be divided into multiple steps
and various categories [1], as shown in Figure 2., in which we categorized production
planning problems into several categories based on a categorization used by [19] and
another introduced in [1] to ease the classification of the sampled articles. This does not
mean that this is the only existing classification of the production planning problems,
but we classified them based on the articles included in this review. For example, aggregate
production planning is a more concentrated and compact version of production planning
that is only concerned with a shorter period of time [29] and has a specific objective of
matching plant capacity with demand while considering lower costs [4,5].
The other production planning problems can be listed as lot-sizing, scheduling, rout-
ing, loading, dispatching, and controlling [30]. Some of these steps have substeps that
form problems and constraints of their own. Rasmi, et al. [31] stated that aggregate pro-
duction planning was a primary step in defining other secondary parameters such as
production rates, inventory levels, and workforce requirements. Biel and Glock [19] con-
sidered scheduling and capacity planning as essential tasks for performing the planning
process. In addition, scheduling can have subprocesses such as operation scheduling, order
scheduling, and shop scheduling [30].
Consequently, due to its connection with various parameters of a production process,
production planning controls the flow of a production process [2] and ensures the smooth-
ness of such a flow to reach the desired product [32]. Kiran [1] considered it to be the brain
and the nervous system of the production program. Production planning has also been
recognized as the process that ensures the availability of all materials, as well as helps
ensure assembly at the right time, at the right place, and in the right quantities [33], in other
words, a balance between the required orders (capacity) and the produced units [34]. Con-
sequently, production planning is considered to be an intermediate step that connects the
design of a product and its manufacturing to reach the product use and recycling, when
described from a product life cycle point of view [35].
 Energies2022,
Energies 2022,15,
15,483
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of 19
19

Figure2.2.Production
Figure Productionplanning
planningcategorization.
categorization.

2.2.Sustainability
2.2. SustainabilityPillars
Pillarsand
andTheir
TheirIndicators
Indicators
The growth in awareness of environmentalconsciousness
The growth in awareness of environmental consciousness has has ledledsustainability
sustainability toto
gain more attention during the last century [36]. Hence, the United Nationshas
gain more attention during the last century [36]. Hence, the United Nations hasfound
foundaa
specificcommission
specific commissionfor forsustainability
sustainabilityissues.
issues.This
Thiscommission
commissionwas wasformerly
formerlyknownknownas asthe
the
“WorldCommission
“World Commissionon onEnvironment
Environmentand andDevelopment”,
Development”,and andthen
thenititwaswasrenamed
renamedas asthe
the
“Brundtland Commission”. The commission focused mainly on studying the capability of
“Brundtland Commission”. The commission focused mainly on studying the capability
thethe
of environment
environment to to
maintain
maintain stability
stabilitythrough
through thethe21st century.
21st century.In this connection,
In this the
connection,
the
commission wrote a report called “Our Common Future” which established thethe
commission wrote a report called “Our Common Future” which established basis
basis of
of sustainabledevelopment
sustainable developmentand andsustainability.
sustainability. In In that
that report,
report, sustainable
sustainable development
developmentwas was
defined
definedas as“the
“thedevelopment
developmentthat thatfulfils
fulfilsthe
theneeds
needsof ofthethepresent
presentwithout
withoutcompromising
compromising
the
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [37,38]. In 2015, the2030
ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [37,38]. In 2015, the 2030agenda
agenda
of the United Nations for Sustainable Development proposed 17
of the United Nations for Sustainable Development proposed 17 sustainable development sustainable development
goals,
goals,which
whichare areshown
shownin inTable
Table22[39].
[39].This
Thistable
tableshows
showsthe theextent
extentto to which
which sustainability
sustainability
goals have evolved through the years. These goals of sustainability were defined by
goals have evolved through the years. These goals of sustainability were defined by three
three main pillars termed the triple bottom line (TBL), i.e., economic, environmental,
main pillars termed the triple bottom line (TBL), i.e., economic, environmental, and social
and social [40], and they were considered to be the foundations to build up the generalized
[40], and they were considered to be the foundations to build up the generalized definition
definition of sustainability [41,42]. Hence, this table can be considered to be a listed
of sustainability [41,42]. Hence, this table can be considered to be a listed form of a written
form of a written explanations for these three pillars. In addition, each pillar contains
explanations for these three pillars. In addition, each pillar contains subterms called
subterms called indicators that can define each pillar of sustainability [31,43]. Articles
indicators that can define each pillar of sustainability [31,43]. Articles by [13,44] provided
by [13,44] provided a similar categorization of indicators for three pillars of sustainability.
a similar categorization of indicators for three pillars of sustainability. The present work
The present work follows the categorization proposed in [11] and we adapted it for this
follows the categorization proposed in [11] and we adapted it for this review. As shown
review. As shown in Figure 3, the sustainability pillars are considered in production
in Figure 3, the sustainability pillars are considered in production planning problems in
planning problems in two ways: Either a production planning problem that tackles a single
two ways: Either a production planning problem that tackles a single sustainability pillar
sustainability pillar or a production planning problem that tackles at least two integrated
or a production
pillars. For moreplanning problem
details, each pillar that tacklessome
contains at least two integrated
indictors which can pillars. For more
be addressed
details, each pillar contains some indictors which can be addressed
in production planning problems. For example, the economic pillar addresses only in production planning
two
problems. For
indicators, i.e., example,
cost and the economic
profit, neglectingpillarthe
addresses
investment onlysubpillar
two indicators,
whichi.e.,
wascost
notand profit,
found in
neglecting
the sample the investment
studies subpillar
of sustainable which wasplanning
production not found in the sample
problems. studies of sustainable
The environmental pillar
production
includes threeplanning problems.
indicators, The environmental
i.e., material, pillar includes
energy, and greenhouse threeThe
gases [45]. indicators, i.e.,
social well-
material, energy, and greenhouse gases [45]. The social well-being
being pillar addresses three responsibilities towards the customer, the employee, and the pillar addresses three
responsibilities
whole community towards the customer,
[46]. Furthermore, the employee,
at least two of theseand the are
pillars whole community [46].
integrated.
Furthermore, at least two of these pillars are integrated.
Based on the above understandings, sustainable production planning aims at
decreasing the negative environmental impact while preserving energy for less
 Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

consumption and a safer economic impact for stakeholders [47]. The indicator
categorization shown in Figure 3 is used to classify and discuss the existing literature on
Energies 2022, 15, 483 6 of 19
sustainable production planning, which enables providing a clear and better
understanding of trends and possible shortcomings in the existing literature.

Figure3.3.The
Figure Thecategorization
categorizationofofsustainability
sustainabilityindicators.
indicators.

Based on the above understandings, sustainable production planning aims at de-

Table 2. United Nations proposed 17 goals in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development [39].
creasing the negative environmental impact while preserving energy for less consumption
Goal 1. End poverty in all its
andforms everywhere
a safer economic impact for stakeholders [47]. The indicator categorization shown in
Figure 3 is used to classify and discuss the existing literature on sustainable production
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
planning, which enables providing a clear and better understanding of trends and possible
Goal 3. Ensure healthy livesshortcomings
and promotein well-being forliterature.
the existing all at all ages
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Table 2. United Nations proposed 17 goals in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development [39].
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Goal1.6. Ensure
Goal availability
End poverty in all its and
formssustainable
everywheremanagement of water and sanitation for all
Goal2.7. Ensure
Goal access
End hunger, to affordable,
achieve reliable,
food security sustainable,
and improve and
nutrition andmodern
promote energy for allagriculture
sustainable
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal4.8. Promote
Goal sustained,
Ensure inclusive and inclusive, and sustainable
equitable quality education andeconomic
promotegrowth,
lifelong full and opportunities
learning productive employment,
for all and decent
Goal 5. work for gender
Achieve all equality and empower all women and girls
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Goal7.9. Build
Goal Ensureresilient
access toinfrastructure, promote
affordable, reliable, inclusive
sustainable, and sustainable
and modern energy forindustrialization,
all and foster innovation
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all
Goal 8. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation
Goal10.11.Reduce
Goal Make cities and within
inequality human settlements
and inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable
among countries
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, patterns
safe, resilient, and sustainable
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Goal13.13.Take
Goal Takeurgent
urgent action
action to combat
to combat climate
climate change
change and itsand its impacts
impacts
Goal14.14.Conserve
Goal Conserve andand sustainably
sustainably useoceans,
use the the oceans, seas,
seas, and and marine
marine resources resources for sustainable
for sustainable development development
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification,
Goal 15.andProtect,
halt andrestore
reverseand promote
land sustainable
degradation and halt use of terrestrial
biodiversity loss ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification,
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and halt andsocieties
and inclusive reverseforland degradation
sustainable and haltprovide
development, biodiversity loss
access to justice for all, and build effective,
accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation
3. Research and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
Methodology
In this research, a systemic literature review was conducted on sustainable production
3. Research
planning Methodology
studies using a methodology adapted from [13] with the following steps:
In this
Step One, research,
define a systemic
the research literature
scope The review
main scope andwas conducted
objective on sustainable
of this review mainly
production
focused planning
on the studies
application using a methodology
of production adapted from
planning approaches [13] with
to achieve the following
sustainable goals.
steps:
Step two, select the search keywords This step aimed at finding the most suitable key-
words for the required review. Two sets of keywords were used. The first set included
three keywords: production planning, production control, and planning, while the second
set considered two keywords: sustainable and sustainability. These two sets resulted in
six different combinations of search keywords. The authors used the Scopus database to
Energies 2022, 15, 483 7 of 19

perform the search, because it has one of the widest search library [13]. The search process
resulted in identifying 560 articles.
Step three, define the inclusion and exclusion criteria This step aimed at identifying the
most relevant articles among the identified 560 articles. Hence, the following inclusion and
exclusion criteria were used:
• Only peer-reviewed articles published in English were considered.
• Only engineering, decision, and environmental sciences were considered.
• A time frame condition from 2011 to 2021 was added.
• The production planning problem needed to have at least one sustainable objective.
• Any framework related to production planning was considered, such as joint pro-
duction planning and pricing or hybrid manufacturing remanufacturing systems
addressing production planning.
Step four, screen the identified articles This step applied the inclusion and exclusion cri-
teria and reduced the number of related articles to 36 articles. Then, a backward review for
the resulted articles is conducted to find any missing articles. The final set of the identified
articles included 45 articles and three review articles. Then, the 45 research articles were
categorized into a two-dimensional classification based on production planning problems
and sustainability pillars. In addition, the problems’ solution methods were discussed.

4. Results and Discussions

In this section, the identified studies are discussed. Their classification is based on a
two-dimensional classification, i.e., sustainability indicators (see Figure 3) and production
planning problems, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Table 3 presents an overview of the identified articles. In addition, each article is
assigned to its corresponding sustainability indicator and production planning problem
used. Figure 4 reflects the analysis in Table 3 and shows the percentage of studies using
the sustainable pillars. For example, Satyro et al. [48] considered the economic pillar in a
holistic production planning approach, whereas Xiao et al. [49] integrated the economic
and environmental pillars while solving a routing problem. For more details, the 45 articles
were classified as follows: 9 articles addressed economic sustainability indicators, 12 articles
addressed environmental indicators, and only 1 article addressed social indicators [50],
while the remaining 23 articles used integrated indicators of two or more sustainability
pillars. Three of these articles used the integration of social, economic, and environmental
indicators [2,30,49], while 20 articles used economic and environmental indicators together.
In Table 3, the identified articles were also categorized according to the type of produc-
tion planning problems. For example, the 12 articles addressing environmental indicators
addressed different production planning problems as follows: Three articles considered
scheduling problems [51–53], five articles considered hybrid methods of integrating more
than one production planning problem [14,54–57], and two articles considered the lot-sizing
problem [7,58].
In the following sections, we thoroughly discuss the identified articles shown in Table 3.
 Energies2022,
Energies 2022,15,
15,483
x FOR PEER REVIEW 98 of
of19
19

Economic, environmental and

social 7% Economic 20%

Social 2%

Economic,
environmental 44%
Environmental 27%

Figure4.4.Percentage
Figure Percentage of
of studies
studies that
that considered
considered each
each sustainability
sustainability pillar
pillaror
oran
anintegration
integrationofof vari-
various pillars.
ous pillars.

4.1. Economic Sustainability Pillar

Table 3. The classification of the identified articles.
In this section, we discuss the identified studies that considered any production
Sustain- planning problem with an economic objective, i.e., minimizing the cost or maximizing the
ability profit. The economic pillar is the second most studied objective after the environmental
Production
Economic Environmental Social
Pillars and objective, specifically the energy indicator. Energy is also the most studied single indicator
Planning
Indicators [11] and is mostly driven by cost. As presented in Table 3, nine papers addressed Problem the
Employee Customer
Reference Cost economic perspectiveMaterial
Profit Investment using different
Energyproduction
GHG planning approaches.
Satisfaction Satisfaction
The most recent study was by Satyro, et al. [48] who used a multi-correspondence
Holistic
[48] X analysis to find
X the production planning variables with the most affect over achieving
approach
economic sustainability. Their study used a systematic questionnaire to analyze the whole
[59] X production planning process of six companies. They found that the effect of*production
Hybrid
[60] planning
X could vary according to the size of the industry. With industries ofHybrid
more than
[61] X 9000 employees, the implementation of production planning was not on an operationalHybrid
level as compared with that of smaller companies that varied from 400 to 5000 employees.
[62] X Hybrid
However, their analysis was based on a small number of companies, and thus, the
[63] X Scheduling
findings could not be generalized to any company, therefore, more confirmation and a
[64] X wider set of companies was needed. Lage Junior and Godinho Filho [59] integrated Hybrid two
[65] X different production planning stages, i.e., scheduling and routing in a remanufacturing
Routing
[66] X system. Their proposed model determined the optimum number of products to be
** Other
disassembled to reduce the total cost expected from stochastic routing. However, their
[54] X Hybrid
proposed model did not consider the number of products to be disassembled, which
[14] would affect the material recovery rate. Farahani
X and Rahmani [60] proposed a hybrid
Hybrid
[51] system in which they used production X planning process, distribution planning process,
Scheduling
[58] and facility location-allocation of a crude X oil network, while using net presentLot sizingas a
value
sustainable objective. The model was formed as mixed-integer linear programming solved
[55] X Hybrid
by IBM LOG CPLEX. In addition, Yildirim and Nezami [64] developed a hybrid model
[56] that used lot sizing and preventive X maintenance
X to decrease machine degradation
Hybrid over
[52] time, electrical cost, and operational
X cost. The proposed model determined lot sizes while
Scheduling
[57] satisfying the demand to determine X the suitable preventive maintenance plan based on
Hybrid
[67]
the machine up-and-down time.X They introduced a coherence between production Other
planning presented by lot-sizing and preventive maintenance.
[68] X Other
Energies 2022, 15, 483 9 of 19

Table 3. Cont.

Sustain-
ability Production
Economic Environmental Social
Pillars and Planning
Indicators Problem
Employee Customer
Reference Cost Profit Investment Material Energy GHG
Satisfaction Satisfaction
[53] X Scheduling
[7] X Lot sizing
[50] X Other
[2] X X X Scheduling
[49] X X Routing
[16] X X X Hybrid
[69] X X Hybrid
[70] X X Dispatching
[71] X X Scheduling
[47] X X X Hybrid
[15] X X Hybrid
[72] X X X Hybrid
Aggregate
[31] X X X X X X production
planning
[73] X X Hybrid
[74] X X Hybrid
[75] X X X Dispatching
[76] X X Hybrid
[77] X X X Hybrid
[78] X X Hybrid
Holistic
[79] X X
approach
Holistic
[80] X X
approach
[81] X X Other
[82] X X Scheduling
[83] X X Scheduling
[84] X X Scheduling
[85] X X X Other
* Hybrid, more than one production planning problem used, and production planning problem combined with
other planning processes; ** Other, other planning operations such as energy planning and shipment planning.

4.1. Economic Sustainability Pillar

In this section, we discuss the identified studies that considered any production plan-
ning problem with an economic objective, i.e., minimizing the cost or maximizing the profit.
The economic pillar is the second most studied objective after the environmental objective,
specifically the energy indicator. Energy is also the most studied single indicator [11] and
is mostly driven by cost. As presented in Table 3, nine papers addressed the economic
perspective using different production planning approaches.
Energies 2022, 15, 483 10 of 19

The most recent study was by Satyro, et al. [48] who used a multi-correspondence
analysis to find the production planning variables with the most affect over achieving
economic sustainability. Their study used a systematic questionnaire to analyze the whole
production planning process of six companies. They found that the effect of production
planning could vary according to the size of the industry. With industries of more than
9000 employees, the implementation of production planning was not on an operational
level as compared with that of smaller companies that varied from 400 to 5000 employees.
However, their analysis was based on a small number of companies, and thus, the findings
could not be generalized to any company, therefore, more confirmation and a wider set
of companies was needed. Lage Junior and Godinho Filho [59] integrated two different
production planning stages, i.e., scheduling and routing in a remanufacturing system.
Their proposed model determined the optimum number of products to be disassembled
to reduce the total cost expected from stochastic routing. However, their proposed model
did not consider the number of products to be disassembled, which would affect the
material recovery rate. Farahani and Rahmani [60] proposed a hybrid system in which
they used production planning process, distribution planning process, and facility location-
allocation of a crude oil network, while using net present value as a sustainable objective.
The model was formed as mixed-integer linear programming solved by IBM LOG CPLEX.
In addition, Yildirim and Nezami [64] developed a hybrid model that used lot sizing
and preventive maintenance to decrease machine degradation over time, electrical cost,
and operational cost. The proposed model determined lot sizes while satisfying the demand
to determine the suitable preventive maintenance plan based on the machine up-and-down
time. They introduced a coherence between production planning presented by lot-sizing
and preventive maintenance.

4.2. Social Sustainability Pillar

Social sustainability is the most neglected pillar among the 3Ps of sustainability [2,13].
Zarte, et al. [13] conducted a review on addressing sustainable objectives through different
decision-making methods. They found that regardless of the decision-making method
used, the social sustainability pillar was always the least addressed pillar among the 3Ps.
In a similar context, but from another point of view, the human factor has been shown to
be the most neglected factor in planning objectives [86], which also proves that the social
pillar has been neglected. Relatively, as shown in Figure 4, social sustainability is the least
addressed sustainability pillar, either as a single objective or integrated with economic
and environmental objectives. Cattaruzza, et al. [50] introduced a packaging and shipping
problem that used production planning, workforce, and demand peaks to achieve the ideal
number of employees who could process a set of orders to enhance employee satisfaction
and development.

4.3. Environmental Sustainability Pillar

The environmental pillar is the most frequent sustainability pillar considered in the
literature. As shown in Figure 4, the energy indicator specifically has the most attention.
Energy, as an environmental sustainability indicator, can be addressed in two different
ways, either as a cost where the objective is to minimize the overall cost or as a resource
consumption [15].
Zheng, et al. [54] introduced a lagrangian algorithm to solve a production planning
problem with stochastic demands. The proposed lagrangian algorithm could obtain nearly
the same optimal solution with less than a 1% difference as compared with the solution
calculated by the CPLEX solver. They conducted their research on a real-life case study
facing issues with inventory and customer demand. The model considered customer
demand as a stochastic demand, because the product was a special order product since
different customers could order special requirements in different periods that needed to
be met.
Energies 2022, 15, 483 11 of 19

A joint production planning with pricing model was introduced by Zhang, et al. [16],
who used pricing, production planning, and retailer selection to develop a model. Their
model could help firms in making optimal joint decisions. In this study, the Stackelberg
game theory was used to formulate the model in which the manufacturer was a leader,
and the retailers were followers. Additionally, the model considered an emission control
constraint. A nested genetic algorithm and the Stackelberg game model were used to
solve the problem. However, the model did not consider that the retailers might be more
influential than the manufacturers with respect to refusing the proposed solutions and
pricing. In addition, they ignored the influence of other competitors.
In [58], the authors discussed another joint production planning model that consid-
ered the supplier and manufacturer as two separate parties, each of whom had revenue
preferences. The proposed model assumed a centralized system where the supplier was
considered to be a subsidiary to the manufacturer, having a single profit function for the
whole system. The model was very informative about the influence of reducing carbon
emissions on profitability. Nevertheless, the problem did not consider stochastic demand
rates and dealt with only one supplier, which was not the most applicable case.
Rubaiee and Yildirim [51] introduced a fully sustainable framework using a scheduling
problem to reduce total completion time to reduce energy costs. The reduction of total
completion time was achieved by simply changing the on-off modes of machines to produce
more energy-efficient machine scheduling. The developed model was solved using different
methods, i.e., the weighted sum method and two different ant colony-based algorithms.
Another study used scheduling problems to achieve environmental sustainability [87].
This study introduced a framework to enable the decision-maker to decide on the best
schedule that was less time consuming and more energy efficient. The on-off mode of
machines was also used by Liu, et al. [52]. However, instead of working on total completion
time for less energy consumption, the objective was to decrease the machine non-processing
time; they integrated the problem of scheduling and the on-off modes of machines which
resulted in a multi-objective model. The objective was to switch off under-utilized resources.
The study proposed a novel genetic algorithm based on a non-sorted genetic algorithm
(NSGA II) to solve the resulting model. Nevertheless, the model was not tested in a broader
set of job shop cases, therefore, it could not be generalized on every job shop instance.

4.4. Integration of Economic and Environmental Sustainability Pillars

The reduction of total energy consumption always results in a decrease in greenhouse
gas emissions [2]. Thus, most economic-oriented problems have an additional environ-
mental objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with the increase in the interest
of simultaneously addressing economic and environmental pillars [76]. Hence, most of
the identified articles that focused on energy consumption considered greenhouse gas
emissions while solving the model [19,57]. In order to have a clearer view over each specific
indicator such as energy, greenhouse gas, profit, etc., Figure 5 was constructed, which
shows the percentage of production planning problems used to solve each indicator either
when combined with other indicators or when addressed as a single indicator. Hence,
we found that most of studies were energy-oriented studies.
Banasik, et al. [74] proposed an analytical study to prove that implementing un-
certainty measures could reduce the difference between actual and expected planning
solutions. Their study used a real case to compare the actual results of using a deterministic
model versus a two-stage stochastic model. The comparison showed a decrease in the
difference between expected and actual results, and also showed a decrease in environmen-
tal impact and an increase in profit from using a deterministic model. Another approach
for achieving both the economic pillar and the environmental pillar was presented in [56].
The authors used intelligent data collection and processing to simulate future energy con-
sumption situations and used it in production planning and decision making. Similarly,
the work in [81] introduced an approach to determine energy consumption values using
energy measurement methods and reference cycles. Afterwards, these consumption values
Energies 2022, 15, 483 12 of 19

were employed to calculate the energy demands for better and efficient planning. Medini
and Boucher [80] aimed at balancing forecasted sales and volumes produced in a diverse
manufacturing environment while considering environmental and economic sustainability
indicators. Thus, they introduced the impact of product diversity on environmental and
economic sustainability indicators. Total completion time is an interesting area of research.
Liu, et al. [84] introduced a mathematical model that could simultaneously decrease
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 total
of 19
completion time and greenhouse gas emissions. However, their study assumed that arrival
times were deterministic parameters which practically is not the case.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. The
The number
number ofof production
production planning
planning problems’
problems’ studies
studies and
and their
their consideration
consideration of
of various
various
sustainability indicators.
sustainability indicators.

4.5. Integration
4.5. Integration of
of Economic,
Economic, Environmental,
Environmental, and
and Social
Social Sustainability
Sustainability Pillars
Pillars
In
In addition to environmental and economic pillars, Dal Borgo and
addition to environmental and economic pillars, Dal Borgo and Meneghetti
Meneghetti [73][73]
addressed
addressed the social sustainability pillar by considering the learningphenomena
the social sustainability pillar by considering the learning forgetting forgetting
of the working
phenomena personnel.
of the working They could They
personnel. form could
learning
form forgetting
learning curves
forgettingto be usedto
curves asbe a
framework to develop a production and shipment plan. The results
used as a framework to develop a production and shipment plan. The results showed thatshowed that the
consideration of theoflearning
the consideration forgetting
the learning phenomenon
forgetting could decrease
phenomenon the excessive
could decrease overtime
the excessive
and stress and
overtime that stress
workers faced
that addressing
workers faced the social sustainability
addressing pillar. In addition,
the social sustainability pillar.this
In
could achieve a full load transport by determining the panels that could be
addition, this could achieve a full load transport by determining the panels that couldstacked togetherbe
and then produced consecutively. This led to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions
stacked together and then produced consecutively. This led to a decrease in greenhouse
indirectly and a decrease in shipping costs directly.
gas emissions indirectly and a decrease in shipping costs directly.
Zarte, et al. [2] used a fuzzy optimization to consider all the three main pillars of sus-
Zarte, et al. [2] used a fuzzy optimization to consider all the three main pillars of
tainability in production planning. The authors proposed a fuzzy interference model that
sustainability in production planning. The authors proposed a fuzzy interference model
combined multiple qualitative and quantitative input variables. This model could assess
that combined multiple qualitative and quantitative input variables. This model could
production sustainability, contrary to a traditional mathematical approach that required
assess production sustainability, contrary to a traditional mathematical approach that
input and output measurements to validate the model. However, their proposed model
required input and output measurements to validate the model. However, their proposed
neglected some production planning tasks such as inventory management maintenance,
model neglected some production planning tasks such as inventory management
quality control, and product refurbishment.
maintenance, quality control, and product refurbishment.
4.6. International Cases in Production Planning for Sustainability
4.6. International Cases in Production Planning for Sustainability
In this subsection, we consider the international cases which applied production plan-
ning Inforthis subsection,aswe
sustainability, consider
shown the 4.
in Table international cases which
The table consists of fourapplied
columns; production
the first
planning for sustainability, as shown in Table 4. The table consists of four
column presents the study, the second column includes the country case, and the third columns; the
first column presents the study, the second column includes the country case,
and the fourth columns describe the targeted sustainability pillar in a production problem. and the
third
For and theChina
example, fourthwas
columns
involveddescribe
in mosttheof targeted sustainability
the literature with sevenpillar in aFour
articles. production
articles
problem.
aimed For example,
at integrating theChina was and
economic involved in most ofsustainability
environmental the literature pillars
with seven articles.
[49,70,85,86],
Four articles aimed at integrating the economic and environmental sustainability pillars
[49,70,85,86], while three articles were aimed at the environmental sustainability pillar
[12,47,57]. The case of Germany was referred to in four articles. Two articles considered
integration of economic, environmental, and social sustainability pillars, one article used
scheduling problems [2] and the other article used a hybrid method of integrating
Energies 2022, 15, 483 13 of 19

while three articles were aimed at the environmental sustainability pillar [12,47,57]. The case
of Germany was referred to in four articles. Two articles considered integration of economic,
environmental, and social sustainability pillars, one article used scheduling problems [2]
and the other article used a hybrid method of integrating between APP and routing prob-
lems [77]. Regarding the two remaining articles that referred to Germany, one article
used the economic objective [56], and the other article integrated the economic and envi-
ronmental sustainability pillars while using energy planning [81]. In addition, different
production planning problems integrated with different sustainability pillars were im-
plemented in several studies and were implemented in many other countries, such as a
hybrid production planning model with the environmental pillar Korea [55], and other pro-
duction planning problems with integrated sustainability pillars in France [50], Italy [70],
Turkey [31], and others.

Table 4. The classification of the identified articles based on each article.

Reference Country Sustainability Pillar Production Planning Problem

[48] Brazil Economic Holistic approach
[66] Germany Economic Other
[61] Canada Economic Hybrid
[54] China Environmental Hybrid
[14] China Environmental Hybrid
[58] China Environmental Lot sizing
[55] Korea Environmental Hybrid
[7] Germany Environmental Lot sizing
[50] France Social Other
[2] Germany Integration (economic, environmental and social) Scheduling
[49] China Integration (economic and environmental) Routing
[69] China Integration (economic and environmental) Hybrid
[70] Italy Integration (economic and environmental) Dispatching
[71] Ireland Integration (economic and environmental) Scheduling
[31] Turkey Integration (economic, environmental and social) Aggregate P.P.
[76] U.S.A. Integration (economic and environmental) Hybrid
[77] Germany Integration (economic, environmental and social) Hybrid
[78] U.A.E. Integration (economic and environmental) Hybrid
[80] France Integration (economic and environmental) Holistic approach
[81] Germany Integration (economic and environmental) Other
[84] China Integration (economic and environmental) Scheduling
[85] China Integration (economic and environmental) Other

5. Implications for Future Research

In this section, we introduce an analysis of the identified sample articles and the fields
that require further research and need more attention. Figure 6 summarizes the analysis
of the identified articles, which was genuinely created based on the data extracted from
the studied articles in each sustainability pillar and its corresponding production planning
problem. The chart in Figure 6 provides a summary of the different production planning
problems and outlines the extent to which these studies are mixed with sustainability pil-
lars. Hence, we can see that aggregate production planning was the least used production
planning problem either as a single problem or in a hybrid system. In contrast, scheduling
received the most attention from scholars. This implies a requirement for using aggregate
planning in achieving sustainability goals. In addition, existing studies [31,88] on aggregate
production planning have addressed multiple sustainability pillars because aggregate pro-
duction planning enables determining the levels of both workforce and production. Hence,
aggregate production planning can be useful in applying multiple sustainability pillars,
especially the social sustainability pillar, as it is directly connected with the workforce.
Energies 2022, 15,
Energies 2022, 15, 483
x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of
15 of 19
19

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Production
Production planning
planning problems
problems concerning
concerning sustainability
sustainability pillars.
pillars.

Lastly, thissustainability
Regarding research introduced indicators,a full
as review
shown considering
in Figure 5, since all sustainable production
the identified studies
planning
were problems
relatively in addition
few, no studies were to considering
carried out allon sustainability
investment as pillars. The classification
a sustainability indicator
showed
for that the most
the economic pillar.used
Almostsolvingall ofmethod amongthat
the studies theconsidered
identified sample articlespillar
the economic was
genetic
used the algorithms.
cost indicator, Nonetheless,
while neglecting this both
review lacked
of the an inclusive
indicators study
of profit and on each
investment.
optimization
In addition, the method
studiesandin theits existing
relation literature
with a sustainable
lacked methods objective and the optimization
for measuring the impact
method used. Sustainable production planning is already a complex problem with many
of various sustainability pillars. For example, environmental life cycle assessment was
parameters. As a result, there is a need for future research to address various optimization
used to measure the environmental impact, and social life cycle assessment was used
methods
for considering
measuring social sustainable
impact [85],production planning
while life cycle and the was
assessment suitability of sustainable
integrated between
objectives.
both [89]. Magrassi, et al. [90] developed an optimization model that integrated a proposed
Although
decision support there were
system some
with lifereview articles in the
cycle assessment literatureenvironmental
to measure on sustainableimpact.
production
Such
planning [18–20], each one of them was dedicated to addressing specific production
research and models need to be integrated into production planning for a quantitative
planningof
measure problems andimpacts.
sustainable their integration with certain
Another noticeable indicators
issue was the of the 3Ps.
reason For choosing
behind instance,
aGiret,
sustainable indicator. Choosing sustainable indicators
et al. [18] reviewed studies on the production scheduling problem and through production planning
their
studies was mainly
consideration based on
of economic andthe addressed objective
environmental function
sustainability of the problem,
indicators. Biel and which
Glock
was
[19] mostly decreasing
investigated energy
studies costs. Because
related to energy decreasing
consumption cost is mostly
(as anaccompanied
environmental by
fewer emissions,
sustainability the economic
indicator) pillar, thus,
in different was mostly
production planningaccompanied
problems.byRecently,
the environmental
Bóna and
pillar. This identifies another gap in the research, since
Korkulu [20] discussed the consideration of ergonomic issues, as a social this connection between energy
sustainability
consumption and harmful emissions is a point of debate.
indicator, in previous studies on the lot-sizing production planning problem. Unlike
Zarte, et al. [2] reported that it was useless to add emissions as an indicator to an
previous review studies, this research contributes to the theoretical knowledge by
energy reduction model as long as consuming more energy produced more emissions.
providing a more holistic and comprehensive review of sustainable production planning.
In comparison, Biel and Glock [19] found that the relation between CO2 emissions and
This study explores the consideration of various indicators of the sustainability 3Ps when
energy consumption needed to be more realistic and could not always be considered to be
solving different production planning problems that has not been observed well by extant
linear. The stochastic modeling techniques in the identified articles found in this review are
literature. Moreover, this study highlights some theoretical research gaps that the current
very scarce [55,74,75], but have more promising and actual values than deterministic models.
literature has not yet addressed properly and has ignored some of their critical aspects, as
Hence, this debate needs more attention and research. In a similar context, the reason
discussed in this section. This research provides researchers, research and development
for choosing a specific production planning problem for a specific sustainability pillar
(R&D) centers, and policymakers with a holistic reference on sustainable production
was not defined in most of the articles, but, as mentioned earlier, choosing a sustainable
planning. First, researchers and R&D centers could benefit from the identified research
pillar was based on the problem and the required objective. Therefore, more research
gaps and the updated overview of the sustainability issues in the production planning
is needed on finding and assigning the suitable production planning problem with the
field. In sustainability
suitable addition, the pillar.
information provided in this research could guide sustainability
policymakers to the critical
Social sustainability was areasthethat
least require more sustainability
addressed efficient policypillar formulation
either astoafurther
single
promote
pillar sustainable
or integrated production.
with other pillars. Economic and environmental sustainability received
much more attention. This issue needs more attention because some production planning
6. Conclusions
problems are suitable for addressing the social pillar, such as aggregate production planning,
whichThis review addresses
is concerned the studiesThus,
with the workforce. that considered
sustainablethe three sustainability
production pillars
planning should in
give
production
more attentionplanning. This review
to considering social considers
indicators allsuch
production
as customer planning stages, sustainability,
satisfaction and employee
and indicators
health and safety. of 3Ps in a time frame from 2011 to 2021. The review shows that most of
the studies implemented
Another interesting area more forthan oneresearch
future sustainability pillar simultaneously;
is integrating however, the
sophisticated computational
addressed
tools dual sustainability
into physical productionpillars systems are always
which canconsidered
be called tocyber-physical
be connected. Another
systemsissue
[91].
Energies 2022, 15, 483 15 of 19

Simply put, systems with embedded computers that enable a real-time connection between
workstations and decision support systems, which can be used in various applications
such as monitoring systems for intelligent consumption monitoring and smart electrical
grids. An interesting study by Rossit, et al. [91] aimed at improving scheduling problems
used these systems but did not consider a sustainable objective. Future research might also
benefit from the findings of other research fileds with respect to the social sustainability
pillers. For example, considering the flexibility in the use of human resources as proposed
in the recent literature on the project managemen [92].
On the practical level, the findings provide an easy-to-understand guideline for prac-
titioners to better understand the different pillars of sustainability and their inherent
challenges, and how they can be realized in different production planning problems. In ad-
dition, the findings can show practitioners how to align their production systems with the
17 goals proposed by the United Nations, in order to gain a competitive advantage over
their competitors. Furthermore, practitioners are recommended to develop integrated solu-
tions of different production planning problems in order to achieve a production system in
which sustainability pillars are accounted for at every stage.
Lastly, this research introduced a full review considering all sustainable production
planning problems in addition to considering all sustainability pillars. The classification
showed that the most used solving method among the identified sample articles was
genetic algorithms. Nonetheless, this review lacked an inclusive study on each optimization
method and its relation with a sustainable objective and the optimization method used.
Sustainable production planning is already a complex problem with many parameters.
As a result, there is a need for future research to address various optimization methods
considering sustainable production planning and the suitability of sustainable objectives.
Although there were some review articles in the literature on sustainable produc-
tion planning [18–20], each one of them was dedicated to addressing specific production
planning problems and their integration with certain indicators of the 3Ps. For instance,
Giret, et al. [18] reviewed studies on the production scheduling problem and their con-
sideration of economic and environmental sustainability indicators. Biel and Glock [19]
investigated studies related to energy consumption (as an environmental sustainability
indicator) in different production planning problems. Recently, Bóna and Korkulu [20] dis-
cussed the consideration of ergonomic issues, as a social sustainability indicator, in previous
studies on the lot-sizing production planning problem. Unlike previous review studies, this
research contributes to the theoretical knowledge by providing a more holistic and compre-
hensive review of sustainable production planning. This study explores the consideration
of various indicators of the sustainability 3Ps when solving different production plan-
ning problems that has not been observed well by extant literature. Moreover, this study
highlights some theoretical research gaps that the current literature has not yet addressed
properly and has ignored some of their critical aspects, as discussed in this section. This
research provides researchers, research and development (R&D) centers, and policymakers
with a holistic reference on sustainable production planning. First, researchers and R&D
centers could benefit from the identified research gaps and the updated overview of the
sustainability issues in the production planning field. In addition, the information provided
in this research could guide sustainability policymakers to the critical areas that require
more efficient policy formulation to further promote sustainable production.

6. Conclusions
This review addresses the studies that considered the three sustainability pillars in
production planning. This review considers all production planning stages, sustainability,
and indicators of 3Ps in a time frame from 2011 to 2021. The review shows that most of the
studies implemented more than one sustainability pillar simultaneously; however, the ad-
dressed dual sustainability pillars are always considered to be connected. Another issue
is the low number of studies that considered all three sustainability pillars, which shows
the need for more attention towards holistic sustainable production planning. In addition,
Energies 2022, 15, 483 16 of 19

the literature analysis indicates an increasing inclination towards integrating multiple

production planning problems with the objective of providing comprehensive production
planning solutions. The consideration of the social pillar is still limited either as a single
pillar or when integrated with other sustainability pillars. The review shows that few
studies considered the 3Ps of sustainability in cyber-physical systems. These applications
could assist in multiple sustainable production planning problems. Hence, more attention
is required to study the contributions, success factors, and barriers to using cyber-physical
systems for more sustainable production planning.
The study results should be considered in light of some limitations. Firstly, some arti-
cles related to the study topic might be missed. Secondly, the classification of the included
articles based on the production planning problems and the three sustainability pillars
depended on the authors’ subjective judgements. To mitigate the impact of subjective opin-
ions, recent text mining techniques could be used in the future. However, such techniques
cannot provide an in-depth analysis and classification of the included documents.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S.k. and I.A.S.; review methodology and identified
artilces, M.S.k. and I.A.S.; manuscript structure and organization, M.S.k., I.A.S. and A.K.; results
and discussion, M.S.k., I.A.S., A.K., M.H. (Mohamed Hussain), I.Z. and M.H. (Mohamed Hussein);
writing—original draft preparation, M.S.k., I.A.S., M.H. (Mohamed Hussain) and I.Z.; writing—
review and editing, M.S.k., I.A.S., A.K., M.H. (Mohamed Hussain), I.Z. and M.H. (Mohamed Hussein);
funding acquisition, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The search queries used in Scopus during the study are available from
the corresponding authors on reasonable requests.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kiran, D.R. Elements of production planning and control. In Production Planning and Control; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands, 2019; pp. 1–20.
2. Zarte, M.; Pechmann, A.; Nunes, I. Fuzzy Inference Model for Decision Support in Sustainable Production Planning Processes—
A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1355. [CrossRef]
3. Takahashi, K.; Onosato, M.; Tanaka, F. A comprehensive approach for managing feasible solutions in production planning by an
interacting network of Zero-Suppressed Binary Decision Diagrams. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2015, 2, 105–112. [CrossRef]
4. Kiran, D.R. Aggregate planning. In Production Planning and Control; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 303–316.
5. Ganesh, K.; Punniyamoorthy, M. Optimization of continuous-time production planning using hybrid genetic algorithms-
simulated annealing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2004, 26, 148–154. [CrossRef]
6. Fung, Y.-N.; Choi, T.-M.; Liu, R. Sustainable planning strategies in supply chain systems: Proposal and applications with a real
case study in fashion. Prod. Plan. Control. 2019, 31, 883–902. [CrossRef]
7. Lehtoranta, S.; Nissinen, A.; Mattila, T.; Melanen, M. Industrial symbiosis and the policy instruments of sustainable consumption
and production. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1865. [CrossRef]
8. Tokede, O.O.; Roetzel, A.; Ruge, G. A holistic life cycle sustainability evaluation of a building project. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021,
73, 103107. [CrossRef]
9. Zarte, M.; Pechmann, A.; Nunes, I.L. Indicator framework for sustainable production planning and controlling. Int. J. Sustain.
Eng. 2018, 12, 149–158. [CrossRef]
10. Akbar, M.; Irohara, T. Scheduling for sustainable manufacturing: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 866–883. [CrossRef]
11. Zhang, H. The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Poduction. Available online: https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-global-
production (accessed on 27 December 2021).
12. Butt, A.S. Strategies to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on supply chain disruptions: A multiple case analysis of buyers and
distributors. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021. [CrossRef]
13. Zarte, M.; Pechmann, A.; Nunes, I.L. Decision support systems for sustainable manufacturing surrounding the product and
production life cycle–A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 336–349. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 483 17 of 19

14. Zheng, J.; Zhou, X.; Yu, Y.; Wu, J.; Ling, W.; Ma, H. Low carbon, high efficiency and sustainable production of traditional
manufacturing methods through process design strategy: Improvement process for sand casting defects. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,
253, 119917. [CrossRef]
15. Wichmann, M.G.; Johannes, C.; Spengler, T.S. An extension of the general lot-sizing and scheduling problem (GLSP) with
time-dependent energy prices. J. Bus. Econ. 2019, 89, 481–514. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, L.L.; Gang, D.U.; Jun, W.U.; Yujie, M.A. Joint production planning, pricing and retailer selection with emission control
based on Stackelberg game and nested genetic algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 161, 113733. [CrossRef]
17. Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S.; Song, M.; Filho, M.G. Sustainability implications for operations management: Building the bridge through
exemplar case studies. Prod. Plan. Control. 2019, 31, 841–844. [CrossRef]
18. Giret, A.; Trentesaux, D.; Prabhu, V. Sustainability in manufacturing operations scheduling: A state of the art review. J. Manuf.
Syst. 2015, 37, 126–140. [CrossRef]
19. Biel, K.; Glock, C. Systematic literature review of decision support models for energy-efficient production planning. Comput. Ind.
Eng. 2016, 101, 243–259. [CrossRef]
20. Korkulu, S.; Bóna, K. Ergonomics as a Social Component of Sustainable Lot-sizing: A Review. Period. Polytech. Soc. Manag. Sci.
2019, 27, 1–8. [CrossRef]
21. Grainger-Brown, J.; Malekpour, S. Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: A Review of Strategic Tools and Frame-
works Available to Organisations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1381. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, C.; Ghadimi, P.; Lim, M.K.; Tseng, M.-L. A literature review of sustainable consumption and production: A comparative
analysis in developed and developing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 206, 741–754. [CrossRef]
23. Zadeh, A.H.; Afshari, H.; Khorshid-Doust, R.R. Integration of process planning and production planning and control in cellular
manufacturing. Prod. Plan. Control 2013, 25, 840–857. [CrossRef]
24. Stevenson, M.; Hendry, L.C.; Kingsman, B.G. A review of production planning and control: The applicability of key concepts to
the make-to-order industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2005, 43, 869–898. [CrossRef]
25. Hees, A.; Schutte, C.S.L.; Reinhart, G. A production planning system to continuously integrate the characteristics of reconfigurable
manufacturing systems. Prod. Eng. 2017, 11, 511–521. [CrossRef]
26. Oluyisola, O.E.; Sgarbossa, F.; Strandhagen, J.O. Smart Production Planning and Control: Concept, Use-Cases and Sustainability
Implications. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3791. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, C.N.; Nhieu, N.L.; Tran, T.T.T. Stochastic chebyshev goal programming mixed integer linear model for sustainable global
production planning. Mathematics 2021, 9, 483. [CrossRef]
28. Stecca, G. Production Planning. In CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016;
pp. 1–4.
29. Sakallı, Ü.S.; Baykoç, Ö.F.; Birgören, B. A possibilistic aggregate production planning model for brass casting industry. Prod. Plan.
Control. 2010, 21, 319–338. [CrossRef]
30. Kiran, D.R. Routing, scheduling, and loading. In Production Planning and Control; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019;
pp. 317–330.
31. Rasmi, S.A.B.; Kazan, C.; Türkay, M. A multi-criteria decision analysis to include environmental, social, and cultural issues in the
sustainable aggregate production plans. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 132, 348–360. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, C.; Liu, X.-B. Integrated production planning and control: A multi-objective optimization model. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2013,
6, 815–830. [CrossRef]
33. Bhosale, K.C.; Pawar, P.J. Production planning and scheduling problem of continuous parallel lines with demand uncertainty and
different production capacities. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2020, 7, 761–774. [CrossRef]
34. Kim, S.-C.; Kim, Y.-W. Workforce Information Database System to Support Production Planning in Construction Projects. J. Civ.
Eng. Manag. 2012, 18, 867–878. [CrossRef]
35. Inoue, M.; Lindow, K.; Stark, R.; Tanaka, K.; Nahm, Y.-E.; Ishikawa, H. Decision-making support for sustainable product creation.
Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012, 26, 782–792. [CrossRef]
36. Lima, F.V.; Li, S.; Mirlekar, G.V.; Sridhar, L.N.; Ruiz-Mercado, G. Modeling and Advanced Control for Sustainable Process Systems.
In Sustainability in the Design, Synthesis and Analysis of Chemical Engineering Processes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016;
pp. 115–139.
37. Brundtland, G.H. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”; United Nations Genral
Assemply Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
38. Ray, A.; De, A.; Mondal, S.; Wang, J. Selection of best buyback strategy for original equipment manufacturer and independent
remanufacturer–Game theoretic approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 59, 5495–5524. [CrossRef]
39. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New Yord, NY, USA, 2015.
40. Ebrahimi, A.; Khakpour, R.; Saghiri, S. Sustainable setup stream mapping (3SM): A systematic approach to lean sustainable
manufacturing. Prod. Plan. Control. 2021, 32, 1–19. [CrossRef]
41. Suzanne, E.; Absi, N.; Borodin, V. Towards circular economy in production planning: Challenges and opportunities. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 2020, 287, 168–190. [CrossRef]
42. Choudhary, A.; De, A.; Ahmed, K.; Shankar, R. An integrated fuzzy intuitionistic sustainability assessment framework for
manufacturing supply chain: A study of UK based firms. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021, 1–44. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 483 18 of 19

43. Kono, J.; Ostermeyer, Y.; Wallbaum, H. Investigation of regional conditions and sustainability indicators for sustainable product
development of building materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1356–1364. [CrossRef]
44. Joung, C.B.; Carrell, J.; Sarkar, P.; Feng, S.C. Categorization of indicators for sustainable manufacturing. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24,
148–157. [CrossRef]
45. Goswami, M.; De, A.; Habibi, M.K.K.; Daultani, Y. Examining freight performance of third-party logistics providers within the
automotive industry in India: An environmental sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 7565–7592. [CrossRef]
46. Goswami, M.; Daultani, Y.; De, A. Decision modeling and analysis in new product development considering supply chain
uncertainties: A multi-functional expert based approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 166, 114016. [CrossRef]
47. Dellnitz, A.; Braschczok, D.; Ostmeyer, J.; Hilbert, M.; Kleine, A. Energy costs vs. carbon dioxide emissions in short-term
production planning. J. Bus. Econ. 2020, 90, 1383–1407. [CrossRef]
48. Satyro, W.C.; Spinola, M.D.M.; de Almeida, C.M.B.; Giannetti, B.F.; Sacomano, J.B.; Contador, J.C. Sustainable industries:
Production planning and control as an ally to implement strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 281, 124781. [CrossRef]
49. Xiao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Jiang, Z.; Gu, Q.; Yan, W. Multiobjective optimization of machining center process route: Tradeoffs between
energy and cost. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 280, 124171. [CrossRef]
50. Cattaruzza, D.; Brotcorne, L.; Semet, F.; Tounsi, B. A three-phase matheuristic for the Packaging and Shipping Problem. Appl.
Math. Model. 2018, 64, 713–732. [CrossRef]
51. Rubaiee, S.S.; Yildirim, M.B. An energy-aware multiobjective ant colony algorithm to minimize total completion time and energy
cost on a single-machine preemptive scheduling. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 127, 240–252. [CrossRef]
52. Liu, Y.; Dong, H.; Lohse, N.; Petrovic, S. A multi-objective genetic algorithm for optimisation of energy consumption and shop
floor production performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 179, 259–272. [CrossRef]
53. Nezami, F.G.; Ghazinezami, A.; Krishnan, K.K. Sustainable development in manufacturing systems. In Measuring Sustainable
Development and Green Investments in Contemporary Economies; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 201–224.
54. Zheng, M.; Li, W.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X. A Lagrangian heuristic algorithm for sustainable supply chain network considering CO2
emission. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122409. [CrossRef]
55. Lee, H. Development of Sustainable Recycling Investment Framework Considering Uncertain Demand and Nonlinear Recycling
Cost. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3891. [CrossRef]
56. Sucic, B.; Al-Mansour, F.; Pusnik, M.; Vuk, T. Context sensitive production planning and energy management approach in energy
intensive industries. Energy 2016, 108, 63–73. [CrossRef]
57. Biel, K.; Glock, C.H. On the use of waste heat in a two-stage production system with controllable production rates. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 2016, 181, 174–190. [CrossRef]
58. Qiao, A.; Choi, S.; Wang, X. Lot size optimisation in two-stage manufacturer-supplier production under carbon management
constraints. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 523–535. [CrossRef]
59. Junior, M.L.; Filho, M.G. Master disassembly scheduling in a remanufacturing system with stochastic routings. Central Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 2015, 25, 123–138. [CrossRef]
60. Farahani, M.; Rahmani, D. Production and distribution planning in petroleum supply chains regarding the impacts of gas
injection and swap. Energy 2017, 141, 991–1003. [CrossRef]
61. Aljuneidi, T.; Bulgak, A.A. Designing a Cellular Manufacturing System featuring remanufacturing, recycling, and disposal
options: A mathematical modeling approach. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2017, 19, 25–35. [CrossRef]
62. Aljuneidi, T.; Bulgak, A.A. A mathematical model for designing reconfigurable cellular hybrid manufacturing-remanufacturing
systems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 87, 1585–1596. [CrossRef]
63. Ben-Awuah, E. Simultaneous Production Scheduling and Waste Management Optimization for an Oil Sands Application. J.
Environ. Informatics 2015. [CrossRef]
64. YYildirim, M.B.; Nezami, F.G. Integrated maintenance and production planning with energy consumption and minimal repair.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 74, 1419–1430. [CrossRef]
65. Tsai, P.-F. A Label Correcting Algorithm for Partial Disassembly Sequences in the Production Planning for End-of-Life Products.
Math. Probl. Eng. 2012, 2012, 1–13. [CrossRef]
66. Lanza, G.; Peters, S.; Herrmann, H.-G. Dynamic optimization of manufacturing systems in automotive industries. CIRP J. Manuf.
Sci. Technol. 2012, 5, 235–240. [CrossRef]
67. Anderluh, A.; Nolz, P.C.; Hemmelmayr, V.C.; Crainic, T.G. Multi-objective optimization of a two-echelon vehicle routing problem
with vehicle synchronization and ‘grey zone’ customers arising in urban logistics. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 289, 940–958. [CrossRef]
68. Fysikopoulos, A.; Pastras, G.; Alexopoulos, T.; Chryssolouris, G. On a generalized approach to manufacturing energy efficiency.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 73, 1437–1452. [CrossRef]
69. Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; Cui, P.; Zhu, Z.; Ma, Y.; Gao, J. Comprehensive 3E analysis and multi-objective optimization
of a novel process for CO2 capture and separation process from syngas. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122871. [CrossRef]
70. Materi, S.; D’Angola, A.; Renna, P. A dynamic decision model for energy-efficient scheduling of manufacturing system with
renewable energy supply. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122028. [CrossRef]
71. Eccher, C.; Geraghty, J. Incorporating sustainable criteria in a dynamic multi-objective recommendation planning tool for a
continuous manufacturing process: A dairy case study. J. Manuf. Syst. 2020, 55, 159–170. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 483 19 of 19

72. Venkata Deepthi, T.; Ramakotaiah, K.; Krishnaveni, K. Research on performance of multi-skilled workers for sustainable
production planning in seru production systems. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2019, 8, 1016–1028. [CrossRef]
73. Borgo, E.D.; Meneghetti, A. Production and shipment planning for Project Based Enterprises: Exploiting learning-forgetting
phenomena for sustainable assembly of Curtain Walls. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 131, 488–501. [CrossRef]
74. Banasik, A.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Claassen, G.D.H. Accounting for uncertainty in eco-efficient agri-food
supply chains: A case study for mushroom production planning. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 216, 249–256. [CrossRef]
75. Iqbal, A.; Al-Ghamdi, K.A. Energy-efficient cellular manufacturing system: Eco-friendly revamping of machine shop configuration.
Energy 2018, 163, 863–872. [CrossRef]
76. Halati, A.; He, Y. Intersection of economic and environmental goals of sustainable development initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,
189, 813–829. [CrossRef]
77. Hahn, G.J.; Brandenburg, M. A sustainable aggregate production planning model for the chemical process industry. Comput.
Oper. Res. 2018, 94, 154–168. [CrossRef]
78. Awad, M.I.; Hassan, N.M. Joint decisions of machining process parameters setting and lot-size determination with environmental
and quality cost consideration. J. Manuf. Syst. 2018, 46, 79–92. [CrossRef]
79. Biel, K.; Glock, C.H. Prerequisites of efficient decentralized waste heat recovery and energy storage in production planning. J.
Bus. Econ. 2016, 87, 41–72. [CrossRef]
80. Medini, K.; Boucher, X. An approach for steering products and services offering variety towards economic and environmental
sustainability. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 15, 65–73. [CrossRef]
81. Bornschlegl, M.; Bregulla, M.; Franke, J. Methods-Energy Measurement–An approach for sustainable energy planning of
manufacturing technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 644–656. [CrossRef]
82. Liu, Y.; Dong, H.; Lohse, N.; Petrovic, S. Reducing environmental impact of production during a Rolling Blackout policy—A multi-
objective schedule optimisation approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 102, 418–427. [CrossRef]
83. Liu, Y.; Dong, H.; Lohse, N.; Petrovic, S.; Gindy, N. An investigation into minimising total energy consumption and total weighted
tardiness in job shops. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 87–96. [CrossRef]
84. Liu, C.; Yang, J.; Lian, J.; Li, W.; Evans, S.; Yin, Y. Sustainable performance oriented operational decision-making of single machine
systems with deterministic product arrival time. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 318–330. [CrossRef]
85. Lin, Q.; Wu, Q.; Huang, G.; Zhai, M. An interval parameter optimization model for sustainable power systems planning under
uncertainty. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 54, 631–641. [CrossRef]
86. Grosse, E.H.; Calzavara, M.; Glock, C.; Sgarbossa, F. Incorporating human factors into decision support models for production
and logistics: Current state of research. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 6900–6905. [CrossRef]
87. Yildirim, M.B.; Mouzon, G. Single-Machine Sustainable Production Planning to Minimize Total Energy Consumption and Total
Completion Time Using a Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2011, 59, 585–597. [CrossRef]
88. Cheraghalikhani, A.; Khoshalhan, F.; Mokhtari, H. Aggregate production planning: A literature review and future research
directions. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 2019, 309–330. [CrossRef]
89. Valente, C.; Møller, H.; Johnsen, F.M.; Saxegård, S.; Brunsdon, E.R.; Alvseike, O.A. Life cycle sustainability assessment of a novel
slaughter concept. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122651. [CrossRef]
90. MMagrassi, F.; Del Borghi, A.; Gallo, M.; Strazza, C.; Robba, M. Optimal Planning of Sustainable Buildings: Integration of Life
Cycle Assessment and Optimization in a Decision Support System (DSS). Energies 2016, 9, 490. [CrossRef]
91. Rossit, D.A.; Tohmé, F.; Frutos, M. Production planning and scheduling in Cyber-Physical Production Systems: A review. Int. J.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2019, 32, 385–395. [CrossRef]
92. Karam, A.; Attia, E.; Duquenne, P. A MILP model for an integrated project scheduling and multi-skilled workforce allocation
with flexible working hours. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 13964–13969. [CrossRef]