A peer-reviewed article published via ScienceDirect in Procedia Computer Science investigates how additive manufacturing (AM) is reshaping key areas of supply chain management. Conducted by Andrea Balloni, Laura Monferdini, and Eleonora Bottani from the Department of Engineering for Industrial Systems and Technologies at the University of Parma, the study analyzed 157 academic articles published between 2014 and 2023.
Using the Scopus database as a primary source, the researchers mapped how AM affects procurement, facility location, inventory strategy, distribution, and reverse logistics. The review highlights growing academic interest in the system-wide implications of AM and identifies gaps in modeling, material compatibility, and recycling research.
Europe leads in output, but the United States dominates topic leadership
Articles were selected through keyword-based searches organized into supply chain topics. Europe contributed 43% of the publications, followed by the United States at 25%. India and China added 7.5% and 6.5%, respectively. Within Europe, the United Kingdom and Germany each produced 5.7% of the articles; Italy followed at 5.1%.
In every topic category—procurement, facility location, inventory, distribution, reverse logistics, sustainability, and cross-sectional studies—the United States had the highest number of contributions. India ranked second in system-wide studies, while Italy appeared frequently in discussions of location, distribution, and sustainability.
Article frequency increased significantly after 2018, with nearly 80% of studies published between 2019 and 2023. The authors attribute this spike to increased industrial adoption of AM and global disruptions that exposed weaknesses in traditional supply chains.
Papers addressing multiple supply chain topics simultaneously made up 20% of the corpus and received the highest citation rates. These studies focused on AM’s broader impact on how companies source, produce, store, move, and recover materials and products.
Inventory and distribution studies followed in frequency. In inventory-related work, AM was repeatedly cited as enabling a shift from make-to-stock models toward make-to-order configurations. Chekurov et al. studied this effect in spare parts supply chains, finding that AM reduced inventory requirements, minimized obsolescence risk, and lowered response times to fluctuating demand.
Distribution-focused papers emphasized the consolidation of assembly stages. AM allows multiple parts to be fabricated in a single operation, reducing the number of transport steps and enabling localized final production. This alters the flow of logistics—from finished goods to raw materials—and decreases cross-border shipments in decentralized manufacturing systems.
Procurement transitions toward material-centric sourcing
Sourcing practices are shifting from component acquisition to specialized raw materials. AM users often require metal powders or engineered polymers tailored to specific printer systems. These materials are commonly procured directly from equipment manufacturers.
This reconfiguration of procurement could lead to market concentration. Firms focused on feedstock production may become more prominent as material quality increasingly determines the success of AM operations. Balloni and colleagues note that changes in material transport volumes may follow—prioritizing raw material movement over that of components or semi-finished goods.
Additive processes support the decentralization of production, at least in principle. Several studies suggested that AM can reduce dependence on large, centralized manufacturing hubs by enabling smaller, strategically located production sites. This is particularly effective in industries with irregular demand, geometric complexity, or a need for customization.
The authors challenged that assumption, arguing that economic and technical constraints still limit AM’s viability for large-scale deployment. Issues include slower build speeds, reduced economies of scale, and high material costs. For now, organizations with pre-existing regional infrastructure—such as maintenance depots or distributed service centers—are better positioned to integrate AM at a localized level.
Reverse logistics studies center on recycling feasibility
Literature on reverse logistics and sustainability frequently overlapped. AM was seen as compatible with circular economy models, especially in relation to plastics. Santander et al. developed a mathematical model for decentralized recycling in fused deposition modeling (FDM), where recovered plastic waste is turned into printable filament locally. Their results showed economic benefits due to cost savings on virgin feedstock and environmental benefits from reduced emissions in material transport.
In metal AM, recycling remains a technical challenge. Creating printable powders requires atomization processes that are rarely feasible outside centralized facilities. The authors note that this centralization continues to dominate due to the capital investment required and the consistent quality standards it enables.
Research also identified doubts about customer perception of recycled inputs and whether decentralized treatment systems can meet performance criteria. Although there is theoretical alignment between AM and sustainable production, practical integration remains limited by infrastructure and cost.
Across all supply chain areas, studies often failed to specify industry focus. In the reverse logistics category, 100% of articles omitted sectoral context. For sustainability, 86% did not mention application domains.
Where industries were named, spare parts, aerospace, biomedical, and automotive were most commonly discussed. In inventory and distribution categories, the spare parts sector appeared in 20% of studies, reflecting AM’s flexibility and relevance to unpredictable maintenance schedules. Aerospace and biomedical applications were cited in discussions on design complexity and customization.
Research on the fashion sector, though sparse, highlighted AM’s potential to enable innovative geometries and reduce production waste. Other sectors—such as toys, eyewear, or plastic reforming—were mentioned only occasionally.
Qualitative research dominates; modeling tools underused
Qualitative methods, including literature reviews, case studies, and interviews, dominated the research landscape. These approaches were prevalent in procurement, distribution, and sustainability topics.
Quantitative studies were more common in inventory management. Tools such as the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model and multi-criteria decision methods (MCDMs) were used to simulate decision-making frameworks and system behavior. Simulation modeling also appeared in a few studies focused on facility location and distribution scenarios.
The review notes that limited access to performance data across industries and the wide variability of AM technologies restrict the development of robust, cross-domain modeling. Researchers were more likely to analyze conceptual opportunities and constraints than to present statistically validated findings.
A keyword analysis revealed recurring terms tied to technology and supply chain functionality. “Additive manufacturing,” “3D printing,” “spare parts,” and “distributed manufacturing” were common across all categories. In inventory, frequently paired keywords included “safety inventory” and “make-to-order,” supporting observations about reduced buffer stock requirements.
Spare parts supply chains received particular attention in studies on distribution and inventory, often in connection with aerospace components and high-value mechanical systems. Across the review, the authors observed that “distributed manufacturing” was most prevalent in studies on inventory, production location, and distribution—indicating consensus on AM’s potential to reduce centralized dependency, even if implementation remains constrained.
Research gaps include bioplastics, material compatibility, and stock strategy
Few studies investigated how recycled materials could be processed to meet the functional demands of different AM technologies. The review also found that bioplastics were rarely mentioned, despite growing interest in biodegradable and bio-derived feedstocks.
While the shift toward make-to-order production was often described, few articles explored how this change affects inventory policy—such as safety stock levels, procurement cycles, or raw material holding strategies. Likewise, there was limited work on intellectual property issues in distributed production environments.
Balloni, Monferdini, and Bottani conclude that additive manufacturing’s capacity to reshape supply chains is real but constrained by technological maturity, cost structure, and supply ecosystem dependencies. As AM continues to evolve, future research will need to address not only production methods but also the infrastructure, data models, and materials science that make integration viable.
Ready to discover who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards?
Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to stay updated with the latest news and insights.
Featured image shows annual publication trend across AM supply chain topics. Image via Science Direct.
