Mechanical and plant engineering - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Marcel Scheel
Edited by: –
Last updated: May 16, 2026

Executive summary

Mechanical and plant engineering sits at the center of industrial value creation and therefore has outsized influence on sustainability outcomes. The sector shapes the resource and energy performance of downstream industries through the machines and production systems it designs, while also generating direct impacts through its own operations. As climate targets, circular-economy expectations, and stakeholder scrutiny increase, companies in this sector face both new growth opportunities and rising implementation demands.

Sustainability in this context builds on established frameworks such as the Triple Bottom Line and global policy agendas (for example, the SDGs and climate agreements). For organizations, the practical challenge is to translate these broad goals into measurable performance management. External indicator frameworks (such as sustainability reporting standards and ESG rankings) support transparency and benchmarking, while internal indicator systems help teams steer operational improvements across energy, materials, emissions, safety, and workforce development.

The article highlights several strategy clusters that companies use to improve sustainability performance: increasing energy and material efficiency, enabling circular material flows, and designing products and plants for reuse, repair, and recyclability. It also emphasizes evaluation tools that connect strategy to evidence, especially Life Cycle Assessment for environmental impacts and Life Cycle Costing for long-term economic performance. Together, these methods help organizations identify hotspots, compare design alternatives, and prioritize investments that deliver both sustainability and business value.

Digitalization under Industry 4.0 acts as a cross-cutting enabler by improving data availability, process transparency, and real-time optimization. At the same time, companies must manage barriers such as high upfront investment, skills shortages, complex regulation, and fragmented standards. Successful transformation typically combines strong leadership and culture, targeted capability building, and clear governance with collaboration across value chains and industry initiatives that share best practices.

1 Introduction

“‘Engineers of the future’, will face bigger and more demanding challenges. Whereas, ‘engineers of the past’, mainly focused upon the technical and economic feasibilities of systems design, ‘engineers of the future’, will have the responsibility to address the entire spectrum of sustainability aspects, including the economic, environmental, social and multi-generational dimensions.”(Wan Alwi et al., 2014, p.1).¹ This statement captures the changing role of engineering in an era defined by global sustainability challenges. Technical expertise and economic performance alone are no longer sufficient. Today’s engineers must design systems that meet economic demands while respecting planetary boundaries and social equity. Within this transformation, the mechanical and plant engineering sector plays a pivotal role.

The German mechanical and plant engineering industry is one of the most influential pillars of industrial value creation and a symbol of technological excellence. With over 6,600 companies in 2019, more than one million employees, and an annual turnover of approximately 229 billion EUR¹⁵, the sector contributes around 3.3 percent to Germany’s gross value added, making it comparable in economic relevance to the automotive industry. Characterized by medium-sized enterprises and hidden champions¹⁶, it combines innovation, export strength, and the pursuit of quality under the label Made in Germany. Its products and technologies form the foundation of nearly all manufacturing sectors and therefore have a decisive influence on the environmental performance of global production systems.¹ As the mechanical and plant engineering sector plays a central role in Germany’s industrial landscape, this thesis focuses primarily on the German context.

Sustainability has become one of the defining challenges of the twenty-first century, as no country remains unaffected by the accelerating effects of climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen by more than 50 percent since 1990, and the European Union’s goal to reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050 requires a fundamental rethinking of industrial processes.² Mechanical and plant engineering companies are key actors in this transformation: their innovations enable energy efficiency, circular material use, and low-emission production across diverse industries. Yet the same systems that once maximized productivity and growth must now be redesigned to ensure ecological compatibility and social responsibility.

The growing importance of sustainability presents both opportunities and challenges for the sector. On the one hand, it opens new markets, drives innovation, and enhances competitiveness; on the other, it demands substantial investments, new competencies, and strategic reorientation. Despite its critical relevance, research on sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering remains limited.³ Existing studies often examine isolated technologies or individual case examples but rarely offer an integrated view of the strategies, indicators, drivers, and barriers that shape sustainable transformation across the sector. This thesis addresses this research gap by providing a structured overview of the academic and practical discourse on sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering. Using a systematic literature review, it analyzes how the sector contributes to sustainable development and identifies the key mechanisms that enable or constrain the implementation of sustainable production processes. Therefore, it answers the question combining the importance of sustainability and the huge reliance on the mechanical and plant engineering sector: How does the mechanical and plant engineering sector contribute to sustainable development, and what strategies, indicators, drivers, and barriers shape the implementation of sustainable production processes in this industry?

The structure of this thesis is as follows: Chapter 2 outlines the methodological approach of the study. Chapter 3 presents the theoretical foundations of sustainability and situates the topic within global frameworks such as the Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement. Chapter 4 introduces relevant indicators and measurement systems used to assess sustainability in the sector, while Chapter 5 examines technological and strategic approaches that foster sustainable production. Chapter 6 discusses internal and external drivers and barriers that influence the successful implementation of sustainability initiatives, supported by best practice examples. Finally, Chapter 7 reflects the main findings and gives an answer to the research question.

2 Theoretical background

To approach the theme of sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering, it is first necessary to understand the concept of sustainability itself.

2.1 The definition and historical evolution of sustainability

Although it seems that the awareness of the term sustainability is a phenomenon of the last 50 years, the term was originally introduced in 1713 by the German mining administrator Hans Carl von Carlowitz. He used it in the context of forestry management asking for a balance between logging and reforestation to ensure a long-term, continuous supply of timber as a raw material. At that time, sustainability only meant the responsible use of natural resources and did not yet include broader ecological or social objectives.⁴

During the twentieth century, the concept of sustainability evolved from an idea limited to forestry to a comprehensive paradigm of global development. A major milestone in this transformation was the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987, which redefined sustainability as a guiding principle for the interaction between environment, society, and economy. The centuries between Hans Carl von Carlowitz and the Brundtland Commission were characterized by an enormous economic and industrial growth. The structural changes in connection with the Industrial Revolution brought remarkable achievements such as modern medicine, increased education, rapid technological innovation, and significant scientific progress. These developments helped raise the living standards for a considerable part of the population and contributed to reducing poverty and hunger in large parts of the world. Yet, the same processes that improved human welfare also produced serious negative environmental consequences. As continuous economic growth intensified, pollution levels rose dramatically.⁵

It was only in the second half of the twentieth century when public awareness of these negative externalities began to grow, formulated in the 1972 report The Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. (1972), commissioned by the Club of Rome. This study warned that unrestrained economic expansion would eventually exceed the planet’s ecological and social carrying capacities. The authors postulate a transition toward a sustainable global system to avoid resource depletion and environmental collapse. Although critics contended that continued economic growth and technological progress were essential for overcoming global challenges, the report fundamentally changed the discourse on economic development by introducing the concept of ecological limits.⁶

While it seemed that economic growth and technological innovation on the one hand and sustainability on the other were in opposition to each other, the Brundtland Report added an important dimension to the sustainability debate. It argues that a combination of both would serve as an essential driver for the achievement of sustainable development when the economic growth was guided by ecological responsibility and social equity. While Meadows et al. framed economic expansion primarily as a source of ecological risk, the Brundtland Report offered a more integrative and solution-oriented perspective. Published in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development, the report sought to reconcile the need for continued development with the planet’s environmental boundaries. It argued that sustainable progress could only be achieved if economic, social, and ecological objectives were pursued simultaneously. In this sense, the Brundtland Commission added a normative framework to the earlier debate by positioning sustainability not as a restriction on growth, but as a guideline for how growth should occur. The report defines sustainable development as a: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 41).⁵

2.2 Sustainability and integration with economic growth

For the thesis it is decisive how the understanding of sustainability impacts the economic development. There are various large-scale initiatives and overarching frameworks which play an important role in this context.

2.2.1 Triple bottom line

The definition of the Brundtland Commission makes it clear that sustainability inherently spans two temporal dimensions: on the one hand, the responsibility toward the present generation, and on the other, the obligation to safeguard the needs of future generations. Translating this normative claim into an economic and managerial context, John Elkington introduced the concept of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). His framework expands the traditional, profit-oriented understanding of business success by integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Whereas the conventional bottom line focuses solely on financial performance, the TBL approach emphasizes that genuine and lasting success requires the simultaneous consideration of People, Planet, and Profit. By incorporating these three interdependent pillars, Elkington redefined corporate performance as a balance between profitability, ecological integrity, and social responsibility.⁷

Figure 1: Triangle of sustainable development according to the Brundtland Commission⁵ (source: own illustration)

As shown in figure one this approach acknowledges that long-term economic prosperity is only possible within a stable environment and an equitable society. Consequently, the model redirects attention from short-term profit maximization toward sustainable value creation and the fulfillment of wider societal expectations. In doing so, the TBL provides a conceptual bridge between the ethical imperatives of sustainable development and the operational realities of business management. Over time, it has become a key reference framework for assessing and managing sustainability within the corporate context. Accordingly, this thesis adopts the TBL concept as a guiding principle for evaluating sustainability in the mechanical and plant engineering sector.⁷

2.2.2 Agenda 2030 and Paris Agreement

The importance of aligning industrial activity with global sustainability objectives is also reflected in the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In 2015 the United Nations concluded the Agenda 2030 as a contract for the future formulating 17 development goals (known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)). The core messages overarching these goals are to allow all people to live in dignity, to protect the planet, to promote prosperity for everybody, to foster peace and to build global partnerships. Within this framework, two goals are of special relevance for the economic sector: SDG 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, which promotes sustainable industrialization and technological progress, and SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production, which aims at ensuring efficient resource use and minimizing environmental impacts along global value chains.⁸

Closely linked to the Agenda 2030 is the Paris Agreement. Based on the broad vision of the 17 SDGs, the Paris Agreement focuses on climate action and aims to keep global warming well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to limit the rise to 1.5°C. It is a legally binding international treaty, adopted at 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in December 2015 and effective from November 2016 The Paris Agreement also includes the vision to drive technological development to improve resilience toward the consequences of climate change and the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions.⁹

2.2.3 European Green Deal

The European Green Deal (EGD), adopted by the European Commission in 2019, aims for climate neutrality in Europe by 2050, including intermediate steps along the way. It translates the Agenda 2030 into concrete measures for the EU. In this context, there are several regulatory initiatives and concrete financial and industrial measures to enable a fair and effective green transition. There are various instruments to support the people and regions most affected by the climate change but also measures to enable the production of low-carbon energy as well as greater energy efficiency. In parallel, initiatives like the Green Deal Industrial Plan, the Net-Zero Industry Act, and the Critical Raw Materials Act provide a stable legal and financial framework to scale up manufacturing capacity for low-carbon technologies, strengthen industrial competitiveness, and accelerate the shift toward a circular, resource-efficient economy.¹⁰ The various initiatives provide the background and motivation for analyzing developments in the mechanical and plant engineering sector with regard to sustainability.

2.3 Mechanical and plant engineering

To gain a clearer understanding of the second core element of this thesis it is necessary to define the scope and nature of mechanical and plant engineering. This sector represents one of the most fundamental pillars of industrial value creation, as it encompasses the development, design, and construction of machines, production systems, and large-scale industrial plants that enable the efficient manufacturing of goods across nearly all areas of industry. Companies in this field engage in both the serial production of standardized machinery and the creation of highly specialized, custom-built systems that vary widely in size, complexity, and technological requirements.¹¹ However, providing a single, universally accepted definition of mechanical and plant engineering is not entirely possible, as the field constantly evolves and overlaps with related disciplines such as electrical, process, and industrial engineering.

An interesting aspect related to the sector is that in addition to the immediate economic importance, mechanical engineering plays a crucial role as a: “supplier of productivity” (Dispan, 2012, p. 200)¹¹ for the entire manufacturing sector. Through the development of innovative production equipment, automation systems, and advanced technologies, it enables other industries to increase efficiency, reduce costs, enhance product quality and to be able to transform the production process from an ecological perspective. In this sense, the significance of the mechanical and plant engineering sector goes far beyond numerical indicators or statistical measures. Its impact lies in its ability to drive technological innovation, stimulate industrial progress, and form the foundation for sustainable economic growth.¹¹

2.4 Connection of sustainability and the mechanical and plant engineering sector

To understand the sector’s relevance for sustainability purposes, it is important to consider the three different dimensions as elaborated above, namely the ecological, social and economic perspectives. The economic and social relevance of the sector becomes obvious when looking at the number of employees and overall turnover. At the same time, sustainable engineering extends this perspective by integrating the development and implementation of technologically and economically viable products, processes and systems that promote human welfare while protecting human health and biosphere. This holistic understanding underlines that sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering cannot be reduced to economic performance alone but must be approached through balanced progress across all three dimensions.¹²

In accordance with the VDMA, the mechanical and plant engineering sector remains one of the most important pillars of European industry. In 2024, it is estimated to generate a total turnover of around 867 billion EUR, accounting for approximately 27 percent of global machinery sales. With around 3 million employees across the EU, of which about 1.3 million are based in Germany, the sector is among the largest employer within the capital goods industries. In terms of revenue, it ranks as the third-largest industrial branch after the food and automotive industries. Only the food and feed industry (4.3 million employees) and the manufacture of metal products (3.7 million) employ more people within the manufacturing sector.¹³ In Germany, the machinery sector plays a particularly significant role. In 2024, Germany accounted for approximately 29% of the EU’s total turnover (see Figure 2) and employed around 43% of the EU workforce in this sector (see Figure 3).

Figure 2: Germany’s share of EU machinery sector turnover 2024 (Source: VDMA (2025)¹³; own illustration)

Figure 3: Germany’s share of EU machinery sector employment 2024 (Source: VDMA (2025)¹³; own illustration)

On a global scale, the mechanical and plant engineering sector likewise represents a cornerstone of industrial activity. In 2017, global industrial production accounted for approximately 30 percent (127.8 trillion USD) of total gross domestic products (GDP) of all countries of the world. The largest share of this output originated from manufacturing-oriented industries, which play a central role in transforming natural resources, capital, and technology into products that improve living standards worldwide. Moreover, manufacturing provides employment for around 25 percent of the global labor force, highlighting its importance as a driver of socioeconomic development. It must be acknowledged, however, that mechanical and plant engineering represents only a fraction of total industrial production. Nevertheless, the sector occupies a strategic position within the global value chain, as it provides the technical foundations, equipment, and systems that enable productivity and value creation in the other industrial sectors.¹⁴

As already mentioned, the innovation potential is equally remarkable. Approximately half of all engineers in the mechanical and plant engineering sector work in research, development and design. This high concentration of expertise reflects the capacity of the industry to shape the future of industrial production and set a basis for future growth as well as the underlying responsibility when it comes to the pursuit of ecological goals. Moreover, as digitalization and artificial intelligence continue to transform manufacturing processes, additional qualifications in information technology are becoming an essential complement to traditional engineering skills.¹⁵ This development underlines the sectors social relevance, as mechanical engineering not only implies high levels of qualification but also continuous opportunities for professional advancement while at the same time this causes problems for less qualified people.

Concrete examples as well as regulatory guaranteeing safe working conditions and fair employment practices will be evaluated in this analysis. Furthermore, several studies e.g. Kumar et al. (2005)¹⁷; Bebic et al. (2025)⁴⁵ have examined the design and structure of university curricula in mechanical engineering to integrate sustainability-related competencies into engineering education.

From an ecological perspective it can be already deducted from the Brundtland Report and the Club of Rome that environmental impacts of growing industrial activity in the past centuries harm the environment. In 2017, the industry sector accounted for around 11.6 gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide (GtCO2) emissions per year. This is about 35% of global energy-related emissions.¹⁴ The mechanical and plant engineering sector contributes to these emissions in two interrelated ways. Firstly, through its own processes of design, production, and assembly, which require energy and material resources and thus generate direct environmental impacts. Secondly, through the indirect influence its products exert on the sustainability of downstream industries: the machinery and plants developed in this sector determine how efficiently resources are used, how much energy is consumed, and how much waste or emissions are produced during subsequent manufacturing processes. These two dimensions – direct operational impact and indirect systemic influence – illustrate the sector’s central role in both causing and mitigating environmental effects within the broader industrial ecosystem.

But to be able to evaluate how and to what extent sustainability is implemented within the mechanical and plant engineering sector, it is necessary to identify concrete indicators that allow for a systematic assessment of performance across the three dimensions of sustainability. These indicators serve as measurable criteria to determine whether industrial activities, technologies, and management practices contribute to ecological integrity, social responsibility, and economic viability.

3 Indicators to evaluate on sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering

In order to assess how sustainable industrial activities truly are, companies need measurable criteria that make performance visible and comparable. These criteria are known as indicators. They provide a way to translate the rather abstract concept of sustainability into quantifiable dimensions that can be tracked over time. Indicators allow firms to evaluate their progress toward ecological, social, and economic goals, and to identify areas where improvement is needed. They are used across industries and can be applied to companies of different sizes and structures, which makes them an essential tool for benchmarking sustainability performance. Various international organizations and institutions have developed indicator frameworks, each with its own focus.

The most relevant indicator frameworks helping to assess sustainability of the mechanical and plant engineering sector will be presented in the following section. Before doing so, it is important to distinguish between external and internal sustainability indicators. External indicators are primarily used for reporting and communication purposes. They aim to provide transparency toward stakeholders by disclosing a company’s environmental, social, and economic performance. Internal indicators, by contrast, serve management and control functions within an organization. They help companies to monitor operational efficiency, identify improvement potential, and support decision-making processes related to sustainable production. Generally, this distinction helps to gain analytical clarity, but it is not absolute. In practice, many indicators can fulfill both internal and external purposes, depending on the context and the level of aggregation at which they are applied.

3.1 Frameworks for external information purposes

3.1.1 Global Reporting Initiative

The Global Reporting Initiative⁴⁶ represents one of the most widely recognized frameworks for assessing and communicating corporate sustainability performance. Established to promote transparency and comparability across industries, the GRI Standards provide a structured system of indicators that capture a broad range of sustainability topics. They can be applied to organizations of any size and sector, enabling them to report their economic, environmental, and social impacts in a consistent and comparable way. When reporting according to the GRI Standards, the organization is obliged to notify the GRI once the report is published. The frequency of publication of such reports is normally aligned with the financial reporting.

The GRI Standards operate as a modular system consisting of several interrelated levels. It includes mandatory disclosures regarding the general information about the reporting organization as well as recommended disclosures. Firstly, the Universal Standards form the foundation of the framework and must be applied by all organizations. They define the general reporting principles and establish a consistent structure for sustainability disclosure. In this context, companies identify their material topics, meaning the sustainability issues most relevant to their own activities and stakeholders.¹⁶ Secondly, if available, the Sector Standards provide industry-specific guidance by outlining the issues most likely to be material within a particular sector. They ensure that companies consider sustainability topics that are typical and significant for their industry. Finally, companies select the Topic Standards that correspond to the material topics identified as most important. At this point, it should be emphasized that there is no legal obligation to issue a report according to the GRI standards. If an organization decides to do so, the organization may largely choose which standards they want to include in their report, except for those which are mandatory. The selection is made internally through the materiality assessment process, and although no global authority enforces the choices, the credibility of a report depends on transparency, external assurance, and adherence to the principles defined by the GRI.¹⁶ Although no dedicated sector standard exists for mechanical and plant engineering, the manufacturing and capital goods sectors provide useful reference points, as they address issues such as energy efficiency, emissions, and occupational safety. In addition, companies select the Topic Standards that match their material sustainability issues. For mechanical and plant engineering, these can be linked to the three dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line: GRI 201 and 203 for the economic dimension, GRI 301, 302, and 305 for the environmental dimension, and GRI 403 and 404 for the social dimension.²

3.1.2 Dow Jones Sustainability Index

The Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) represents another major framework for evaluating corporate sustainability performance, serving as an external assessment system that translates sustainability achievements into measurable rankings. Established in 1999 by S&P Global, a leading provider of financial information and sustainability rankings, the DJSI identifies the most sustainable companies within each industry based on a comprehensive set of economic, environmental, and social criteria. In contrast to the GRI, which emphasizes transparency and voluntary disclosure, the DJSI applies a competitive benchmarking approach that evaluates companies relative to their peers. Its assessment is based on the Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), an annual survey conducted among more than 7,000 listed companies worldwide. The CSA combines general and sector-specific indicators, addressing areas such as corporate governance, resource efficiency, climate strategy, and social responsibility. Unlike the GRI, the DJSI primarily targets investors and financial stakeholders who integrate Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance into investment decisions. Only the best-performing ten percent of companies within each sector are included in the index, making it not a reporting instrument but rather a recognition of outstanding performance and leadership in sustainable business practices.¹⁷ ⁴

3.1.3 Corporate Sustainability Assessment

The outcome of the annual Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) is published each year in the Sustainability Yearbook, which highlights the world’s leading companies in corporate sustainability. The selection is based on the S&P Global ESG Score, reflecting each company’s actual performance without the use of modeled data and considering exclusion criteria for controversial business activities. Within each industry, companies are benchmarked against the best-performing peer, and specific distinction levels, such as the top 1%, are awarded to those achieving exceptional results.¹⁸ Beyond these frameworks, numerous other index systems exist to illustrate and measure sustainability performance. Examples include the Ford Product Sustainability Index, the AIChE Sustainability Index, 2005 Environmental Sustainability Indicators and various other sector-specific models. What remains essential is the overall idea of developing standardized, comparable metrics that make sustainability performance measurable and transparent across industries.

These aforementioned indicators represent attempts to standardize the complex and often ambiguous notion of sustainability, enabling companies to communicate their efforts in a transparent and comparable manner. They seek to transform an inherently qualitative and value laden concept into measurable categories that can be shared with stakeholders and the wider community. Yet it must be recognized that any such attempt to define sustainability through indicators inevitably simplifies a reality that is far more intricate. What is measured and reported is always a reflection, a constructed image of sustainability, shaped by the choice of criteria and the context in which they are applied. Indicators can therefore guide understanding and promote accountability, but they cannot claim to express the full essence of what it means for an organization to be sustainable. An ESG score ranging from 0 to 100 may create the impression of precision, yet true sustainability resists absolute quantification; it exists as a continuum of interpretation rather than a fixed numerical truth.

3.2 ISO 14031: Standard for Internal Review of Corporate Sustainability Objectives

In contrast to external frameworks such as the GRI and DJSI, which primarily serve the purpose of disclosure and external assessment, the ISO 14031 standard adds an internal perspective to sustainability evaluation. It provides a methodological foundation that enables companies to systematically monitor, assess, and improve their environmental performance. Developed from early indicator work by the German Environment Ministry and the Federal Environmental Agency and officially adopted by the International Organization for Standardization in 1999, ISO 14031 offers practical guidance on how enterprises can select and apply relevant environmental indicators within their management systems. Although ISO 14031 itself is not a certifiable standard, it is part of the wider ISO 14000 family, and many companies pursue ISO 14001 certification to demonstrate environmental responsibility to external stakeholders. This creates an incentive to align internal evaluation processes with ISO 14031, as it defines how environmental performance should be measured, monitored, and improved in practice. The standard distinguishes between management performance indicators, operational indicators, and environmental condition indicators, following an impact state response model. Through this structure, ISO 14031 establishes both a methodological and communicative framework. It specifies why and how sustainability should be measured internally while supporting consistent and credible external communication. Building upon this foundation, companies translate the ISO framework into practical measurement tools and performance indicators such as ecological and carbon footprints, resource and energy efficiency metrics, or waste and emission data, which will be discussed in the following section.¹⁹ ²⁰

When addressing internal sustainability concepts in the mechanical and plant engineering industry, it is essential to consider the entire supply chain rather than focusing solely on individual production stages. Achieving greater sustainability requires maintaining product quality while simultaneously reducing the consumption of resources and energy for the same processes. This includes minimizing all types of waste during production, optimizing internal and external transport routes, and eliminating inefficiencies that lead to unnecessary material and time losses. Improvements in forecasting and planning methods have already contributed to leaner inventory management and reduced overproduction, which are important steps toward sustainable manufacturing.²¹ However, genuine sustainability cannot be achieved merely through strategic declarations at the corporate level. It demands a detailed analysis of the entire production process and continuous optimization at each operational stage. To meet these requirements, there are several indicators that can be used to trace if a specific adjustment in the supply chain contributes to an actual improvement in sustainability.²² The following section therefore introduces selected approaches and indicators that help assess and enhance environmental efficiency across the supply chain. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a U.S. federal agency within the Department of Commerce that develops standards and measurement frameworks for industry and innovation, provides a comprehensive framework for categorizing sustainability indicators in manufacturing. Its approach groups indicators into five overarching dimensions: environmental stewardship, economic growth, social well-being, technological advancement, and performance management. Together, these dimensions capture the environmental, economic, social, and technological factors that shape sustainable production as well as the managerial systems that ensure regulatory compliance and continuous improvement.

The economic growth dimension, in turn, measures how efficiently financial resources are managed through profit, cost, and investment indicators, demonstrating that long-term competitiveness and sustainability are mutually reinforcing goals. The social well-being dimension adds a human perspective by evaluating the effects of manufacturing on employees, customers, and the surrounding community. Health and safety, fair labor conditions, and professional development are essential here, since social sustainability ultimately supports both product quality and organizational stability.

While these three dimensions capture the core of sustainable performance, the performance management dimension plays a crucial role in ensuring that sustainability initiatives are effectively implemented and continuously evaluated. It provides the mechanisms through which organizations monitor compliance with policies, assess progress toward sustainability targets, and test whether their strategies genuinely produce the intended effects. Finally, the technological advancement dimension is of particular importance for the mechanical and plant engineering sector. As a key supplier of productivity-enhancing technologies to other industries, this sector depends heavily on innovation, research and development, and the integration of high-tech solutions into production systems. At the same time, the advancement of technology is closely tied to the education and qualification of employees, linking back to the social dimension of sustainability. Skilled and well-trained personnel are essential not only for driving innovation but also for ensuring that technological progress translates into real environmental and economic benefits.²³

While the presented strategies, technologies, and management instruments outline the theoretical and methodological foundation for achieving sustainable production, their real effectiveness can only be assessed through practical application. The transition from conceptual understanding to operational success depends on how these approaches are implemented within actual manufacturing environments. To illustrate this connection, the following section examines selected case studies and examples from the mechanical and plant engineering industry. These practical insights demonstrate how sustainability strategies are translated into concrete actions, revealing both the progress achieved and the challenges that persist in practice.

4 Strategies in mechanical and plant engineering to consider sustainability strategies and the TBL

To illustrate the growing relevance of sustainability within the mechanical and plant engineering sector, a recent McKinsey survey among companies from the food and packaging machinery industry provides valuable insights. Although the sample size is relatively small, covering 43 manufacturers, the results indicate that more than 60 percent of respondents in 2022 considered sustainability to be of high or very high importance for their business operations. While the survey does not explicitly define the criteria by which this importance is measured, it nonetheless reflects a clear trend toward increased awareness and strategic attention. This tendency becomes even more pronounced when looking ahead: almost 95 percent of respondents expect sustainability to gain further significance within the next five years.²⁴

However, the extent to which sustainability is prioritized differs across sub-sectors and regions within mechanical and plant engineering. A study by Dr. Marcus Otto from Anxo Management Consulting supports this observation, revealing that compared to industries such as energy, construction, or food processing, mechanical engineering places comparatively less emphasis on sustainability in its strategic agenda. These findings, though based on survey data that cannot provide absolute statements, highlight an important point: sustainability is increasingly perceived as a central future challenge, yet its practical implementation and strategic integration within the sector remain uneven.²⁵

At the same time, the growing attention to sustainability presents both opportunities and risks for the mechanical and plant engineering industry. On the one hand, the transformation toward more sustainable industries opens new business fields and technological prospects. For instance, the rising demand for heat pump systems following recent regulatory changes in Germany demonstrates how environmental policy can stimulate innovation and market expansion. The amendment of the Building Energy Act, which came into force in January 2024, requires that new heating systems operate with at least 65 percent renewable energy sources, thereby accelerating the deployment of heat pump technologies in both new and existing buildings. The mechanical and plant engineering sector benefits from this in the way the rising demand for heat pump systems stimulates the development and production of efficient components, automation technologies, and manufacturing equipment, thereby opening new market segments and strengthening its role as an enabler of the energy transition.²⁶ On the other hand, stricter sustainability requirements also introduce significant risks, as companies must adapt to evolving standards and political uncertainties, such as the ongoing debate within the European Union on whether the production of combustion-engine vehicles might continue beyond 2035 The automotive industry illustrates this tension particularly well. As one of the key customer sectors for mechanical and plant engineering, it is currently experiencing a fundamental transformation toward electromobility. Compared to conventional combustion engines, electric vehicles require considerably fewer components and less manufacturing effort, which may lead to declining demand for certain production technologies traditionally supplied by machine builders. At the same time, new opportunities arise in areas such as battery production, automation, and lightweight construction. This example demonstrates how regulatory and technological change can simultaneously generate innovation potential and structural risk for the mechanical and plant engineering sector. Although the specific implications for the automotive supply chain are not examined in detail in this study, this development represents an important field for future research.²⁷

Measuring the direct economic impact of sustainability on the mechanical and plant engineering sector remains challenging. The complexity of global supply chains and the absence of universally applied sustainability metrics make it difficult to establish clear quantitative relationships between sustainability measures and financial outcomes. Nevertheless, some structural trends reveal the increasing competitive pressure faced by the industry. Between 2007 and 2019, Germany’s global market share in mechanical and plant engineering declined by 4.1 percentage points, from 12.7 to 8.6 percent. According to Bergs et al. (2021), this development can be partly attributed to restrictive trade policies and, more importantly, to capital market perceptions that question the industry’s ability to meet ESG criteria, thereby limiting its access to sustainable investment. While ESG criteria primarily serve to evaluate a company’s performance from an investor and governance perspective by focusing on transparency, risk exposure, and compliance, the Triple Bottom Line represents an internal management concept that seeks to balance environmental, social, and economic objectives as interconnected dimensions of long-term value creation. Meeting the goals of the Triple Bottom Line can therefore support companies in fulfilling ESG requirements, as it provides the internal foundation for achieving the environmental and social outcomes expected by external stakeholders. Understanding this relationship is particularly relevant for the mechanical and plant engineering sector, as it highlights the importance of aligning internal sustainability strategies with external expectations of governance and accountability.²⁸

In this context, sustainability should not only be regarded as an external demand but also as an opportunity for strategic renewal. It encourages the sector to integrate environmental, economic, and social objectives, the three pillars of the Triple Bottom Line, more deeply into corporate strategy and technological innovation. How companies within the mechanical and plant engineering industry respond to these challenges, and how they translate sustainability strategies into practical action, will be illustrated in the following section through selected case studies from industry practice.

4.1 Application of sustainability strategies in the food and packaging machinery industry

To come back to the example of the food and packaging machinery industry, the ecological dimension of the Triple Bottom Line becomes particularly visible through strategies aimed at resource efficiency and circular economy practices. Companies in this sector increasingly focus on reducing material and energy consumption by improving process and production technologies. Examples include the use of integrated processing solutions that allow for the recovery and reuse of process water in dairy production, or innovative brewing systems that utilize residual materials and closed heat recovery cycles to minimize the use of primary energy. Similarly, energy-optimized baking ovens and new mixing and preheating systems in confectionery production contribute to lower CO₂ emissions and a reduction in total energy demand. Such process innovations demonstrate how technological development and ecological responsibility can be closely intertwined in modern manufacturing. At the same time, the strengthening of circular economy principles represents another crucial aspect of ecological sustainability. Manufacturers are increasingly developing machines for processing recycled or bio-based materials, as well as systems that enable flexible switching between film- and paper-based packaging. This technological adaptability facilitates higher recycling rates and reduces the proportion of virgin materials used in packaging production. Moreover, sustainable machine concepts that integrate robotics and intelligent control systems make it possible to handle thinner films and recyclable packaging materials without compromising product safety. These developments illustrate how engineering innovation directly supports the environmental pillar of sustainability while paving the way for resource-neutral production.²⁴

From an economic perspective, these ecological innovations also lead to measurable advantages. Reduced material and energy consumption not only decreases production costs but also enhances long-term competitiveness, as companies are able to respond more effectively to tightening environmental regulations and customer expectations. Furthermore, by investing in recyclable material systems and energy-efficient machinery, manufacturers strengthen their market position in emerging sectors such as sustainable packaging and energy-saving food technologies. In this way, ecological efficiency translates into economic resilience and innovation capacity. It is therefore crucial to design sustainability strategies in a way that ecological improvements also generate clear economic value, as this alignment of environmental and financial performance creates the strongest incentive for companies to pursue ambitious sustainability goals consistently over time.²⁹ Finally, the social dimension of the Triple Bottom Line must not be overlooked. Implementing circular economy models requires a shift in mindset and skill development across all organizational levels. Employees and engineers need to be trained in new material technologies, recycling processes, and energy management systems to enable these transitions. Raising awareness among staff and stakeholders about the broader societal and environmental implications of production is therefore essential. Only through this cultural and educational engagement can the potential of circular systems be fully realized since effective recycling and sustainable resource management depend as much on human behavior and collaboration as on technological progress.²⁴

4.2 Application of sustainability strategies in the glass and ceramic sector at the example of SCHOTT AG and JOEST Group

Similar to the food and packaging machinery industry, the glass and ceramics sector demonstrates how sustainability strategies can be operationalized across the three dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line. However, due to its exceptionally high energy demand, this industry faces distinct technological and ecological challenges that make the path toward decarbonization particularly complex. Within this context, SCHOTT AG serves as a best-practice example, illustrating how a company can pursue a holistic sustainability transformation by integrating environmental, social, and governance dimensions into a coherent management system. Rather than addressing single aspects in isolation, SCHOTT’s approach reflects the ESG framework discussed earlier, which enables the structured pursuit of multiple sustainability goals across the organization.

From an ecological perspective, the company’s strategy aligns strongly with SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Central measures include the gradual substitution of fossil fuels with renewable electricity and green hydrogen, both aimed at achieving climate-neutral production. Moreover, waste heat recovery systems are used to capture excess heat from high-temperature furnace processes, significantly reducing overall energy consumption and emissions. A key environmental advantage of the industry lies in the fact that glass is 100% recyclable without any loss of quality, offering a unique potential for closed-loop production. By developing circular business models and improving collection and purification systems, the sector actively contributes to the avoidance of hazardous waste and to the establishment of circular value chains, an aspect that will be further elaborated in the next section on Circular Economy.

The social dimension of SCHOTT’s sustainability management also demonstrates the practical implementation of the Triple Bottom Line. In accordance with SDG 2 (Good Health and Wellbeing), the company emphasizes safe and healthy working conditions, reducing employee exposure to harmful substances through cleaner production technologies. At the same time, it promotes SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by integrating diversity and equal opportunity principles into its corporate culture, supporting inclusive innovation and fair participation in technical and managerial roles.³⁰

From a governance standpoint, SCHOTT’s integrated ESG framework ensures that these environmental and social efforts are consistently monitored, aligned, and communicated. It enables the coordination of complex sustainability targets across departments and provides a transparent structure for progress evaluation. However, the availability of data remains limited, as much of the sustainability performance relies on internal assessments, interviews, and selected public disclosures. Nevertheless, the company’s recognition as the 2024 German Sustainability Award winner underlines its role as a pioneer in sustainable industrial transformation.³⁰ ³¹

Last but not least, the glass and ceramics industry exemplifies how the ecological pillar of the Triple Bottom Line can evolve into a fully circular production model. By minimizing virgin material use, reducing waste, and closing resource loops, this sector demonstrates the practical potential of circular value creation an approach that represents the next step in achieving systemic sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering.

Beyond the strategic commitment to sustainability, the measurable contribution of the glass and ceramics industry can be demonstrated through the increasing efficiency of recycling processes. In recent years, automated machinery has revolutionized glass recycling by enhancing process reliability, reducing material losses, and enabling continuous operation. Tailored technological solutions, such as those developed by the German machine engineer JOEST, allow for the seamless integration of sorting and processing units into existing production systems. Their vibrating screens, feeders, and complete system solutions ensure efficient separation of cullet, removal of impurities, and consistent material flow throughout the recycling process. By enabling high throughput and product purity, JOEST’s technologies make it possible to reintroduce recycled glass into production at industrial scale and with minimal resource loss. This development highlights the crucial role of the mechanical and plant engineering sector in providing the technological infrastructure that enables sustainability in energy-intensive industries.³²

From a quantitative perspective, the impact of these innovations becomes clear when considering data from the German glass and mineral fiber industry. Around 7.5 million tons of glass are produced annually at approximately ninety melting sites, with furnace temperatures reaching between 900 and 1600 °C. These high energy demands make recycling a decisive lever for emission reduction. The use of recycled glass, known as cullet, not only conserves raw materials but also substantially decreases energy consumption and process-related CO₂ emissions. Studies show that for every one percent increase in cullet use, energy demand is reduced by about 0.2 to 0.3 percent. With an average recycling share of around 50 percent in container glass production, this translates into approximately 10 percent less energy consumption, while in green glass production the proportion of cullet can exceed 70 percent, leading to even higher savings.³³

Such figures illustrate the enormous environmental leverage of technological innovation in mechanical and plant engineering. Through automation, process integration, and digital control systems, machine manufacturers are not merely suppliers but active drivers of sustainable transformation. Their innovations make it possible to close material loops, lower emissions, and extend the lifespan of equipment, all of which contribute directly to the ecological and economic dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line. However, to assess the overall effectiveness of these developments systematically, the environmental impact must be quantified along the entire production chain. This need for measurable evaluation leads to the concept of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which provides the analytical foundation for understanding and optimizing sustainability performance in mechanical and plant engineering.

4.3 Tools to measure the effects of sustainability strategies

The examples discussed so far have shown how sustainability strategies can be implemented within different branches of mechanical and plant engineering. Yet, to understand whether these strategies truly achieve their intended effect, they must be evaluated through a systematic and measurable approach.

4.3.1 Life cycle assessments

This is where the concept of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) becomes essential. LCA provides a holistic approach to analyze the environmental consequences of a product, a process, or even an entire production system throughout its life span, from the resource extraction to the recycling of the final product. The idea is that every stage, from the extraction of raw materials and the production process to the use, reuse, and disposal of a product, contributes to its overall environmental footprint. By making these contributions visible and quantifiable, companies can identify where their greatest impacts occur and where improvements are most effective.³⁴ LCA allows companies to understand how their environmental initiatives perform in practice and to integrate this knowledge into decision making. This connection between conceptual strategy and quantifiable analysis is particularly relevant for an industry where complex supply chains and long product life cycles make sustainability effects difficult to trace.

Beyond its analytical function, LCA also has strategic value. It supports product and process development by identifying environmental hotspots and revealing where resource efficiency or waste reduction can be improved. In this sense, it is not only an environmental assessment tool but also a driver for innovation and competitiveness. The method encourages companies to evaluate materials, technologies, and production systems based on their long-term ecological impact, which often leads to improved cost structures and higher resilience. Furthermore, because LCA requires cooperation along the entire value chain, it strengthens relationships with suppliers and customers and promotes transparency. This aligns with the social and economic dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line, as it encourages responsible sourcing, fair collaboration, and open communication in change management processes.³⁵

In practical terms, conducting an LCA involves collecting and evaluating data on material inputs, energy consumption, emissions, and waste outputs. The results are then translated into categories such as resource depletion, climate change potential, or pollution. What makes this process challenging in mechanical and plant engineering is the complexity of production systems and the difficulty of obtaining accurate data across all stages of the life cycle. Nevertheless, this difficulty also highlights the growing importance of digitalization and knowledge management. The more detailed and reliable the available data is, the more precise and meaningful the environmental evaluation becomes.³⁶

4.3.2 Life cycle costing

While LCA provides insights into the environmental impacts of technologies and processes, Life Cycle Costing (LCC) complements this approach by quantifying their economic implications throughout the entire product life cycle. In mechanical and plant engineering, this perspective is particularly relevant, as machines and systems are operated, modernized, and often reused over several decades. The aim of LCC is to capture all costs that arise from acquisition to disposal, thereby enabling a comprehensive assessment of economic efficiency and long-term sustainability.³⁷

Unlike traditional investment calculations, which focus mainly on purchase costs, LCC considers the complete cost structure associated with a machine or plant. This includes investment and installation costs, energy and operating expenses, maintenance and downtime costs, as well as environmental and disposal costs. In specific industries such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, or food processing, additional categories, such as cleaning and quality costs, are also integrated. Through this holistic cost accounting, LCC helps identify cost drivers early in the planning stage and supports the selection of the most efficient design variant. In this sense, it serves as a controlling instrument that links ecological and economic decision-making, making sustainability not only measurable but also financially tangible.³⁸ A more applied approach to LCC is represented by Lifecycle Cost Evaluation (LCE). This tool allows engineers to compare different design or technology alternatives based on key economic indicators such as net present value and annuity. By including parameters like acquisition, energy, operation, and maintenance costs, the LCE model identifies which option is both more energy-efficient and more cost-effective. As a versatile and data-driven instrument, it can be applied across various industrial and infrastructure contexts, helping companies to make transparent, quantitative decisions regarding energy use and resource efficiency. Essentially, LCE operationalizes the LCC concept and translates it into a practical decision-support system for engineers and project planners.³⁷

The financial relevance of these methods becomes evident when looking at data from energy-intensive industries. A study by Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, for example, estimated that in the basic chemicals sector, investments of around 10 billion EUR could yield cumulative energy cost savings of up to 42 billion EUR by 2050 These savings result mainly from the use of more efficient machinery and advanced process technologies such as modern measurement, control, and automation systems. Similar potentials are expected in other energy-intensive sectors such as paper, metal, and mineral processing, underlining the enabling role of mechanical and plant engineering in driving cost efficiency and resource conservation simultaneously.

Taken together, Life Cycle Costing and Life Cycle Assessment form a comprehensive analytical framework that links environmental and economic sustainability. Both approaches demonstrate that sustainability can be systematically planned, measured, and optimized provided that reliable and detailed data are available. As the complexity of industrial processes continues to increase, the acquisition, analysis, and management of such data become critical success factors. This is precisely where the concept of Industry 4.0 gains importance, as digital technologies enable real-time data collection, process monitoring, and life-cycle documentation. The following section will therefore examine how the digital transformation of industry supports the implementation of life-cycle-based sustainability assessments and enhances the precision and responsiveness of corporate sustainability management.³⁹

4.4 Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 represents the fourth industrial revolution, following the eras of mechanization, mass production, and digital automation (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Industrial revolutions – industry 4.0 (Source: own illustration)

It is driven by the integration of cyber-physical systems, the Internet of Things, cloud computing, robotics, and data analytics into industrial environments. In contrast to previous technological revolutions, the key characteristic of Industry 4.0 lies in the interconnection and intelligence of machines, processes, and products. Through real-time data exchange, self-optimizing systems, and digital interfaces between humans and machines, production becomes more flexible, efficient, and adaptive. These developments mark a shift from traditional automation to smart factories, where information flows seamlessly across all levels of production and supply chains. As a result, companies can react more quickly to changing demands, reduce process errors, and achieve higher levels of efficiency and transparency. From a sustainability perspective, Industry 4.0 can be understood as both a technological and strategic enabler of sustainable production. By providing the digital infrastructure necessary for continuous monitoring and data-driven decision-making, it allows environmental, social, and economic goals to be pursued more systematically. The connection to the previously discussed LCA is particularly evident: while LCA provides the methodological framework for quantifying environmental impacts, Industry 4.0 supplies the data and analytical capabilities required to conduct these assessments in real time. Smart sensors and interconnected systems capture detailed information on material flows, energy use, and emissions across all stages of the value chain. These data can then be integrated into digital life-cycle models, enabling dynamic LCAs that are more precise, transparent, and actionable than traditional, static evaluations. In this way, Industry 4.0 transforms LCA from a retrospective analytical tool into a proactive management instrument that supports continuous improvement.³⁹ ⁴⁰

In the environmental dimension of the Triple Bottom Line, Industry 4.0 offers a wide range of benefits. Technologies such as simulation, 3D printing, and process virtualization enable companies to reduce waste, optimize energy consumption, and design products with lower environmental footprints. Intelligent data systems can identify inefficiencies, monitor emissions in real time, and adjust production parameters automatically to minimize resource use. Furthermore, digital connectivity supports circular value creation by tracing material streams and facilitating reuse, repair, and recycling. As research has shown, the integration of intelligent manufacturing systems can substantially reduce the global environmental impact when paired with renewable energy use and responsible data management. However, the digital transformation itself also consumes significant energy, highlighting the need to balance technological progress with environmental responsibility.

The economic dimension is shaped by the strong efficiency and innovation potential of Industry 4.0. Smart production systems improve process reliability and reduce costs through predictive maintenance and data-based optimization. Moreover, the digitalization of industrial processes fosters new business models that combine economic performance with sustainability. For example, data platforms enable inter-company collaborations for the exchange of by-products or the joint utilization of equipment, creating shared value within industrial ecosystems. Nevertheless, the transition to Industry 4.0 also entails challenges. High investment costs, uncertain returns, and technological dependencies represent significant barriers, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). This underlines the importance of integrating Industry 4.0 not merely as a technical upgrade but as a strategic component of long-term sustainability management.⁴¹

From a social perspective, Industry 4.0 has more ambiguous implications. On the one hand, automation can lead to job displacement in low-skilled areas; on the other, it creates new roles requiring analytical, creative, and digital competencies. The transformation of industrial work therefore demands targeted education, training, and reskilling initiatives to ensure that employees can adapt to changing requirements. In line with the social pillar of sustainability, inclusive digitalization must prioritize human well-being, safe working environments, and equal access to technological opportunities. Furthermore, by increasing transparency and traceability within global value chains, Industry 4.0 can also enhance social accountability and stakeholder trust.³⁴ ³⁹

Overall, Industry 4.0 serves as a bridge between technological innovation and sustainable management. It strengthens the analytical depth of environmental assessments like LCA, enhances economic competitiveness through data-driven efficiency, and shapes the social transformation of industrial labor. Yet, to fully realize its sustainability potential, companies must integrate digital transformation into their broader ESG strategies and ensure that technological progress aligns with ethical and ecological principles. When implemented responsibly, Industry 4.0 not only optimizes production systems but also enables the transition toward circular and regenerative industrial models, where digital intelligence and environmental responsibility work hand in hand.³⁹

To make the impact of these technological developments more tangible, quantitative estimates highlight the significant scale of efficiency gains that can be achieved through Industry 4.0. Conservative projections suggest that global spending on industrial digitalization will reach around 500 billion USD per year, while the total value created by the Internet of Things may contribute up to 15 trillion USD to global GDP by 2030 In operational terms, manufacturers adopting advanced automation and flexible production systems report productivity increases of up to 30 percent. Predictive maintenance illustrates this potential particularly well: by continuously monitoring machine conditions, it can generate savings of 12 percent compared to scheduled maintenance, reduce maintenance costs by up to 30 percent, and prevent as much as 70 percent of unexpected breakdowns. These data underline how the digital transformation translates measurable efficiency directly into improved sustainability performance by extending machine life and reducing material and energy waste.⁴²

However, these improvements also come with rising complexity. Machines and production systems become increasingly interconnected and intelligent, which requires higher investments in software, research, and system integration. The design and maintenance of such systems demand a broader range of technical and analytical skills, as well as new approaches to interdisciplinary collaboration. As a result, the structure of the mechanical and plant engineering sector is changing. Traditional manufacturers are evolving into engineering-oriented service providers who not only deliver components but also develop, configure, and optimize entire systems. Companies such as Lenze SE illustrate this transformation by offering integrated engineering solutions that cover the entire lifecycle of a machine, from design to operation and performance optimization. This vertical integration expands the value chain of machine builders and increases their responsibility for the efficiency and sustainability of the systems they supply. Furthermore, the growing technological complexity requires highly skilled engineers capable of working with intelligent machines, prompting universities and training institutions to adapt their curricula accordingly. This development will be discussed in greater detail in the section on drivers and barriers.⁴⁰ ⁴³

One solution tackling the rising cost of intelligent machinery and the need for continuous digital support have prompted are new business models aimed at improving utilization and maintaining profitability. A promising approach is the introduction of subscription-based service models, in which customers pay for the use or performance of a machine instead of owning it. This model ensures a more stable revenue flow for manufacturers, encourages higher machine utilization, and aligns the interests of both producers and users toward continuous efficiency improvements. By leveraging the data generated through the Internet of Production, manufacturers can tailor these services precisely to customer needs, thereby increasing productivity and reducing resource consumption. On the other hand, customers could face higher long-term costs or contractual dependencies, depending on the structure of the agreement, but this should be evaluated individually as it depends highly on the circumstances of a company. In this sense, Industry 4.0 not only enables the measurement of efficiency but also fundamentally redefines how industrial value is created, shared, and sustained, laying the groundwork for the transition toward circular and service-oriented production systems.⁴³ ²⁹

5 Drivers and barriers for sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering

Whether sustainability will ultimately become a lasting and integral part of the mechanical and plant engineering sector depends largely on the interplay of various drivers and barriers that shape its practical implementation. These influencing factors can be broadly categorized into internal and external dimensions. Internal drivers and barriers arise within the company itself and are determined by its strategic orientation, cost structures, resource availability, and organizational culture. External factors, in contrast, emerge from the company’s wider environment, including regulatory frameworks, market dynamics, stakeholder expectations, and societal pressures, which together define the conditions under which sustainable transformation can succeed. The following section is therefore structured as follows: first, the internal drivers and barriers will be examined, followed by the external factors. Finally, a comparative table will be presented to illustrate best practice examples for each subcategory.⁴⁴

5.1 Internal factors influencing the success of sustainability

The internal conditions under which sustainability initiatives are implemented play a decisive role in determining their success. Even though ecological and social ambitions are gaining strategic relevance, companies in mechanical and plant engineering ultimately operate within a competitive and profit-oriented environment: “At the end of the day, it is about earning money” (Bebic et al., 2025, p. 2159).⁴⁵ This statement reflects the underlying tension between economic necessity and sustainability ambition, which forms the starting point for analyzing internal drivers such as cost efficiency.

5.1.1 Cost efficiency

First, it is important to recognize that every sustainability initiative has an impact on a company’s profit and loss statement, whether positive or negative. The financial outcome depends on the nature of the initiative, the timing of its implementation, and the quality of its execution. A particularly interesting aspect is the dual role that cost efficiency plays in this context. On the one hand, the introduction of ESG measures often requires considerable investments in technology, process adaptation, or reporting structures. These upfront costs can initially put pressure on profitability and therefore act as a barrier, especially for SMEs with limited financial flexibility. On the other hand, sustainability can also become a powerful economic driver when it leads to long-term efficiency gains, reduced resource consumption, improved risk management, and new market opportunities. From this perspective, profitability and sustainability are not contradictory goals but can reinforce each other when pursued in a strategic and well-integrated manner.¹⁴ A suitable example can be found in the glass industry, where recycling leads to significant cost and energy savings by reducing the demand for virgin materials and lowering melting temperatures. Similar effects can be achieved in machine manufacturing when production processes are continuously optimized to minimize waste, reuse residual materials, or extend the lifespan of components through predictive maintenance.

Empirical research supports this observation, even though the results vary between industries and regions. In their comprehensive review of 132 studies Shade and Sutherland (2018) found that 78 percent of the reviewed studies identified a positive correlation between corporate sustainability initiatives and financial performance. The authors attribute this connection primarily to improvements in resource efficiency, innovation, and the development of new technologies that respond to changing market demands.⁴⁶ In mechanical and plant engineering, for example, the increasing demand for machines designed for higher recycling rates or lower energy consumption, as observed in the glass industry, illustrates how ecological innovation can also strengthen economic performance. However, many of these positive effects are not immediately visible. They often emerge gradually through indirect mechanisms such as higher employee motivation, greater process stability, and an improved corporate reputation. Particularly strong evidence exists for the governance dimension of ESG, where transparent management structures and credible sustainability reporting have been shown to increase investor confidence and improve financial access. Companies that received an ESG rating experienced an average reduction of 1.2 percent in their cost of capital. These findings underline that strong governance and a long-term sustainability orientation can result in measurable financial advantages and strengthen the overall competitiveness of firms in the sector.⁴⁵

However, the relationship between sustainability and financial performance remains context dependent. Factors such as sectoral characteristics, regional conditions, and corporate strategy influence whether and to what extent sustainability creates economic value. In capital-intensive industries like mechanical and plant engineering, the payback period for sustainability investments is often longer, which can deter companies from acting. For this reason, government incentives, targeted subsidies, and ESG-related funding programs play an essential role in lowering initial barriers and improving the financial attractiveness of sustainable practices. When viewed through this lens, cost efficiency evolves from a narrow accounting concept into a central internal driver that enables long-term competitiveness and sustainable transformation.⁴⁷

5.1.2 Intrinsic motivation

Another important internal factor influencing the implementation of sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering is intrinsic motivation. Many companies in the sector are family-owned and managed across generations. Their business philosophy is therefore often guided less by short-term profit expectations, as typically seen in publicly listed firms, and more by long-term stability, continuity, and responsibility toward employees and the local community. Several studies confirm that family-led businesses tend to approach environmental and social aspects with stronger intrinsic motivation This attitude often stems from the founders’ personal values and the desire to preserve the company for future generations rather than from external regulatory pressure.⁴⁸

In practice, this intrinsic commitment frequently translates into early and proactive sustainability actions, particularly in the social dimension, such as employee welfare, local engagement, or vocational training. These initiatives not only reflect genuine responsibility but can also enhance brand loyalty and corporate reputation. To sustain and amplify this motivation, policymakers and industry associations could play an enabling role by offering clear, practical guidelines and creating platforms for exchange among firms. Many companies already engage in such networks, which allow competitors to discuss ESG developments openly while maintaining mutual trust. This collaborative spirit demonstrates that intrinsic motivation, when supported by clear frameworks and shared learning, can become a powerful driver of sustainable transformation in the sector.⁴⁵

5.1.3 Management structure of a company

The structure and mindset of management play a decisive role in determining whether sustainability becomes an integral part of a company’s operations or remains a symbolic aspiration. In mechanical and plant engineering, where processes are traditionally characterized by long product cycles and a high degree of technical specialization, organizational flexibility often develops more slowly than in other industries. The willingness of management to embrace change, promote openness, and foster cross-departmental collaboration therefore becomes a key internal driver for sustainable transformation.⁴²

As Teece (2012) points out, companies must link external drivers such as openness to internal cultural factors that encourage entrepreneurship and organizational adaptability. In the context of Industry 4.0, this requires a corporate culture that values flexibility, experimentation, and the acceptance of occasional failure as part of innovation. Bureaucratic hierarchies, rigid procedures, and silo thinking, by contrast, act as substantial barriers. They slow down decision-making, hinder interdisciplinary cooperation, and limit the organization’s capacity to adapt to sustainability-related challenges.⁴⁹

Zahra et al. (2006) emphasize that transformation processes can only succeed if they are actively supported by top management. Shared incentives, open communication, and resource allocation across departments are essential to initiate cultural change and to establish an innovative, forward-looking mindset throughout the organization. Tools such as agile project management, design thinking, and open innovation platforms can further support this process by promoting collaboration and accelerating the translation of new ideas into practical solutions.⁵⁰

In sum, the effectiveness of management structures depends on their ability to balance stability with adaptability. Companies that manage to combine strategic control with a culture of innovation are better positioned to integrate sustainability into their core business and to respond proactively to the technological and societal transformations shaping the industry.

5.1.4 Human resources

Human resources represent one of the most decisive internal factors for the successful implementation of sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering. The sector, especially in Germany, relies heavily on highly qualified employees, whose technical expertise forms the backbone of industrial competitiveness. From a social standpoint, employee motivation, continuous training, and workplace well-being are central elements that link sustainability directly to organizational performance. A strong identification of employees with a company that acts responsibly can foster both innovation and productivity, while targeted investments in training and occupational safety strengthen loyalty and long-term retention.¹⁵

However, the ongoing digital transformation under the framework of Industry 4.0 fundamentally changes the skill requirements in the sector. As Kraft et al. (2021) point out, digital production systems demand higher levels of abstraction, analytical thinking, and problem-solving abilities from all employees. New job profiles emerge that combine mechanical engineering expertise with software development, data analytics, and systems integration. Yet, many traditional manufacturing firms lack this interdisciplinary mix, creating a structural skills gap that can slow down the transition toward sustainable and digital production. In this sense, the availability of qualified personnel acts as both a driver and a barrier. Companies that successfully adapt their training systems and invest in lifelong learning gain a competitive advantage, while those that fail to do so risk falling behind.⁴²

The cultural and motivational dimension of human resources is equally important. Research shows that younger generations, particularly Generation Z, increasingly prefer to work for companies that demonstrate social and environmental responsibility. This trend turns sustainability into a factor of employer attractiveness and thus into a strategic driver for talent acquisition and retention. At the same time, the fear of job loss caused by automation and digitalization can create internal resistance, especially among employees with long tenure. Managers therefore play a key role in shaping a shared understanding of technological change and in communicating its long-term benefits for both the company and its workforce.²⁵

Finally, continuous education and awareness-building are essential to enable sustainable transformation across all organizational levels. Training programs that integrate environmental and social aspects into technical curricula can help employees understand how their daily work contributes to broader sustainability goals. In this regard, the Herzberg two-factor theory provides a useful perspective: while extrinsic factors such as job security and fair working conditions prevent dissatisfaction, intrinsic factors like purpose, recognition, and personal growth drive genuine engagement in sustainability. Companies that align these motivational elements within their human resource strategies not only enhance their social performance but also strengthen innovation, efficiency, and resilience, the very foundations of sustainable success in mechanical and plant engineering.⁵¹ Additionally, employee training is of great importance. According to ASME’s Third Annual Survey, sustainability is part of the core curriculum for 27% of students and offered as an elective for another 61%. Furthermore, 57% report that their institutions provide extracurricular projects and competitions related to sustainability, while 39% note that availability of special assignments on sustainable engineering.⁵² Additionally, employee development, education and foundation-funded training programs, such as those implemented by Weiler Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH (see Table 1), can also contribute effectively.

In summary, internal drivers of sustainability in mechanical and plant engineering emerge primarily when ecological or social improvements align with economic advantages. Barriers, by contrast, tend to appear where sustainability requires substantial upfront investments or challenges existing production paradigms. The balance between these internal forces largely determines how effectively companies can embed sustainability into their strategic and operational practices. However, whether these internal efforts ultimately result in more environmentally sustainable production also depends on the surrounding external conditions: “As industry aims to continuously reduce environmental impacts of its activities, innovative, low material, and energy-intensive solutions must be sought to meet increasing societal needs.” (Sutherland et al., 2020, p.11)¹⁴

5.2 External factors

Sustainable transformation in mechanical and plant engineering is not determined by internal capacities alone. The extent to which ecological and social progress can be achieved also depends on a complex network of external influences that shape the strategic and operational decisions of companies. These external factors include changing societal expectations, evolving political frameworks, competitive market dynamics, and institutional mechanisms such as sustainability ratings and reporting standards.

5.2.1 Societal demand and consumer expectations

Across industries, public awareness of environmental challenges and resource consumption has risen considerably in recent years. Searches for sustainable goods have increased globally by 71 percent since 2016⁵³, indicating a clear shift in consumer behavior. This societal demand exerts growing pressure on manufacturing companies to deliver products and production systems that are environmentally sound, energy-efficient, and socially responsible. Mechanical and plant engineering, as a supplier of technologies to almost all industrial sectors, plays a crucial role in enabling this transition. Companies that capable of designing machinery with reduced energy consumption, longer product lifetimes, and improved recyclability are increasingly favored by customers whose own sustainability commitments depend on the performance of their suppliers. Hence, societal expectations act as an external driver for innovation and as a benchmark against which the industry’s ecological progress is evaluated. “This is the case since much of the actual system is driven by human behavior.” (Sutherland et al., 2020, p.11)¹⁴ Thus there is the need to increase the attention on human behavior regarding sustainability.

5.2.2 Political and regulatory frameworks

Public policy serves as a major external enabler of sustainability.¹⁴ At the European level, the European Green Deal sets the overarching objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050⁵⁴, translating it into concrete measures for improving energy and resource efficiency. Instruments such as the EU Energy Efficiency Directive (EED)⁵⁵ and the German Circular Economy Act (KrWG)⁵⁶ require companies to systematically analyze and optimize their energy and material flows. These frameworks encourage mechanical engineers to develop modular designs, use recycled materials, and facilitate the disassembly and reuse of components. The upcoming Digital Product Passport (DPP) starting expectedly in 2027 will further strengthen transparency by providing accessible data on the composition, origin, and recyclability of products. Together, these measures create a clear political incentive structure for companies to align their production systems with the principles of circular economy and climate neutrality.⁵³ However, several studies and industry surveys indicate that regulatory action remains essential to ensure the consistent adoption of sustainable practices. Respondents argue that waste, suboptimal energy use, carbon emissions and decommissioning issues represent costs currently borne by society and that government regulation is necessary to ensure these costs are carried by producers.⁵² Despite the broad set of supportive frameworks, external factors also generate new challenges. The legal and regulatory landscape is becoming increasingly complex, and frequent adjustments to policy instruments often reduce long-term planning security. There is a global standardization gap: There are regional standards such as CSRD in the European Union (EU) while these do not apply for companies producing beyond the borders of the EU. This does prevent global initiatives of small and medium sized businesses.⁴⁵

5.2.3 Market dynamics and global competition

External pressures also emerge from global market transformations. The ongoing phase-out of the combustion engine in the automotive industry, for example, forces suppliers to adapt their machinery and production technologies to new materials and processes for electric mobility. At the same time, competition from emerging economies, particularly China, has intensified. Once known mainly for imitation, Chinese manufacturers have evolved into technologically advanced competitors, supported by strong domestic protectionism and state-driven industrial strategies. For European mechanical engineering firms, this development creates both challenges and opportunities: while increased competition drives efficiency and innovation, it also reduces price margins and planning security. Moreover, rapid technological change, such as the integration of software, artificial intelligence, and cloud-based systems, raises the complexity of production and increases the dependence on highly qualified specialists. This shortage of skilled labor, particularly in data science and automation, further reinforces external barriers to sustainability-oriented innovation.¹

5.2.4 Reputation, finance, and rating mechanisms

Another set of external drivers arises from the growing importance of sustainability assessment systems. Frameworks, which are presented in chapter 2, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), ISO standards, and corporate ratings by agencies such as EcoVadis or S&P Global have become influential benchmarks for investors, customers, and employees alike.⁴⁵ Positive ESG ratings not only enhance a company’s reputation but also improve access to capital and reduce financing costs. Especially for listed firms, a strong ESG profile has become a prerequisite for remaining competitive in international markets. However, the proliferation of different rating systems and the lack of global standardization create uncertainty and administrative complexity, posing a barrier particularly for SMEs.⁴⁵ Therefore the blue competence sustainability initiative from the VDMA sheds light on sustainable solutions for the public and understands “forward-looking sustainability based on the principles of economic success, fairness, respect & responsibility and encompasses the dimensions of society, ecology and economy.”(VDMA, 2024, p.1).⁵⁷ The VDMA represents over 90% of the total revenue generated by the labor-intensive industry, consequently, the association plays a key role in strengthening the industry’s competitiveness and global standing.¹⁷ Just like the VDMA, the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) can also encourage and develop technical practices that the industry can leverage to meet regulatory requirements while simultaneously enhancing the sustainability of assets.⁵² In the following table you can see examples of best practice solutions resulting from the Blue Competence initiative.⁵⁴

Table 1: Best-practice-examples for the implementation of drivers

Implementation of a driver in accordance with a guiding principle of the Blue Competence Initiative

Best-practice-examples

Human resources as an internal factor – employee development as a guiding principle

WEILER Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH (family-owned company)

• Sustainability defined as thinking in generations

• Focus on employee development, education and job security

• Foundation-funded training for both employees and local students

• Within six years, CO2 emissions have been reduced by approximately one third by using photovoltaic and biogas.

• E-TIM energy saving system lowers stand-by energy demand of large cycle lathes up to 85 %.

Resource efficiency and climate protection as a guiding principle

ILT Industrie-Luftfiltertechnik GmbH

• Modernization of air filtration systems using patented electrostatic filter technology

• Increase in filtration efficiency by up to 25 percent

• Annual saving of approximately 1,500 liters of cooling lubricant

• Reduction of maintenance costs through improved energy and material efficiency

Carl Benzinger GmbH (family-owned company)

• Collaborative decision-making and employee participation in goal setting and strategy development

• Sustainability as part of corporate strategy, institutionalized through the DOGreen energy-efficiency program

• Continuous feedback loops with customers and employees ensure adaptability and innovation

Reputation and societal responsibility as external factors and guiding principles

Hako GmbH

• strengthens its external reputation through transparent sustainability initiatives and continuous improvement efforts

• Sustainability reporting and establishment of over 50 sustainability ambassadors with all areas of the company involved in project teams

References

1
Handelsblatt Research Institute, Roland Berger GmbH & Latham & Watkins. State of the Nation. Kompass für Deutschland – Handlungsdruck in ungewissen Zeiten (2022).
15
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. Bundeswirtschaftsministerium https://www.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Branchenfokus/Industrie/branchenfokus-maschinen-und-anlagenbau.html (2025).
16
GRI. A short introduction to the GRI Standards. (GRI, 2025).
2
United Nations Development Programme. What are the Sustainable Development Goals? UNDP https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals (n.d.).
3
Neri, A., Cagno, E. & Trianni, A. Barriers and drivers for the adoption of industrial sustainability measures in European SMEs: Empirical evidence from chemical and metalworking sectors. Sustainable Production and Consumption 28, 1433–1464 (2021).
4
Brüggemeier, F.-J. Sustainability – a historical overview (BASF, 2019).
5
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987).
6
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. The Limits to Growth. A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. (Universe Books, 1972).
7
Elkington, J. Accounting for the Triple Bottom Line. Measuring Business Excellence 2, 18–22 (1998).
8
Vereinte Nationen. Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung – Bericht 2024. (2024).
9
United Nations Climate Change. The Paris Agreement https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (2025).
10
European Comission. The European Green Deal. European Comission https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (2024).
11
Dispan, J. Maschinen- und Anlagebau: Herausforderungen und Zukunftsfelder. in Zukunft des Industriestandortes Deutschland 2020 (eds. Allespach, M. & Ziegler, A.) 199 – 216 (Schüren-Verlag, 2012).
12
Abraham, M. A. Principles of sustainable engineering. Sustainable Science and Engineering 1, 3–10 (2006).
13
Paul, H. Ein tiefer Einblick in die Zahlenwelt des Maschinenbaus. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/nl/viewer/-/v2article/render/78773222 (2025).
14
Sutherland, J. W. et al. Industrial Sustainability: Reviewing the Past and Envisioning the Future. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 142, 1 – 33 (2020).
17
VDMA. Gemeinsam den Maschinen- und Anlagenbau von morgen gestalten. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/nl/der-verband (2025).
45
Bebic, M., Badie, N. B., Tyll, L. & Srivastava, M. Exploring the barriers and drivers of ESG in the German Mittelstand: A qualitative analysis of mechanical and plant engineering companies. Corp Soc Responsibility Env 32, 2147–2170 (2025).
46
Shade, S. A. & Sutherland, J. W. Energy Efficient or Energy Effective Manufacturing?, in Energy Efficient Manufacturing (eds. J. W. Sutherland, D. A. Dornfeld & B. S. Linke) 421–444 (Wiley & Sons, 2018).
18
S&P Global. CSA Ranking Industry. S & P Global https://www.spglobal.com/sustainable1/en/csa/yearbook/2025/industry#year=2025&industryName=Construction%20%26%20Engineering (2025).
19
Staniškis, J. K. & Arbačiauskas, V. Sustainability Performance Indicators for Industrial Enterprise Management, Environmental Research Engineering and Management 48, 42–50 (2009).
20
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit & Umweltbundesamt. Leitfaden Betriebliche Umweltkennzahlen. (Druckhaus Deutsch, 1997).
21
Krause, J. Nachhaltiges Supply Chain Management im Maschinenbau – eine ganzheitliche Betrachtung mit dem Matrjoschka-Modell. In Nachhaltiger Konsum, (eds. Wellbrock, W. & Ludin, D.) 505 – 520 (Springer Fachmedien, 2021).
22
Weiß, D., Müller, R. & Lössö, S. Umweltkennzahlen in der Praxis. Ein Leitfaden zur Anwendung von Umweltkennzahlen in Umweltmanagementsystemen mit dem Schwerpunkt auf EMAS. (Umweltbundesamt, 2013).
23
Joung, C. B., Carell, J., Sarkar, P. & Feng, S. Categorization of Indicators for Sustainable Manufacturing. Ecological Indicators 24, 148–157 (2013).
24
Clemens, R. & Herring, D. Nachhaltigkeit – Chance für den Maschinen – und Anlagebau in Deutschland. Industrieperspektive mit Schwerpunkt Nahrungsmittelmaschinen und Verpackungsmaschinen. (VDMA e.V. Fachverband Nahrungsmittelmaschinen und Verpackungsmaschinen, McKinsey & Company, 2022).
25
Otto, M. Nachhaltigkeit im Maschienbau – ein Blick auf die deutsche Vorzeigebranche. (ANXO Management Conulsting GmbH, 2023).
26
Broszies, T., Stuht, L. & Vogdt, F. U. Wärmepumpen für Einfamilienhäuser im Bestand – ökologische und ökonomische Auswirkungen. Bauphysik 47, 33–40 (2025).
27
Korne, T. & Schmidt, K.-J. Chancen und Risiken in der Automobilindustrie. (Springer Fachmedien, 2025).
28
VDMA. Statistisches Handbuch für den Maschinenbau. (VDMA Verlag, 2020).
29
Schuh, G., Boshof, J., Dölle, C., Kelzenberg, C. & Tittel, J. Subskriptionsmodelle für Sustainable Productivity im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. In Internet of Production – Turning Data into Sustainability (eds. Bergs, Brecher, C., Schmitt, R. & Schuh, G.) 351–371 (Fraunhofer-Institut für Produktionstechnologie IPT und Werkzeugmaschinenlabor WZL der RWTH Aachen, 2020).
30
Bethke, M. Nachhaltigkeit als Unternehmensstrategie. Mit den SDGs zu langfristiger Profitabilität im Unternehmen. (Springer Gabler, 2024).
31
Stiftung Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis. Sieger 2023 und 2024. Die stärksten Vorbilder in 100 Branchen. Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis https://www.nachhaltigkeitspreis.de/unternehmen/sieger-23-24 (2024).
32
JOEST Group. Your Partner for Recycling. JOEST https://www.joest.com (n.d.).
33
Umweltbundesamt. Glas- und Mineralfaserindustrie. Umweltbundesamt https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wirtschaft-konsum/industriebranchen/mineralindustrie/glas-mineralfaserindustrie (2013).
34
Sartal, A., Bellas, R., Mejías, A. M. & García-Collado, A. The sustainable manufacturing concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: A literature review. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 12, 1–17 (2020).
35
Rosen, M. A. Engineering Sustainability: A Technical Approach to Sustainability. Sustainability 4, 2270–2292 (2012).
36
Oliveira, P. S. G. de, Da Silva, D., Da Silva, L. F., Lopes, M. d. S. & Helleno, A. Factors that influence product life cycle management to develop greener products in the mechanical industry. International Journal of Production Research 54, 4547–4567 (2016).
37
Dehli, M. Energieeffizienz in Industrie, Dienstleistung und Gewerbe. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2020).
38
Mattes, K. & Schröter, M. Wirtschaftlichkeitsbewertung: Bewertung der wirtschaftlichen Potenziale von energieeffizienten Anlagen und Maschinen. (Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI, 2011).
39
Tiwari, K. & Khan, M. S. Sustainability accounting and reporting in the industry 4.0. Journal of Cleaner Production 258, 120783 (2020).
40
Sendler, U. Industrie 4.0. Beherrschung der industriellen Komplexität mit SysLM (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013).
41
Wenzel, S., Gliem, D. & Laroque, C. Doppelte Transformation im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau – Digitalisierung und Nachhaltigkeit bei Unikat- und Kleinserienfertigern. Industrie 4.0 Science 5, 10 – 17 (2024).
42
Kraft, P., Dowling, M. & Helm, R. New business models with Industrie 4.0 in the German Mittelstand. International Journal of Technology Policy and Management 21, 47 – 68 (2021).
43
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. & Helbig, J. Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. (Forschungsunion, acatech, 2013).
44
Kiefer, C. P., Del Río González, P. & Carrillo‐Hermosilla, J. Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective. Bus Strat Env 28, 155–172 (2019).
47
Rosen, M. Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions. Sustainability 5, 372–386 (2013).
48
Graafland, J. & Mazereeuw-Van der Duijn Schouten, C. Motives for Corporate Social Responsibility. De Economist 160, 377–396 (2012).
49
Teece, D. J. Dynamic Capabilities: Routines versus Entrepreneurial Action. J Management Studies 49, 1395–1401(2012).
50
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J. & Davidsson, P. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda*. J Management Studies 43, 917–955 (2006).
51
Gbededo, M. & Liyanage, K. Identification and Alignment of the Social Aspects of Sustainable Manufacturing with the Theory of Motivation. Sustainability 10, 852 (2018).
52
Brown, A. S. Sustainability. Mechanical Engineering 133, 36–41 (2011).
53
Barbian, D. Digitale Produktpässe als Schlüssel zur Kreislaufwirtschaft: Innovationen für nachhaltige Geschäftsmodelle. Handelsblatt https://live.handelsblatt.com/digitale-produktpaesse-als-schluessel-zur-kreislaufwirtschaft-innovationen-fuer-nachhaltige-geschaeftsmodelle/ (2024).
54
VDMA, Department technique environment and sustainability. Blue Competence briefly presented. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=66f7bebe-ec6d-7c82-bbef-651d5be71be4&groupId=34570 (2024).
55
European Commission. Energy Efficiency Directive. European Commission https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-targets-directive-and-rules/energy-efficiency-directive_en (n. d.).
56
Bundesumweltministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Naturschutz und Nukleare Sicherheit. Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz. Gesetz zur Förderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der Umweltverträglichen Bewirtschaftung von Abfällen. Bundesumweltministerium https://www.bundesumweltministerium.de/gesetz/kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz (2024).
57
VDMA, Department technique environment and sustainability. Blue Competence briefly presented. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=66f7bebe-ec6d-7c82-bbef-651d5be71be4&groupId=34570 (2024).

1
Handelsblatt Research Institute, Roland Berger GmbH & Latham & Watkins. State of the Nation. Kompass für Deutschland – Handlungsdruck in ungewissen Zeiten (2022).
15
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. Bundeswirtschaftsministerium https://www.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Branchenfokus/Industrie/branchenfokus-maschinen-und-anlagenbau.html (2025).
16
GRI. A short introduction to the GRI Standards. (GRI, 2025).
2
United Nations Development Programme. What are the Sustainable Development Goals? UNDP https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals (n.d.).
3
Neri, A., Cagno, E. & Trianni, A. Barriers and drivers for the adoption of industrial sustainability measures in European SMEs: Empirical evidence from chemical and metalworking sectors. Sustainable Production and Consumption 28, 1433–1464 (2021).
4
Brüggemeier, F.-J. Sustainability – a historical overview (BASF, 2019).
5
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987).
6
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. The Limits to Growth. A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. (Universe Books, 1972).
7
Elkington, J. Accounting for the Triple Bottom Line. Measuring Business Excellence 2, 18–22 (1998).
8
Vereinte Nationen. Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung – Bericht 2024. (2024).
9
United Nations Climate Change. The Paris Agreement https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (2025).
10
European Comission. The European Green Deal. European Comission https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (2024).
11
Dispan, J. Maschinen- und Anlagebau: Herausforderungen und Zukunftsfelder. in Zukunft des Industriestandortes Deutschland 2020 (eds. Allespach, M. & Ziegler, A.) 199 – 216 (Schüren-Verlag, 2012).
12
Abraham, M. A. Principles of sustainable engineering. Sustainable Science and Engineering 1, 3–10 (2006).
13
Paul, H. Ein tiefer Einblick in die Zahlenwelt des Maschinenbaus. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/nl/viewer/-/v2article/render/78773222 (2025).
14
Sutherland, J. W. et al. Industrial Sustainability: Reviewing the Past and Envisioning the Future. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 142, 1 – 33 (2020).
17
VDMA. Gemeinsam den Maschinen- und Anlagenbau von morgen gestalten. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/nl/der-verband (2025).
45
Bebic, M., Badie, N. B., Tyll, L. & Srivastava, M. Exploring the barriers and drivers of ESG in the German Mittelstand: A qualitative analysis of mechanical and plant engineering companies. Corp Soc Responsibility Env 32, 2147–2170 (2025).
46
Shade, S. A. & Sutherland, J. W. Energy Efficient or Energy Effective Manufacturing?, in Energy Efficient Manufacturing (eds. J. W. Sutherland, D. A. Dornfeld & B. S. Linke) 421–444 (Wiley & Sons, 2018).
18
S&P Global. CSA Ranking Industry. S & P Global https://www.spglobal.com/sustainable1/en/csa/yearbook/2025/industry#year=2025&industryName=Construction%20%26%20Engineering (2025).
19
Staniškis, J. K. & Arbačiauskas, V. Sustainability Performance Indicators for Industrial Enterprise Management, Environmental Research Engineering and Management 48, 42–50 (2009).
20
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit & Umweltbundesamt. Leitfaden Betriebliche Umweltkennzahlen. (Druckhaus Deutsch, 1997).
21
Krause, J. Nachhaltiges Supply Chain Management im Maschinenbau – eine ganzheitliche Betrachtung mit dem Matrjoschka-Modell. In Nachhaltiger Konsum, (eds. Wellbrock, W. & Ludin, D.) 505 – 520 (Springer Fachmedien, 2021).
22
Weiß, D., Müller, R. & Lössö, S. Umweltkennzahlen in der Praxis. Ein Leitfaden zur Anwendung von Umweltkennzahlen in Umweltmanagementsystemen mit dem Schwerpunkt auf EMAS. (Umweltbundesamt, 2013).
23
Joung, C. B., Carell, J., Sarkar, P. & Feng, S. Categorization of Indicators for Sustainable Manufacturing. Ecological Indicators 24, 148–157 (2013).
24
Clemens, R. & Herring, D. Nachhaltigkeit – Chance für den Maschinen – und Anlagebau in Deutschland. Industrieperspektive mit Schwerpunkt Nahrungsmittelmaschinen und Verpackungsmaschinen. (VDMA e.V. Fachverband Nahrungsmittelmaschinen und Verpackungsmaschinen, McKinsey & Company, 2022).
25
Otto, M. Nachhaltigkeit im Maschienbau – ein Blick auf die deutsche Vorzeigebranche. (ANXO Management Conulsting GmbH, 2023).
26
Broszies, T., Stuht, L. & Vogdt, F. U. Wärmepumpen für Einfamilienhäuser im Bestand – ökologische und ökonomische Auswirkungen. Bauphysik 47, 33–40 (2025).
27
Korne, T. & Schmidt, K.-J. Chancen und Risiken in der Automobilindustrie. (Springer Fachmedien, 2025).
28
VDMA. Statistisches Handbuch für den Maschinenbau. (VDMA Verlag, 2020).
29
Schuh, G., Boshof, J., Dölle, C., Kelzenberg, C. & Tittel, J. Subskriptionsmodelle für Sustainable Productivity im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. In Internet of Production – Turning Data into Sustainability (eds. Bergs, Brecher, C., Schmitt, R. & Schuh, G.) 351–371 (Fraunhofer-Institut für Produktionstechnologie IPT und Werkzeugmaschinenlabor WZL der RWTH Aachen, 2020).
30
Bethke, M. Nachhaltigkeit als Unternehmensstrategie. Mit den SDGs zu langfristiger Profitabilität im Unternehmen. (Springer Gabler, 2024).
31
Stiftung Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis. Sieger 2023 und 2024. Die stärksten Vorbilder in 100 Branchen. Deutscher Nachhaltigkeitspreis https://www.nachhaltigkeitspreis.de/unternehmen/sieger-23-24 (2024).
32
JOEST Group. Your Partner for Recycling. JOEST https://www.joest.com (n.d.).
33
Umweltbundesamt. Glas- und Mineralfaserindustrie. Umweltbundesamt https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/wirtschaft-konsum/industriebranchen/mineralindustrie/glas-mineralfaserindustrie (2013).
34
Sartal, A., Bellas, R., Mejías, A. M. & García-Collado, A. The sustainable manufacturing concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: A literature review. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 12, 1–17 (2020).
35
Rosen, M. A. Engineering Sustainability: A Technical Approach to Sustainability. Sustainability 4, 2270–2292 (2012).
36
Oliveira, P. S. G. de, Da Silva, D., Da Silva, L. F., Lopes, M. d. S. & Helleno, A. Factors that influence product life cycle management to develop greener products in the mechanical industry. International Journal of Production Research 54, 4547–4567 (2016).
37
Dehli, M. Energieeffizienz in Industrie, Dienstleistung und Gewerbe. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2020).
38
Mattes, K. & Schröter, M. Wirtschaftlichkeitsbewertung: Bewertung der wirtschaftlichen Potenziale von energieeffizienten Anlagen und Maschinen. (Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI, 2011).
39
Tiwari, K. & Khan, M. S. Sustainability accounting and reporting in the industry 4.0. Journal of Cleaner Production 258, 120783 (2020).
40
Sendler, U. Industrie 4.0. Beherrschung der industriellen Komplexität mit SysLM (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013).
41
Wenzel, S., Gliem, D. & Laroque, C. Doppelte Transformation im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau – Digitalisierung und Nachhaltigkeit bei Unikat- und Kleinserienfertigern. Industrie 4.0 Science 5, 10 – 17 (2024).
42
Kraft, P., Dowling, M. & Helm, R. New business models with Industrie 4.0 in the German Mittelstand. International Journal of Technology Policy and Management 21, 47 – 68 (2021).
43
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. & Helbig, J. Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. (Forschungsunion, acatech, 2013).
44
Kiefer, C. P., Del Río González, P. & Carrillo‐Hermosilla, J. Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective. Bus Strat Env 28, 155–172 (2019).
47
Rosen, M. Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions. Sustainability 5, 372–386 (2013).
48
Graafland, J. & Mazereeuw-Van der Duijn Schouten, C. Motives for Corporate Social Responsibility. De Economist 160, 377–396 (2012).
49
Teece, D. J. Dynamic Capabilities: Routines versus Entrepreneurial Action. J Management Studies 49, 1395–1401(2012).
50
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J. & Davidsson, P. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda*. J Management Studies 43, 917–955 (2006).
51
Gbededo, M. & Liyanage, K. Identification and Alignment of the Social Aspects of Sustainable Manufacturing with the Theory of Motivation. Sustainability 10, 852 (2018).
52
Brown, A. S. Sustainability. Mechanical Engineering 133, 36–41 (2011).
53
Barbian, D. Digitale Produktpässe als Schlüssel zur Kreislaufwirtschaft: Innovationen für nachhaltige Geschäftsmodelle. Handelsblatt https://live.handelsblatt.com/digitale-produktpaesse-als-schluessel-zur-kreislaufwirtschaft-innovationen-fuer-nachhaltige-geschaeftsmodelle/ (2024).
54
VDMA, Department technique environment and sustainability. Blue Competence briefly presented. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=66f7bebe-ec6d-7c82-bbef-651d5be71be4&groupId=34570 (2024).
55
European Commission. Energy Efficiency Directive. European Commission https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-targets-directive-and-rules/energy-efficiency-directive_en (n. d.).
56
Bundesumweltministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Naturschutz und Nukleare Sicherheit. Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz. Gesetz zur Förderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der Umweltverträglichen Bewirtschaftung von Abfällen. Bundesumweltministerium https://www.bundesumweltministerium.de/gesetz/kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz (2024).
57
VDMA, Department technique environment and sustainability. Blue Competence briefly presented. VDMA https://www.vdma.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=66f7bebe-ec6d-7c82-bbef-651d5be71be4&groupId=34570 (2024).