From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing To Industry 5.0 Digital Society: A Roadmap Toward Human-Centric, Sustainable, and Resilient Production

Information Systems Frontiers
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10476-z
From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing to Industry 5.0 Digital

Society: a Roadmap Toward Human-Centric, Sustainable, and Resilient
Production
Morteza Ghobakhloo1,2 · Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji3 · Mohammad Iranmanesh4 · Vahid Jafari‑Sadeghi5
Accepted: 7 February 2024

© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
The present study addresses two critical controversies surrounding the emerging Industry 5.0 agenda. Firstly, it seeks to
elucidate the driving forces behind the accelerated momentum of the Industry 5.0 agenda amidst the ongoing digital indus-
trial transformation. Secondly, it explores how the agenda’s sustainability values can be effectively realised. The study
conducted a comprehensive content-centric literature synthesis and identified how Industry 4.0 shortcomings adversely
impacted sustainability values. Furthermore, the study implements a novel approach that determines how and in what order
the sustainability functions of Industry 4.0 should be leveraged to promote the sustainability objectives of Industry 5.0.
Results reveal that Industry 4.0 has benefited economic and environmental sustainability values most at the organisational
and supply chain levels. Nonetheless, most micro and meso-social sustainability values have been adversely impacted by
Industry 4.0. Similarly, Industry 4.0 has been worryingly detrimental to macro sustainability values like social or economic
growth equality. These contradictory implications of Industry 4.0 have pulled the Industry 5.0 agenda. However, the results
identified nine sustainability functions of Industry 4.0 that, when leveraged appropriately and in the correct order, can offer
important implications for realising the economic and socio-environmental goals of Industry 5.0. For example, under extreme
unpredictability of business world uncertainties, the business should first leverage the automation and integration capabilities
of Industry 4.0 to gain the necessary cost-saving, resource efficiency, risk management capability, and business antifragility
that allow them to introduce sustainable innovation into their business model without jeopardising their survival. Various
scenarios for empowering Industry 5.0 sustainability values identified in the present study offer important implications for
knowledge and practice.
Keywords Industry 5.0 · Industry 4.0 · Sustainability · Digitalisation · Human-centricity · Resilience · Digital
transformation
1 Introduction objective is to govern and regulate the trajectory of Industry

4.0 progression (Breque et al., 2021). Therefore, it is evident
Industry 5.0 has garnered significant attention and gener- that Industry 5.0 should be understood within the context
ated hype across industries, academia, and policy circles in of over a decade of advancements and progress in Industry
recent years (Mukherjee et al., 2023). This emerging concept 4.0 (Huang et al., 2022). It emerges as a phenomenon that
has sparked widespread interest and enthusiasm while also builds upon the foundation laid by its predecessor, leverag-
giving rise to debates and controversial opinions (Ivanov, ing the cumulative knowledge, technological innovations,
2023). After several development iterations, a prevailing and transformative potential of Industry 4.0 (Müller, 2020;
consensus has emerged that Industry 5.0 does not constitute Renda et al., 2022).
an independent industrial revolution; instead, it is a policy The ongoing discourse on Industry 5.0 has sparked
framework that builds upon the advancements achieved attention and controversies, especially for companies shap-
in Industry 4.0 (Ghobakhloo et al., 2023a). Its primary ing their future digitalization strategies (Hein-Pensel et al.,
2023). As Industry 5.0 gains momentum alongside the per-
sistent influence of Industry 4.0, businesses face the chal-
Extended author information available on the last page of the article lenge of determining whether Industry 4.0 remains a viable
Vol.:(0123456789)
framework or if a shift to Industry 5.0 is already necessary potential negative consequences. It entails exploring the
(Huang et al., 2022). A key debate centres on the techno- role of various stakeholders, including businesses, govern-
logical aspects of Industry 5.0. While some view it primar- ments, labour unions, and society at large, in ensuring that
ily as a governance framework, others argue for its close the ongoing digital industrial transformation aligns with
association with technological advancements, particularly the core objectives of Industry 5.0. For companies devel-
the commercialization of generative artificial intelligence oping their future digitalization strategy, the lack of a com-
(Maddikunta et al., 2022). This dual perspective compli- prehensive understanding regarding the management of
cates strategic decisions for companies aiming to balance the ongoing digital industrial transformation poses a sig-
productivity and societal values. Navigating this landscape nificant challenge. Industry 5.0 envisions a future indus-
requires a nuanced understanding of the interplay between try characterized by sustainability, human-centricity, and
governance and technology, which has been significantly resilience. However, navigating the complexities of the
lacking within the literature. digital industrial landscape becomes challenging without
Therefore, and within the realm of Industry 5.0, two a thorough grasp of essential mechanisms, strategies, and
significant knowledge gaps require further exploration and frameworks for integrating and governing the digital tech-
understanding. Firstly, there is a need to uncover the reasons nologies of Industry 4.0. This knowledge gap impedes the
behind the swift and unprecedented rush towards Industry development of informed solutions aligned with Industry
5.0. Despite Industry 4.0 still being in the process of matu- 5.0’s goals, hindering the optimization of positive impacts
ration and widespread implementation (Cañas et al., 2021), while mitigating potential negative consequences among
the emergence of Industry 5.0 has sparked intense debates organizations. Consequently, this challenge jeopardizes
and propelled its adoption (Müller, 2020). To address this companies’ ability to shape their digitalization strategies
knowledge gap, it is crucial to delve into the factors driv- in alignment with Industry 5.0’s envisioned future indus-
ing this rapid shift, including the influence of technological try, hindering progress toward a transformative and har-
advancements, socio-economic factors, policy initiatives, monized industrial landscape.
and market forces. Understanding the motivations and driv- Accordingly, the study pursues two primary objectives
ers behind the accelerated push towards Industry 5.0 will to bridge the identified knowledge gap. The first objective
shed light on the underlying forces shaping this phenom- is to comprehensively grasp the unprecedented emergence
enon. Understanding the drivers behind the swift adoption of Industry 5.0, probing into potential connections with
of Industry 5.0 is not just insightful but a critical neces- the corporate and societal impacts of Industry 4.0. The
sity for companies aiming to stay competitive and strategi- second objective is to pinpoint the sustainability mecha-
cally positioned. Unfortunately, this crucial knowledge is nisms within Industry 4.0 that have demonstrated real-
deeply underdeveloped, resulting in missed opportunities for world viability, subsequently exploring the feasibility of
informed investment, strategic innovation, and proactive risk leveraging these mechanisms to align corporate digital
mitigation during digital industrial transformation. Without transformation with the socio-environmental values inher-
a clear comprehension of the driving forces, companies may ent in Industry 5.0.
struggle to optimize operational efficiency, integrate sustain- In addressing the first objective, the present study
able practices, and attract and retain top talent in an industry draws on the sustainability perspective and systematically
undergoing rapid transformation. In essence, the absence reviews the positive and negative contributions of Indus-
of this essential knowledge poses a significant challenge try 4.0 to the economy, environment, and society. The
for companies seeking sustained success in a dynamic and literature proposes that Industry 4.0 represents a techno-
evolving business landscape. economic phenomenon involving the digital transforma-
Secondly, it is imperative to explore how the ongoing tion of value networks across various industries (Shaygan-
digital industrial transformation can be effectively man- mehr et al., 2021). Although Industry 4.0 mainly centres
aged to achieve the overarching objectives that Industry around the digitalisation of industrial entities, its ripple
5.0 prioritises. Industry 5.0 aims to create a sustainable, effects reach far beyond the business floor. The industrial
human-centric, and resilient future industry (Ghobakhloo transformation under Industry 4.0 and, in many cases,
et al., 2022; Karmaker et al., 2023). However, realising the disruptive technological innovations pushing such
these objectives requires a comprehensive understanding transformation also impact the environment and society
of the mechanisms, strategies, and frameworks needed (Kovacs, 2018). Literature provides controversial perspec-
to facilitate the successful integration and governance tives on the contribution of Industry 4.0 to sustainability,
of digital technologies within the industrial ecosystem. depending on the scope and level of analysis. For example,
Addressing this knowledge gap involves examining the as the core objectives of Industry 4.0, productivity and
best practices, policies, and approaches that can maxim- efficiency reduce resource consumption and waste across
ise the positive impacts of digitalisation while minimising
industrial operations (Enyoghasi & Badurdeen, 2021). 5.0 literature. Both Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 represent
Therefore, Industry 4.0 and the underlying digitalisation expansive and dynamic domains that are constantly evolv-
may contribute to cleaner production operations at the ing. Furthermore, there is a notable dearth of sufficient theo-
micro-industrial 1 analysis level (Mubarik et al., 2021). retical development explaining how the sustainability mech-
Besides, the information processing and interconnected- anisms of Industry 4.0 interact to drive the objectives of
ness capabilities of Industry 4.0 may offer unique oppor- Industry 5.0. Therefore, we drew on the exploratory research
tunities for environmental and social sustainability (Stock design to explore these complex and underdeveloped facets.
et al., 2018). To achieve the research objectives, our methodology
Conversely, the literature acknowledges that Industry 4.0 starts by conducting a content-centric evidence synthesis
is a technology-driven phenomenon that systematically dis- of Industry 4.0 literature to perform evidence mapping of
regards many aspects of socio-environmental sustainabil- Industry 4.0 sustainability performance. By doing so, the
ity, especially at the meso (e.g., supply chain) and macro- study identifies the positive and negative contributions of
regional analysis levels (Kovacs, 2018; Soh & Connolly, Industry 4.0 to various aspects of sustainability, allowing
2020, 2021). For example, experts are deeply concerned us to identify techno-functional weaknesses of this phenom-
about the negative social-environmental impacts of Indus- enon that lead to the unforeseen emergence of the Indus-
try 4.0, such as job exclusivity, income polarisation, digital try 5.0 agenda. The study further builds on the evidence
divide, business fragility, and rebound effect (Grybauskas synthesis of Industry 4.0 literature to identify sustainability
et al., 2022). Since the literature tends to provide a vague functions essential to developing Industry 5.0 objectives.
understanding of Industry 4.0 adverse effects on sustain- The study captures experts’ opinions on the sustainability
ability, the present study conducts a content-centric review functions identified and applies a novel Hesitant-Fuzzy set
of Industry 4.0-sustainability associations to explain better (HFs) Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach to
what functional and technological design flaws of Industry identify and model the interdependencies among the func-
4.0 have led to the prevalence of Industry 5.0 agenda. tions. The resulting scenarios explain how the sustainability
To address the second objective, the study draws on functions of Industry 4.0 should be leveraged to promote
the literature and experts’ opinions to answer the second three central sustainability objectives of Industry 5.0 under
research question of how ongoing digital industrial transfor- various unpredictability levels of business uncertainties.
mation could address Industry 5.0 key goals. We acknowl- The study is believed to offer important theoretical impli-
edge that while preceding industrial revolutions took dec- cations. The content-centric literature review reveals that
ades to unfold, Industry 5.0 seems to coexist with Industry Industry 4.0 has controversial implications for sustainabil-
4.0 as a parallel phenomenon. As a sociotechnical phenom- ity. While it has positively impacted economic and environ-
enon, Industry 5.0 directly addresses significant shortcom- mental sustainability at micro and meso levels, its effects
ings of Industry 4.0: being a purely technology-centred and on social and macro sustainability are inconclusive. These
profit-driven phenomenon. From this perspective, Indus- findings help explain the acceleration towards Industry
try 5.0 entails regulating and managing the digitalisation 5.0, which aims to govern and regulate Industry 4.0’s digi-
pushed by Industry 4.0, leading to an eco-friendlier, human- tal transformation to prioritise socio-environmental goals
centric, and resilient future industry (Huang et al., 2022). alongside productivity. The study also identifies the potential
Consistently, the present study aims to identify the functions of Industry 4.0 functions to promote sustainability values
through which the ongoing digital industrial transformation and proposes a novel approach, HF-ISM, to understand how
can contribute to developing the core objectives of Industry these functions should interact to fulfil Industry 5.0’s sus-
5.0. The study aims to identify the interrelationships among tainability objectives.
these functions and map them into an interpretive roadmap The study’s HF-ISM approach offers notable practi-
of a human-centric, sustainable, and resilient industry that cal implications, boosting understanding of the sequential
facilitates the Industry 5.0 agenda. interaction of sustainability functions within Industry 4.0.
We employs a comprehensive and novel exploratory Three scenarios were identified based on different levels of
research method to achieve the research objectives. The business uncertainties. In Scenario 1, mature and stable cor-
decision to adopt an exploratory research design stems from porations can capitalise on the innovation opportunities of
the limited maturity and emerging nature of the Industry Industry 4.0, enabling other sustainability functions simul-
taneously. Scenario 2 emphasises leveraging functions like
business risk management, smart product integration, and
supply chain performance to promote sustainability strate-
1
The microscopic level refers to the organisational analysis level, gies and resource efficiency. Scenario 3, applicable to highly
whereas the mesoscopic level mainly concerns outcomes at the sup-
ply chain or intraregional business sector level. The macroscopic turbulent environments, prioritises automation, circular-
level relates to large-scale outcomes at the societal or global scale. ity, and real-time communication capabilities to adapt to
unpredictable changes. These scenarios highlight the impor- concept and explained that Industry 5.0 complements Indus-
tance of synergy and sequence in leveraging Industry 4.0 try 4.0 in recognising the value of digital industrial transfor-
functions to align with the sustainability values of Industry mation for preserving the environment and society (Breque
5.0. Businesses should consider their internal and exter- et al., 2021). From this perspective, Industry 5.0 cannot be
nal environments to determine the most suitable scenario. regarded as the chronological substituent of Industry 4.0. As
Regardless of the scenario, each function uniquely promotes a forward-looking agenda, it instead builds on the hallmark
Industry 5.0 sustainability values, emphasising the need to technologies, principles, and components of Industry 4.0 to
consider all sustainability functions in governance strategies. promote sustainability, mainly manifested in environmental-
ism, human-centricity, and economic resilience. European
Commission offered a more resolute opinion regarding
2 Background Industry 5.0 in their 2022 policy brief and explicitly declared
that Industry 4.0 can no longer serve as an appropriate
In this section, we provided a synoptic overview of the agenda for Europe’s future goals (Renda et al., 2022). This
evolution of the Industry 5.0 agenda, discussing its core policy brief argued that while both concepts share certain
objectives. We further conducted the evidence synthesis technological and techno-functional similarities, Industry
of Industry 4.0-sustainability literature to identify to what 5.0 supersedes its predecessor in providing the directional-
extent the ripple effects of Industry 4.0 have been aligned ity needed for a competitive and sustainable future industry.
with sustainability values. Viewed from this perspective, the intended values of Indus-
try 5.0 expand beyond productivity-driven economic growth,
2.1 Synoptic Overview of Industry 5.0 involving economic circularity, environmental sustainabil-
ity, human-centricity, social values, and long-run resilience
Even though the Industry 5.0 concept is nascent, it has con- (Renda et al., 2022). This perspective proposes that Industry
stantly evolved over the past few years. Industry 5.0 was first 5.0 can manifest in the stakeholder-driven governance of
introduced in the literature around 2016, with Sachsenmeier ongoing digital industrial transformation.
(2016) suggesting that it signifies a significant geostrategic Recent studies have widely accepted the European
transformation driven by the progress in synthetic biology Commission’s perspective on the scope and objectives of
technologies. Özdemir and Hekim (2018) criticised the Industry 5.0 (Huang et al., 2022; Maddikunta et al., 2022).
systematic vulnerability of the Industry 4.0 ecosystem and Indeed, the most recent contributions to the scholarly litera-
proposed that Industry 5.0 capitalises on symmetrical inno- ture widely acknowledge that Industry 5.0 goes beyond the
vation to democratise knowledge via orchestrated utilisation value-centricity of Industry 4.0 by pursuing sustainability
of disruptive technologies like AI, big data, and IoT. These values (Ivanov, 2022). In particular, the Industry 5.0 refer-
early speculations were contradicted by an emerging school ence model by Ghobakhloo et al. (2022, p. 719) explains
of thought arguing that Industry 4.0 inadvertently disregards that this phenomenon should not be merely regarded as
humans within the industrial context (Longo et al., 2020). “economic-productivity driven as it systematically pursues
Therefore, scholars such as Doyle Kent and Kopacek (2021) balancing economic and socio-environmental sustainability.”
and Nahavandi (2019) proposed that Industry 5.0 would They further highlight that under the Industry 5.0 agenda,
represent a technological revolution that empowers man- economic and socio-environmental aspects of sustainability
machine symbiosis and assists human operators, particularly are interlinked, and synergetic complementarity among vari-
in manufacturing. ous sustainability goals of Industry 5.0 can offer valuable
European Commission cautiously approached this con- implications for sustainable development.
cept in 2020 and acknowledged a few controversies that Following the European Commission’s perspective on the
might be associated with the term ‘Industry 5.0’ (Müller, sustainability goals of Industry 5.0 and studies that endorse
2020). For example, Industry 4.0 is still evolving, and many such a standpoint (e.g., Ghobakhloo et al., 2022; Ivanov,
businesses, particularly smaller ones, are far behind industry 2022), the present study postulates that the core objective of
leaders in implementing the technological constituents of Industry 5.0 involves promoting the economic, environmen-
Industry 4.0. Second, Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 are simi- tal, and social aspects of sustainability at the microscopic,
lar on various fronts, especially concerning the fundamental mesoscopic, and macroscopic scales. Nevertheless, our
technologies, design principles, and productivity objectives. study takes a forward-looking approach to operationalizing
Third, prior industrial revolutions, including Industry 4.0, the Industry 5.0 concept.
have all been pushed by technological innovation, whereas The present study aligns with the prevailing perspective
Industry 5.0 appears to be pulled by socio-environmental that Industry 5.0 serves as a socially driven governance
values (Müller, 2020). In the 2021 policy brief, the European agenda, redirecting the ongoing digital industrial trans-
Commission held a firmer position toward this emerging formation (referred to as Industry 4.0) toward inclusive
Fig. 1 Steps for conducting the content-centric synthesis of Industry 4.0-sustainability literature
sustainability (Sindhwani et al., 2022). By introducing tech- offered by Industry 4.0 technologies while maintaining a
nology and business governance policies, Industry 5.0 regu- balance between economic growth and socio-environmental
lates the pace of Industry 4.0 transformation, guiding the development (Huang et al., 2022). Second, Industry 5.0 may
digital business landscape toward societal values. Achieving have the potential to be considered the next industrial revo-
the ambitious societal goals associated with Industry 5.0 lution, especially with emerging technologies like general
demands purposeful management and leveraging of Indus- artificial intelligence appearing to cause a significant shift
try 4.0 technologies and design principles (Huang et al., in the industrial development landscape (Ghobakhloo et al.,
2022). However, it is crucial to recognize the emergence of 2023b). While our present study aligns more with the first
generative artificial intelligence, exemplified by tools like perspective, we also acknowledge the importance of recog-
ChatGPT, as a significant technological milestone with the nizing the second perspective.
potential to shape a new industrial era (Ooi et al., 2023).
Recent studies acknowledge generative artificial intelligence 2.2 Evidence Synthesis of Industry
as a critical technological component of Industry 5.0 (e.g., 4.0‑Sustainability Literature
Ghobakhloo et al., 2023b), suggesting transformative power
that could position Industry 5.0 as the next phase of indus- The study conducted a content-centric evidence synthesis
trial transformation. These unprecedented technologies are of the literature to identify (1) positive or negative con-
reshaping business dynamics and may extend beyond the tributions of Industry 4.0 to various sustainability aspects
trajectory of Industry 4.0. and (2) functions based on which Industry 4.0 may con-
In light of these emerging technologies, Industry 5.0 can tribute to sustainability. Following the existing guidelines
be understood in two ways. First, it can be regarded as a pol- (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002; Watson & Webster, 2020),
icy agenda driven by social factors and propelled by techno- evidence synthesis of the literature in this study involves
logical advancements, aiming to capitalize on the potentials multiple steps explained in Fig. 1. Step A1 of the evidence
Table 1 Exclusion criteria applied for resource identification

Exclusion criterion Description
1 The document is not categorised as a peer-reviewed academic journal article (e.g., conference papers or proceedings).
2 The article is not written in English.
3 The article uses the search keywords merely in the title/abstract/keywords and provides no insight into the Industry
4.0 phenomenon.
4 The article does not discuss the implications of Industry 4.0 for sustainability whatsoever.
synthesis involved using the search string presented in collectively led to the final pool of 527 articles eligible for
Fig. 1 to search Scopus and Web of Science databases content analysis.
to identify relevant documents. Keywords such as human In Step D of the evidence synthesis, which entailed the
or resilience were included in the search string because manual content analysis and evidence mapping of eligible
the Industry 5.0 concept prioritises human centricity, articles, a meticulous and rigorous approach was followed to
resilience, and sustainability (Ivanov, 2022; Renda et al., ensure the credibility and robustness of the findings.
2022). The search in step A1 was conducted in mid-2022, A data-driven methodology was employed for theme gen-
in which no specific limitations such as date range were eration, where themes emerged organically from the content
applied. As explained in Fig. 1, executing step A1 identi- analysis process. The coding phase involved a meticulous
fied 2324 potentially related documents. Step A2 entailed line-by-line examination of the eligible articles, facilitat-
subjecting the document identified across step A1 to the ing the identification of meaningful information units. This
exclusion criteria in Table 1. To ensure the reliability and detailed approach ensured a thorough exploration of the
dependability of findings, exclusion criterion 1 limited the text, preserving a granular level of analysis. From the coded
eligibility documents to peer-reviewed academic journal data, descriptive themes were developed, encapsulating the
articles. Exclusion criteria 3 and 4 ensured that the eligi- principal areas of focus and content about the sustainabil-
ble articles shortlisted would provide meaningful insights ity outcomes of Industry 4.0 across three levels of analysis
into Industry 4.0-sustainability interactions. Overall, the and three sustainability pillars. These descriptive themes
decision to use exclusion criteria in Table 1 is widely sup- provided a comprehensive and systematic overview of the
ported by comparable review studies within the Industry information.
4.0 literature (e.g., Ching et al., 2022; Ghobakhloo et al., Furthermore, the analysis proceeded beyond the descrip-
2021a). Subjecting the 2324 identified documents to the tive themes, further exploring the data to generate analytical
exclusion criteria resulted in excluding 1873 documents. themes. This involved a comprehensive exploration of the
As a result, 451 articles were shortlisted under the initial relationships, connections, and implications within the data,
pool of eligible journal articles. enabling the identification of key concepts and perspectives
Step B1 concerned the backward review of the eligible that contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the
articles shortlisted in step A2. This step involved screening topic. The analytical themes represented a higher level of
the reference section of the 451 eligible articles and iden- abstraction, shedding light on the interconnections, contra-
tifying documents that mention Industry 4.0 or any related dictions, and emerging trends in the literature. Through this
keywords within their title. Step B1 identified 542 unique rigorous process, a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of
documents not previously identified across step A1. In step the collected data was achieved, facilitating the identification
B2, these documents were subjected to the exclusion crite- of the sustainability functions of Industry 4.0.
ria, which resulted in the exclusion of 495 documents. Step To establish the reliability and validity of the findings,
B2 led to the secondary pool of 47 eligible journal articles. the research team adhered to established guidelines and best
Next, the forward review of eligible articles was conducted practices in qualitative research (e.g., Thomas & Harden,
in step C1. In this step, the research team used Google 2008; White & Marsh, 2006). Independent content assessors
Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus platforms to identify conducted the content analysis, ensuring an objective data
related documents that cited any of the 498 (451 + 47) eli- evaluation. Any disagreements or discrepancies in findings
gible articles identified across steps A2 and B2. Step C1 were meticulously tracked and addressed at the individual
identified 316 unrecognised documents across steps A1 article level. Extensive discussions and comparisons were
and B1. Step C2 involved applying the exclusion criteria undertaken among the research team members to reach a
to these newly identified documents, removing 287 ineligi- shared consensus on the content analysis findings. This itera-
ble documents. As a result, the tertiary pool of 29 eligible tive process enhanced the reliability and validity of the anal-
articles was established in step C2. Steps A2, B2, and C2 ysis by minimising subjectivity and ensuring the robustness
Fig. 2 Sustainability impacts of Industry 4.0 and their acknowledgement rate within the literature
of the interpretations. The research team further applied evi- outcomes at the supply chain (or specific regional busi-
dence mapping to visually classify and compare the Industry ness sector) level, whereas the macroscopic level relates to
4.0 areas of impact in sustainability. Evidence mapping is a large-scale Industry 4.0 outcomes at the societal or global
user-friendly modern methodology commonly used to pro- scale. The impact area in Fig. 2 consists of the economic,
vide a high-level visual overview of the state of evidence environmental, and social pillars of sustainability, which are
over a specific phenomenon and its impacts (Kondo et al., thoroughly discussed and elaborated on within the literature
2019). The content analysis results are discussed in the fol- (Toktaş-Palut, 2022). This classification in Fig. 2 leads to 9
lowing sections. blocks and sustainability impact, from the micro-economic
block to the macro-social block. Each block lists the underly-
2.2.1 The Sustainability Impacts of Industry 4.0 ing sustainability indices among the eligible articles along
with their respective acknowledgement rate. For example,
Content analysis results revealed that scholars had studied under the micro-environmental block, 12.524% of eligible
the sustainability implications of Industry 4.0 across various articles acknowledged that Industry 4.0 significantly impacts
analysis levels and impact areas. Eligible articles frequently the resource consumption efficiency of individual firms.
drew on the triple bottom line framework to separately report The study draws on the results of evidence synthesis and
the economic, environmental, and social sustainability impli- develops the evidence map of Industry 4.0’s sustainability
cations of Industry 4.0 (Nara et al., 2021). Alternatively, the implications, as shown in Fig. 3. This figure is compatible
literature commonly distinguishes the micro-sustainability with Fig. 2 in the sense that it offers similar categorisation of
impacts of Industry 4.0 from macroscale impacts (Adamik & Industry 4.0 sustainability implications under similar blocks.
Sikora-Fernandez, 2021). The present study adapts to these However, this map explicitly describes the extent to which
classifications and presents the sustainability implications Industry 4.0 positively or negatively impacts each sustaina-
of Industry 4.0, as shown in Fig. 2. This figure structures bility index, as perceived by the scholarly literature. As seen
the Industry 4.0 sustainability implications in the form of in the legend part of Fig. 3, rectangles of four different sizes
a three-by-three matrix based on analysis levels and impact have been used to depict the acknowledgement level (rate) of
areas. Under the analysis levels, the microscopic level refers each sustainability index. For example, the smallest rectan-
to the organisational analysis level, where Industry 4.0 out- gle represents sustainability indices with an acknowledge-
comes are assessed in the individual or firm context. The ment rate of less than 3% (among the 527 eligible articles),
mesoscopic level mainly concerns evaluating Industry 4.0 while the largest rectangle represents sustainability indices
Fig. 3 The evidence map of the positive and negative impacts of Industry 4.0 on various aspects of sustainability
with an acknowledgement rate of more than 9%. The green scholars believe that Industry 4.0 contributions to micro-
colour in Fig. 3 should be inferred as the positive impact economic sustainability are unconditionally positive, par-
of Industry 4.0 on a specific sustainability index, whereas ticularly concerning productivity, organisational resilience,
the red colour should be interpreted as a negative impact. and production reliability (e.g., Chiarini et al., 2020; Chi-
The proportionality of green colour to red colour in a given arini, 2021; Dalenogare et al., 2018). While acknowledg-
rectangle corresponds to the extent to which Industry 4.0 ing these negative impacts, scholars such as Ghobakhloo
has been reported to positively or negatively impact a given and Fathi (2020) and Song et al. (2022) argue that Industry
sustainability index. Figures 2 and 3 collectively describe 4.0 technologies inherently favour productivity and perfor-
how the literature has observed Industry 4.0 to positively or mance improvement. However, they can cause temporary
negatively impact various aspects (indices) of sustainability. operational disruption and productivity loss during the ini-
Figures 2 and 3 show that the micro-economic sustain- tial implementation stages. Alternatively, the cybersecurity
ability implications of Industry 4.0 have received the most immaturity of implementing firms may allow malicious
attention within the literature. Eligible articles have identi- actors to target Industry 4.0 technologies and hamper the
fied 15 sustainability indices under this block. Results reveal resilience or reliability of business operations (Bécue et al.,
that Industry 4.0 contribution to micro-economic sustaina- 2021).
bility has been dominantly positive. The most acknowledged Content analysis results also identified seven micro-
contribution of Industry 4.0 to this area involves enhancing environmental sustainability indices, which, in most cases,
the industrial productivity and operational cost-saving of have been positively affected by Industry 4.0. In particular,
individual firms (Kiel et al., 2017; Strandhagen et al., 2020). the literature widely acknowledges that Industry 4.0 enables
Indeed, the literature offers detailed insights into how Indus- individual firms to improve resource consumption efficiency
try 4.0 may promote sustainability indices under this block. (Dixit et al., 2022; Margherita & Braccini, 2020), reduce
For example, scholars such as Chen et al. (2021) and Dev waste (Psarommatis et al., 2021), and increase material flow
et al. (2020) explained how industrial units could draw on efficiency (Sun et al., 2022; Vlachos et al., 2021). These
disruptive technological constituents of Industry 4.0, includ- positive micro-sustainability contributions generally root
ing additive manufacturing, industrial robotics, and digital in Industry 4.0 unique features, such as continuous real-
twin, to promote product and process innovation. Not all time process monitoring (Mishra et al., 2018) or AI-driven
resource management and prioritisation optimisation productivity, profitability, innovation, agility, and resil-
(Amjad et al., 2021; Fathi & Ghobakhloo, 2020). Indus- ience (Fatorachian & Kazemi, 2021). Industry 4.0 draws
try 4.0 also allows businesses to use AI, big data analytics, on the integrability of big data analytics, cloud comput-
and predictive models to develop smart-hiring platforms ing, CPS, and IIoT to materialise the digital supply net-
that identify suitable talents with the needed sustainabil- work concept (Tsolakis et al., 2023), in which autonomy,
ity competencies (Ghobakhloo et al., 2021a). Scholars also real-time data sharing, and self-monitoring capabilities
report that smart human resource platforms under Industry improve collaboration, decision processes, responsive-
4.0, also known as HRM4.0, can offer analytical insights ness, and productivity across supply partners (Birkel &
into employees’ sustainability productivity (Rana & Sharma, Müller, 2021). Eligible articles further reveal that Industry
2019) and help the management team to develop better sus- 4.0 promotes supply chain resilience by supporting essen-
tainability training and development programs for employees tial enablers like transparency, traceability, adaptability,
(Al Amiri & Shawali, 2021; Vereycken et al., 2021). None- cost-effectiveness, and continuity management (Ivanov &
theless, the literature highlights a few cases where Industry Dolgui, 2021; Mubarik et al., 2021). Industry 4.0 contri-
4.0 negatively impacts some micro-environmental sustain- bution to supply chain profitability involves several micro
ability indices (Oláh et al., 2020). For example, smart manu- functions, such as collaborative real-time planning (Reyes
facturing facilities have much higher energy consumption et al., 2021), new service-orientated business models
due to the intensive energy needs of industrial robots, auto- (Hahn, 2020), improved performance management (Xie
mated guided vehicles, or sensor-equipped and connected et al., 2020), and logistics efficiency (Sun et al., 2022).
machinery (Chiarini, 2021). In addition, the dimensionality Nonetheless, the digital transformation of supply chains
and complexity of intelligent production systems and smart under Industry 4.0 requires significant financial invest-
products under Industry 4.0 challenge the implementation of ment and reengineering of business and supply chain pro-
circularity and sustainable operations (Abdul-Hamid et al., cesses, causing temporary productivity losses (Sharma
2020; Hennemann Hilario et al., 2022). et al., 2021). Scholars also argue that the mismanagement
Contrary to the micro-economic and environmental of Industry 4.0 risk (e.g., cybersecurity) in logistics and
blocks, the literature reports Industry 4.0 implications as supply chain operations has been a critical threat to supply
mostly negative for micro-social sustainability indices. The chain productivity, profitability, and resilience (Ghadge
application of more intelligent collaborative robots, smart et al., 2020; Pandey et al., 2021).
industrial wearables, and AI-enabled real-time monitoring of According to Fig. 3, Industry 4.0 positively impacts the
machinery and facilities offer valuable opportunities for pro- majority of meso-environmental sustainability indices. For
moting work environment safety (Bi et al., 2021; Min et al., example, literature provides detailed explanations of how
2019). Industry 4.0 also improves job satisfaction, given that supply chains can draw on Industry 4.0 technologies (e.g.,
it promotes manual labour to decision-makers or problem- IoT, data analytics, or robotics) and unique features (e.g.,
solvers by supplying them with visualised information in service orientation or real-time capability) to develop cir-
real-time and automating exhausting and unergonomic cular strategies or business models such as Products-as-a-
tasks (Longo et al., 2017, 2022). Nevertheless, Industry 4.0 Service (PaaS) or cloud manufacturing (Mastos et al., 2021).
adversely impacts employee privacy, income equality, job In particular, the literature details how Industry 4.0 pro-
security, and workplace dignity within individual businesses motes supply chain-level intelligent waste management by
(Jr et al., 2022; Melé, 2021; Soh & Connolly, 2020). Under addressing critical operational challenges of waste disposal
the Industry 4.0 environment, workers’ psyches are con- and management activities such as speed, value recovery,
stantly challenged by job insecurity, given that lower-skilled and operating costs (Lopes et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).
or repetitive jobs can always be lost to autonomous machines Researchers have also shown how Industry 4.0-enabled
(Malik et al., 2022; Müller, 2019). The continuous and real- technology intervention can optimise urban waste manage-
time monitoring feature of Industry 4.0, which can very well ment systems (Kanojia & Visvanathan, 2021) and reduce
be extended to invasive employee monitoring, cause service value network-level pollution (Bag et al., 2021a). Although
privacy and security concern among employees, examples Industry 4.0 has been positively associated with supply chain
of which include unfair autonomous decisions based on sustainability, circularity, and sustainable partnership, the
monitored productivity data, excessive micromanagement, literature reports some negative associations in rare cases.
or accessing private social media content (Soukupová et al., For example, supply chain digitalisation under Industry 4.0
2020; Tong et al., 2021). is challenged by the complexity of digital transformation,
The meso-economic sustainability implications of trust issues, and data ownership concerns (Kache & Seuring,
Industry 4.0 are dominantly positive. The literature com- 2017; Luthra & Mangla, 2018), which negatively impact
prehensively explains how various technological constitu- sustainable partnerships (Pandey et al., 2021) and prevent
ents of Industry 4.0 can collectively improve supply chain the integration of product life cycle management into supply
chain strategies (Dolgui & Ivanov, 2020; Ghobakhloo et al., (Durand & Milberg, 2020; Rainnie & Dean, 2020). Although
2021a). the progressive application of disruptive Industry 4.0 tech-
The literature provides controversial evidence on the nologies, such as AI or big data analytics, has been valuable
implications of Industry 4.0 for meso-social sustainability. to the economic and innovation growth of regions, it has
Industry 4.0 has given birth to the concept of product indi- adversely intensified the macro-economic inequality issues
vidualisation (Saniuk et al., 2020a), given that its underlying associated with intellectual monopoly capitalism and infor-
technologies (e.g., additive manufacturing) and design prin- mation monopoly (Durand & Milberg, 2020; Rikap, 2022),
ciples, such as customer integration or servitisation, provide pushed mainly by tech giants (Rikap & Lundvall, 2022).
the necessary manufacturing flexibility and cost-efficiency Figure 3 shows that Industry 4.0 contribution to macro-
to produce highly individualised consumer goods (Fathi & environmental sustainability indices is controversial. On a
Ghobakhloo, 2020; Leng et al., 2020). The horizontal inte- positive note, Industry 4.0 promotes macro-environmental
gration and smart product features of Industry 4.0 have taken sustainability by facilitating large-scale collaboration and
customer communication and engagement to the next level, partnership on environmental protection and progressing cir-
enhancing customer satisfaction (Frank et al., 2019a, b). cular economy worldwide (Bai et al., 2022; Mastos et al.,
Nonetheless, scholars are deeply concerned about the nega- 2021). While Industry 4.0 combats climate change by intro-
tive impacts of Industry 4.0 on employment, job displace- ducing productivity and resource efficiency into industrial
ment, and skill crises at the supply chain or intraregional operations (Ghobakhloo & Fathi, 2021), the energy intensity
levels (e.g., Bhattacharyya & Mitra, 2020; Pardi, 2019). of its underlying technologies expedites environmental dete-
Industry 4.0 is radically pushing the implementation of rioration (Chiarini, 2021). Digitalisation under Industry 4.0
smart technologies across supply chains, requiring employ- relies on numerous infrastructural requirements, from count-
ees and managers to be significantly skilled in soft comput- less hardware, battery-based storage systems, and cabling
ing and engineering skills such as data science (Fareri et al., infrastructure to extensive cooling systems for data cen-
2020). As a result, most businesses struggle with upskill- tres (Ghobakhloo & Fathi, 2021; Nara et al., 2021). These
ing issues and acquiring much-needed talents (Ayinde & infrastructural requirements are creating an ever-increasing
Kirkwood, 2020; Mefi & Asoba, 2020). Although Industry demand for natural resources and rare materials such as neo-
4.0 is creating new unheard jobs, it eliminates a significant dymium, which, in many cases, are acquired or extracted via
portion of low-skilled and repetitive tasks across industrial non-environmentally friendly operations (Markard, 2020).
value networks (Margherita & Braccini, 2021; Müller, 2019; More importantly, smarter and more electronically complex
Sung, 2018). Indeed, predictive models show that Industry consumer goods, computer electronics used across Industry
4.0 might displace or restructure up to 40% of jobs, inten- 4.0 systems, and supporting infrastructure such as cabling
sifying employment disruption and skill discrepancy issues systems have a much shorter lifespan due to the ever-increas-
(Haiss et al., 2021). ing innovation speed (Ching et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2020).
Industry 4.0 can be a double-edged sword for macro- Recycling decommissioned hardware and digital infrastruc-
economic sustainability, as it can positively and negatively ture has proven challenging and expensive, intensifying
impact long-term and equitable economic growth. Scholars environmental degradation (Rene et al., 2021).
argue that Industry 4.0 inherently favours macro-economic Industry 4.0 implications for macro-social sustainability
growth (Ghobakhloo et al., 2021b). Nonetheless, the digi- have been primarily negative. The ever-changing distri-
tal transformation of regions under Industry 4.0 has been bution of jobs caused by Industry 4.0 generally increases
spatially uneven, favouring peripheral regions significantly high-wage employment while reducing lower-skilled and
less over dynamic ones (Barzotto et al., 2020; Greef & medium-wage occupations, raising inequality across vari-
Schroeder, 2021). Industry 4.0 promotes macroregional ous countries (Jr et al., 2022; Mönnig et al., 2019). While
innovation excellence, but technologically specialised Industry 4.0 increases the prevalence of digital devices and
regions benefit more significantly from the digital industrial products, the underlying income inequality and polarisa-
revolution (Ciffolilli & Muscio, 2018; Hilpert, 2021). Con- tion intensify the digital divide, worsening the current
cerns regarding Industry 4.0 and unequal economic devel- social exclusion crisis (Hayriye & Fatma, 2020; Wei &
opment of regions are not limited to the European region. Peters, 2019). In addition, socio-economic digitalisation
For example, Chiengkul (2019) criticises the Thailand 4.0 under Industry 4.0 has been associated with critical side
agenda for intensifying Thailand’s fragmented political effects, such as digital capitalism or excessive automation,
economy and providing more advanced economic sectors which weaken social relationships and undermine the role
with exclusive opportunities for growth under the Indus- of human agency in socio-economic values (Rikap, 2022;
try 4.0 agenda. Similarly, literature provides controversial Xu et al., 2021). On a positive note, regional advancement in
arguments on the macro-economic impacts of servitisation, Industry 4.0 promotes digital literacy via interrelated mecha-
platformisation, and monopolisation pushed by Industry 4.0 nisms. Applying Industry 4.0 technologies in the education
Fig. 4 The HF-ISM research

Phase 1. Content-centric evidence synthesis of literature
framework
Content-centric evidence synthesis of Identifying negative and positive contributions of
Industry 4.0 literature Industry 4.0 to the economic, environmental, and
societal pillars of sustainability
Identifying sustainability functions of Industry 5.0
Phase 2. Data Gathering and Scenario Analysis
Expert qualifications and selection

Briefing sessions and data gathering
Hesitant Fuzzy ISM questionnaire
Scenario design
Analyzing the HF-ISM questionnaires via three
scenarios
Phase 3. HF-ISM-MICMAC
Classification of functions in three Implementing HF-ISM-MICMAC for three

scenarios scenarios
Level-Based models for three scenarios
system enhances fresh graduates’ digital literacy (Jamaludin nine sustainability functions of Industry 4.0 were identified
et al., 2020). Alternatively, universities nowadays offer novel through the content-centric literature review. Afterwards,
Industry 4.0-focused interdisciplinary programs that equip data gathering and scenario analysis were implemented
graduates with technical skills in Industry 4.0 technologies based on the hesitant questionnaire used in this research.
(Karre et al., 2017). Industry 4.0 also requires businesses to Eventually, the HF-ISM-MICMAC approach was applied
train their employees on the skills needed by digitalisation to classify the functions and illustrate the level-based con-
(Agarwal et al., 2021). Under Industry 4.0, customers must ceptual models. Details of the research framework have been
improve their digital literacy to interact better with smart explained in Fig. 4.
products and services (Wang & Wu, 2021).
3.1 Identifying Sustainability Functions of Industry
4.0
3 HF‑ISM Methodology
The content-centric literature review and underlying results
To classify the functions through which Industry 4.0 pro- indicate that none of the technological constituents or
motes the sustainability goals of Industry 5.0 (from now on design principles of Industry 4.0 inherently defy sustain-
called Industry 4.0 sustainability functions) with different ability priorities. Indeed, the literature acknowledges that
scenarios of uncertainty and to present level-based concep- the mismanagement of digital transformation under Industry
tual models for the relationship amongst these functions, 4.0 causes negative contributions to sustainability indices
a novel Hesitant-Fuzzy set (HFs) approach has been inte- (Müller, 2020; Renda et al., 2022). Content analysis results
grated with Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) known identified nine functions through which Industry 4.0 and the
as HF-ISM. The novel approach allows experts to share underlying digitalisation, if appropriately managed, can pro-
their experience, intuition, and hesitation while complet- mote various sustainability indices and fulfil the key objec-
ing the questionnaires and dealing with real-world uncer- tives of the Industry 5.0 agenda, including environmental
tainty. Hence, this research benefits from a three-phase sustainability, human-centricity, and resilience. Notably, the
research framework, as shown in Fig. 4. In the first stage, sustainability functions of Industry 4.0 refer to the practical
roles and capabilities of Industry 4.0 constituents (includ- et al., 2021; Saniuk et al., 2020a). CMP further involves the
ing technologies and design principles) in promoting sus- smartification of products and underlying services using IoT,
tainability. These functions represent the tangible ways that IoS, cloud platforms, and AI. Smart products can be advan-
Industry 4.0 contributes to sustainable outcomes by address- tageous to companies, customers, and the environment, as
ing environmental, social, and economic challenges through they offer important opportunities for energy efficiency,
specific actions and capabilities. It is also worth mentioning consumption optimisation, end-of-life recovery, producer-
that while some of these functions may be found outside the consumer integration, product accessibility, and customer
realm of Industry 4.0, the integration of advanced technolo- satisfaction (Bigerna et al., 2021a, b; Sallati & Schützer,
gies such as automation, artificial intelligence, the Internet 2021). Hence, CMP offers essential implications for socio-
of Things, and data analytics sets Industry 4.0 apart. Industry environmental sustainability concerns such as environmental
4.0 offers a unique and unprecedented capability to deliver degradation, pollution, and customer satisfaction or rights
sustainability functions more efficiently and synergistically. (Dev et al., 2020).
The comprehensive suite of interconnected sustainability
functions and the underlying technological capabilities allow Human Centred Technology Development (HTD) This
Industry 4.0 to uniquely boost sustainability beyond what function involves developing technological products that
can be achieved with individual solutions. These functions prioritise human needs and interests (Ahmed et al., 2021).
are concisely explained in the following section. Human-cantered technological products can take any form,
such as applications, industrial machinery, manufactur-
Business Risk Monitoring and Management (BRM) Industry ing equipment, business intelligence system, websites, or
4.0 involves developing a hyperconnected business environ- consumer electronics (Pacaux-Lemoine et al., 2017). The
ment where industrial control systems, IIoT, cloud technolo- HTD function promotes users’ or consumers’ rights, such
gies, and intelligent suites provide proactive and real-time- as accessibility, privacy, or dignity (Reiman et al., 2021; Xu
oriented monitoring of core business processes (Mishra et al., 2021). Integrability, innovation, and virtualisation fea-
et al., 2018). The BRM function of Industry 4.0 streamlines tures of Industry 4.0 technologies allow businesses to under-
business operations by proactively sensing business dis- stand and address users’ or consumers’ preferences, such
ruptions and safeguarding mission-critical processes from as interface, skill intensity, expectations, or values (Gho-
technical problems (Bazan & Estevez, 2022). This function bakhloo and Fathi, 2020). HTD has various implications
further addresses the significant shortcomings of traditional for social sustainability concerns, such as job complexity,
risk management through (1) removing information silos job security, skill gap, job displacement, customer dissatis-
and creating an integrated risk management system, (2) faction, or product accessibility (de Assis Dornelles et al.,
predicting the dynamic impact of risk factors across vari- 2022). HTD also promotes the human-centricity of business
ous business functions, (3) forecasting the overall impact of operations and enhances labour productivity (Rosin et al.,
risk management scenarios across business functions, and 2020). In particular, HTD empowers the gradual transition
(4) providing a holistic real-time overview of internal and of manual labour to decision-makers or problem-solvers by
external risks (Ivanov & Dolgui, 2021; Spieske & Birkel, supplying them with visualised information in real-time,
2021). AI-driven predictive analytics, big data analytics, IoT, along with the automation of exhausting and unergonomic
and blockchain-driven information handling are critical ena- tasks (Longo et al., 2017). To do so, Industry 4.0 facilitates
blers of BRM under Industry 4.0 (Ivanov et al., 2019). ERM integrating the human workforce into the hyperconnected
contributes to sustainability by increasing the transparency business ecosystem (Ghobakhloo et al., 2021b). For exam-
of end-to-end business processes, preventing operational ple, industrial smart wearables such as bio-inspired protec-
disruption, and improving industrial entities’ environmental tive gears would allow the human workforce to perform their
compliance and resource utilisation efficiency (Kazancoglu tasks safer, faster, and more productively (de Assis Dornelles
et al., 2021; Viriyasitavat et al., 2020). et al., 2022). ETA’s contribution to sustainability involves
promoting the users’ safety, dignity, productivity, and satis-
Circular Smart Products (SCP) Industry 4.0 empowers busi- faction, to name a few (Badri et al., 2018; Rainnie & Dean,
nesses to develop products that serve the circular economy 2020).
objectives by being more environmentally friendly, reus-
able, durable, recyclable, and, more importantly, profitable Operational and Resource Efficiency (ORE) This function
(Ertz et al., 2022). Industry 4.0 delivers the CMP function is bi-dimensional. It first entails drawing on Industry 4.0
by improving value network-wide collaboration on green technologies and design principles to improve an organi-
product development, promoting design thinking, integrating sation’s output-to-input ratio and increase profitability by
cleaner production technologies, innovating product packag- reducing operating costs (Rosin et al., 2021). Industry 4.0
ing processes, and managing product end-of-life (Mubarik delivers this dimension of ORE via various interrelated
micro-processes. For example, virtualisation, empowered chain-wide circularity, and renewable integration are among
by AI, augmented reality, and digital twin technology under the sustainability outcomes of PRE (Cheng et al., 2021).
Industry 4.0, can boost OPE via improved financial decision
processes, risk assessment acceleration, or higher system Process Automation and Integration (PAI) Industry 4.0
reliability (Ante, 2021). Automating repetitive tasks, effec- draws on AI, blockchain, CPS, industrial robots, control
tive human resource management, and improved knowledge systems, and IIoT to integrate and automate intricate busi-
sharing are other contributions of Industry 4.0 to operational ness processes (Margherita & Braccini, 2021). Under the
efficiency (Margherita & Braccini, 2020). Second, Industry smart factory concept, PAI involves the vertical integration
4.0 improves resource efficiency by promoting technologies of production modules and automating production lines and
and business processes that favour resource productivity intralogistics operations using various technologies such as
(Chen et al., 2021). For example, Industry 4.0 supports lean autonomous collaborative robots, automated guided vehi-
manufacturing by facilitating the continuous real-time moni- cles, control systems, edge computing, IIoT, and execution
toring of production operations (Reyes et al., 2021). Alter- systems (Vlachos et al., 2021). PAI also offers important
natively, Industry 4.0 technologies such as 3D printing or implications for supply chain management automation, such
digital twins are crucial to implementing resource-efficient as enabling Autonomous Storage and Retrieval Systems
production concepts such as near-net shape or zero waste (ASRS) or blockchain-driven smart contracts (Viriyasitavat
manufacturing (Ante, 2021; Kerin & Pham, 2019). Viewed et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022). Due to the horizontal integra-
holistically, Industry 4.0 allows manufacturing chains to take tion principle of Industry 4.0, PAI implications extend to
the life-cycle approach to introduce resource efficiency to customer relationship management automation, including
value-creating operations, from raw material extraction and autonomous customer communication via AI-driven chat-
processing to product manufacturing, distribution, and con- bots or customer demand forecasting via predictive analytics
sumption (Ertz et al., 2022). ORE implications for sustaina- and business intelligence software (Libai et al., 2020). PAI
bility are myriad, ranging from resource consumption micro- can promote sustainability in numerous ways, such as supply
efficiencies, human resource productivity, product quality, chain productivity or material flow efficiency (Fatorachian
and industrial waste reduction to preventing environmental & Kazemi, 2021).
degradation (Mastos et al., 2021; Yilmaz et al., 2022).
Real‑Time Communication (RTC) Real-time capability is
Proactive Environmentalism (PRE) Industry 4.0 delivers among the integral principles of Industry 4.0 (Longo et al.,
PRE by introducing sustainability thinking into the value 2022). The RTC function addresses the immediacy require-
networks (Dev et al., 2020; Ertz et al., 2022). Through PRE, ment of the contemporary business environment (Robert
manufacturing chains can benefit from Industry 4.0 technol- et al., 2022). RTC involves real-time data collection and
ogies to develop cleaner production systems and operations analysis to facilitate immediate or near-real-time decision-
(Ching et al., 2022). PRE can also promote eco-consumer- making across the value network (O’Donovan et al., 2019).
ism by allowing smart consumers to understand and control Under Industry 4.0, RTC builds on big data, cloud com-
the environmental impact of their consumption behaviour puting, CPS, and IoT to facilitate system integration and
(Saniuk et al., 2020b). The PRE function draws on the inte- eliminate data silos (Roda-Sanchez et al., 2021). The scope
grability and data interoperability features of Industry 4.0 of RTC expands beyond smart factories, involving other
technology to allow value partners to integrate sustainable smart components of Industry 4.0, including smart suppli-
decision-making and meaningfully scale up a circular econ- ers, logistics, consumers, and products (Mastos et al., 2021;
omy (Rajput & Singh, 2020). This function also involves Robert et al., 2022). The value network-wide RTC function
enabling industrial value networks to integrate green materi- is essential to improving various sustainability indices, such
als and renewable energy sources into value engineering and as productivity, renewable integration, work environment
creating processes to benefit all stakeholders from the desir- safety, and customer satisfaction (Bag et al., 2021a; Gho-
able economic and socio-environmental outcomes (Scharl bakhloo, 2020).
& Praktiknjo, 2019). Industry 4.0 delivers this functionality
via several mechanisms, such as facilitating green innovation Supply Chain Antifragility Capability (SCA) Industry 4.0
capability, decentralised decision systems, smarter energy delivers the SCA function in two major ways. First, Industry
management systems, and energy supply chain digitalisation 4.0 improves supply chain responsiveness by allowing sup-
(Ghobakhloo & Fathi, 2021). More importantly, Industry ply partners to enhance their agility, adaptability, resilience,
4.0 enables the autonomous and continuous monitoring of and improvision capabilities (Aslam et al., 2018; Eslami
sustainable procurement practices to promote the sustain- et al., 2021). For example, the analytical and decentralisation
able sourcing of raw materials (Lim et al., 2021). Climate capabilities of Industry 4.0, thanks to AI, big data analytics,
protection, environmental degradation prevention, supply CPS, and digital twin technologies, allow supply partners
to engage in collaborative forecasting, identify weak sup- European universities and research institutes. Accord-
ply chain links, build early risk detection capabilities, and ingly, a list of 21 highly experienced experts was identified
achieve supply chain-wide openness to change, conditions through close collaboration with the consortia partners.
that promote responsiveness (Gebhardt et al., 2021). Alter- A self-assessment questionnaire was designed and dis-
natively, SCA enhances the dynamism of supply chains by tributed among the experts to evaluate and ensure indi-
enabling its functional prerequisites, such as supply chain vidual experts’ knowledge for participating in the study.
flexibility and knowledge management (Gupta et al., 2020). This questionnaire measured experts’ familiarity with
By doing so, Industry 4.0 empowers supply partners to gain Industry 4.0 and sustainability as well as their real-world
the agility and innovativeness to implement dynamic busi- experience concerning these concepts. As a result, accord-
ness models that support servitisation, nearshoring, strategic ing to the capabilities and accessibility, ten experts were
adaptability, and threat conversion capabilities (Bag et al., shortlisted to participate in this research and to complete
2021b; Ivanov et al., 2022). The literature acknowledges the questionnaires. The experts’ profiles are presented in
that SCA manifested in the dynamism and responsiveness Table 2.
of the supply chain is beneficial to the economic resilience A briefing session was set for each expert for 30 min
aspect of sustainability at the micro and meso analysis levels to explain the research objectives and the guidelines for
(Ivanov, 2020; Kazancoglu et al., 2022). completing the questionnaire (Appendix). The Hesitant
Fuzzy ISM-MICMAC questionnaire is a square matrix that
Sustainable Business Model Innovation (SBI) Industry 4.0 includes all Industry 4.0 functions in rows and columns.
allows businesses to apply disruptive technologies such as In each cell, the experts should respond to three questions:
AI, big data, or IoT to innovate various aspects of their busi- (i) what is the impact of function (i) on function (j)? (ii)
ness model, such as value streams or customer relationships how much is the impact possible? and (iii) how much is the
(Frank et al., 2019a, b). Businesses can also draw on Indus- impact impossible? For the first question, and according to
try 4.0 to reinvent their business model entirely into new ISM-MICMAC methodology, four options were designed
value-creation systems such as manufacturing-as-a-service and presented in Table 3.
(Ching et al., 2022). By doing so, companies can introduce For the second and third questions, five linguistic terms
sustainable innovation into their product or processes and were used to determine the possibility and impossibility of
stay relevant in the fast-evolving business environment each impact of function (i) over function (j) (Razavi Hajia-
(Hahn, 2020). To introduce sustainability into the business gha et al., 2022a, b). These terms and their corresponding
model innovation, Industry 4.0 promotes businesses’ sus- values are presented in Table 4 (Yalcin et al., 2020). Note
tainable product and process innovation capabilities through that the summation of possibility and impossibility value of
a complex mechanism (Mubarak et al., 2021). Such a mecha- each cell should not exceed 1 (Dolatabad et al., 2022).
nism can be idiosyncratic to each business context yet com- The described questionnaire was sent to each expert and
monly involves businesses drawing on Industry 4.0 to pro- was completed and gathered from all after seven weeks.
mote sustainable collaboration, green absorptive capacity, Next, to analyse the completed hesitant fuzzy questionnaires,
sustainable talent management, and sustainable innovation the authors designed three scenarios as follows.
orientation (Ghobakhloo et al., 2021a; Liu & De Giovanni,
2019). • Scenario 1 (Gentle). This scenario is helpful for predict-
able uncertain conditions. Hence, an expert opinion is
3.2 Data Gathering and Scenario Analysis acceptable if the difference between possibility from
impossibility is a positive value. Otherwise, the expert
A novel, hesitant fuzzy ISM-MICMAC approach has been opinion is changed to the inverse value (i.e., “X” is
used to further discuss the extracted functions of Industry replaced by “O,” and “V” is replaced by “A” and vice
4.0. To implement the design method, experts’ opinion versa).
has been used for further investigations. Detailed expert • Scenario 2 (Moderate). This scenario is appropriate for
identification and selection procedures were designed and moderate uncertain conditions. Hence, an expert opin-
implemented to ensure the reliability of experts’ insights. ion is acceptable if the possibility value is more than
Only European experts were targeted for this study for 50%, regardless of the impossibility value. Otherwise,
two major reasons. First, the present study was funded the expert opinion is changed to the inverse value.
by a European project under the Horizon 2020 Research • Scenario 3 (Strict). This scenario applies to extremely
and Innovation Programme, which encouraged a European uncertain conditions. Hence, an expert opinion is accept-
perspective on the topic. Second, Europe is the birthplace able if the difference between possibility from impos-
of the concepts of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0, and the sibility is more than 50%. Otherwise, the expert opinion
consortia involved in this project mainly consisted of is changed to the inverse value.
Table 2 Experts profile

Expert ID Gender Education Experience
1 Male Professor of innovation and sustainable development Over 25 years of experience collaborating with various
institutions, including the European Commission and World
Bank, concerning digitalisation, economic development
strategies, and technological innovation dynamics.
2 Female Professor of political economy and visiting professor of sus- 20 + years of experience collaborating with various European
tainability leadership research and policy institutions, management boards, and
advisory boards concerning green technology platforms,
climate mitigation, low carbon economy, and sustainable
digital transformation.
3 Male Associate professor of operations and technology manage- Years of collaboration with industry concerning new technol-
ment ogy transformation and commercialisation. Experience in
more than 10 national or European-level projects concern-
ing manufacturing smartification, sustainable manufac-
turing, human-centric manufacturing, and digitalisation
readiness.
4 Female Professor of entrepreneurship, innovation, and Technology Over 20 years of experience collaborating with academia
and industry concerning innovation policy, sustainable
technology governance, and green innovation. Principal
investigator and researcher in various European projects on
digitalisation and sustainability, including Industry 4.0.
5 Male Associate professor of industrial engineering and manage- Nine years of working in the industry as a digitalisation and
ment social responsibility consultant. Participation in various
national/EU-level projects concerning Industry 4.0, climate-
neutral manufacturing, sustainable energy, and circular
industries.
6 Male Assistant professor of the digital economy Over five years of experience collaborating with various
industry leaders concerning AI-driven business forecast-
ing, smart talent management systems, and platformisa-
tion. Principal investigator or senior researcher in several
national and EU-level projects on sustainable digital
transportation, responsible AI, and Industry 4.0 societal
disruption.
7 Female Professor of supply chain management Over two decades of industry experience serving as a digital
supply chain consultant. Years of experience high-level
policy expert in various European policy groups or projects
concerning complex system design for sustainability, sus-
tainable digital transformation, and societal development.
8 Male Distinguished professor of smart manufacturing Over 20 years of experience working with small to large
manufacturing firms as a consultant and research partner
on smart manufacturing, robotic and computer-integrated
manufacturing, assisted operators, digital twining of
manufacturing systems, and digitalisation upskilling.
Involvement in numerous research and innovation projects
concerning Industry 4.0, smart factories, sustainable manu-
facturing, circular manufacturing, and cleaner production
technologies.
9 Female Professor of environmental policy Close to three decades of collaboration with public policy
institutions and industry concerning digital industrial trans-
formation, environmental policy, and sustainable develop-
ment. Senior researcher, advisory board member, or activist
at high-level policy bodies responsible for policies and
practices in sustainable development within Europe.
10 Male Associate professor of digital supply chain innovation Involvement in a few European projects on sustainable sup-
ply chain digitalisation strategies, Industry 4.0 innovation,
autonomous decision systems, supply chain responsiveness,
and circular supply chain. Industry involvement as supply
chain digitalisation and sustainable innovation consultant.
Table 3 Expressions evaluating the relations of criteria (Jafari-Sade- (Rickard et al., 2008), and z-numbers (Zadeh, 2011). Hesi-
ghi et al., 2021) tant fuzzy sets were designed in 2009 (Torra & Narukawa,
Sign Description 2009) to solve the problem of determining the membership
of an element in the case that there is doubt, as illustrated
V The function (i) leads to function (j)
by two experts. In this article, three scenarios of uncertainty,
A The Function (j) leads to function (i)
including extremely uncertain (strict), moderate uncertain
X There is a two-way relationship
(moderate) and predictable uncertain (gentle), were designed
between function (i) and function
(j) and adopted to investigate the extracted functions (described
O There is no relationship between in Section 3.2). Hence, hesitant fuzzy sets and values (as
function (i) and function (j) described in Table 4) were necessary to consider the uncer-
tainty of the environment and embed the experts’ intuition
and experience during the evaluation of functions in differ-
Table 4 The value of each linguistic term for the Hesitant Fuzzy ent scenarios. Two basic definitions for hesitant sets are as
questionnaire follows.
Possibility Impossibility
Definition 1. Let X be a reference set, a hesitant fuzzy set
Term Value Term Value
on X is defined in the term of a function h that returns a
Not possible 0 Not impossible 0 subset of [0, 1] when applied to X.
Nearly possible 0.25 Nearly impossible 0.25 Definition 2. Let be a hesitant fuzzy set, the lower bound,
Fairly possible 0.5 Fairly impossible 0.5 upper bound, and complement of is defined as Eqs. 1 to 3.
Very possible 0.75 Very impossible 0.75
Absolutely possible 1 Absolutely impossible 1
h− (x) = min h(x) (1)
h+ (x) = max h(x) (2)

3.3 Hesitant Fuzzy ISM‑MICMAC
⋃
hc (x) = {1 − 𝛾} (3)
After extracting the functions of sustainable Industry 4.0
𝛾∈h(x)
and data gathering and scenario design, the questionnaire is

all completed for further investigation. Thus, the HF-ISM-
MICMAC approach is implemented to classify the functions 3.3.1 Interpretive Structural Modelling
in three scenarios and illustrate a level-based conceptual
model to demonstrate the relationship between functions. ISM is one of the methods for analysing the relationships
The preliminaries and definitions required for this section between elements, classifying them, and designing a level-
are described as follows. based conceptual model. This method is popular among
It is widespread and reasonable for participants to employ scholars and has been widely employed (Hashemi et al.,
linguistic terms to share their experience and intuition and 2022). In tackling complex problems, ISM-MICMAC has
decide on the extracted functions’ importance accordingly. emerged as a leading tool, offering several distinct advan-
In most cases, uncertainty occurs when the weight of a func- tages over comparable methodologies. Research has shown
tion or element, the importance of the expert’s opinions, that ISM-MICMAC is versatile and flexible, providing
and the value of variables are stated with linguistic terms researchers with a comprehensive framework for analysing
(Razavi Hajiagha et al., 2022a, b). Cognitive concepts are complex systems and making better decisions. (Jafari-Sad-
assumed and supposed as an approach to deal with this eghi et al., 2021). In this methodology, complex systems are
issue. This often happens when the element is subjective broken down into smaller subsystems. A multilevel struc-
or limited numerical data exists. Uncertainty undeniably tural model enables individuals and groups to understand
impacts the decision-making process; hence, it should be the relationships that underlie difficult situations (Iqbal
considered in this research (Mushtaq et al., 2011). For dec- et al., 2023). It then uses the experts’ practical expertise
ades, fuzzy sets and their developments have been applied and knowledge to map the many elements of a given case.
as a suitable approach to consider uncertainty and ambi- By using ISM-MICMAC, it is possible to understand the
guity, where each approach studies uncertainty differently interaction of each system component within a broader
(Amoozad Mahdiraji et al., 2023). Zadeh introduced fuzzy context by breaking it down into smaller subsystems. The
sets to deal with uncertainty in 1965. Since then, numerous ISM-MICMAC methodology offers a significant benefit in
developments of fuzzy sets have been illustrated, such as that it enables the examination of both direct and indirect
intuitionistic fuzzy sets (Atanassov, 1986), type 2 fuzzy sets interrelationships between variables, thereby facilitating the
analysis of the dynamic impact of various elements (Khaba outputs (values of one in the row) are known as the reach-
et al., 2021). Traditional ISM considers only binary digits ability set, inputs (values of one in the column) are known
to indicate whether variables are connected. Consequently, as an antecedent set, and the intersection sets (values of
it did not capture the strength of the relationship between one in both columns and row) are specified. Then, in each
the functions and cannot investigate different scenarios in level, functions with equal intersection and antecedent
ambiguous environments. The Hesitant Fuzzy ISM-MIC- sets were excluded from the analysis and considered a
MAC methodology addresses this problem. This approach level. The same logic is repeated for all other functions
facilitates a more comprehensive comprehension of the (Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021). Accordingly, the level-based
interrelationships between variables (Mahdiraji et al., 2021). conceptual model of the functions was designed.
Existing studies have demonstrated its potential for analys-
ing complex systems and identifying the most critical factors 3.3.2 MICMAC Analysis
in various cases.
ISM is mainly used in conjunction with a criterion analysis
Step 1. A structural self-interaction matrix is formed by technique called MICMAC. This analysis was presented in
employing experts’ opinions. In this regard, each expert 1973 by Dugreen and Goodet. The purpose of this analysis
determines the pairwise relationship between the func- is to categorise the criteria based on their effectiveness into
tions i and function j, found in the expressions presented four categories of elements, including (i) autonomous (low
in Table 3. Here, three rules of scenarios designed in driving and dependence power), (ii) drivers (high driving
stage 2 should be applied to determine the value of each and low dependence power), (iii) dependent (low driving
cell. and high dependence power), and (iv) linkage (high driving
Step 2. The initial reachability matrix is designed based and dependence power) according to Eqs. (4) and (5) (Dhir
on the expressions of Table 3 and scenario rules. There- & Dhir, 2020).
fore, for X and V, the value of one, and for A and O, zero
was replaced for each expert (Iqbal et al., 2021). Then
the average amount of each cell amongst the experts 4 Results
was measured (by arithmetic mean), and an integrated
matrix was extracted. If the arithmetic means the value The results were achieved by implementing the research
was greater than or equal to 0.7, then the value of one was method on the gathered data. Hence, according to the sce-
used; otherwise, zero. narios in Section 3, three classifications of Industry 4.0
Step 3. Transitivity Check. The general rule is that if functions and three level-based conceptual models were
function i leads to j and function j leads to k, then func- extracted. First, by applying the three scenarios on the com-
tion i leads to k. This rule should be tested for all pos- pleted questionnaires and measuring the arithmetic mean
sible situations, and the value of 1* should be replaced of the cells, the initial reachability matrices of all three sce-
for all zero values if this rule applies (Jafari-Sadeghi narios resulted in Table 5.
et al., 2021). The result is known as the final reachability Next, by applying the transitivity analysis (step 3, stage
matrix. This step is important to reinforce the conceptual 3) and measuring the driving and dependence power via
coherence of the initial reachability matrix and fill any Eqs. (4) and (5) (step 4, stage 3), the final reachability matrix
gaps between the functions. for each scenario emanates as Table 6.
Step 4. Equations (4) and (5) computed the driving and By applying the results of Table 6 in the MICMAC anal-
dependence power of each function. ysis, the classified versions of the Industry 4.0 functions
∑n are presented in Fig. 5 (x-array driving power and y-array
Driving Power = r
i=1 ij
(4) dependence power). This classification illustrates the (i)
autonomous (low driving and dependence power), (ii) driv-
∑n ers (high driving and low dependence power), (iii) depend-
Dependence Power = r
j=1 ij (5) ent (low driving and high dependence power), and (iv) link-
age (high driving and dependence power) functions studied
Notice that in Eqs. (4) and (5), rij is the impact (zero or
in this research in three scenarios.
one) of function i on function j. In addition, n is the total
After classifying the Industry 4.0 sustainability func-
number of functions (nine in this research).
tions, using ISM methodology step 5, all functions were
Step 5. Next to the formation of the final reachability
levelled in each scenario, and a conceptual framework was
matrix (FRM), designing a level-based conceptual model
emanated. The results are demonstrated in Fig. 6. Remark
that presents the relationship amongst the Industry 4.0
that, for the gentle scenario, only two levels were engen-
functions was considered. Hence, for each function, the
dered, including F7 as the driver and first level, and the rest
Table 5 Initial Reachability Matrix (IRM) for gentle, moderate, and strict scenarios
Functions F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
Code Abbreviation Scenario 1. Gentle

F1 BRM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
F2 HTD 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
F3 ORE 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
F4 PAI 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
F5 PRE 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
F6 RTC 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
F7 SBI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
F8 SCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
F9 SCP 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
Scenario 2. Moderate
F1 BRM 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
F2 HTD 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
F3 ORE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
F4 PAI 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
F5 PRE 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
F6 RTC 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
F7 SBI 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
F8 SCA 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
F9 SCP 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
Scenario 3. Strict
F1 BRM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
F2 HTD 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
F3 ORE 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
F4 PAI 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
F5 PRE 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
F6 RTC 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
F7 SBI 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
F8 SCA 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
F9 SCP 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
Table 6 Final reachability Function F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 Driving Depend-

matrix and driving and power ence
dependence power of each power
function
Scenario 1. Gentle
F1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 5
F2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 7
F3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 7 5
F4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 8
F5 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 7
F6 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 6
F7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1
F8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9
F9 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 5
Scenario 2. Moderate
F1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 3
F2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 9
F3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 9
F4 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 7
F5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 5
F6 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 8
F7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9
F8 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 9
F9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 5
Scenario 3. Strict
F1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 5
F2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 9
F3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 9
F4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 4
F5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 6
F6 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 7
F7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8 9
F8 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 8
F9 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 7
of the functions as the second level. Hence, this scenario is for the contribution of Industry 4.0 to sustainability via
not presented in Fig. 6. these functions and under real-world circumstances. The
application of these functions identified three scenarios that
uniquely define how the sustainability functions of Industry
5 Discussion 4.0 may interact under a specific business circumstance.
Scenario 1 concerned a real-world business environment
The present study identified nine functions through which with predictable uncertainty, and experts could confidently
Industry 4.0 if appropriately governed, can contribute to and accurately predict the existing environmental uncer-
the sustainability objectives of the emerging Industry 5.0 tainties. Under this scenario, SBI acts as the most driv-
agenda. These nine functions were identified as business ing function, simultaneously empowering the other eight
risk monitoring and management (BRM), human-centred functions of Industry 4.0 to interact and contribute to the
technology development (HTD), operational and resource sustainability goals of Industry 5.0. This scenario takes the
efficiency (ORE), process automation and integration (PAI), innovation capabilities of Industry 4.0 for granted, postulat-
proactive environmentalism (PRE), real-time communica- ing that Industry 4.0 and the industrial application of its
tion (RTC), sustainable business model innovation (SBI), digital technologies autonomously and inherently empower
supply chain antifragility capability (SCA), and smart cir- sustainable innovation. Under this scenario, SBI allows the
cular products (SCP). A novel HF-ISM approach was devel- other eight functions of Industry 4.0 to be developed and
oped and implemented to identify the underlying mechanism capitalised on simultaneously to promote sustainability
Fig. 5 a Classification of 9 F8

Industry 4.0 functions in the Linkage
8 F4
gentle scenario. b Classification
of Industry 4.0 functions in the 7 F2 F5
moderate scenario. c Classifica- 6 F6
tion of Industry 4.0 functions in Dependent
5 F1 F9 F3
the strict scenario 4
3
2
1 Driver F7
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
a Classification of Industry 4.0 functions in the gentle scenario.
9 F2 F8 F3 F7
8 F6
7 F4
Linkage
6
5 F5 F9
4
3 F1
2
1 Driver
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
b Classification of Industry 4.0 functions in the moderate scenario.
9 F2 F3 F7
8 F8
7 Linkage F6
F9
6 F5
5 F1
4 F4
3
2
1 Driver
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
c Classification of Industry 4.0 functions in the strict scenario.
objectives synergistically. While the enabling role of digi- conflicts, generational changes, and data commoditisation.
tally empowered sustainable business model innovation for We acknowledge that sustainable innovation can be recog-
functions such as ORE and SCP is well documented within nised as one of the core design principles of Industry 4.0
the literature (e.g., Fernando et al., 2019), this scenario con- under an ideally deterministic business environment. None-
tradicts the recent findings regarding the sustainable innova- theless, firms’ motive for adopting Industry 4.0 technologies
tion mechanism and sustainability performance of Industry mainly concerns functions that boost corporate survivability
4.0. Indeed, this scenario contradicts Ghobakhloo et al.'s under turbulent business environments. It means scenario
(2021a) findings, which demonstrated that sustainable inno- 1, emphasising the predominating role of the SBI, is more
vation capability is among the most hard-to-develop benefits likely to lack applicability to the turbulence and unpredict-
of Industry 4.0 that depends on various digitally-enabled ability of today’s business world.
sustainability functions such as green absorptive capac- Scenario 2 concerns the implications of Industry 4.0 for
ity, sustainable innovation orientation, and inter-functional the sustainability goals of Industry 5.0 in a business envi-
collaboration. We consider scenario one the least feasible ronment where uncertainty is somewhat unpredictable, and
since the contemporary business world is constantly chal- experts can cautiously predict the existing environmental
lenged by ever-increasing disorders such as socio-political uncertainties. Under this scenario, Industry 4.0 contribution
Fig. 6 The level-based concep- Function Level Model

tual framework for the functions Abbreviation ID Scenario 2. Moderate
BRM F1 1
HTD F2 5 F6
ORE F3 2 F1
PAI F4 4 F3
PRE F5 2
RTC F6 3 F7 F4
SBI F7 1
SCA F8 5 F5
SCP F9 1 F9 F2
F8
Scenario 3. Strict
BRM F1 5
HTD F2 6 F4
ORE F3 6
PAI F4 1
PRE F5 3 F9 F2
RTC F6 4
SBI F7 7
SCA F8 6 F5 F1 F3 F7
SCP F9 2
F6 F8
to sustainability first involves the simultaneous improvement businesses with the necessary resources and capabilities to
of business risk management, sustainable innovation man- achieve real-time communication within and across busi-
agement, circularity, and product smartification capabili- ness operations. The real-time capability further facilitates
ties of businesses via BRM, SBI, and SCP functions. Since the PIA function by enhancing the efficiency of intelligent
BRM, SBI, and SCP are positioned at the same placement automation tools for highly complex operations. Under this
level within the interpretive model of scenario 2, it is safe scenario, HTD and SCA are the most hard-to-develop sus-
to assume that these functions complement and synergically tainability functions since they can only become operational
boost each other while enabling other sustainability func- after developing other sustainability functions.
tions of Industry 4.0. Indeed, these functions collectively Scenario 3 concerns the business environment in which
enable ORE and PRE, positioned at placement level 2 of uncertainty is very unpredictable, and experts cannot
scenario 2’s interpretive model. ORE and PRE, in turn, make accurate and confident predictions of the existing
empower real-time communication within the industrial environmental uncertainties. We believe that scenario 3
value networks (the RTC function). The interpretive model is the most realistic at the time of this study, considering
for this scenario further explains that RTC allows businesses the ongoing war in Ukraine, the energy crisis in Europe,
to automate and integrate their processes (the PIA function), and the lingering disruption effect of the COVID-19
paving the way for developing more human-centric technolo- pandemic. Under this scenario, Industry 4.0 contribu-
gies within the business environment (the HTD function) tion to the sustainability objectives of the Industry 5.0
and building more antifragile supply chains (the SCA func- agenda first entails integrating and automating business
tion). Overall, scenario 2 implies that Industry 4.0 inherently processes via the PAI function. The benefits and inte-
empowers more sustainable business models under moderate gration capabilities gained from PAI allow businesses to
business unpredictability. Nonetheless, Industry 4.0 draws develop smart products that empower circular manufac-
on its risk management and sustainable product smartifi- turing by integrating customers and enhancing product
cation capabilities to address the uncertainties associated life cycle management (the SCP function). SCP, in turn,
with introducing sustainable innovation into business mod- empowers businesses to develop and implement proactive
els. Contrary to scenario 1, where SBI would supposedly environmental strategies (the PRE function) by provid-
allow all the other sustainability functions of Industry 4.0 ing a bird’s-eye view of product life-cycle and consumer
to emerge contemporaneously, specific precedence relation- behaviour. The interpretive model for scenario 3 reveals
ships exist between the functions under scenario 2. In this that under the unpredictability of environmental uncer-
scenario, SBI, BRM, and SCP functions empower sustaina- tainties, PRE is a prerequisite to developing real-time
bility-driven resource productivity, which in turn, provides capabilities. This observation challenges the mainstream
literature widely proposing that RTC is a technical func- 6 Implications

tion that is mainly empowered by decentralisation or
interoperability features (e.g., O’Donovan et al., 2019). The present study addressed the knowledge gaps con-
This unorthodox observation implies that when severe cerning the transformation from Industry 4.0 to Indus-
unpredictability applies, developing real-time capabili- try 5.0. The study strived to explain why Industry 5.0 is
ties in the business environment relies on firms’ abil- being rushed in such an unprecedented manner and how
ity to develop forward-thinking strategic behaviour in the ongoing digital industrial transformation known as
proactively dealing with emerging uncertainties. Under Industry 4.0 should be managed to fulfil the sustainability
scenario 3, RTC is the critical enabler of business risk objective of the Industry 5.0 agenda. To this purpose, the
monitoring and management capabilities (BRM). The study implemented a unique methodology that involved
implications of RTC for BRM may involve higher sup- the content-centric evidence synthesis of the literature
ply network visibility or real-time identification of risk and the development of a novel HF-ISM approach. The
factors. Despite the considerable dependence power of results are believed to provide important contributions to
BRM, this function plays a critical driving role under knowledge and practice. These implications are concisely
scenario 3, as it directly facilitates business antifragility, discussed in the following.
technologic human-centricity, and industrial efficiency
(the HTD, ORE, and SCA functions). In this scenario,
SBI is the most hard-to-develop function of Industry 4.0, 6.1 Theoretical Implications
relying on the synergistic complementarities among HTD,
ORE, and SCA. The results of the content-centric literature review reveal
Scenario 3 fundamentally challenges scenario 2, dem- that Industry 4.0’s contributions to sustainability are
onstrating that Industry 4.0 does not inherently favour controversial. Industry 4.0 is a technology-push and pro-
sustainable business innovation under unpredictable ductivity-driven phenomenon. As expected, Industry 4.0
uncertainties. To put it differently, process automation implications for micro and meso economic sustainability
and achieving vertical and horizontal integration are have been dominantly positive, meaning digital industrial
the primary reasons businesses operating in volatile and transformation under Industry 4.0 has led to substan-
unpredictable environments commit to Industry 4.0 digital tial productivity improvement at the corporate and sup-
transformation. This observation is somewhat expected, ply network levels. In rare cases, the negative impact of
given that businesses need to automate their processes, Industry 4.0 on the economic pillar of sustainability has
integrate with stakeholders, build risk management capa- been reported within the literature. Nonetheless, nega-
bilities, and enjoy resource efficiency to have the liberty tive impacts have been mostly identified as temporary and
to innovate their business models sustainably under unpre- rooted in the disruption caused by the implementation of
dictable uncertainties. Industry 4.0 disruptive technologies. Similarly, results
The present study adopted a business-oriented perspec- imply that the micro and meso environmental sustain-
tive to explore the potential opportunities that purposeful ability implications of Industry 4.0 have been dominantly
governance of Industry 4.0 could provide for sustainabil- reported as positive. Indeed, the literature has identified
ity. While acknowledging the crucial role of business part- various techno-functional principles of Industry 4.0 that
ners in achieving the sustainability objectives of Industry improve energy consumption, waste aversion, circularity,
5.0, we also recognised the insights from a recent study by emission reduction, and green innovation at the corporate
Ghobakhloo et al. (2023a) that highlighted the significance and supply network levels. Conversely, the implication of
of stakeholders, including governments and social actors, Industry 4.0 for micro and meso-social sustainability is
in guiding Industry 4.0 towards the sustainability goals of controversial and inconclusive. For example, the literature
Industry 5.0. However, it is essential to note that the scope offers mixed results regarding how Industry 4.0 technolo-
of the present study primarily focused on investigating the gies impact job complexity. In addition, while Industry
critical enabling role of businesses within this ecosystem. 4.0 has enhanced job safety or customer satisfaction, it
Our findings complement the recent work by Ghobakhloo has been dominantly detrimental to employee privacy,
et al. (2023a), as they shed light on the extensive scope job security, and job displacement. Scholars justify these
of Industry 4.0 governance that extends beyond the realm controversies by arguing that none of the technologies or
of businesses alone. While Ghobakhloo et al. emphasised principles of Industry 4.0 has been pushed by or designed
the importance of various stakeholders in steering Industry for social values.
4.0 towards sustainability, our study provides additional The results further reveal that the macro sustainability
insights that further elucidate the multifaceted nature of impacts of Industry 4.0 are understudied and inconclusive.
governance within the Industry 4.0 landscape.
While Industry 4.0 offers positive implications for inno- Finally, the study contributes to the literature by revealing
vation growth and digital literacy, it has largely been that while Industry 5.0 sets ambitious sustainability goals,
detrimental to equitable macro-regional economic devel- the methods to achieve them are largely unclear. Findings
opment, social equality, rebound effect, and job polarisa- showed that Industry 5.0 builds upon the technologies and
tion. Overall, our findings imply that Industry 4.0 has not principles established in Industry 4.0. Consequently, com-
been instrumental in addressing many of the long-lasting panies can strategically harness the sustainability features
sustainability concerns. Many critical socio-economic embedded in Industry 4.0 to contribute to the societal objec-
sustainability concerns have been intensified due to the tives of Industry 5.0 systematically. This insight enhances
radical and somewhat unregulated emergence of Indus- our understanding of how Industry 4.0 technologies and
try 4.0 disruptive technologies. We believe these findings principles can be methodically applied to bridge the gap
adequately explain why the Industry 5.0 agenda is being between sustainability aspirations and the practical imple-
pulled by socio-political bodies such as the European mentation of the Industry 5.0 framework.
Commission. It is imperative to note that contemporary
literature struggles with recognising Industry 5.0 as a new 6.2 Practical Implications
technology-driven industrial revolution superseding Indus-
try 4.0. As a socio-politically pushed agenda, Industry 5.0 Our HF-ISM approach identified three scenarios under
emphasises the role of collective and stakeholder-cantered which the sequential interaction of the sustainability func-
governance of digital industrial transformation pushed by tions of Industry 4.0 differs significantly. In a less turbulent
Industry 4.0. This agenda proposes that corporations and environment where uncertainties are precisely predictable,
social actors should collaboratively govern and regulate Industry 4.0 inherently allows organisations to introduce
Industry 4.0 transformation to ensure that socio-environ- innovation into their business model sustainably, allowing
mental goals are valued as highly as industrial produc- other sustainability functions of Industry 4.0 to flourish col-
tivity. Consistently, our findings reveal that underlying lectively. As unanimously emphasised by the expert panel,
technologies and design principles of Industry 4.0 do not this scenario is naively optimistic and may lack applicabil-
intrinsically contradict social values. Nevertheless, the ity to the realities of the turbulent business world. Indeed,
profit-centred digital transformation management under scenario one would be most applicable to businesses operat-
Industry 4.0 has adversely impacted the environment and ing in mature industries, particularly older and stable mega
society during the past decade. In addition, our literature corporations that have the necessary resources to lever-
review has unveiled a noteworthy trend where recent stud- age the business innovation opportunities of Industry 4.0
ies leverage the disruptive emergence of generative artifi- to enable and capitalise on other sustainability functions
cial intelligence within the scope of Industry 5.0 to suggest simultaneously.
that Industry 5.0 might constitute the next wave of the Under scenario two, where uncertainties of the busi-
industrial revolution. In light of this, our study underscores ness environment are reasonably predictable, Industry 4.0
the perspective that Industry 5.0 should be recognized as a stakeholders should strive to leverage BRM, SBI, and SCP
socio-technological transformation framework. Indeed, the functions simultaneously to introduce innovation into busi-
Industry 5.0 framework involves the responsible utilization ness models sustainably, promote smart products that sup-
of emerging Industry 4.0 technologies to integrate societal port circularity, and monitor the associated processes and
values into companies’ digital transformation strategies. risks. These functions will further empower businesses to
Accordingly, our literature synthesis identified various proactively implement sustainability strategies and enjoy
functions through which the responsible utilization of Indus- higher operational and resource efficiency. Under moderate
try 4.0 technologies can potentially promote the sustainabil- business uncertainties in this scenario, real-time communi-
ity values of Industry 5.0. Each of the functions identified cation capability (RTC function) is moderately imperative
offers narrow implications for a few specific aspects of yet critical for enabling process automation and integration.
Industry 5.0 sustainability goals. For example, the PAI func- Under scenario 2, human-centric technology development
tion of Industry 4.0 has been consistently reported to pro- and supply chain agility are dependent functions and should
mote the waste reduction, resource consumption efficiency, be leveraged when other enabling sustainability functions
and business resilience aspects of sustainability. Building of Industry 4.0 are already in place. Therefore, this scenario
on the consensus that ‘if governed appropriately, Industry assumes that antifragility and human-centricity may not be
4.0 can promote the sustainability values prioritised under critical to other sustainability functions and can be consid-
the Industry 5.0 agenda,’ we developed and implemented a ered the most remote and less critical (in terms of relational
novel HF-ISM approach that identified how the sustainabil- importance) sustainability outcomes of Industry 4.0.
ity functions of Industry 4.0 should contextually interact to Under the third scenario, we identified how Industry 4.0
fulfil Industry 5.0’s sustainability values. could best serve the sustainability values of Industry 5.0
under an extremely turbulent environment where uncertain- • Simultaneously enable and capitalise on other sustain-
ties are highly unpredictable. Under such circumstances, ability functions to maximise the collective impact.
businesses should first leverage the automation and inte- • Consider the specific needs and capabilities of the organi-
gration capabilities of Industry 4.0 to strengthen their com- sation in leveraging sustainability outcomes.
petitive position via higher cost savings and productivity.
Industry 4.0 stakeholders should draw on the SCP function For scenario two and under a Moderately Predictable
to develop and integrate smart products that facilitate circu- Business Environment where uncertainties are reasonably
larity by drawing on the integration capabilities gained from predictable, organisations should strive to simultaneously
the PAI function. This sequence of leveraging Industry 4.0 leverage the BRM, SBI, SCP, and RTC and consider the
functions should continue by implementing more proactive following actionable pointers consecutively:
environmental strategies and drawing on Industry 4.0 tech-
nologies and capabilities that support real-time communica- • Emphasise sustainable innovation in business models by
tion within the business network. Under extreme uncertain- integrating BRM, SBI, and SCP functions.
ties, real-time communication capability is indispensable to • Promote circularity by developing and integrating smart
the business process and risk monitoring function of Indus- products while monitoring associated processes and
try 4.0, given that changes and disruptions in the internal and risks.
external business environment could happen unexpectedly. • Leverage RTC capabilities to enable process automation
Scenario 3 emphasises the crucial role of BRM, introduc- and integration, focusing on operational and resource
ing this function as the critical requirement for HTD, ORE, efficiency.
and SCA functions of Industry 4.0. These three functions • Prioritise human-centric technology development and
are co-dependent under highly unpredictable uncertainties, supply chain agility in alignment with other sustainabil-
and Industry 4.0 stakeholders should strive to synergisti- ity functions.
cally leverage the human-centric technology development,
antifragility, and industrial efficiency functions of Industry For scenario three and under a Highly Turbulent Envi-
4.0. Adhering to this sequence would eventually empower ronment with Unpredictable Uncertainties, organisations
businesses to effectively benefit from the sustainable innova- operating in extremely uncertain contexts should prioritise
tion capabilities of Industry 4.0 to innovate their business strengthening their competitive position through cost sav-
model in line with the sustainability values of Industry 5.0. ings and productivity gains by leveraging the automation
We believe scenario 3 to be more realistic for businesses and integration capabilities of Industry 4.0. To effectively
operating under a highly turbulent environment, particularly navigate such turbulent environments, managers should con-
businesses impacted by regional conflicts like the Russian sider the following actionable pointers:
invasion of Ukraine.
Overall, the findings of our study have significant impli- • Utilise the PAI function to integrate and automate busi-
cations for organisations aiming to leverage Industry 4.0 ness processes, enhancing competitiveness.
to enhance their sustainability efforts. While the identified • Develop and integrate smart products that support circu-
scenarios shed light on the sequential interaction of sustain- larity using the SCP function.
ability functions, providing actionable pointers on how busi- • Implement proactive environmental strategies and lever-
nesses can effectively capitalise on these functions is crucial. age real-time communication capabilities to monitor and
The following offers specific guidance for managers to con- respond to unexpected changes and disruptions.
sider when devising digitalisation governance strategies in • Establish BRM as a critical requirement for HTD, ORE,
various environmental contexts: and SCA functions to maximise their synergistic effects.
For scenario one and under Less Turbulent Environment
with Predictable Uncertainties, an opportunity exists for Managers should note that the three scenarios can be
businesses in mature industries, particularly older and stable equally applicable depending on the firm’s internal envi-
mega-corporations, to introduce sustainable innovation into ronment (e.g., culture, processes, resources) and external
business models using disruptive technological constituents environment (e.g., regions’ socio-political and economic cir-
of Industry 4.0 such as digital twin and AI. To fully leverage cumstances). It is vital for managers to also bear in mind that
this potential, organisations should focus on the following the driving and dependence power of these functions and
actionable pointers: their placement levels within the interpretive models of the
scenarios do not reflect their absolute importance concern-
• Allocate necessary resources to capitalise on business ing the sustainability values of Industry 5.0. The sequential
innovation opportunities presented by Industry 4.0 tech- orders identified within the scenarios merely reflect the prec-
nologies. edence relationships that might exist within the functions.
Under a given scenario, the sequential order for leveraging Third, the interpretive models identified in this study
the functions is expected to maximise the synergistic values merely describe the order in which the sustainability
of the functions for sustainability objectives. Regardless of functions of Industry 4.0 should be leveraged to maxim-
the scenarios, each identified function uniquely promotes ise their sustainability values synergistically. Although
some aspects of Industry 5.0 sustainability values. Hence, Industry 4.0 can offer valuable sustainability functions,
none of these functions and their enabling role can be over- these functions are complex and resource-intensive. We
looked while devising Industry 4.0 governance strategies. must acknowledge that digitalisation under Industry 4.0
does not guarantee the automatic development of these
desired functions. Indeed, several industrial cases within
the literature argue that using Industry 4.0 technologies
7 Conclusion
to achieve operational and resource efficiency in facto-
ries is a complicated, resource-intensive, granular, and
The present study addresses the existing knowledge gaps
high-risk process, which may rely on several success fac-
surrounding the transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry
tors such as knowledge competencies, information and
5.0 while focusing on sustainability values. The findings
operations technology readiness, change management
highlight the controversial nature of Industry 4.0’s contri-
capabilities, and technology governance competencies.
butions to sustainability. The study emphasises the impor-
Since identifying the micro-mechanisms through which
tance of collective governance and regulation to prioritise
Industry 4.0 can successfully deliver these sustainability
socio-environmental goals alongside industrial productivity.
functions fall outside the scope of the present work, we
Moreover, the novel HF-ISM approach developed in this
invite future research to identify, explore, and scrutinise
study identifies distinct scenarios for effectively leveraging
these micro-mechanisms.
the sustainability functions of Industry 4.0 to align with the
Furthermore, A promising avenue for future research
sustainability values of Industry 5.0 in different levels of
involves integrating longitudinal studies to establish and
environmental uncertainties. Nonetheless, the results should
verify causal relationships identified within the sustain-
be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations.
ability functions with greater confidence. By employing
longitudinal research designs, researchers can examine
7.1 Limitations and Future Directions the temporal dynamics and changes in the sustainabil-
ity functions over the course of Industry 5.0 evolution.
Despite our efforts to ensure the reliability and inclusivity of This approach would enable a deeper understanding of
our findings, the present study inevitably faces some limita- how these relationships evolve and whether they maintain
tions that future studies can address. Scholars believe that their significance and strength over time. Furthermore,
Industry 4.0 is dynamic and far from its full potential. Like- exploring the long-term effects and dynamics of identified
wise, the Industry 5.0 agenda is embryonic and expected to causal relationships through longitudinal studies would
evolve significantly in the future. It means the sustainability contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how
values of Industry 5.0 will expectedly evolve, and the func- digital industrial transformation should adhere to inclusive
tionality of Industry 4.0 to satisfy these values may change sustainability.
accordingly. Therefore, our methodology and the novel HF- Finally and yet importantly, the sustainability func-
ISM approach can be used as a baseline for future studies tions identified within the present study may not have the
to evaluate the sustainability implications of Industry 4.0 in inclusiveness to address all the sustainability concerns of
the future and under various business scenarios with varying the Industry 5.0 agenda. Indeed, some of the sustainability
predictability of uncertainties. concerns highlighted within the Industry 5.0 agenda have
The second limitation of this study concerns the non- nothing to do with the mismanagement of Industry 4.0.
probability nature of the sample consisting of 21 experts. Conditions such as redefining the role of corporate respon-
The purposeful selection of experts based on their expertise sibility, bypassing neo-liberal capitalism toward shareholder
and experience introduces potential biases and restricts the supremacy, or synchronising the public sector with the pace
generalisability of the findings. Caution should be exercised of change appear to be the enablers of Industry 5.0 sus-
when extrapolating the results beyond the specific sample tainability values that fall outside the Industry 4.0 context.
of experts included in this study. Future research employing Therefore, we encourage future research to build on the
probability sampling methods could enhance the representa- present study as a stepping stone and integrate the sustain-
tiveness of the findings and allow for broader generalisa- ability functions of Industry 4.0 with other socio-political
tions. Despite this limitation, the study provides valuable requirements to develop more comprehensive strategy road-
insights within the context of the sampled experts, serving maps that inclusively empower all sustainability priorities
as a foundation for further research in the field. of Industry 5.0.
Appendix: Self‑Assessment Questionnaire otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
1. How familiar are you with the Industry 4.0 And 5.0 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
frameworks proposed by the European Commission? copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
2. How familiar are you with the scientific and industrial
background of Industry 5.0?
3. How familiar are you with the mechanisms through which References
Industry 4.0 can promote sustainable development?
4. Please briefly explain your past collaboration with Abdul-Hamid, A. Q., Ali, M. H., Tseng, M. L., Lan, S., & Kumar, M.
(2020). Impeding challenges on industry 4.0 in circular econ-
the European Commission that might somehow relate
omy: Palm oil industry in Malaysia. Computers and Operations
to Industry 5.0-driven sustainability. Examples may Research, 123, 105052. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 016/j.c or.2 020.1 05052
include collaboration as a principal investigator, senior Adamik, A., & Sikora-Fernandez, D. (2021). Smart organizations as
researcher, or advisory board member on related topics a source of competitiveness and sustainable development in the
age of industry 4.0: Integration of micro and macro perspective.
such as technology governance, digital transformation,
Energies, 14(6), 1572. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061572
Industry 4.0, sustainability, digitally-driven circular Agarwal, V., Mathiyazhagan, K., Malhotra, S., & Saikouk, T. (2021).
economy, or resilient economy. Analysis of challenges in sustainable human resource manage-
5. How likely would it be for you to commit to identifying ment due to disruptions by industry 4.0: An emerging economy
perspective. International Journal of Manpower. https://doi.org/
the pair-wise relationships among all the functions? Kindly 10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0192
note that filling out the questionnaire will take up to 60 min. Ahmed, S., Irshad, L., & Demirel, H. O. (2021). Prototyping human-
6. How would you rate your English proficiency in under- centered products in the age of industry 4.0. Journal of Mechani-
standing the technical terms in the context of the study cal Design Transactions of the ASME, 143(7). https://doi.org/10.
1115/1.4050736
and engaging in filling out the questionnaire? Al Amiri, N., & Shawali, A. A. (2021). Talent management strategies
of a public UAE hospital in the industry 4.0 ERA: A qualita-
tive analysis. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2),
Acknowledgements This research has been a part of a project that 14–27. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.02
received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research Amjad, M. S., Rafique, M. Z., & Khan, M. A. (2021). Modern divulge
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 810318. in production optimization: An implementation framework of
LARG manufacturing with industry 4.0. International Journal
Authors’ Contributions Morteza Ghobakhloo: Conceptualization, Meth- of Lean Six Sigma, 12(5), 992–1016. https://doi.org/10.1108/
odology, Data Curation, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing IJLSS-07-2020-0099
- Review & Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Yaftiyan, F., Abbasi Kamardi, A. A., Garza-
Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji: Visualization, Methodology, Writing Reyes, J. A., & Razavi Hajiagha, S. H. (2023). The role of indus-
- Original Draft, Writing, Writing - Review & Editing, Formal analysis. try 4.0 technologies on performance measurement systems of
Mohammad Iranmanesh: Data Curation, Conceptualization, For- supply chains during global pandemics: An interval-valued
mal analysis, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy approach. International Journal of
Methodology, Validation. Vahid Jafari-Sadeghi: Conceptualization, Quality & Reliability Management, 40(5), 1147–1171. https://
Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-03-2022-0094
Project administration. Ante, L. (2021). Digital twin technology for smart manufacturing and
industry 4.0: A bibliometric analysis of the intellectual structure
Funding Open access funding provided by Uppsala University. Horizon of the research discourse. Manufacturing Letters, 27, 96–102.
2020 research and innovation programme (No 810318). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2021.01.003
Aslam, H., Blome, C., Roscoe, S., & Azhar, T. M. (2018). Dynamic
Data availability The data will be available upon request. supply chain capabilities. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 38(12), 2266–2285. https://doi.org/10.
Declarations 1108/IJOPM-09-2017-0555
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Not applicable. tems, 20(1), 87–96.
Ayinde, L., & Kirkwood, H. (2020). Rethinking the roles and skills
Consent for Publication Not applicable. of information professionals in the 4th Industrial Revolution.
Business Information Review, 37(4), 142–153. https://doi.org/
Competing Interests There is no conflict of interest. 10.1177/0266382120968057
Badri, A., Boudreau-Trudel, B., & Souissi, A. S. (2018). Occupational
health and safety in the industry 4.0 era: A cause for major con-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
cern? Safety Science, 109, 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
ssci.2018.06.012
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
Bag, S., Gupta, S., & Kumar, S. (2021a). Industry 4.0 adoption and 10R
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
advance manufacturing capabilities for sustainable development.
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
International Journal of Production Economics, 231. https://d oi.
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107844
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
Bag, S., Wood, L. C., Telukdarie, A., & Venkatesh, V. G. (2021b). Applica- Chiengkul, P. (2019). Uneven development, inequality and concentra-
tion of industry 4.0 tools to empower circular economy and achiev- tion of power: A critique of Thailand 4.0. Third World Quarterly,
ing sustainability in supply chain operations. Production Planning 40(9), 1689–1707.
and Control, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1980902 Ching, N. T., Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P.,
Bai, C., Orzes, G., & Sarkis, J. (2022). Exploring the impact of industry & Asadi, S. (2022). Industry 4.0 applications for sustainable
4.0 technologies on social sustainability through a circular econ- manufacturing: A systematic literature review and a roadmap to
omy approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 101, 176–190. sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 334,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.12.004 130133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130133
Barzotto, M., Corradini, C., Fai, F., Labory, S., & Tomlinson, P. R. Ciffolilli, A., & Muscio, A. (2018). Industry 4.0: National and regional
(2020). Smart specialisation, industry 4.0 and lagging regions: comparative advantages in key enabling technologies. European
Some directions for policy. Regional Studies Regional Science, Planning Studies, 26(12), 2323–2343. https://doi.org/10.1080/
7(1), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1803124 09654313.2018.1529145
Bazan, P., & Estevez, E. (2022). Industry 4.0 and business process Dalenogare, L. S., Benitez, G. B., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2018).
management: State of the art and new challenges. Business Pro- The expected contribution of industry 4.0 technologies for indus-
cess Management Journal, 28(1), 62–80. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 108/ trial performance. International Journal of Production Econom-
BPMJ-04-2020-0163 ics, 204, 383–394.
Bécue, A., Praça, I., & Gama, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence, cyber- de Assis Dornelles, J., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2022). Smart
threats and industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities. Artificial Working in Industry 4.0: How digital technologies enhance man-
Intelligence Review, 54(5), 3849–3886. https://doi.org/10.1007/ ufacturing workers’ activities. Computers & Industrial Engineer-
s10462-020-09942-2 ing, 163, 107804.
Bhattacharyya, S., & Mitra, A. (2020). Fourth industrial revolution and Dev, N. K., Shankar, R., & Swami, S. (2020). Diffusion of green prod-
India’s employment problem. International Journal of Social Eco- ucts in industry 4.0: Reverse logistics issues during design of
nomics, 47(7), 851–866. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-09-2019-0540 inventory and production planning system. International Journal
Bi, Z. M., Chen, B., Xu, L., Wu, C., Malott, C., Chamberlin, M., & of Production Economics, 223, 107519. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 016/j.
Enterline, T. (2021). Security and safety assurance of collabora- ijpe.2019.107519
tive manufacturing in industry 4.0. Enterprise Information Sys- Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2020). Modeling of strategic thinking enablers:
tems. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2021.2008512 A modified total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) and
Bigerna, S., D'Errico, M. C., & Polinori, P. (2021a). Energy security and MICMAC approach. International Journal of System Assurance
RES penetration in a growing decarbonized economy in the era of Engineering and Management, 11(1), 175–188.
the 4th industrial revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Dixit, A., Jakhar, S. K., & Kumar, P. (2022). Does lean and sustainable
Change, 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120648 manufacturing lead to industry 4.0 adoption: The mediating role
Bigerna, S., Micheli, S., & Polinori, P. (2021b). New generation accept- of ambidextrous innovation capabilities. Technological Forecast-
ability towards durability and repairability of products: Circular ing and Social Change, 175, 121328.
economy in the era of the 4th industrial revolution. Techno- Dolatabad, A. H., Mahdiraji, H. A., Babgohari, A. Z., Garza-Reyes, J.
logical Forecasting and Social Change, 165. https://doi.org/10. A., & Ai, A. (2022). Analyzing the key performance indicators
1016/j.techfore.2020.120558 of circular supply chains by hybrid fuzzy cognitive mapping and
Birkel, H., & Müller, J. M. (2021). Potentials of industry 4.0 for supply fuzzy DEMATEL: Evidence from healthcare sector. Environ-
chain management within the triple bottom line of sustainability ment Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/
– a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, s10668-022-02535-9
289, 125612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125612 Dolgui, A., & Ivanov, D. (2020). Exploring supply chain structural
Breque, M., Nul, L. D., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a sus- dynamics: New disruptive technologies and disruption risks (Vol.
tainable, humancentric and resilient European industry. European 229, pp. 107886). Elsevier.
Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Doyle Kent, M., & Kopacek, P. (2021). Do We Need Synchroniza-
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/308407. Accessed Nov 2021. tion of the Human and Robotics to Make Industry 5.0 a Success
Cañas, H., Mula, J., Díaz-Madroñero, M., & Campuzano-Bolarín, F. Story? In International Symposium for Production Research,
(2021). Implementing industry 4.0 principles. Computers & ISPR 2020 (pp. 302–311). Springer Science and Business Media
Industrial Engineering, 158, 107379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Deutschland GmbH.
cie.2021.107379 Durand, C., & Milberg, W. (2020). Intellectual monopoly in global value
Chen, M., Sinha, A., Hu, K., & Shah, M. I. (2021). Impact of tech- chains. Review of International Political Economy, 27(2), 404–429.
nological innovation on energy efficiency in industry 4.0 era: Enyoghasi, C., & Badurdeen, F. (2021). Industry 4.0 for sustainable
Moderation of shadow economy in sustainable development. manufacturing: Opportunities at the product, process, and sys-
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 120521. tem levels. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 166, 105362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120521 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105362
Cheng, Y., Awan, U., Ahmad, S., & Tan, Z. (2021). How do techno- Ertz, M., Sun, S., Boily, E., Kubiat, P., & Quenum, G. G. Y. (2022).
logical innovation and fiscal decentralization affect the environ- How transitioning to industry 4.0 promotes circular product life-
ment? A story of the fourth industrial revolution and sustainable times. Industrial Marketing Management, 101, 125–140.
growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, Eslami, M. H., Jafari, H., Achtenhagen, L., Carlbäck, J., & Wong, A.
120398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120398 (2021). Financial performance and supply chain dynamic capa-
Chiarini, A. (2021). Industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sec- bilities: The moderating role of industry 4.0 technologies. Inter-
tor: Are we sure they are all relevant for environmental perfor- national Journal of Production Research, 1–18. https://doi.org/
mance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 3194–3207. 10.1080/00207543.2021.1966850
Chiarini, A., Belvedere, V., & Grando, A. (2020). Industry 4.0 strate- Fareri, S., Fantoni, G., Chiarello, F., Coli, E., & Binda, A. (2020).
gies and technological developments. An exploratory research Estimating industry 4.0 impact on job profiles and skills using
from Italian manufacturing companies. Production Planning and text mining. Computers in Industry, 118, 103222. https://d oi.o rg/
Control, 31(16), 1385–1398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287. 10.1016/j.compind.2020.103222
2019.1710304
Fathi, M., & Ghobakhloo, M. (2020). Enabling mass customization and Grybauskas, A., Stefanini, A., & Ghobakhloo, M. (2022). Social sus-
manufacturing sustainability in Industry 4.0 Context: A novel heu- tainability in the age of digitalization: A systematic literature
ristic algorithm for in-plant material supply optimization. Sustain- review on the social implications of industry 4.0. Technology
ability (Switzerland), 12(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166669 in Society, 70, 101997.
Fatorachian, H., & Kazemi, H. (2021). Impact of industry 4.0 on supply Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Bag, S. (2020). Dynamic
chain performance. Production Planning & Control, 32(1), 63–81. capabilities and institutional theories for Industry 4.0 and
Fernando, Y., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Wah, W. X. (2019). Pursuing green digital supply chain. Supply Chain Forum: An International
growth in technology firms through the connections between Journal, 21(3), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.
environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: 2020.1757369
Does service capability matter? Resources, Conservation and Hahn, G. J. (2020). Industry 4.0: A supply chain innovation perspec-
Recycling, 141, 8–20. tive. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1425–
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019a). Industry 4.0 1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1641642
technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing compa- Haiss, P., Mahlberg, B., & Michlits, D. (2021). Industry 4.0–the future
nies. International Journal of Production Economics, 210, 15–26. of Austrian jobs. Empirica, 48(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Frank, A. G., Mendes, G. H., Ayala, N. F., & Ghezzi, A. (2019b). Ser- s10663-020-09497-z
vitization and industry 4.0 convergence in the digital transforma- Hashemi, S. S., Mahdiraji, A., Azari, H., M., & Razavi Hajiagha, S.
tion of product firms: A business model innovation perspective. H. (2022). Causal modelling of failure fears for international
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 341–351. entrepreneurs in tourism industry: A hybrid Delphi-DEMA-
Gebhardt, M., Kopyto, M., Birkel, H., & Hartmann, E. (2021). Industry 4.0 TEL based approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
technologies as enablers of collaboration in circular supply chains: Behavior & Research, 28(3), 602–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/
A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production IJEBR-03-2021-0193
Research, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1999521 Hayriye, A., & Fatma, Ü. (2020). Industry 4.0-related digital divide
Ghadge, A., Er Kara, M., Moradlou, H., & Goswami, M. (2020). The in enterprises: An analysis for the European union-28. Sosyoe-
impact of industry 4.0 implementation on supply chains. Jour- konomi, 28(45), 225–244.
nal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(4), 669–686. Hein-Pensel, F., Winkler, H., Brückner, A., Wölke, M., Jabs, I., Mayan,
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2019-0368 I. J., Kirschenbaum, A., Friedrich, J., & Zinke-Wehlmann, C.
Ghobakhloo, M. (2020). Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities (2023). Maturity assessment for industry 5.0: A review of exist-
for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119869. ing maturity models. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 66,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119869 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.12.009
Ghobakhloo, M., & Fathi, M. (2020). Corporate survival in indus- Hennemann Hilario da Silva, T., & Sehnem, S. (2022). The circu-
try 4.0 era: The enabling role of lean-digitized manufacturing. lar economy and Industry 4.0: synergies and challenges.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(1), 1–30. Revista de Gestão, 29(3), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-11-2018-0417 REGE-07-2021-0121
Ghobakhloo, M., & Fathi, M. (2021). Industry 4.0 and opportunities Hilpert, U. (2021). Regional selectivity of innovative progress: Industry
for energy sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 295, 4.0 and digitization ahead. European Planning Studies, 29(9),
126427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126427 1589–1605. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1963047
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Grybauskas, A., Vilkas, M., & Huang, S., Wang, B., Li, X., Zheng, P., Mourtzis, D., & Wang, L.
Petraitė, M. (2021a). Industry 4.0, innovation, and sustainable (2022). Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0—Comparison, complemen-
development: A systematic review and a roadmap to sustain- tation and co-evolution. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 64,
able innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.07.010
4237–4257. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2867 Iqbal, M., Ma, J., Ahmad, N., Hussain, K., & Usmani, M. (2021). Pro-
Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P., & moting sustainable construction through energy-efficient tech-
Morales, M. E. (2021b). Industry 4.0 ten years on: A bibliometric nologies: An analysis of promotional strategies using interpretive
and systematic review of concepts, sustainability value drivers, structural modeling. International Journal of Environmental Sci-
and success determinants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 302, ence and Technology, 18(11), 3479–3502.
127052. Iqbal, M., Ma, J., Ahmad, N., Ullah, Z., & Hassan, A. (2023). Energy-
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Mubarak, M. F., Mubarik, M., efficient supply chains in construction industry: An analysis of
Rejeb, A., & Nilashi, M. (2022). Identifying industry 5.0 con- critical success factors using ISM-MICMAC approach. Interna-
tributions to sustainable development: A strategy roadmap for tional Journal of Green Energy, 20(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/
delivering sustainability values. Sustainable Production and 10.1080/15435075.2022.2038609
Consumption, 33, 716–737. Ivanov, D. (2020). Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility,
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Morales, M. E., Nilashi, M., & resilience and sustainability perspectives—lessons from and
Amran, A. (2023a). Actions and approaches for enabling industry thinking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Operations
5.0-driven sustainable industrial transformation: A strategy road- Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6
map. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man- Ivanov, D. (2022). The industry 5.0 framework: Viability-based inte-
agement, 30(3), 1473–1494. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2431 gration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity per-
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Tseng, M. L., Grybauskas, A., spectives. International Journal of Production Research, 1–13.
Stefanini, A., & Amran, A. (2023b). Behind the definition of https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2118892
industry 5.0: A systematic review of technologies, principles, Ivanov, D. (2023). The Industry 5.0 framework: Viability-based inte-
components, and values. Journal of Industrial and Production gration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity per-
Engineering, 40(6), 432–447. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 080/2 16810 15. spectives. International Journal of Production Research, 61(5),
2023.2216701 1683–1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2118892
Greef, S., & Schroeder, W. (2021). How does industry 4.0 affect the Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2021). A digital supply chain twin for man-
relationship between centre and periphery? The case of manu- aging the disruption risks and resilience in the era of industry
facturing industry in Germany. European Planning Studies, 4.0. Production Planning and Control, 32(9), 775–788. https://
29(9), 1656–1671. doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digi- conditions: An evidence map. Journal of General Internal Medi-
tal technology and industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and sup- cine, 34(12), 2883–2893.
ply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Kovacs, O. (2018). The dark corners of industry 4.0 – grounding
Research, 57(3), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543. economic governance 2.0. Technology in Society, 55, 140–145.
2018.1488086 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.07.009
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2022). Cloud supply chain: Leng, J., Ruan, G., Jiang, P., Xu, K., Liu, Q., Zhou, X., & Liu, C.
Integrating industry 4.0 and digital platforms in the supply (2020). Blockchain-empowered sustainable manufacturing and
chain-as-a-Service. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics product lifecycle management in industry 4.0: A survey. Renew-
and Transportation Review, 160, 102676. able and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 132, 110112. https://doi.
Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Mahdiraji, H. A., Bresciani, S., & Pellicelli, A. C. org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110112
(2021). Context-specific micro-foundations and successful SME Libai, B., Bart, Y., Gensler, S., Hofacker, C. F., Kaplan, A., Kötterhein-
internationalisation in emerging markets: A mixed-method analy- rich, K., & Kroll, E. B. (2020). Brave new world? On AI and the
sis of managerial resources and dynamic capabilities. Journal of management of customer relationships. Journal of Interactive
Business Research, 134, 352–364. Marketing, 51, 44–56.
Jamaludin, R., McKay, E., & Ledger, S. (2020). Are we ready for Lim, C. H., Loh, Y. W., Foo, D. C. Y., Ng, W. P. Q., & Lam, H. L.
Education 4.0 within ASEAN higher education institutions? (2021). Circular economy and industry 4.0 technology integra-
Thriving for knowledge, industry and humanity in a dynamic tion framework for the oil palm industry. Chemical Engineering
higher education ecosystem? Journal of Applied Research in Transactions, 88. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2188211
Higher Education, 12(5), 1161–1173. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Liu, B., & De Giovanni, P. (2019). Green process innovation
JARHE-06-2019-0144 through industry 4.0 technologies and supply chain coordina-
Jr, N. K., Silva, J. F. d., Ghobakhloo, M., Ritter, A. M., Silva, D. O. tion. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/
d., & Sellitto, M. A. (2022). Industry 4.0 technologies and sus- s10479-019-03498-3
tainability challenges: A case study in the coal mining industry. Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., & Padovano, A. (2017). Smart operators in
International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, 14(2-3), industry 4.0: A human-centered approach to enhance operators’
186–205. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLM.2022.125818 capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory
Kache, F., & Seuring, S. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of digital context. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 113, 144–159.
information at the intersection of Big Data Analytics and sup- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.09.016
ply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., & Padovano, A. (2022). New perspectives and
Production Management, 37(1), 10–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/ results for Smart operators in industry 4.0: A human-centered
IJOPM-02-2015-0078 approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 163, 107824.
Kanojia, A., & Visvanathan, C. (2021). Assessment of urban solid https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107824
waste management systems for industry 4.0 technology inter- Longo, F., Padovano, A., & Umbrello, S. (2020). Value-oriented and
ventions and the circular economy. Waste Management and ethical technology engineering in industry 5.0: A human-centric
Research, 39(11), 1414–1426. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342 perspective for the design of the factory of the future. Applied
42X21992424 Sciences (Switzerland), 10(12), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Karmaker, C. L., Bari, A. M., Anam, M. Z., Ahmed, T., Ali, S. M., de APP10124182
Jesus Pacheco, D. A., & Moktadir, M. A. (2023). Industry 5.0 Lopes, S., Jabbour, A. B., Frascareli, F. C. D. O., Gonzalez, S., E. D.
challenges for post-pandemic supply chain sustainability in an R., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J. (2021). Are food supply chains
emerging economy. International Journal of Production Eco- taking advantage of the circular economy? A research agenda on
nomics, 258, 108806. tackling food waste based on industry 4.0 technologies. Produc-
Karre, H., Hammer, M., Kleindienst, M., & Ramsauer, C. (2017). tion Planning and Control. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.
Transition towards an industry 4.0 state of the LeanLab at Graz 2021.1980903
University of Technology. Procedia Manufacturing, 9, 206–213. Luthra, S., & Mangla, S. K. (2018). Evaluating challenges to indus-
Kazancoglu, I., Ozbiltekin-Pala, M., Kumar Mangla, S., Kazancoglu, try 4.0 initiatives for supply chain sustainability in emerging
Y., & Jabeen, F. (2022). Role of flexibility, agility and respon- economies. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117,
siveness for sustainable supply chain resilience during COVID- 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.018
19. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132431. https://doi.org/ Maddikunta, P. K. R., Pham, Q. V., Prabadevi, B., Deepa, N., Dev, K.,
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132431 Gadekallu, T. R., Ruby, R., & Liyanage, M. (2022). Industry 5.0:
Kazancoglu, Y., Sezer, M. D., Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D., Mangla, S. K., & A survey on enabling technologies and potential applications.
Kumar, A. (2021). Industry 4.0 impacts on responsible environ- Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 26, 100257.
mental and societal management in the family business. Techno- Mahdiraji, H. A., Sedigh, M., Hajiagha, S. H. R., Garza-Reyes, J. A.,
logical Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121108. https://d oi. Jafari-Sadeghi, V., & Dana, L. P. (2021). A novel time, cost,
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121108 quality and risk tradeoff model with a knowledge-based hesitant
Kerin, M., & Pham, D. T. (2019). A review of emerging industry 4.0 fuzzy information: An R&D project application. Technological
technologies in remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121068.
237, 117805. Malik, A., Ul Haq, M. I., Raina, A., & Gupta, K. (2022). 3D printing
Khaba, S., Bhar, C., & Ray, A. (2021). A study on key lean enablers towards implementing industry 4.0: Sustainability aspects, bar-
of the coal mining sector using ISM, MICMAC and SEM. riers and challenges. Industrial Robot. https://doi.org/10.1108/
The TQM Journal, 33(6), 1281–1305. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IR-10-2021-0247
TQM-04-2020-0069 Margherita, E. G., & Braccini, A. M. (2020). Industry 4.0 technolo-
Kiel, D., Müller, J. M., Arnold, C., & Voigt, K. I. (2017). Sustainable gies in Flexible Manufacturing for sustainable Organizational
industrial value creation: Benefits and challenges of industry 4.0. Value: Reflections from a multiple case study of Italian manu-
International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(8). https:// facturers. Information Systems Frontiers. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 007/
doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617400151 s10796-020-10047-y
Kondo, K., Noonan, K. M., Freeman, M., Ayers, C., Morasco, B. J., Margherita, E. G., & Braccini, A. M. (2021). Managing industry
& Kansagara, D. (2019). Efficacy of biofeedback for medical 4.0 automation for fair ethical business development: A single
case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, learning engineering applications. Computers in Industry, 110,
121048. 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.04.016
Markard, J. (2020). The life cycle of technological innovation systems. Oláh, J., Aburumman, N., Popp, J., Khan, M. A., Haddad, H., &
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119407. Kitukutha, N. (2020). Impact of industry 4.0 on environmental
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.045 sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11). https://doi.
Mastos, T. D., Nizamis, A., Terzi, S., Gkortzis, D., Papadopoulos, A., org/10.3390/su12114674
Tsagkalidis, N., & Tzovaras, D. (2021). Introducing an applica- Ooi, K. B., Tan, G. W. H., Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Capat-
tion of an industry 4.0 solution for circular supply chain manage- ina, A., Chakraborty, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Huang, T. L., Kar, A.
ment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 300, 126886. https://doi. K., Lee, V. H., Loh, X. M., Micu, A., Mikalef, P., Mogaji, E.,
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126886 Pandey, N., Raman, R., Rana, N. P., Sarker, P., Sharma, A., &
Mefi, N. P., & Asoba, S. N. (2020). Industry 4.0 and skills deficiencies in Wong, L. W. (2023). The potential of generative artificial intel-
the Hrm function: Case Study of the Hrm Department of a selected ligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions.
organisation in Cape Town. Academy of Entrepreneurship Jour- Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–32, 1. https://doi.
nal, 27(2), 1–9. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/ org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2261010
record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85106662833&partnerID=40&md5=753a9 Özdemir, V., & Hekim, N. (2018). Birth of industry 5.0: Making sense
868df53cac5cf71350725b45cdf. Accessed Apr 2022. of big data with artificial intelligence, the internet of things and
Melé, D. (2021). Ethics at the workplace in the fourth industrial revo- next-generation technology policy. OMICS A Journal of Integra-
lution: A catholic social teaching perspective. Business Ethics tive Biology, 22(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2017.0194
Environment and Responsibility, 30(4), 772–783. https://d oi.o rg/ Pacaux-Lemoine, M. P., Trentesaux, D., Rey, G. Z., & Millot, P.
10.1111/beer.12368 (2017). Designing intelligent manufacturing systems through
Min, J., Kim, Y., Lee, S., Jang, T. W., Kim, I., & Song, J. (2019). The human-machine cooperation principles: A human-centered
Fourth Industrial Revolution and its impact on Occupational approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 111, 581–595.
Health and Safety, Worker’s compensation and labor conditions. Pandey, S., Singh, R. K., & Gunasekaran, A. (2021). Supply chain
Safety and Health at Work, 10(4), 400–408. https://doi.org/10. risks in industry 4.0 environment: Review and analysis frame-
1016/j.shaw.2019.09.005 work. Production Planning and Control. https://doi.org/10.
Mishra, D., Roy, R. B., Dutta, S., Pal, S. K., & Chakravarty, D. (2018). 1080/09537287.2021.2005173
A review on sensor based monitoring and control of friction stir Pardi, T. (2019). Fourth industrial revolution concepts in the automo-
welding process and a roadmap to industry 4.0. Journal of Man- tive sector: Performativity, work and employment. Journal of
ufacturing Processes, 36, 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Industrial and Business Economics, 46(3), 379–389. https://
jmapro.2018.10.016 doi.org/10.1007/s40812-019-00119-9
Mönnig, A., Maier, T., & Zika, G. (2019). Economy 4.0–digitalisation Psarommatis, F., Sousa, J., Mendonça, J. P., & Kiritsis, D. (2021).
and its effect on wage inequality. Jahrbücher Für Nationalökono- Zero-defect manufacturing the approach for higher manufactur-
mie Und Statistik, 239(3), 363–398. ing sustainability in the era of industry 4.0: A position paper.
Mubarak, M. F., Tiwari, S., Petraite, M., Mubarik, M., & Rasi, R. M. International Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/
(2021). How industry 4.0 technologies and open innovation can 10.1080/00207543.2021.1987551
improve green innovation performance? Management of Envi- Rainnie, A., & Dean, M. (2020). Industry 4.0 and the future of quality
ronmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(5), 1007–1022. work in the global digital economy. Labour & Industry: A Jour-
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2020-0266 nal of the Social and Economic Relations of work, 30(1), 16–33.
Mubarik, M. S., Naghavi, N., Mubarik, M., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Khan, Rajput, S., & Singh, S. P. (2020). Industry 4.0 model for circular econ-
S. A., Zaman, S. I., & Kazmi, S. H. A. (2021). Resilience and omy and cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277,
cleaner production in industry 4.0: Role of supply chain map- 123853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123853
ping and visibility. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126058. Rana, G., & Sharma, R. (2019). Emerging human resource manage-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126058 ment practices in industry 4.0. Strategic HR Review, 18(4), 176–
Mukherjee, A. A., Raj, A., & Aggarwal, S. (2023). Identification of 181. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-01-2019-0003
barriers and their mitigation strategies for industry 5.0 imple- Razavi Hajiagha, S. H., Ahmadzadeh Kandi, N., Mahdiraji, A., Jafari-
mentation in emerging economies. International Journal of Pro- Sadeghi, H., & Hashemi, S. S. (2022a). International entrepre-
duction Economics, 257, 108770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe. neurial startups’ location under uncertainty through a hetero-
2023.108770 geneous multi-layer decision-making approach: Evidence and
Müller, J. M. (2019). Assessing the barriers to industry 4.0 implemen- application of an emerging economy. International Journal of
tation from a workers’ perspective. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(3), 767–800. https://
2189–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.530 doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2021-0387
Müller, J. (2020). Enabling Technologies for Industry 5.0: results of a Razavi Hajiagha, S. H., Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Moradi, S., Garza-
workshop with Europe’s technology leaders. https://doi.org/10. Reyes, J. A., & Alaei, S. (2022b). Unveiling the relation between
2777/082634 the challenges and benefits of operational excellence and indus-
Mushtaq, F., Bland, A. R., & Schaefer, A. (2011). Uncertainty and try 4.0: A hybrid fuzzy decision-making approach. The TQM
cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 249. Journal, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/
Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0-a human-centric solution. Sustaina- TQM-07-2022-0237
bility (Switzerland), 11(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164371 Reiman, A., Kaivo-oja, J., Parviainen, E., Takala, E. P., & Lauraeus, T.
Nara, E. O. B., da Costa, M. B., Baierle, I. C., Schaefer, J. L., Ben- (2021). Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing in the
itez, G. B., do Santos, L. M. A. L., & Benitez, L. B. (2021). industry 4.0 context – A scoping review. Technology in Society,
Expected impact of industry 4.0 technologies on sustainable 65, 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101572
development: A study in the context of Brazil’s plastic indus- Renda, A., Schwaag Serger, S., Tataj, D., Morlet, A., Isaksson, D., Mar-
try. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 25, 102–122. tins, F., & Giovannini, E. (2022). Industry 5.0, a transformative
O’Donovan, P., Gallagher, C., Leahy, K., & O’Sullivan, D. T. J. vision for Europe: Governing systemic transformations towards
(2019). A comparison of fog and cloud computing cyber-phys- a sustainable industry. European Commission, Directorate-Gen-
ical interfaces for industry 4.0 real-time embedded machine eral for Research and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.2777/17322
Rene, E. R., Sethurajan, M., Kumar Ponnusamy, V., Kumar, G., Bao Shi, Z., Xie, Y., Xue, W., Chen, Y., Fu, L., & Xu, X. (2020). Smart fac-
Dung, T. N., Brindhadevi, K., & Pugazhendhi, A. (2021). Elec- tory in Industry 4.0. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
tronic waste generation, recycling and resource recovery: Tech- 37(4), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2704
nological perspectives and trends. Journal of Hazardous Materi- Sindhwani, R., Afridi, S., Kumar, A., Banaitis, A., Luthra, S., & Singh,
als, 416, 125664. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 016/j.j hazma t.2 021.1 25664 P. L. (2022). Can industry 5.0 revolutionize the wave of resilience
Reyes, J., Mula, J., & Díaz-Madroñero, M. (2021). Development of a and social value creation? A multi-criteria framework to analyze
conceptual model for lean supply chain planning in industry 4.0: enablers. Technology in Society, 68, 101887. https://doi.org/10.
Multidimensional analysis for operations management. Produc- 1016/j.techsoc.2022.101887
tion Planning and Control. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287. Soh, C., & Connolly, D. (2020). The human security implications of
2021.1993373 the fourth industrial revolution in East Asia. Asian Perspective,
Rickard, J. T., Aisbett, J., & Gibbon, G. (2008). Fuzzy subsethood for 44(3), 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2020.0017
fuzzy sets of Type-2 and generalized Type-Type-${n} $. IEEE Soh, C., & Connolly, D. (2021). New frontiers of profit and risk: The
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 17(1), 50–60. fourth industrial revolution’s impact on business and human
Rikap, C. (2022). From global value chains to corporate production and rights. New Political Economy, 26(1), 168–185. https://doi.org/
innovation systems: Exploring the rise of intellectual monopoly 10.1080/13563467.2020.1723514
capitalism. Area Development and Policy, 1–15. https://doi.org/ Song, M., Peng, L., Shang, Y., & Zhao, X. (2022). Green technology pro-
10.1080/23792949.2021.2025118 gress and total factor productivity of resource-based enterprises:
Rikap, C., & Lundvall, B. (2022). Big tech, knowledge predation and A perspective of technical compensation of environmental regula-
the implications for development. Innovation and Development, tion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121276.
12(3), 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2020.18558 Soukupová, N., Adamová, M., & Krninská, R. (2020). Industry 4.0:
25 An employee perception (case of the Czech Republic). Acta Uni-
Robert, M., Giuliani, P., & Gurau, C. (2022). Implementing industry versitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis,
4.0 real-time performance management systems: The case of 68(3), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun202068030637
Schneider Electric. Production Planning and Control, 33(2–3), Spieske, A., & Birkel, H. (2021). Improving supply chain resilience
244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810761 through industry 4.0: A systematic literature review under the
Roda-Sanchez, L., Olivares, T., Garrido-Hidalgo, C., De La Vara, J. impressions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers and Indus-
L., & Fernandez-Caballero, A. (2021). Human-robot interaction trial Engineering, 158, 107452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.
in industry 4.0 based on an internet of things real-time gesture 2021.107452
control system. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, 28(2), Stock, T., Obenaus, M., Kunz, S., & Kohl, H. (2018). Industry 4.0 as
159–175. https://doi.org/10.3233/ICA-200637 enabler for a sustainable development: A qualitative assessment
Rosin, F., Forget, P., Lamouri, S., & Pellerin, R. (2020). Impacts of of its ecological and social potential. Process Safety and Envi-
industry 4.0 technologies on lean principles. International Jour- ronmental Protection, 118, 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nal of Production Research, 58(6), 1644–1661. psep.2018.06.026
Rosin, F., Forget, P., Lamouri, S., & Pellerin, R. (2021). Impact of Strandhagen, J. W., Buer, S. V., Semini, M., Alfnes, E., & Strandhagen,
industry 4.0 on decision-making in an operational context. J. O. (2020). Sustainability challenges and how Industry 4.0 tech-
Advances in Production Engineering and Management, 16(4), nologies can address them: A case study of a shipbuilding supply
500–514. https://doi.org/10.14743/APEM2021.4.416 chain. Production Planning and Control. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 080/
Sachsenmeier, P. (2016). Industry 5.0—The relevance and implications 09537287.2020.1837940
of bionics and synthetic biology. Engineering, 2(2), 225–229. Sun, X., Yu, H., Solvang, W. D., Wang, Y., & Wang, K. (2022). The
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2016.02.015 application of industry 4.0 technologies in sustainable logis-
Sallati, C., & Schützer, K. (2021). Development of smart products for tics: A systematic literature review (2012–2020) to explore
elders within the industry 4.0 context: A conceptual framework. future research opportunities. Environmental Science and Pol-
Procedia CIRP, 100, 810–815. lution Research, 29(7), 9560–9591. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Saniuk, S., Grabowska, S., & Gajdzik, B. Z. (2020a). Personalization s11356-021-17693-y
of products in the industry 4.0 concept and its impact on achiev- Sung, T. K. (2018). Industry 4.0: A Korea perspective. Technological
ing a higher level of sustainable consumption. Energies, 13(22). Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13225895 1016/j.techfore.2017.11.005
Saniuk, S., Grabowska, S., & Gajdzik, B. (2020b). Social expectations Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthe-
and market changes in the context of developing the industry sis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medi-
4.0 concept. Sustainability, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su120 cal Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/
41362 1471-2288-8-45
Scharl, S., & Praktiknjo, A. (2019). The role of a digital industry 4.0 Toktaş-Palut, P. (2022). Analyzing the effects of industry 4.0 tech-
in a renewable energy system. International Journal of Energy nologies and coordination on the sustainability of supply chains.
Research, 43(8), 3891–3904. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4462 Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 341–358.
Sharma, M., Kamble, S., Mani, V., Sehrawat, R., Belhadi, A., & Tong, S., Jia, N., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2021). The Janus face of artifi-
Sharma, V. (2021). Industry 4.0 adoption for sustainability in cial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects
multi-tier manufacturing supply chain in emerging economies. on employee performance. Strategic Management Journal, 42(9),
Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125013. https://doi.org/10. 1600–1631.
1016/j.jclepro.2020.125013 Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2009). On hesitant fuzzy sets and deci-
Shayganmehr, M., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Moktadir, M. sion. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems,
A. (2021). Industry 4.0 enablers for a cleaner production and Jeju, Korea (South), 2009. pp. 1378–1382. https://doi.org/10.
circular economy within the context of business ethics: A study 1109/FUZZY.2009.5276884
in a developing country. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, Tsolakis, N., Harrington, T. S., & Srai, J. S. (2023). Digital supply net-
125280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125280 work design: A circular economy 4.0 decision-making system for
real-world challenges. Production Planning & Control, 34(10),
941–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1980907
Vereycken, Y., Ramioul, M., Desiere, S., & Bal, M. (2021). Human research projects on digitalization, corporate sustainability, and indus-
resource practices accompanying industry 4.0 in European trial transformation. He is also sought after as a digitalization consultant
manufacturing industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technol- by leading businesses worldwide. His research contributions have been
ogy Management, 32(5), 1016–1036. https://doi.org/10.1108/ published in prestigious journals such as BSE, IJPR, TFSC, and JCLP.
JMTM-08-2020-0331
Viriyasitavat, W., Xu, D., Bi, L., & Sapsomboon, A. (2020). Block- Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji PhD, is an Associate Professor in Busi-
chain-based business process management (BPM) framework ness Analytics at Birmingham Business School, University of Birming-
for service composition in industry 4.0. Journal of Intelligent ham. Previously, he was a Lecturer in Strategy and Business Analytics
Manufacturing, 31(7), 1737–1748. and the Programme Leader at the School of Business, University of
Vlachos, I. P., Pascazzi, R. M., Zobolas, G., Repoussis, P., & Gian- Leicester. Before, he was a Senior Lecturer in Business and Manage-
nakis, M. (2021). Lean manufacturing systems in the area of ment at De Montfort University, Lecturer in Operations and Supply
industry 4.0: A lean automation plan of AGVs/IoT integration. Chain Management at the School of Strategy and Leadership at Cov-
Production Planning and Control. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 080/0 9537 entry University, and Assistant Professor in Management Science at the
287.2021.1917720 Faculty of Management, University of Tehran. He graduated with his
Wang, C.-H., & Wu, C.-L. (2021). Bridging the digital divide: The PhD in Management Science in 2012 from the University of Tehran.
smart TV as a platform for digital literacy among the elderly. His primary interest areas include multiple-criteria decision-making
Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10. (MCDM) methods, game theory (GT), and supply chain manage-
1080/0144929X.2021.1934732 ment (SCM). Since 2011, he has published several research papers
Watson, R. T., & Webster, J. (2020). Analysing the past to prepare for in respected international journals, including the British Journal of
the future: Writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0. Management, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Journal of
Journal of Decision Systems, 29(3), 129–147. Operational Research Society, Technological Forecasting and Social
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the Change, Journal of Business Research, Computers and Industrial Engi-
future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. neering, Expert Systems with Applications, Cleaner Production, and
Wei, Z., & Peters, M. A. (2019). ‘Intelligent capitalism’ and the disap- Operations Research Letters. He has also participated in and presented
pearance of labour: Whitherto education? Educational Philoso- articles at prestigious international conferences such as the Academy of
phy and Theory, 51(8), 757-766. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131 Management and the Academy of International Business. Furthermore,
857.2018.1519775 he has published one book in Springer, focusing on the applications of
White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible Management Science in international entrepreneurs decision-making.
methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45.
Xie, Y., Yin, Y., Xue, W., Shi, H., & Chong, D. (2020). Intelligent Mohammad Iranmanesh is an Associate Professor attached to the La
supply chain performance measurement in Industry 4.0. Systems Trobe Business School, La Tobe University. His research interests are
Research and Behavioral Science, 37(4), 711–718. https://doi. at the interface of sustainability and Information Systems (IS), focusing
org/10.1002/sres.2712 on issues related to digital transformation, sustainable manufacturing,
Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and and sustainable development. He has published more than 100 articles
industry 5.0—inception, conception and perception. Journal of in a range of leading academic journals and conferences. Mohammad
Manufacturing Systems, 61, 530–535. was named in the Top 40 Australia’s early achievers (Rising Stars) of
Yalcin, E., Arslan, O., & Aymelek, M. (2020). Developing a policy 2020 by research cited in The Australian newspaper.
management algorithm for ship provision: A Delphi technique
integrated with hesitant fuzzy set (DTIHFS) approach. Maritime Dr. Vahid Jafari‑Sadeghi (SFHEA) is a Senior Lecturer in International
Policy & Management, 47(8), 1097–1118. Business and the Director of the PhD Programme at Aston Business
Yilmaz, A., Dora, M., Hezarkhani, B., & Kumar, M. (2022). Lean School. Before joining Aston University, Vahid was a Senior Lecturer
and industry 4.0: Mapping determinants and barriers from a in International Entrepreneurship at the Newcastle Business School,
social, environmental, and operational perspective. Technologi- Northumbria University, and a Lecturer in Business Strategy at the
cal Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121320. https://d oi.o rg/ School of Strategy and Leadership at Coventry University. He is a
10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121320 member of the executive board of the Academy of International Busi-
Zadeh, L. A. (2011). A note on Z-numbers. Information Sciences, ness UK & Ireland Chapter (AIB-UKI) and is an active researcher
181(14), 2923–2932. in international entrepreneurship, particularly in the area of SME
Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Wang, J. X., Mani, V., Wan, M., & Qu, internationalisation. Vahid is the chair of the 50th AIB UK & Ireland
T. (2021). Drivers of industry 4.0-enabled smart waste manage- Chapter Conference (2024) and a member of the organisation commit-
ment in supply chain operations: A circular economy perspective tee of The Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE)
in China. Production Planning and Control. https://doi.org/10. 2023 conference, hosted by Aston Business School. He has published
1080/09537287.2021.1980909 papers in leading international journals such as the British Journal of
Management, Risk Analysis, International Business Review, Journal
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to of Business Research, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, etc. Dr Jafari-Sadeghi is an
associate editor at the EuroMed Journal of Business, and a member of
the editorial board of The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Busi-
ness, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, and British
Dr. Morteza Ghobakhloo is an Associate Professor at Uppsala Univer- Food Journal. He has served as the lead guest editor for special issues
sity, Sweden, specializing in Industrial Engineering and Management. at the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
His expertise lies in digitalization strategic management, focusing on Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Journal of Theoretical
digital industrial transformation in the Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, and British Food Journal.
eras. He is renowned for his research on hyper-connected production Vahid has edited various books in Springer, Routledge, and Emerald
ecosystems and corporate sustainability performance. With a Ph.D. in and performed as track chair and presenter for several international
Industrial Engineering, he has led numerous national and international conferences.
Authors and Affiliations
Morteza Ghobakhloo1,2 · Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji3 · Mohammad Iranmanesh4 · Vahid Jafari‑Sadeghi5
2
* Morteza Ghobakhloo School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University
[email protected]; of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania
[email protected] 3
Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham,
* Vahid Jafari‑Sadeghi Birmingham, UK
[email protected] 4
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne,
Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji VIC, Australia
[email protected] 5
Aston Business School, Aston University,
Mohammad Iranmanesh Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
[email protected]
1
Division of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Uppsala University, P.O. Box 534, Uppsala 75121, Sweden

From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing To Industry 5.0 Digital Society: A Roadmap Toward Human-Centric, Sustainable, and Resilient Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing To Industry 5.0 Digital Society: A Roadmap Toward Human-Centric, Sustainable, and Resilient Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing To Industry 5.0 Digital Society: A Roadmap Toward Human-Centric, Sustainable, and Resilient Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Systems Frontiers

From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing to Industry 5.0 Digital

Accepted: 7 February 2024

1 Introduction objective is to govern and regulate the trajectory of Industry

Table 1 Exclusion criteria applied for resource identification

Fig. 4 The HF-ISM research

Identifying sustainability functions of Industry 5.0

Phase 2. Data Gathering and Scenario Analysis

Expert qualifications and selection

Classification of functions in three Implementing HF-ISM-MICMAC for three

Level-Based models for three scenarios

Table 2 Experts profile

h+ (x) = max h(x) (2)

and data gathering and scenario design, the questionnaire is

Code Abbreviation Scenario 1. Gentle

Table 6 Final reachability Function F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 Driving Depend-

Fig. 5 a Classification of 9 F8

a Classification of Industry 4.0 functions in the gentle scenario.

c Classification of Industry 4.0 functions in the strict scenario.

Fig. 6 The level-based concep- Function Level Model

literature widely proposing that RTC is a technical func- 6 Implications

Authors and Affiliations

Morteza Ghobakhloo1,2 · Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji3 · Mohammad Iranmanesh4 · Vahid Jafari‑Sadeghi5

You might also like

literature widely proposing that RTC is a technical func- 6 Implications