3,510
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Special Issue: Human-centric production and logistics system design and management: Transitioning from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0
Guest Editors: Eric H. Grosse, Fabio Sgarbossa, Cecilia Berlin and W. Patrick Neumann

Exploring the transition from techno centric industry 4.0 towards value centric industry 5.0: a systematic literature review

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 7866-7902 | Received 21 Jun 2022, Accepted 18 May 2023, Published online: 26 Jun 2023

Abstract

This systematic literature review synthesises the literature on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 while exploring driving forces behind the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 to value centric IN 5.0 using the principles of the multiple level perspective (MLP). Works that discuss contextual, regime and niche level factors which impact on the transition were explored. The Covid- 19 pandemic and Climate change are identified as key contextual, ‘Landscape’, factors impacting the transition while Trust, Mass personalisation and Autonomy are highlighted as key Regime factors. In terms of Niche innovations, Advanced Extended reality technologies, Cobots/ Advanced Robotics, and Advanced AI are often connected with landscape or regime issues. Drawing on MLP theory, the study demonstrates that the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 is occurring through a reconfiguration pattern. The paper further emphasises aspects that both practitioners and academics need to be cognisant of in order to affect a transition from IN 4.0 to IN 5.0.

1. Introduction

IN 4.0, or the fourth industrial revolution, is considered a technology-driven (or technocentric) and high-tech strategy (Demir, Döven, and Sezen Citation2019; Müller Citation2020; Xu et al. Citation2021) that employs emerging technologies such as cyber physical systems (CPS), Artificial Intelligence, Big Data analytics and the Internet of Things (IoT) to create Smart factories with extreme automation (Ozdemir and Hekim Citation2018) and minimum human intervention (Demir, Döven, and Sezen Citation2019). However, IN 4.0 has recently come under attack by critiques who argue that extreme automation where ‘everything is connected to everything else’ creates vulnerabilities and systemic risks (Ozdemir and Hekim Citation2018). Critiques also argue that the centring of IN 4.0 around technology driven productivity aligns with maligned neoliberal models of capitalism that emphasise profitability and shareholder primacy (Ghobakhloo et al. Citation2022; Müller Citation2020; Neumann et al. Citation2021; Sgarbossa et al. Citation2020; Sindhwani et al. Citation2022), at the expense of other socio-environmental concerns such as regional inequality and environmental degradation (Renda et al. Citation2022). This has given rise to proposals for a shift towards a new paradigm that safely harnesses the potential of IN 4.0 (Ozdemir and Hekim Citation2018) but which also places emphasis not just on profit maximisation but also on humans, society and the environment (Breque, Nul, and Petridis Citation2021; Ghobakhloo et al. Citation2022; Müller Citation2020; Renda et al. Citation2022).

More recently, the concept of IN 5.0 has emerged as such a value centric paradigm and a means of refocusing IN 4.0 principles, creating a notion of industry that looks beyond economic or shareholder profit towards becoming a resilient provider of prosperity, respecting both environmental limits to growth and the wellbeing of industry workers (Fraga-Lamas, Varela-Barbeito, and Fernández-Caramés Citation2021; Gladden Citation2019; Nahavandi Citation2019). In this way, IN 5.0 is expected to complement and extend the hallmark features of IN 4.0 (Müller Citation2020); to support a better fit and ‘win-win’ interaction between industry and society, thereby shifting the focus from shareholder to stakeholder value (Breque, Nul, and Petridis Citation2021; Müller Citation2020). IN 5.0 is linked to ‘society 5.0′ which was first presented by the Japanese government in 2016 (Huang et al. Citation2022). Both concepts propose a fundamental shift towards a new paradigm that aims to balance economic development with the resolution of societal and environmental problems (Huang et al. Citation2022; Maddikunta et al. Citation2022). For an in depth comparison of the two concepts, see Huang et al. (Citation2022).

As such, although businesses have only just begun to embrace the fourth industrial revolution, the fifth industrial revolution is now happening simultaneously (Xu et al. Citation2021). The disruptive impact of technological revolutions was initially captured by the concept of technological waves (Kondratieff and Stolper Citation1935), which suggests that radical innovations emerge over time driven by scientific discoveries, and that they cumulate and trigger technological change only when old technologies exhaust their potential (De Propris and Bailey Citation2021). However, this understanding is at odds with what is currently being experienced by the advent of IN 4.0 and IN 5.0, which seem to be occurring in tandem. There is wide agreement among researchers that there are overlaps between technological innovations in both IN 4.0 and 5.0 (Maddikunta et al. Citation2022). However, there is insufficient understanding of how and why there is a change from one revolution to another when existing IN 4.0 technologies have not exhausted their potential.

In short, there is a lack of understanding about how extant studies explain the broader contextual developments that influence the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0, and whether or how the new innovations or emerging technologies have shaped the transition. Additionally, although related concepts such as human centric IN 4.0, operator 4.0 seem to overlap with some key ideas of IN 5.0 in previous studies, to date no attempt has been made to synthesise the different streams of literature to provide a holistic account of the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0.

To address these gap(s), this study examines and critiques existing studies to identify themes, patterns, relationships and gaps in understanding of the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 and value centric IN 5.0. The contribution of this paper is two-fold: First, through a systematic review, we synthesise the literature on human centric IN4.0 and IN 5.0 to understand differences and overlaps between the two streams of research. Second, we examine the driving forces behind the transition from a technocentric towards a value centric regime by exploring exogenous factors and technological developments that have contributed to changes in policy, stakeholder expectations and stakeholder perceptions.

Despite being relatively new, the literature on human centric IN 4.0 is increasing rapidly. However, the literature results are fragmented and inconsistent on the issue especially regarding societal transformation (Grybauskas, Stefanini, and Ghobakhloo Citation2022). This situation is further exacerbated with the emerging concept of IN 5.0, where there are few relevant studies available for reference, especially in terms of high-quality journal papers (Leng et al. 2022). Although papers on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 seem to overlap in some areas, it is not entirely clear how exactly these concepts differ from one another or how IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 research and revolutions seem to be occurring simultaneously. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to provide researchers, policy makers and practitioners with a holistic overview of the state of research on the factors influencing the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0. To accomplish these objectives, the paper will answer the following questions according to previous literature:

  1. What are the human and societal challenges in the era of IN 4.0 and what are the technological innovations within human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 to address them?

  2. What are the policy and stakeholder perceptions or preferences that influence the transition?

  3. How do broader contextual developments influence the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0?

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides a brief overview of transition theories, highlighting the usefulness of the multilevel perspective (MLP) as a lens through which to address our research questions. The section also provides an overview of our initial scoping review, highlighting the identified gaps that led to our study. Section 3 introduces the methodology by setting out the systematic literature review method and the fundamental review principles. Sections 4 illustrates and discusses the obtained results from both the basic data analysis of included papers (providing a general overview of the topic) and the specific data analysis corresponding to each research sub-question. Section 5 discusses the key implications of transitioning from technocentric IN 4.0 to value centric IN 5.0 for practitioners. Section 6 concludes the paper by highlighting the issues that remain unaddressed in existing studies on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0, posing directions for future research.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. An overview of transition theories

Although we are at the beginning of the fifth industrial revolution, there is still insufficient uptake of previous revolutions (Agnusdei, Elia, and Gnoni Citation2021; Baroroh and Chu Citation2022). A number of theories have been used to explain how and why technological transitions occur as well as how to manage or promote them. The extant literature identifies the multilevel perspective (MLP), Strategic Niche Management (SNM), Transition Management (TM) and Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) as four main strands of theory that explain technological transitions (Lachman Citation2013; Panetti et al. Citation2018). The first three theories posit that transitions are the outcome of coevolution and alignment of processes at multiple levels whereas TIS focuses on the interplay between actors in a particular institutional infrastructure and the key functions that underpin the success or failure of technology.

2.1.1. Identifying the appropriate transition theory for the study

As seen in Table 1, MLP was identified as a useful framing device for the current research by comparing and contrasting the four prominent theories based on a number of factors including level of consideration, main focus, development hierarchy, popularity, complexity (diversity of concepts) and systemicity (Panetti et al. Citation2018). Human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 research are very much in their early stages, and therefore there is limited data from actors or organisations that have implemented the technologies involved. Hence, it may be advantageous to use a theory which enables a holistic approach to allow for deeper exploration. Compared to other transition theories which consider either bottom up developments only, i.e. from micro to macro level or top down developments only, i.e. from macro to micro level, the MLP considers both bottom-up and top-down developments, which makes it more suitable for the current study.

Table 1. Identifying the appropriate transition theory for the study.

Although the complexity of MLP is not high compared to the TM or other combined theories; it is identified as the most popular transition theory which other transition theories draw on (Lachman Citation2013; Panetti et al. Citation2018). Additionally, since the movement from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 involves socio-technical development that enables a paradigm shift, MLP is a suitable tool to analyse the transition because it is concerned with the long-term dynamics of shifts from one socio-technical system to another, and the co-evolution of technology and society (Geels Citation2004). Hence, MLP allows us to unpack key characteristics of the value centric regime as well as the broader contextual developments at a landscape level that have triggered instability within the technocentric regime and thus enabled a shift towards the value centric regime. Furthermore, it allows us to understand and explore technological innovations within IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 that are emerging in the era of the value centric regime. Below we explore the MLP theory in more depth.

2.1.2. Theoretical framework- A MLP explanation of the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0

The MLP is arguably the most prominent of the transition frameworks (El Bilali Citation2019). The MLP literature posits that technological transitions occur as a result interactions between three nested levels within socio-technical systems: Socio-technical landscape (macro level), socio-technical regime (at meso level) and technological niche (at the micro level). These form a nested hierarchy with niches embedded within regimes, which are in turn embedded in the landscape (Geels Citation2002; Geels Citation2005; Geels and Schot Citation2007). There is no single cause or driver of change at work (Geels Citation2011), but rather, there is ‘circular causality’ in which processes at different levels interact with each other (De Propris and Bailey Citation2021).

Niche level

Niches, occur at the micro level and are the space where actors experiment with radical innovations that have the potential to challenge or break into the prevailing regime. In this way, niches can be thought of as locations where it is possible to deviate from the rules in the existing regime (Geels et al. Citation2017). Applying this idea to the transition from IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 is useful because it helps to describe the potential for the impact of emerging technologies that might transform business and society in a number of ways (Mourtzis, Angelopoulos, and Panopoulos Citation2022; Xu, Xu, and Li Citation2018). For example, by redesigning the organisation of production inside firms, emerging technologies may impact on employment (De Propris and Bailey Citation2021). They could also impact on value chains both in terms of value creation functions and geographical presence; introduce new value creation parameters in firms’ business models; create new sectors and markets; and usher in new demand and consumer expectations (De Propris and Bailey Citation2021). Moreover, it can be said that through value co-creation processes, new insights and ideas are exchanged between firms and society in new and more rapid ways, creating a virtuous circle between innovation in firms and better conditions of life in society, where the real engine of this virtuous mechanism are the individuals supported by the enabling technologies of IN 4.0 (Aquilani et al. Citation2020).

Regime level

The regime level, which is the core level, can be defined as a set of historically established and institutionalised rules and beliefs that guide thoughts and behaviours of actors in a certain societal system (Geels Citation2002). The socio-technical regime refers to the incumbent socio technical system including the network of actors and groups, and informal and formal rules that maintain the dominant system as well as its technical and material elements (Geels Citation2002). These informal and formal rules include cognitive, normative, and regulative rules that inform user expectations, orient perceptions of the future and steer actions in the present. For example, if actors expect that problems can be solved within the paradigm of IN 4.0, they will not invest in radical innovations or improvements that lead to IN 5.0, and as long as firms believe that they meet their user preferences well, they will continue to produce same products (c.f. Geels Citation2004). Similarly, social and organisational networks are stabilised by mutual role perceptions of proper behaviour, such as technical standards, or rules for government subsidies which favour existing technologies (Geels and Schot Citation2007).

Landscape level

The landscape is the macro level and consists of slow changing socio-technical structures that exist in the wider or exogenous environment where transitions occur (e.g. material, environmental and economic conditions, the broader Socio-Cultural context, and political imperatives and actions), which are beyond the influence of individual human actors (Geels Citation2002; Citation2004; Citation2006; Citation2018). The literature on the MLP posits that the socio-technical landscape has two main functions in sustainability transition processes. One, exerting pressure on dominant regimes to change, and two, creating windows of opportunity for new technologies to emerge at the niche level (El Bilali Citation2019; Geels Citation2002). The intensity of landscape pressure on the incumbent regime can be low (regular change), moderate (disruptive change), high (specific shock) or very high (avalanche) (Kanger Citation2021).

2.1.3. Summary of related previous review papers

During our initial scoping review, we discovered a total of 38 related review/survey papers published between 2019 and 2022 that we categorised into two broad groups. The first group focused on human centric or human centred IN 4.0 without discussing IN 5.0. The second group focused mainly on IN 5.0 or the transition from IN 4.0 to IN 5.0. These studies provide some useful insights into technological innovations (niche), contextual factors (landscape) and stakeholder practices or perceptions that shape human centric IN 4.0 or IN 5.0 (regime). However, the findings are somewhat fragmented across different studies (See Table 2).

Table 2. Summary and gaps of previous reviews and key contribution of current study.

Among the review/survey papers discussing human centric IN 4.0, we identified four camps of studies. The first explore how research practices are shaping IN 4.0 or user attitudes and perception towards IN 4.0 technologies, associated challenges or user perceptions, and how IN 4.0 technologies are changing the role and performance of operators or the future of work (e.g. Boada, Maestre, and Genís Citation2021; Cotrino, Sebastian, and Gonzalez-Gaya Citation2020; Di Pasquale et al. Citation2021; Kadir, Broberg, and Conceição Citation2019; Mukhuty, Upadhyay, and Rothwell Citation2022). The second camp of studies under this group explore technological advancements within IN4.0 that provide human and societal advantages (Agnusdei, Elia, and Gnoni Citation2021; Baroroh and Chu Citation2022; Glock et al. Citation2021; Mark, Rauch, and Matt Citation2021; Miqueo, Torralba, and Yagüe-Fabra Citation2020; Nikitas et al. Citation2020; Zheng et al. Citation2021). A third camps explores stakeholder expectations or perceptions or policy and regulations involving IN 4.0 as well as technological advancements that can help to realise these (Bavaresco et al. Citation2021; Bittencourt, Alves, and Leão Citation2021; Nikitas et al. Citation2020; Winkelhaus and Grosse Citation2020). Finally, the fourth camp discusses factors, or societal drivers, that pave the way for IN 4.0 technologies. For example, Can, Arnrich, and Ersoy (Citation2019) identify stress as the second most severe work-related contextual factor that affects Europe and USA, and explore how work-related stress can be mitigated through smartphones and wearable sensors.

Among the review/survey papers discussing IN 5.0, we also identified four camps of studies. The first explore human or social implications of IN 4.0 technologies from individual or regional levels (Coronado et al. Citation2022; Grybauskas et al. 2022; Kumar and Lee 2022; Shahbakhsh, Emad, and Cahoon 2022) and how these create a need for IN 5.0 technologies. The second camp links the concepts of IN 4.0 and 5.0 by exploring challenges and opportunities associated with the application of certain IN 4.0 technologies such as IoT (Fatima et al. Citation2022), Digital Twins (Mylonas et al. Citation2021) or AI (Brunetti, Gena, and Vernero Citation2022) in the era of IN 5.0 or society 5. The third camp discuss contextual factors that act as drivers for the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 (Madhavan et al. Citation2022). Finally, a fourth camp have sought to develop the concept of IN 5.0. For example, citing a lack of understanding of IN 5.0, due to the infancy of the concept, the key features of resilience, human centricity and sustainability have been applied to define and propose architectures for IN 5.0 implementation drawing on multiple perspectives (Leng et al. 2022) and from the perspective of specific domains, such as operations and supply chain management (Ivanov Citation2022). Similarly, Grabowska, Saniuk, and Gajdzik (Citation2022) attempt to link IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 by studying areas related to humanisation and sustainability in the IN4.0 literature. Their study highlights that humanisation of the built technological environment for IN 4.0 and the role of operators was one of the first factors in the evolution of IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0. We identified only two papers under the fourth camp (Mourtzis, Angelopoulos, and Panopoulos Citation2022; Zizic, Mladineo, Gjeldum, and Celent Citation2022) that explore the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 by discussing stakeholder perceptions/expectations, contextual factors and technological innovations. However, Mourtzis, Angelopoulos, and Panopoulos’s (Citation2022) is not focused on providing a holistic understanding of the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 by exploring multiple levels. Moreover, Zizic et al’s (2022) study relied mainly on keywords analysis leaving open a scope for more in-depth exploration of the subject. These gaps and inconsistencies highlight again the value of a systematic review of the literature on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 in order better understand how and why the transition is occurring.

2.1.4. Explaining the interaction across MLP levels

Since MLP theory assumes that there is no single cause or driver of change, it is important to identify how the different levels interact with one another to enact different types of change. Geels and Schot (Citation2007) identified five patterns that define sustainability transitions. The reproduction pattern leads to incremental change and occurs when there are no landscape pressures, hence the regime remains stable and reproduces itself. The transformation pattern occurs when there is moderate landscape pressure and underdeveloped niches, causing the regimes to react by modifying the direction of development paths and innovation activities. The dealignment and realignment pattern occurs when there are large, sudden, and divergent landscape changes that increase regime problems leading to regime destabilisation and de-alignment. If niches are not well developed, there will be competition of emerging niches leading to one niche becoming dominant and forming the core for the re-aligning of a new regime. The technological substitution pattern occurs when there is significant landscape pressure and sufficiently developed niches which lead to the dethroning of the current regime by niches. Lastly, the reconfiguration pattern occurs when symbiotic innovations developed in niches are used in the regime to solve local problems, resulting in further adjustments in the basic structure of the regime. In this study, we will assess existing literature against the three MLP levels to identify the pattern that defines the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0.

3. Research methodology

3.1. SLR principles and methods

Following the MLP theory outlined in the earlier section, (Geels Citation2002; Citation2004; Citation2005; Citation2006; Citation2007; Citation2011; Citation2018), papers were reviewed according to the relevant MLP layers. For example, papers are categorised as niche level studies if they discussed technologies or technological improvements intended to resolve economic, social or environmental challenges. Papers are categorised as regime level studies if they explore policies and regulation, stakeholder perceptions and expectations around IN 4.0 or IN 5.0 technologies. Lastly, papers that discuss or explore exogenous environmental, Socio-Cultural and economic factors that may influence on IN 4.0 or IN 5.0 are categorised as landscape level studies. To ensure that all papers were assessed consistently, two fundamental review principles were defined:

  • Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. The criteria for including or excluding papers were clearly outlined according to the MLP theoretical framework and covers all the layers including niche, regime and landscape. The papers that did not cover at least one of these three MLP layers were excluded. As can be seen in , six main inclusion and exclusion criteria, together with their subsets have been outlined.

  • Objective review process. The collected papers were reviewed by two of the authors and the findings were then cross examined. In rare instances where two authors could not reach an agreement on any categorisation, the third author stepped in to make the final decision.

Figure 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria and their explanations.

An illustrative image of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (there are four sub-criteria for the exclusion and two sub-criteria for the inclusion).
Figure 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria and their explanations.

3.2. Systematic literature review method

In order to provide a neutral basis for data collection and analysis (Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart Citation2003) this study applies the systematic literature review method using a mixed-methods approach, following the structure outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement (Moher et al. Citation2009). The PRISMA flow chart that reports the different phases of this systematic literature review is shown in .

Figure 2. The PRISMA flow chart that reports the different phases of the systematic literature review (SLR).

A flow chart explaining the PRISMA approach used for the review process including four main steps of identification, screening, eligibility, and included papers.
Figure 2. The PRISMA flow chart that reports the different phases of the systematic literature review (SLR).

3.2.1. Paper collection

Drawing on the MLP theoretical framework, the search string was constructed through the combination of the operators ‘or’ or ‘and’ in between two or more of the following terms in order to obtain a comprehensive set of papers as indicated as follows:

The systematic search used an electronic database, namely SCOPUS, to collect academic research papers that: (1) were published from 2011 onwards; (2) contained at least one of the identified keywords in either the abstract, title and keywords; (3) were published in journals or conference proceedings; and (4) were written in the English language. Scopus was selected because it covers a high number of peer reviewed journals from a large variety of publishers. Moreover, it has been used successfully by other recent and related SLR papers, for example Liao et al. (2017). After removing duplicates, the first screening process was carried out to exclude for papers where: (1) only titles, abstracts, and keywords were in English (SER); (2) there was no access to their full texts (WFT); or (3) the papers were not academic articles (NR1). All the papers that passed the initial screening process were reviewed by reading their titles, abstracts or, if more information was required to determine inclusion, then the full texts were reviewed. The second screening process was employed to exclude papers that (1) did not discuss any of the three Multi Level Perspectives factors (NR2); or (2) do not focus on human or societal challenges or opportunities associated with IN 4.0 or 5.0 technologies (LR1−LR3). Finally, all eligible papers were studied in detail and classified into the established inclusion criteria sub-categories (PR1-PR3 and CR1).

3.2.2. Data collection

Information within the literature that fit the scope of this review were extracted into a data table. Two of the authors were involved in data extraction. Both authors subsequently cross-checked a random selection of papers to ensure consistency and validity of the data based on the above data extraction framework. For each included paper, two types of information were collated.

First, basic data about the paper, which included source-based criteria (e.g. journal or conference papers, paper authors, year of publication and numbers of citations of each paper). Additionally, the papers were grouped under the following three types:

  • Conceptual/Theoretical paper: These are papers that propose conceptual or theoretical solutions without any field or experimental data or industrial applications.

  • Discussion paper: these are papers that discuss challenges or opportunities without a comprehensive solution

  • Practical paper: the practical papers were further divided into four sub-categories

  • Qualitative: These are papers that propose solutions based on qualitative analysis of field or industry data

  • Quantitative: These are papers that propose solutions based on quantitative analysis of field or industry data

  • Experimental: These are papers that propose solutions based on prototype or experimental studies

  • Mixed: These papers propose solutions based on both qualitative and quantitative data analysis

Second, data related to each of the three research sub-questions, as follows:

  • For the first research question, references within the paper that contain any technological innovations in the era of human centric IN 4.0 e.g. AI, Robotics, Digital Twins, Blockchain, IoT.

  • For the second research question, references within the paper that refer to Stakeholder perception, Stakeholder preferences, or Policy/Regulation as drivers for human centric IN 4.0 or IN 5.0.

  • For the third research question, references within the paper that refer to external factors -that are beyond the direct influence of actors and cannot be changed at will e.g. Environmental, or broad social cultural factors -as drivers for human centric IN 4.0 or IN 5.0.

3.2.3. Data analysis

Collected data were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis involved thematic and content synthesis through three-stages – line-by-line coding, formulation of descriptive themes and development of analytical themes (Thomas and Harden Citation2008). Major themes were first derived through a line-by-line reading of all relevant narratives on all three levels of the MLP related to the transition from the fourth to the fifth industrial revolution. Thereafter, analytical themes were formulated from a direct interpretation of the narratives and categorised as either focused on landscape, regime or niche levels. Quantitative analysis involved graphical representation of collected data to illustrate key characteristics and relationships between analytical themes that appeared in the included papers.

4. Characterisation of current research on the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0

Based on the six inclusion and exclusion criteria defined in and the PRISMA diagram shown in , a total of 175 papers were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. This section provides an overview of the included papers and subsequently responds to the research questions for this study.

4.1. Basic data analysis: overview of included papers

118 papers out of the 175 included papers focused on human centric IN 4.0 without mentioning IN 5.0. 56 of the papers discussed IN 5.0 or society 5.0 either alongside IN 4.0 or exclusively. Our analysis shows a rise in a concern for human factors related to IN 4.0 over time. Similarly, we found a persistent increase and rise in interest in IN 5.0 between 2016 and 2022. Next a more detailed investigation was carried out to analyse 1) the included journal conference papers (section 4.1.1), papers with the highest number of citations (section 4.1.2), content-based characteristics of papers (4.1.3), and keyword analysis of papers (4.1.4).

4.1.1. Analysis of journal and conference papers

The selected papers were categorised with respect to the original sources of the papers. Procedia and IFAC papers were classified as conference papers even though they are classified as journals in some electronic databases. 68% of the included papers, 118 papers, are journal papers, of which 75 were IN 4.0 papers and 43 were IN 5.0 papers. 29% of the included papers, 51 papers, are conference papers, of which 42 were IN 4.0, 9 were IN 5.0 papers. 3% of the included papers were white papers, i.e. four papers, of which one was IN 4.0 and four were IN 5.0 (see Appendix A). White papers were included because they provide useful insights into policies, practices and contextual factors that inform the industrial revolutions.

In terms of journal and conference sources, Computers & Industrial Engineering, the Journal of Manufacturing Systems, and the International Journal of Production Research journals respectively recorded the highest number of publications on MLP factors related to human centric IN 4.0. Sustainability, the Journal of Manufacturing Systems and Applied sciences journals recorded the highest number of publications that discussed MLP factors related to IN 5.0. From 2015 onwards, there has been a steady increase in the number of journal papers that discuss MLP factors pertaining to human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0. For the conference papers, there was a parallel rise from 2015 through to 2021, but a decline is apparent for 2022 (see Appendix B).

4.1.2. Analysis of highly cited papers

Table 3 shows the top five papers with the highest number of citations among the included papers for human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0. Highly cited papers are useful because they help to indicate impact and influence of key ideas. The most highly cited paper under IN 4.0 (522 citations) was Ivanov and Dolgui (Citation2021), which proposes the digital supply chain twin as useful for supply chain risk management in the wake of Covid-19. This highlights that contextual factors can play a key role in driving technological innovations. This is followed closely by Romero et al’s (2016) conceptual paper which first introduced the concept of Operator 4.0 (509 citations). This suggests that Operator 4.0 is an impactful concept amongst studies that focus on human centric aspects of IN 4.0. The most highly cited paper (409 citations) for IN 5.0 was Nahavandi (Citation2019), that introduced IN 5.0 as a human centric solution. This may explain why human centric aspects have generated the most amount of interest on IN 5.0 studies.

Table 3. Top five highly cited human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers.

4.1.3. Analysis of content-based categories of included papers

According to the content-based categories in , 19 (11%) are discussion papers, 58 (35%) are conceptual/theoretical papers, nine (5%) are quantitative, nine (5%) are qualitative, 63 (37%) are experimental, and 12 (7%) are mixed methods papers. The limited number of qualitative studies and mixed methods studies compared to experimental and quantitative studies points to the novelty and newness of IN 5.0 and highlights the need for more research in the area.

Figure 3. A graphical illustration for methodologies used in included papers.

Basic data analysis of included journal and conference papers on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 summarising the methodologies used in included papers.
Figure 3. A graphical illustration for methodologies used in included papers.

Empirical papers were further examined using the criteria of high-quality journal (with impact factor of 3 and above) and clear findings or methodology. On this basis, 39 human centric IN 4.0 papers and six IN 5.0 papers were identified. For the human centric IN 4.0 papers, 28 were experimental studies, five were qualitative, three were quantitative and three used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. For the IN 5.0 papers, three were experimental, two were mixed and one was quantitative. An illustration of these empirical papers is summarised in Appendix C.

4.1.4. Keyword analysis of papers

To understand the differences and overlaps between the streams of research on human centric IN4.0 and IN 5.0, a key word analysis was conducted. A total of 918 keywords were collected, of which 578 were collected from IN 4.0 papers and 340 were collected from IN 5.0 papers. The 918 collected keywords were firstly examined and grouped into corresponding economic, environmental, social and technological clusters. The top cluster for human centred IN 4.0 papers was social (45%), followed by technology (37%) and economic (48), there were no keywords under environmental. On the other hand, the top cluster for IN 5.0 papers was social (37%) followed by technology (36%), environmental (14%) and economic (13%). This analysis indicates that scholars who publish on human factors of IN4.0 focus more on social and economic aspects with very little emphasis on environmental sustainability. This is probably because environmental aspects are largely absent from the concept of IN 4.0 and part of what IN 5.0 is attempting to address. Interestingly, scholars who publish under the IN 5.0 theme also mention IN 4.0 as key words and, significantly, IN 5.0 papers tend to focus on a wider range of factors including social and environmental as well as economic aspects. However, both streams of research place almost equal emphasis on technologies which indicates that the emerging/disruptive technologies are believed to be largely responsible for the fourth and fifth industrial revolutions. Figures and below, provide visual representations of key words that appeared most frequently within human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers.

Figure 4. Cluster map for frequently appearing keywords in human centric IN 4.0 papers.

Keywords in human centric IN 4.0 according to economic, social and technology clusters.
Figure 4. Cluster map for frequently appearing keywords in human centric IN 4.0 papers.

Figure 5. Cluster map for frequently appearing keywords in IN 5.0 papers.

Keywords in IN 5.0 according to economic, social, environmental and technology clusters.
Figure 5. Cluster map for frequently appearing keywords in IN 5.0 papers.

4.2. Data analysis with specific purposes: three research questions

The data analysis for the three questions include both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

4.2.1. Impact of technological innovations (niche) on human and societal challenges

Overall, 120 papers (97 human centric IN 4.0 and 23 IN 5.0) were identified that discussed seven categories of opportunities intended to resolve challenges related to either economic, social, or environmental sustainability using several enabling technologies as indicated in Appendix D1 and D2.

Economic sustainability

Efficiency without human replacement and Flexible production are two key themes that appear in the papers that discuss economic sustainability using IN 4.0 or IN 5.0.

Efficiency without human replacement

The most frequently discussed theme under economic sustainability among included papers is efficiency without human replacement. Between 2015 and 2022, this theme is mentioned every year which indicates its importance. Additionally, from 2020 a wider range of technologies have been associated with the theme. For the most part, the included human centric IN4.0 and IN 5.0 papers mention concepts such human cyber physical systems (HCPS) that enable the combination of both artificial and human intelligence, thereby retaining humans in the decision-making loop and empowering the human worker. In addition, a variety of technologies are mentioned that allow effective collaboration of humans and machines to improve efficiency in manufacturing factories of the future.

Flexible production/resilience

Overall, between 2015 and 2022, the theme of Flexible production/Resilience appears less frequently than the theme of efficiency without human replacement. However, from 2020 onwards, there has been more discussion around this theme, particularly in relation to technologies that enable resilience through the ability to adapt in the event of disruptions. This increase in attention may, in part, be attributable to the global disruption caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Tables in Appendices D1 and D2 illustrate the names of authors, years of publication of papers that mention efficiency without human replacement and Flexible production/Resilience between 2015 and 2022, as well as the human centric IN 4.0 and IN5.0 technologies that enable them. For example, in Appendix D1, Ivanov and Dolgui (Citation2019) discuss Digital Twins and Artificial intelligence as technologies related to Flexible production/Resilience.

Social sustainability

Physical support/safety, Cognitive & Perceptual support and Trust are three key themes that appear in the papers that discuss social sustainability using IN 4.0 or IN 5.0.

Cognitive & perceptual support

The most frequently discussed theme under Social sustainability among included papers is Cognitive & Perceptual support. This theme is mentioned each year between 2015 and 2022, indicating its importance. For the most part, papers which discuss Cognitive & Perceptual support, identify a number of technologies that can extend operators capabilities associated with learning, training, knowledge sharing, decision making and perception.

Physical support/ safety

Physical support/ safety is less frequently mentioned than Cognitive & Perceptual support but shows a similar trend. Again, between 2015 to 2022, this theme is mentioned every year. The included human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers that discuss Physical support/safety identify several technologies that support workers with physical stress or repetitive tasks and physical ergonomic support, thus improving workers’ safety and well-being through positive effects on their health, satisfaction, and performance.

Trust

Trust is the least discussed theme out of the three identified themes under social sustainability, though it appears more frequently from 2020 onwards. Included human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers that discuss Trust focus on how to make the behaviour of machines more transparent or intelligible to humans; which makes them useful for resolving issues related to Trust and the lack of adoption of emerging technologies.

Tables in Appendices D1 and D2 illustrates the names of authors, year of publication that have been mentioned alongside Cognitive & Perceptual support, Physical support/safety, and Trust between 2015 and 2022, as well as the technologies that enable them for included papers on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 respectively. For example, in Appendix D1, Rožanec et al (Citation2022a) discuss next generation Digital Twins as a technology that is related to Cognitive & Perceptual support.

Environmental sustainability

Environmental sustainability appears more frequently from 2019 onwards. Reduction in Wastage/Energy efficiency and reduction in pollution are two key themes that appear in the papers that discuss Environmental sustainability alongside human centric IN 4.0 or IN 5.0.

Reduction in wastage, energy efficiency

The most frequently mentioned theme under Environmental sustainability is Reduction in Wastage/Energy efficiency. Included human centric IN 4.0 papers and IN 5.0 that discuss this theme discuss protection of the planet through waste minimisation and optimisation of resources including relevant technologies.

Reduction in pollution

Human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers that discuss Trust typically also mention technologies that are relevant for promoting greener and more environmentally sustainable environments by reducing pollution.

Tables in Appendices D1 and D2 illustrates the names of authors, year of publication that have been mentioned alongside Reduction in Wastage/Energy efficiency and reduction in pollution between 2015 and 2022 as well as the technologies that enable them for included papers on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 respectively. For example, as depicted in Appendix D1, in the study conducted by Machado et al. (Citation2021), IoT and Cloud computing were discussed as technologies with an impact on Pollution reduction.

Overview of key enabling technologies for economic, social, and environmental sustainability

Table 4 indicates the number of times each technology was discussed alongside a particular opportunity in the same study among the included human centric IN 4.0 papers. The boldened values in the table highlight the technologies and challenges that appear more frequently together in the same paper. For example, analysis shows that Cobots/Advanced Robotics are most frequently discussed alongside Efficiency without human replacement (27 times), IoT & sensors technologies are most frequently discussed alongside Physical support/safety (26 times), and Augmented Reality is most frequently discussed alongside Cognitive & Perceptual support (22 times), respectively. This suggests that Cobots/ Advanced Robotics, AR and IoT may be useful for resolving issues pertaining to Economic sustainability (Efficiency without human replacement) and Social sustainability (Physical support/safety and Cognitive & Perceptual support). A brief definition of these technologies is provided in Appendix E1.

Table 4. Innovations and opportunities discussed in human centric IN 4.0 papers.

For the IN 5.0 papers, Cobots/Advanced Robotics and Advanced AI are most frequently discussed alongside Efficiency without human replacement (6 times each), Cobots/ Advanced Robotics is most frequently discussed along with Physical support (5 times), while Advanced Robotics, Advanced Blockchain and advanced AI are more frequently discussed alongside Waste reduction/Energy efficiency (4 times each), advanced AI is also discussed alongside Pollution reduction (see Table 5). This suggests that Cobots/Advanced Robotics, Advanced Blockchain and Advanced AI may resolve challenges pertaining to Economic efficiency (Efficiency without human replacement), Social sustainability (Physical support/safety), and Environmental sustainability (Waste reduction/Energy efficiency and Pollution reduction). A brief definition of these technologies is provided in Appendix E2.

Table 5. Innovations and opportunities discussed in IN 5.0 papers.

4.2.2. The role of policy/regulations, stakeholder perceptions and expectations (regime) in the from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0

Overall, 69 papers (34 IN 4.0 and 35 IN 5.0 papers) identified regime level factors linked to formal rules such as policies & regulation as well as informal ‘norms’ including stakeholder perceptions and expectations about emerging technologies.

Policy/regulations

Among the IN 4.0 papers, the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) (Mark et al. Citation2019) is discussed as a driver for the use of physical and cognitive assistance support technologies. Responsible research and innovation (Stahl and Coeckelbergh Citation2016) and corresponding initiatives such as value sensitive design is discussed as one of the drivers for designing AI for explainability and verifiability (Umbrello and Yampolskiy Citation2022).

Many IN 5.0 papers discussed policies such as United Nations sustainable developmental goals UN SDG (Althabhawi, Zainol, and Bagheri Citation2022; Amadasun et al. Citation2021; Ávila-Gutiérrez, Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and Aguayo-González Citation2022; Carayannis, Draper, and Bhaneja Citation2021; Ghobakhloo et al. Citation2022; Potocan, Mulej, and Nedelko Citation2021; Renda et al. Citation2022; Roring and How Citation2022; Sindhwani et al. Citation2022; Taj and Jhanjhi Citation2022). Others focus on occupational Health and Safety policy (Ávila-Gutiérrez, Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and Aguayo-González Citation2022) or regulations around responsible implementation science (Ozdemir and Hekim Citation2018) as key drivers for IN 5.0; on the basis that the technocentric and economic focus of the fourth revolution cannot support the achievement of sustainable development in ways that protect planetary boundaries, nor address deep social tensions.

Stakeholders perception

Stakeholders’ perceptions relating to Technology readiness, Job security, Trust, Autonomy, Occupational wellbeing & Social connectedness, Health & Safety and Implementation cost were identified in the included human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers.

Technology readiness

Lack of Technology readiness or ‘insufficient know-how’ amongst some workers was noted in relation to the use of technologies such as IoT (Lall, Torvatn, and Seim Citation2017), cobots or AR (Cimini et al. Citation2019; Fast-Berglund and Romero Citation2019; Kaasinen et al. Citation2020; Neumann et al. Citation2021). Moreover, a lack of buy-in from other key stakeholders is also discussed as a barrier towards the adoption of IN 4.0 technologies.

Job security

There is an implicit fear or understanding that unemployment will rise as the use of automation with IN 4.0 technologies increases (Adam, Aringer-Walch, and Bengler Citation2019; Berrah et al. Citation2021; Cimini et al. Citation2020). For example, improved robotic systems (Weiss et al. Citation2016) and the use of Drones (Cimini et al. Citation2020) have been associated with fear of job loss for manual and delivery workers. The societal desirability of enhanced job security is also discussed in IN 5.0 papers as a key factor that underpins human centricity and the non-replacement of humans in the fifth industrial revolution (Demir, Döven, and Sezen Citation2019; Huang et al. Citation2022; Longo, Nicoletti, and Padovano Citation2022; Renda et al. Citation2022).

Trust

Distrust of IN 4.0 technologies such as AI, ML, IoT and wearable sensors and Big data analytics, linked to privacy/ data security concerns of being monitored and controlled is discussed in human centric IN 4.0 papers (Bernal et al. Citation2017; Berrah et al. Citation2021; Cimini et al. Citation2020; Fletcher et al. Citation2020; Heikkilä, Honka, and Kaasinen Citation2018; Kaasinen et al. Citation2020; Rabelo, Romero, and Zambiasi Citation2018; Wanasinghe et al. Citation2021) and IN 5.0 papers (Althabhawi, Zainol, and Bagheri Citation2022; Demir, Döven, and Sezen Citation2019; Gladden Citation2019; Kaasinen et al. Citation2022; Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello Citation2020; Sachsenmeier Citation2016).

Autonomy

Several IN 4.0 papers (Berrah et al. Citation2021; Fletcher et al. Citation2020; Garcia et al. Citation2019; Gil et al. Citation2019; Heikkilä, Honka, and Kaasinen Citation2018; Kaasinen et al. Citation2020; Moencks et al. Citation2022b; Tancredi et al. Citation2020) and IN 5 papers (Carayannis, Draper, and Bhaneja Citation2021; Kaasinen et al. Citation2022; Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello Citation2020; Müller Citation2020; Nagy et al. Citation2022; Renda et al. Citation2022) identified existing concerns regarding human intervention in control systems (i.e. the human-in-the-loop) over fully automated logistics systems, as well as their involvement during the design and implementation of disruptive technologies.

Occupational wellbeing and Social Connectedness

Some human centric IN 4.0 papers discussed concerns related to Occupational wellbeing issues such as cognitive or perceptual overload which could lead to work related stress (Brunzini et al. Citation2021; Mattsson et al. Citation2020; Rojas, Wehrle, and Vidoni Citation2020) or concern about technologies leading to social problems at work (Kadir and Broberg Citation2021). Similarly, social concerns related to a collaborative work environment were discussed in IN 5.0 papers (Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello Citation2020; Lu et al. Citation2022; Nagy et al. Citation2022; Renda et al. Citation2022; Wahyuningtyas, Disastra, and Rismayani Citation2022).

Health & Safety

Health & Safety is identified as a key concern and one of the principal reasons for low adoption of Autonomous robots, vehicles or cobots in IN 4.0 papers (Berg et al. Citation2018; Faber, Bützler, and Schlick Citation2015; Fletcher et al. Citation2020; Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello Citation2020; Neumann et al. Citation2021; Shneiderman Citation2020; Tancredi et al. Citation2020; Zhang et al. Citation2022) as well as IN 5.0 papers (Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello Citation2020; Nagy et al. Citation2022)

Implementation Cost

A lack of financial resources or cost benefit and effectuation has been cited as one the greatest barriers to the adoption of IN 4.0 technologies (Cimini et al. Citation2020; Herceg et al. Citation2020; Moencks et al. Citation2022a; Wanasinghe et al. Citation2021) such as Cobots/Robots (Fast-Berglund and Romero Citation2019; Neumann et al. Citation2021), Exoskeletons (Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello Citation2020) and Blockchain (Choi et al. Citation2022).

Stakeholder expectations

Stakeholder expectations such as mass personalisation, access to open data and Dignity/Justice and Fairness were identified as key drivers for the transition towards IN 5.0.

Mass Customization/ Personalization

Consumers’ demand for individualisation and personalisation is discussed in human centric IN 5.0 papers (Cimini et al. Citation2020; Martinez et al. Citation2021; Zhang et al. Citation2022). This shift in consumer emphasis from mass production in IN 4.0 towards mass personalisation in the IN 5.0 era is suggested as a key reason behind the fifth industrial revolution (Maddikunta et al. Citation2022; Paschek, Luminosu, and Ocakci Citation2022; Pathak et al. Citation2019; Sharma et al. Citation2022).

Data Accessibility

Open (government) data initiative as well as users’ intent for open data are changing continuously. Recently, and in line with IoT and smart city trends, real-time data and sensor-generated data, which is accessible, meaningful and useful, is now an expectation of many stakeholders (Moencks et al. Citation2022a; Nikiforova Citation2021; Soltysik-Piorunkiewicz and Zdonek Citation2021; Taj and Jhanjhi Citation2022).

Dignity, Justice and Fairness

Some IN 4.0 papers (Berrah et al. Citation2021; Jiao et al. Citation2020; Mark et al. Citation2019; Stahl and Coeckelbergh Citation2016; Umbrello and Yampolskiy Citation2022) and IN 5.0 (Ávila-Gutiérrez, Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and Aguayo-González Citation2022; Gladden Citation2019; Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello Citation2020; Lu et al. Citation2022) papers discussed that stakeholders increasingly expect ethics in the form of justice and fairness and dignity to be incorporated into the design of emerging technologies.

Rising demand for entertainment and gaming

Among the IN 5.0 papers, increasing demand for media, entertainment and growth in gaming industries are discussed as key factors that have led to the emergence of a metaverse market (Mourtzis et al. Citation2022).

Overview of key regime factors for human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0

Table 6 summarises the regime factors that are most frequently discussed in human centric IN 4.0 papers; which are Trust/Privacy & Security (16 times), Health & Safety (11 times) and Technology readiness (9 times) which are all categorised under Stakeholder Perception. Dignity, Justice & Fairness (5 times) are more frequently discussed under stakeholder expectation.

Table 6. Regime factors discussed in human centric IN 4.0 papers.

As depicted in Table 7, for the IN 5.0 papers the most frequently discussed regime factors are Mass Customization/ Personalization (12 times), United Nations Development Program-Sustainable Development Goals -UNDP (SDG) (11 times) and Trust/ Privacy & Data Security (8 times) which are categorised under Stakeholder expectation, Policy, and Stakeholder perception, respectively.

Table 7. Regime factors discussed in IN 5.0 papers.

4.2.3. The influence of the contextual development (landscape) on the technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0

Overall 23 papers (11 IN 4.0 and 12 IN 5.0) were identified that discussed Economic, Socio-Cultural and Environmental factors as key contextual developments that create a need for IN 4.0 and/or IN 5.0 technologies.

Economic factors

The Financial crisis of 2008 was discussed as a key contextual factor which informed the fourth industrial revolution and the introduction of IN 4.0 technologies (Kagermann and Wahlster Citation2022).

Socio-cultural Factors

The Ageing of the working population is discussed as a driver for human centric IN 4.0 (Digiesi et al. Citation2020; Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig Citation2012; Panagou, Fruggiero, and Lambiase Citation2021; Peruzzini and Pellicciari Citation2017; Romero et al. Citation2015; Stahl and Coeckelbergh Citation2016) and IN 5.0 (Ávila-Gutiérrez, Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and Aguayo-González Citation2022; Breque, Nul, and Petridis Citation2021; Huang et al. Citation2022; Müller Citation2020; Renda et al. Citation2022).

Environmental factors

Among IN 4.0 papers, environmental factors such as the Covid-19 Pandemic (Dolgui and Ivanov Citation2021; Ivanov and Dolgui Citation2021; Lv et al. Citation2021; Umbrello and Yampolskiy Citation2022) and Resource/Energy deficiency (Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig Citation2012) are discussed as key drivers for IN 4.0. Among the IN 5.0 papers, the Covid-19 Pandemic (Breque, Nul, and Petridis Citation2021; Müller Citation2020; Nikiforova Citation2021; Renda et al. Citation2022; Romero and Stahre Citation2021; Sarfraz et al. Citation2021), Resource/Energy deficiency (Huang et al. Citation2022; Maddikunta et al. Citation2022), and Climate change issues including global warming (Breque, Nul, and Petridis Citation2021; Demir, Döven, and Sezen Citation2019; Mavrodieva and Shaw Citation2020; Müller Citation2020; Renda et al. Citation2022) and Air pollution (Huang et al. Citation2022; Sharma et al. Citation2022) were discussed.

Overview of key landscape factors in human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0

There is more emphasis on sociocultural and environmental factors in studied IN 4.0 papers. Discussed sociocultural factors include Ageing population (6 times). The second highly discussed contextual factor is environmental including Pandemic (4 times) see Table 8.

Table 8. Landscape factors discussed in human centric IN 4.0 papers.

For the IN 5.0 papers, there is more emphasis on environmental factors (15 times) compared to sociocultural- ageing population (5 times) as illustrated in Table 9. Specifically, the Covid 19 Pandemic (6 times) and Climate change (5 times) are discussed more frequently under environmental factors in included IN 5.0 papers.

Table 9. Landscape factors discussed in IN 5.0 papers.

5. Discussion

Combining the results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis in Section 4, this section summarises the key aspects and implications of the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0 for both practitioners and researchers.

Overall, analysis indicates that the niche innovations and technologies discussed in human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers were symbiotic (Geels, Citation2006) as similar technologies were discussed across both groups (e.g. IoT, AI, VR, AR, Cobots, Exoskeletons, Wearable Sensors, Human Digital Twins, Explainable AI).

Within IN 5.0, there are a few new technological improvements or advancements which did not previously appear in studies on human centric IN 4.0. For example, Advanced AI including AI with IoT (Maddikunta et al. Citation2022), advanced IoT including internet of No Things (6G), Internet of Abilities, Internet of Things Services and People (IoTSP) (Maddikunta et al. Citation2022; Mourtzis et al. Citation2022), Advanced Blockchain including Blockchain integrated with IoT, i.e. B-IoT (Maier Citation2021), and Advanced Robotics including persuasive robots (Maddikunta et al. Citation2022). However, there are also a few new technological improvements discussed in recent human centric IN 4.0 papers that do not appear in IN 5.0 papers e.g. Actionable Cognitive Twins. Additionally, there is more emphasis on environmental sustainability opportunities in IN 5.0 than in human centric IN 4.0 papers.

For the regime factors, there are also variations between human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers. For example, Implementation cost is discussed in IN 4.0 papers as a key stakeholder perception while UNDP (SDG), Accessibility and Rising demand for entertainment and gaming are discussed under Policy and Stakeholder expectations categories, respectively in IN 5.0. This is more likely due to the shift from shareholder values in IN 4.0 towards stakeholder values in IN 5.0. However, the value centric IN 5.0 includes Human centricity, Resilience and environmental sustainability (Breque, Nul, and Petridis Citation2021). Therefore, human centric IN 4.0 research can be considered as a part of the value centric IN 5.0 agenda. Hence, with the combination of the regime factors discussed in both human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0, it could be argued that Trust, Mass Customization/Personalization, Autonomy, Policy, and Health & Safety are the most important regime factors.

For the landscape factors, the key variations are economic, which appear in humancentric IN 4.0 papers but are less emphasised in IN 5.0 papers. On the other hand, environmental factors appear most frequently and with wider dimensions including Climate change and Air pollution in IN 5.0 included papers. This trend is likely a consequence of new societal trends and pressures over more recent years.

Overall, our MLP analysis indicates that there is no single cause or explanation for the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric regime of IN 5.0. Instead, the transition is happening as a result of landscape and niche level forces that link up and reinforce one another as indicated in . The common view is that major transitions come about through breakthroughs of technological discontinuities. However this study provides support and contributes to the alternative explanation of gradual and stepwise reconfiguration (Geels, Citation2006) as the pattern by which the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 is taking place.

Figure 6. Multilevel perspective overview of the transition.

An overview of niche (five innovative technologies), regime (11 factors) and three key landscape level factors influencing the transition towards value centric IN 5.0.
Figure 6. Multilevel perspective overview of the transition.

Analysis shows that this reconfiguration pattern occurred through significant disruptions in the landscape due to environmental factors such as Covid-19 Pandemic, Climate change and resource deficiencies, that have led to intense pressure in the technocentric regime, resulting in policy changes, as well as new stakeholder expectations leading towards a new value centric regime. These landscape developments have also created windows of opportunity for the adoption of new technologies which in turn, generate opportunities and challenges. On the other hand, the new niche innovations can be thought of as add-ons that continue to improve the functioning of the regime (c.f. Geels, Citation2006). Overtime, these stepwise changes in the regime are leading towards a gradual replacement of technocentric regime towards the value centric regime.

Our study identified that the principles of IN 5.0 i.e. economic (resilience), social (human centricity), and environmental sustainability are used by both humancentric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 studies. However, the keyword of IN 5.0 is not yet widely adopted by researchers and even when it is adopted it is used alongside IN 4.0. This indicates that the transition toward value centric IN 5.0 is a step wise and incremental, but critically necessary advancement that builds on IN 4.0 technologies under a different paradigm which includes more emphasis on social and environmental sustainability.

5.1. Implications for practitioners

This study highlights that to successfully explore economic, social and environmental sustainability, it is important to consider landscape, regime and niche level factors. In other words, thinking about the different layers of MLP helps us to understand the nature of the processes taking place, and in turn points to mechanisms that might be employed to direct the kinds of changes desired by the government and other stakeholders.

As seen in , at the landscape level factors such as Financial crisis, Pandemic, Climate change and Population ageing are impacting the society at large and by extension, firms within them. The negative impact of such issues can be mitigated by the use of certain innovative technologies such as advanced Extended reality technologies i.e. AR, VR, and MR, Cobots/Advanced Robotics, advanced AI, advanced IoT, Advanced Digital Twins. Practitioners need to be aware of specific technologies as well as their potential impact or perception by the workforce and society. Where negative impacts or perceptions are identified, practical steps should be taken to overcome them. For example, adverse stakeholder perceptions around job loss can be overcome through training and upskilling of the workforce as well as in depth information to allay any fears around Safety & Health or Privacy & Data Security concerns.

Firms need to carefully consider their current challenges and risks based on policies such as UNDP goals, Occupational Health & Safety and prioritise them in order to identify the most critical technologies to address the challenges.

5.2. Directions for future studies

Overall, the SLR indicates that more emphasis has been devoted towards niche innovations within humancentric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 studies (120 papers). On the other hand, studies relevant to the regime and landscape levels are fewer (69 and 23 papers, respectively). This indicates that more studies are required to explore the landscape and regime factors which inform the transition toward value centric IN 5.0. Even within the niche innovation studies, there is room to explore any newly emerged technologies. Moreover, it has been identified that some of the current technologies are not ready for immediate application as they require some further developments. Although some of these technologies have been effectively applied in the context of laboratory or prototype experiments, they would need to be adapted and improved in order for them to be useful in real industrial environments. For example, eye tracking technologies could be less intrusive and more comfortable for users (Peruzzini, Grandi, and Pellicciari Citation2020).

The empirical studies (see Appendix C) provide evidence that IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 technologies are useful for social and economic sustainability. However, none of the empirical studies is focused on environmental sustainability, highlighting the need for more empirical investigation in the area. Additionally, most of the studies are conducted in experimental lab environments, hence it is important to investigate the outcome of the case studies in the context of real production, manufacturing or organisational systems. The majority of the studies are based on simple or few use cases involving one to three industrial cases, and based on a limited involvement of workers and machine function. Therefore, it will be valuable to test the implementation of the systems in more complex use cases. Moreover, the studies indicate the importance of developing and analysing more in-depth case studies of both successful and failed IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 performance system implementations to understand their specific features and advantages/disadvantages and, consequently, to develop and propose better theoretical models and managerial practices. Hence, more empirical studies could be conducted to answer the question of ‘to what extent are economic, social and environmental sustainability goals achieved by adopting IN 5.0 technologies and what kinds of challenges are encountered or resolved by implementation of those technologies?’.

Compared to niche level empirical papers, there were fewer empirical studies on landscape and regime factors. As the regime level is regarded as the ‘core’ layer of MLP (Geels Citation2002), future empirical studies could explore regime level factors that enable and shape the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 in practice. This indicates that there is more room to explore regulation, stakeholder expectations and perceptions with respect to the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 in real world scenarios. Particularly, there were no qualitative studies conducted in papers that discuss IN 5.0. This is most likely because the concept of IN 5.0 is still new. Hence future studies can explore this identified gap. For example, a qualitative study can explore questions such as ‘what are the experiences of key stakeholders in the adoption of IN 5.0 technologies?’ Moreover, a direction for another study could be to provide a complete overview of the empirical insights gleaned from the implementation of IN 5.0 technologies. Finally, other transition theories such as Strategic Niche Management (SNM) and Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) or a combination of both can be used by future studies to explore the transition towards IN 5.0.

6. Conclusion

Although researchers have identified that the developed world is moving from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0, there are insufficient studies that explore this transition. Drawing on a multilevel perspective of socio-technical transitions, this paper explored the findings of a systematic literature review of the key factors that explain the transition from the technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN5.0. To explore this transition, a literature sample consisting of 175 journal and conference and white papers were analysed to gain insights into how the socio technical landscape, and niche innovations driving the regime transition from technocentric IN 4.0 towards value centric IN 5.0 are discussed in existing studies.

This study has answered three key questions. Firstly, it identifies challenges under the three sustainability pillars of economic, social and environmental. The findings demonstrate that Cobots, IoT and AI are key innovations mentioned within IN 4.0 papers to address economic and social sustainability issues. Similarly, Cobots/Advanced Robotics, Advanced AI and Advanced Blockchain are the key innovations mentioned within IN 5.0 papers to address Economic, Social and Environmental sustainability. The study also identifies UNDP sustainable goals, Mass Customization, Trust/Privacy and Data security as key regime factors that influence the transition from technocentric IN 4.0 toward value centric IN 5.0. The broader contextual or landscape factors driving the transition are identified as Socio-Cultural factors including Ageing population and Energy efficiency as well as Environmental factors such as Climate change and the Pandemic.

This study has two main contributions. Firstly, by synthesising the literature on humancentric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0, the study highlights the commonalities and differences between them. Secondly, based on a review of existing literature, this research provides an in-depth overview of the key contextual, regime and niche level factors that influence the transition.

Like other systematic literature reviews, our study had some limitations. During the definition of keywords, we may have missed relevant keywords, however in an attempt to overcome this, we used a snowballing approach. We used MLP which has fairly low systemicity compared to transition theories such as Strategic Niche Management (SNM) and Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) (Panetti et al. Citation2018). Therefore, future studies might explore other transition theories or a combination of theories.

The Authors also like to extend their appreciation to Professor Frank Geels for providing valuable resources to understand MLP theory.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [MB], upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Etieno Enang

Dr Etieno Enang is a Lecturer in International Business and Strategy at the University of Liverpool. Her research interests resonate around how management theory and practice can contribute to making organisations, institutions and societies more just, equitable and sustainable. Starting from this broad interest, her research focuses predominantly – but not exclusively- on critical research methodologies, processes and strategies to decolonise research and knowledge. More recently, she has begun to explore the implications, possibilities and challenges around the transition from the fourth towards the fifth industrial revolution.

Mahdi Bashiri

Dr Mahdi Bashiri is an associate professor at the Research Centre for Business in Society at Coventry University. He has over 18 years of academic experience with a particular interest in operations and supply chain management, operations research, transportation planning, and Heuristic and Matheuristic algorithms. Also, he has participated in industrial and business projects at different levels. He has been involved in two UKRI-funded projects. He has supervised more than 8 PhD students and more than 60 MSc students. He is an active reviewer for reputable academic journals. He is a recipient of the 2013 young national top scientist award from the Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

David Jarvis

Professor David Jarvis has played formative roles in the conception, establishment, and leadership of two research centres at Coventry University, most recently in 2014, the Centre for Business in Society (CBiS). His focus on socio-economic change has, over a twenty-year period, generated a personal portfolio of more than 70 research, consultancy, and evaluation projects for public, private, and third sector clients and collaborators. Projects completed fall into two broad categories, pre- and post-2014. Prior to 2014, projects addressed aspects of social and economic regeneration, especially as they related to the most disadvantaged individuals, communities, and neighbourhoods in England. Since 2014, the principal focus has been on economic change and impact viewed through accessibility and connectivity lenses, including consideration of winners and losers in low carbon socio-technical transitions.

References

  • Aceta, C., I. Fernández, and A. Soroa. 2022. “KIDE4I: A Generic Semantics-Based Task-Oriented Dialogue System for Human-Machine Interaction in Industry 5.0.” Applied Sciences 12 (3), https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031192.
  • Adam, C., C. Aringer-Walch, and K. Bengler. 2019. Digitalization in Manufacturing – Employees, Do You Want to Work There? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Cham.
  • Agnusdei, G. P., V. Elia, and M. G. Gnoni. 2021. “Is Digital Twin Technology Supporting Safety Management? A Bibliometric and Systematic Review.” Applied Sciences 11 (6), https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062767.
  • Aivaliotis, P., D. Kaliakatsos-Georgopoulos, A. Papavasileiou, and S. Makris. 2021. “A Design of Human and Overhead Robot Interaction (HoRI) Framework for Cooperative Robotic Applications in Copper Industry.” Procedia CIRP 104: 1500–1505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.253.
  • Alkemade, F., and R. A. A. Suurs. 2012. “Patterns of Expectations for Emerging Sustainable Technologies.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (3): 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.014.
  • Althabhawi, N., Z. Zainol, and P. Bagheri. 2022. “Society 5.0: A New Challenge to Legal Norms [41] Society 5.0: A New Challenge to Legal Norms.” Sriwijaya Law Review 6: 41–54. https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol6.Iss1.1415.pp41-54.
  • Amadasun, K. N., M. Short, R. Shankar-Priya, and T. Crosbie. 2021. “Transitioning to Society 5.0 in Africa: Tools to Support ICT Infrastructure Sharing.” Data 6 (7), https://doi.org/10.3390/data6070069.
  • Aquilani, B., M. Piccarozzi, T. Abbate, and A. Codini. 2020. “The Role of Open Innovation and Value Co-Creation in the Challenging Transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0: Toward a Theoretical Framework.” Sustainability 12 (21), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218943.
  • Arkouli, Z., G. Kokotinis, G. Michalos, N. Dimitropoulos, and S. Makris. 2021. “AI-enhanced Cooperating Robots for Reconfigurable Manufacturing of Large Parts.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 54 (1): 617–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.08.072.
  • Ávila-Gutiérrez, M. J., S. Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and F. Aguayo-González. 2022. “Occupational Safety and Health 5.0; A Model for Multilevel Strategic Deployment Aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030.” Sustainability 14 (11), https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116741.
  • Baroroh, D. K., and C.-H. Chu. 2022. “Human-centric Production System Simulation in Mixed Reality: An Exemplary Case of Logistic Facility Design.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.09.005.
  • Baroroh, D. K., C.-H. Chu, and L. Wang. 2021. “Systematic Literature Review on Augmented Reality in Smart Manufacturing: Collaboration Between Human and Computational Intelligence.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 61: 696–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.10.017
  • Bavaresco, R., H. Arruda, E. Rocha, J. Barbosa, and G.-P. Li. 2021. “Internet of Things and Occupational Well-Being in Industry 4.0: A Systematic Mapping Study and Taxonomy.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 161: 107670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107670.
  • Berg, J., T. Reckordt, C. Richter, and G. Reinhart. 2018. “Action Recognition in Assembly for Human-Robot-Cooperation Using Hidden Markov Models.” Procedia CIRP 76: 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.029.
  • Berg, J., and G. Reinhart. 2017. “An Integrated Planning and Programming System for Human-Robot-Cooperation.” Procedia CIRP 63: 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.318.
  • Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, and A. Rickne. 2008. “Analyzing the Functional Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems: A Scheme of Analysis.” Research Policy 37 (3): 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003.
  • Bernal, G., S. Colombo, M. Baky, and F. Casalegno. 2017. Safety++: Designing IoT and Wearable Systems for Industrial Safety through a User Centered Design Approach. Paper presented at the PETRA '17: 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, Island of Rhodes, Greece. https://doi.org/10.1145/3056540.3056557.
  • Berrah, L., V. Cliville, D. Trentesaux, and C. Chapel. 2021. “Industrial Performance: An Evolution Incorporating Ethics in the Context of Industry 4.0.” Sustainability 13: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169209.
  • Berry, S., K. Davidson, and W. Saman. 2013. “The Impact of Niche Green Developments in Transforming the Building Sector: The Case Study of Lochiel Park.” Energy Policy 62: 646–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.067.
  • Bettini, Y., R. R. Brown, F. J. de Haan, and M. Farrelly. 2015. “Understanding Institutional Capacity for Urban Water Transitions.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 94: 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.002.
  • Bittencourt, V. L., A. C. Alves, and C. P. Leão. 2021. “Industry 4.0 Triggered by Lean Thinking: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review.” International Journal of Production Research 59 (5): 1496–1510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1832274.
  • Boada, J. P., B. R. Maestre, and C. T. Genís. 2021. “The Ethical Issues of Social Assistive Robotics: A Critical Literature Review.” Technology in Society 67: 101726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101726.
  • Bortolini, M., M. Faccio, F. Galizia, M. Gamberi, and F. Pilati. 2020a. “Design, Engineering and Testing of an Innovative Adaptive Automation Assembly System.” Assembly Automation 40 (3): 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/AA-06-2019-0103.
  • Bortolini, M., M. Faccio, F. G. Galizia, M. Gamberi, and F. Pilati. 2021. “Adaptive Automation Assembly Systems in the Industry 4.0 Era: A Reference Framework and Full–Scale Prototype.” Applied Sciences 11 (3), https://doi.org/10.3390/app11031256.
  • Bortolini, M., M. Faccio, M. Gamberi, and F. Pilati. 2020b. “Motion Analysis System (MAS) for Production and Ergonomics Assessment in the Manufacturing Processes.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.046.
  • Bousdekis, A., D. Apostolou, and G. Mentzas. 2020. “A Human Cyber Physical System Framework for Operator 4.0 – Artificial Intelligence Symbiosis.” Manufacturing Letters 25: 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2020.06.001.
  • Breque, M., L. D. Nul, and A. Petridis. 2021. “Industry 5.0: Towards a Sustainable, Humancentric and Resilient European Industry.” European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 1–44.
  • Brunetti, D., C. Gena, and F. Vernero. 2022. “Smart Interactive Technologies in the Human-Centric Factory 5.0: A Survey.” Applied Sciences-Basel 12 (16), https://doi.org/10.3390/app12167965.
  • Brunzini, A., F. Grandi, M. Peruzzini, and M. Pellicciari. 2021. “Virtual Training for Assembly Tasks: A Framework for the Analysis of the Cognitive Impact on Operators.” Procedia Manufacturing 55: 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.10.072.
  • Can, Y. S., B. Arnrich, and C. Ersoy. 2019. “Stress Detection in Daily Life Scenarios Using Smart Phones and Wearable Sensors: A Survey.” Journal of Biomedical Informatics 92: 103–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103139.
  • Carayannis, E. G., J. Draper, and B. Bhaneja. 2021. “Towards Fusion Energy in the Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 Context: Call for a Global Commission for Urgent Action on Fusion Energy.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 12 (4): 1891–1904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00695-5.
  • Carlos Alberto, P. J., P. J. Sonia Karina, S. A. Francisca Irene, and RÁ Adrielly Nahomee. 2021. “Waste Reduction in Printing Process by Implementing a Video Inspection System as a Human Machine Interface.” Procedia Computer Science 180: 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.131.
  • Chen, X., M. A. Eder, A. Shihavuddin, and D. Zheng. 2021. “A Human-Cyber-Physical System Toward Intelligent Wind Turbine Operation and Maintenance.” Sustainability 13 (2), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020561.
  • Choi, T.-M., A. Dolgui, D. Ivanov, and E. Pesch. 2022. “OR and Analytics for Digital, Resilient, and Sustainable Manufacturing 4.0.” Annals of Operations Research 310 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04536-3.
  • Ciccarelli, M., A. Papetti, F. Cappelletti, A. Brunzini, and M. Germani. 2022. “Combining World Class Manufacturing System and Industry 4.0 Technologies to Design Ergonomic Manufacturing Equipment.” International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 16 (1): 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-021-00832-7.
  • Ciccarelli, M., A. Papetti, M. Germani, A. Leone, and G. Rescio. 2022. “Human Work Sustainability Tool.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 62: 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.11.011.
  • Cimini, C., A. Lagorio, F. Pirola, and R. Pinto. 2019. “Exploring Human Factors in Logistics 4.0: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 52 (13): 2183–2188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.529.
  • Cimini, C., A. Lagorio, F. Pirola, and R. Pinto. 2021. “How Human Factors Affect Operators’ Task Evolution in Logistics 4.0.” Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing 31 (1): 98–117. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85091496086&doi=10.1002%2fhfm.20872&partnerID=40&md5=3a0c32dd4d8db583a2148492cd8719ba.
  • Cimini, C., F. Pirola, R. Pinto, and S. Cavalieri. 2020. “A Human-in-the-Loop Manufacturing Control Architecture for the Next Generation of Production Systems.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 54: 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.01.002.
  • Coenen, L., P. Benneworth, and B. Truffer. 2012. “Toward a Spatial Perspective on Sustainability Transitions.” Research Policy 41 (6): 968–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014.
  • Cohen, Y., S. Shoval, M. Faccio, and R. Minto. 2021. “Deploying Cobots in Collaborative Systems: Major Considerations and Productivity Analysis.” International Journal of Production Research 60 (6): 1815–1831. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1870758.
  • Colla, V., R. Matino, A. J. Schroder, M. Schivalocchi, and L. Romaniello. 2021. “Human-Centered Robotic Development in the Steel Shop: Improving Health, Safety and Digital Skills at the Workplace.” Metals 11 (4), https://doi.org/10.3390/met11040647.
  • Coronado, E., T. Kiyokawa, G. A. G. Ricardez, I. G. Ramirez-Alpizar, G. Venture, and N. Yamanobe. 2022. “Evaluating Quality in Human-Robot Interaction: A Systematic Search and Classification of Performance and Human-Centered Factors, Measures and Metrics Towards an Industry 5.0.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 63: 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.04.007.
  • Cotrino, A., M. Sebastian, and C. Gonzalez-Gaya. 2020. “Industry 4.0 Roadmap: Implementation for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Applied Sciences 10 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10238566.
  • Danys, L., I. Zolotova, D. Romero, P. Papcun, E. Kajati, R. Jaros, … R. Martinek. 2022. “Visible Light Communication and Localization: A Study on Tracking Solutions for Industry 4.0 and the Operator 4.0.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 64: 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.07.011.
  • Demir, K. A., G. Döven, and B. Sezen. 2019. “Industry 5.0 and Human-Robot Co-Working.” Procedia Computer Science 158: 688–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.104.
  • De Propris, L., and D. Bailey. 2021. “Pathways of Regional Transformation and Industry 4.0.” Regional Studies 55 (10–11): 1617–1629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1960962.
  • Digiesi, S., V. Manghisi, F. Facchini, E. Klose, M. Foglia, and C. Mummolo. 2020. “Heart Rate Variability Based Assessment of Cognitive Workload in Smart Operators.” Management and Production Engineering Review 11 (3): 56–64. https://doi.org/10.24425/mper.2020.134932.
  • Di Lucia, L., and K. Ericsson. 2014. “Low-carbon District Heating in Sweden – Examining a Successful Energy Transition.” Energy Research & Social Science 4: 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.08.005.
  • Di Pasquale, V., V. De Simone, M. Salvatore, and R. Stefano. 2021. “Smart Operators: How Industry 4.0 is Affecting the Worker’s Performance in Manufacturing Contexts.” Procedia Computer Science 180: 958–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.347.
  • Dolgui, A., and D. Ivanov. 2021. “Ripple Effect and Supply Chain Disruption Management: New Trends and Research Directions.” International Journal of Production Research 59 (1): 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1840148.
  • Donato, L. D., F. Longo, A. Ferraro, and M. Pirozzi. 2020. “An Advanced Solutions for Operators’ Training Working in Confined and /or Pollution Suspected Space.” Procedia Manufacturing 42: 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.080.
  • El Bilali, H. 2019. “The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review.” Agriculture 9 (4): 74. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/4/74.
  • Faber, M., J. Bützler, and C. M. Schlick. 2015. “Human-robot Cooperation in Future Production Systems: Analysis of Requirements for Designing an Ergonomic Work System.” Procedia Manufacturing 3: 510–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.215.
  • Fang, W., and J. Hong. 2022. “Bare-hand Gesture Occlusion-Aware Interactive Augmented Reality Assembly.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.09.009.
  • Fast-Berglund, Å, and D. Romero. 2019. Strategies for Implementing Collaborative Robot Applications for the Operator 4.0. Paper presented at the Advances in Production Management Systems. Production Management for the Factory of the Future, Cham.
  • Fatima, Z., M. H. Tanveer, Waseemullah, S. Zardari, L. F. Naz, H. Khadim, … M. Tahir. 2022. “Production Plant and Warehouse Automation with IoT and Industry 5.0.” Applied Sciences 12 (4), https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042053.
  • Feng, Y., X. Jiang, Z. Hong, Z. Li, H. Si, B. Hu, … J. Tan. 2022. “Human-cyber-physical System for Operation in Nuclear Reactor Possessing Asymmetric Multi-Task Learning-Based Predicting Framework.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 64: 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.07.008.
  • Fletcher, S. R., T. Johnson, T. Adlon, J. Larreina, P. Casla, L. Parigot, … M. d. M Otero. 2020. “Adaptive Automation Assembly: Identifying System Requirements for Technical Efficiency and Worker Satisfaction.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.03.036.
  • Fonda, E., and A. Meneghetti. 2022. “The Human-Centric SMED.” Sustainability 14 (1), https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010514.
  • Foresti, R., S. Rossi, M. Magnani, C. Guarino Lo Bianco, and N. Delmonte. 2020. “Smart Society and Artificial Intelligence: Big Data Scheduling and the Global Standard Method Applied to Smart Maintenance.” Engineering 6 (7): 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.11.014.
  • Fraga-Lamas, P., J. Varela-Barbeito, and T. M. Fernández-Caramés. 2021. “Next Generation Auto-Identification and Traceability Technologies for Industry 5.0: A Methodology and Practical Use Case for the Shipbuilding Industry.” Ieee Access 9: 140700–140730. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3119775.
  • Fruggiero, F., A. Lambiase, S. Panagou, and L. Sabattini. 2021. “Cognitive Human Modeling in Collaborative Robotics.” Procedia Manufacturing 51: 584–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.082.
  • Garcia, M., E. Rauch, and D. Salvalai. 2021. AI- Based Human-Robot Cooperation for Flexible Multi-Variant Manufacturing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Singapore.
  • Garcia, M. A. R., R. Rojas, L. Gualtieri, E. Rauch, and D. Matt. 2019. “A Human-in-the-Loop Cyber-Physical System for Collaborative Assembly in Smart Manufacturing.” Procedia CIRP 81: 600–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.162.
  • Geels, F. W. 2002. “Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study.” Research Policy 31 (8): 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
  • Geels, F. W. 2004. “From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems: Insights About Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory.” Research Policy 33 (6): 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.
  • Geels, F. W. 2005. “The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-Technical Systems: A Multi-Level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-Drawn Carriages to Automobiles (1860–1930).” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17: 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500357319.
  • Geels, F. W. 2006. “Major System Change Through Stepwise Reconfiguration: A Multi-Level Analysis of the Transformation of American Factory Production (1850–1930).” Technology in Society 28 (4): 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.09.006.
  • Geels, F. W. 2007. “Transformations of Large Technical Systems: A Multilevel Analysis of the Dutch Highway System (1950–2000).” Science, Technology, & Human Values 32 (2): 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906293883.
  • Geels, F. W. 2011. “The Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transitions: Responses to Seven Criticisms.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 (1): 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002.
  • Geels, F. W. 2018. “Disruption and low-Carbon System Transformation: Progress and new Challenges in Socio-Technical Transitions Research and the Multi-Level Perspective.” Energy Research & Social Science 37: 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.010.
  • Geels, F. W., and J. Schot. 2007. “Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways.” Research Policy 36 (3): 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
  • Geels, F. W., B. K. Sovacool, T. Schwanen, and S. Sorrell. 2017. “The Socio-Technical Dynamics of Low-Carbon Transitions.” Joule 1 (3): 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.09.018.
  • Ghobakhloo, M., M. Iranmanesh, M. F. Mubarak, M. Mubarik, A. Rejeb, and M. Nilashi. 2022. “Identifying Industry 5.0 Contributions to Sustainable Development: A Strategy Roadmap for Delivering Sustainability Values.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 33: 716–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.003.
  • Gil, M., M. Albert, J. Fons, and V. Pelechano. 2019. “Designing Human-in-the-Loop Autonomous Cyber-Physical Systems.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 130: 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.04.006.
  • Gladden, M. E. 2019. “Who Will Be the Members of Society 5.0? Towards an Anthropology of Technologically Posthumanized Future Societies.” Social Sciences-Basel 8: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8050148.
  • Glock, C. H., E. H. Grosse, W. P. Neumann, and A. Feldman. 2021. “Assistive Devices for Manual Materials Handling in Warehouses: A Systematic Literature Review.” International Journal of Production Research 59 (11): 3446–3469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1853845.
  • Golan, M., Y. Cohen, and G. Singer. 2020. “A Framework for Operator – Workstation Interaction in Industry 4.0.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (8): 2421–2432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1639842.
  • Gorecky, D., M. Khamis, and K. Mura. 2017. “Introduction and Establishment of Virtual Training in the Factory of the Future.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 30 (1): 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2015.1067918.
  • Grabowska, S., S. Saniuk, and B. Gajdzik. 2022. “Industry 5.0: Improving Humanization And Sustainability of Industry 4.0.” Scientometrics 127 (6): 3117–3144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04370-1.
  • Grybauskas, A., A. Stefanini, and M. Ghobakhloo. 2022. “Social Sustainability in the Age of Digitalization: A Systematic Literature Review on the Social Implications Of Industry 4.0.” Technology in Society 70: 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101997.
  • Gualtieri, L., I. Palomba, F. A. Merati, E. Rauch, and R. Vidoni. 2020. “Design of Human-Centered Collaborative Assembly Workstations for the Improvement of Operators’ Physical Ergonomics and Production Efficiency: A Case Study.” Sustainability 12 (9), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093606.
  • Gualtieri, L., E. Rauch, and R. Vidoni. 2021. “Emerging Research Fields in Safety and Ergonomics in Industrial Collaborative Robotics: A Systematic Literature Review.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 67: 101998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2020.101998.
  • Gualtieri, L., E. Rauch, R. Vidoni, and D. T. Matt. 2019. “An Evaluation Methodology for the Conversion of Manual Assembly Systems Into Human-Robot Collaborative Workcells.” Procedia Manufacturing 38: 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.046.
  • Habib, L., M.-P. Pacaux-Lemoine, Q. Berdal, and D. Trentesaux. 2021. “From Human-Human to Human-Machine Cooperation in Manufacturing 4.0.” Processes 9: 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9111910.
  • Hekkert, M. P., R. A. A. Suurs, S. O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and R. E. H. M. Smits. 2007. “Functions of Innovation Systems: A new Approach for Analysing Technological Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4): 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002.
  • Heikkilä, P., A. Honka, and E. Kaasinen. 2018. Quantified factory worker: field study of a web application supporting work well-being and productivity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th Nordic COnference on Human-Computer Interaction, Oslo, Norway.
  • Herceg, I. V., V. Kuč, V. M. Mijušković, and T. Herceg. 2020. “Challenges and Driving Forces for Industry 4.0 Implementation.” Sustainability 12 (10): 4208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104208.
  • Huang, S., B. Wang, X. Li, P. Zheng, D. Mourtzis, and L. Wang. 2022. “Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0—Comparison, Complementation and co-Evolution.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 64: 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.07.010.
  • Huttunen, K., J. Pirttilä, and R. Uusitalo. 2013. “The Employment Effects of low-Wage Subsidies.” Journal of Public Economics 97: 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.09.007.
  • Ivanov, D. 2022. “The Industry 5.0 Framework: Viability-Based Integration of the Resilience, Sustainability, and Human-Centricity Perspectives.” International Journal of Production Research 1–13. doi:10.1080/00207543.2022.2118892
  • Ivanov, D., and A. Dolgui. 2019. “New Disruption Risk Management Perspectives in Supply Chains: Digital Twins, the Ripple Effect, and Resileanness.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 52 (13): 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.138.
  • Ivanov, D., and A. Dolgui. 2021. “A Digital Supply Chain Twin for Managing the Disruption Risks and Resilience in the era of Industry 4.0.” Production Planning & Control 32 (9): 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768450.
  • Jacobsson, S., and A. Johnson. 2000. “The Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technology: An Analytical Framework and key Issues for Research.” Energy Policy 28 (9): 625–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00041-0.
  • Jacobsson, S., and V. Lauber. 2006. “The Politics and Policy of Energy System Transformation—Explaining the German Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technology.” Energy Policy 34 (3): 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.029.
  • Jiao, J., F. Zhou, N. Z. Gebraeel, and V. Duffy. 2020. “Towards Augmenting Cyber-Physical-Human Collaborative Cognition for Human-Automation Interaction in Complex Manufacturing and Operational Environments.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (16): 5089–5111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1722324.
  • Kaasinen, E., A.-H. Anttila, P. Heikkilä, J. Laarni, H. Koskinen, and A. Väätänen. 2022. “Smooth and Resilient Human-Machine Teamwork as an Industry 5.0 Design Challenge.” Sustainability 14 (5), https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052773.
  • Kaasinen, E., F. Schmalfuß, C. Özturk, S. Aromaa, M. Boubekeur, J. Heilala, … T. Walter. 2020. “Empowering and Engaging Industrial Workers with Operator 4.0 Solutions.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.052.
  • Kadir, B. A., and O. Broberg. 2021. “Human-centered Design of Work Systems in the Transition to Industry 4.0.” Applied Ergonomics 92: 103334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103334.
  • Kadir, B. A., O. Broberg, and C. S. d Conceição. 2019. “Current Research and Future Perspectives on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Industry 4.0.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 137: 106004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106004.
  • Kagermann, H., and W. Wahlster. 2022. “Ten Years of Industrie 4.0.” Sci 4 (3): 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci4030026.
  • Kagermann, H., W. Wahlster, and J. Helbig. 2012. Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative Industrie 4.0: Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Retrieved from Berlin, Germany.
  • Kanger, L. 2021. “Rethinking the Multi-Level Perspective for Energy Transitions: From Regime Life-Cycle to Explanatory Typology of Transition Pathways.” Energy Research & Social Science 71: 101829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101829.
  • Karagiannis, P., T. Togias, G. Michalos, and S. Makris. 2021. “Operators Training Using Simulation And VR Technology.” Procedia CIRP 96: 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.089.
  • Kemp, R., J. Schot, and R. Hoogma. 1998. “Regime Shifts to Sustainability Through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10 (2): 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.
  • Kern, F. 2012. “Using the Multi-Level Perspective on Socio-Technical Transitions to Assess Innovation Policy.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79 (2): 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.004.
  • Kildal, J., M. Martín, I. Ipiña, and I. Maurtua. 2019. “Empowering Assembly Workers with Cognitive Disabilities by Working with Collaborative Robots: A Study to Capture Design Requirements.” Procedia CIRP 81: 797–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.202.
  • Kondratieff, N. D., and W. F. Stolper. 1935. “The Long Waves in Economic Life.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 17 (6): 105–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/1928486.
  • Konstantinidis, F. K., I. Kansizoglou, N. Santavas, S. G. Mouroutsos, and A. Gasteratos. 2020. “MARMA: A Mobile Augmented Reality Maintenance Assistant for Fast-Track Repair Procedures in the Context of Industry 4.0.” Machines 8 (4), https://doi.org/10.3390/machines8040088.
  • Kueffer, C., E. Underwood, G. Hirsch Hadorn, R. Holderegger, M. Lehning, C. Pohl, … P. Edwards. 2012. “Enabling Effective Problem-Oriented Research for Sustainable Development.” Ecology and Society 17: 4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05045-170408.
  • Kumar, N., and S. C. Lee. 2022. “Human-Machine Interface in Smart Factory: A Systematic Literature Review.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 174: 121284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121284.
  • Kymäläinen, T., E. Kaasinen, A. Aikala, J. Hakulinen, T. Heimonen, H. Paunonen, … P. Mannonen. 2016. Evaluating Future Automation Work in Process Plants with an Experience-Driven Science Fiction Prototype. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE), 14–16 Sept. 2016.
  • Lachman, D. A. 2013. “A Survey and Review of Approaches to Study Transitions.” Energy Policy 58: 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.013.
  • Lall, M., H. Torvatn, and E. A. Seim. 2017. Towards Industry 4.0: Increased Need for Situational Awareness on the Shop Floor. Paper presented at the Advances in Production Management Systems. The Path to Intelligent, Collaborative and Sustainable Manufacturing, Cham.
  • Leng, J., W. Sha, B. Wang, P. Zheng, C. Zhuang, Q. Liu, … L. Wang. 2022. “Industry 5.0: Prospect and Retrospect.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.09.017.
  • Liao, Y., F. Deschamps, E. d. F. R. Loures, and L. F. P. Ramos. 2017. “Past, Present and Future of Industry 4.0 – a Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda Proposal.” International Journal of Production Research 55 (12): 3609–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576.
  • Lithoxoidou, E., S. Doumpoulakis, A. Tsakiris, C. Ziogou, S. Krinidis, I. Paliokas, … D. Tzovaras. 2020. “A Novel Social Gamified Collaboration Platform Enriched with Shop-Floor Data and Feedback for the Improvement of the Productivity, Safety and Engagement in Factories.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.02.005.
  • Longo, F., L. Nicoletti, and A. Padovano. 2017. “Smart Operators in Industry 4.0: A Human-Centered Approach to Enhance Operators’ Capabilities and Competencies Within the new Smart Factory Context.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 113: 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.09.016.
  • Longo, F., L. Nicoletti, and A. Padovano. 2022. “New Perspectives and Results for Smart Operators in Industry 4.0: A Human-Centered Approach.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 163: 107824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107824.
  • Longo, F., A. Padovano, and S. Umbrello. 2020. “Value-Oriented and Ethical Technology Engineering in Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric Perspective for the Design of the Factory of the Future.” Applied Sciences-Basel 10 (12), https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124182.
  • Loorbach, D. 2010. “Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework.” Governance 23 (1): 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x.
  • Lu, Y., H. Zheng, S. Chand, W. Xia, Z. Liu, X. Xu, … J. Bao. 2022. “Outlook on Human-Centric Manufacturing Towards Industry 5.0.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 62: 612–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.02.001.
  • Lv, Q., R. Zhang, X. Sun, Y. Lu, and J. Bao. 2021. “A Digital Twin-Driven Human-Robot Collaborative Assembly Approach in the Wake of COVID-19.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 60: 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.02.011.
  • Ma, X., Q. Qi, J. Cheng, and F. Tao. 2022. “A Consistency Method for Digital Twin Model of Human-Robot Collaboration.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 550–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.10.012.
  • Machado, B., L. Teixeira, A. L. Ramos, and C. Pimentel. 2021. “Conceptual Design of an Integrated Solution for Urban Logistics Using Industry 4.0 Principles.” Procedia Computer Science 180: 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.330.
  • Maddikunta, P., Q. V. Pham, D. Prabadevi, N. Deepa, K. Dev, T. Gadekallu, … M. Liyanage. 2022. “Industry 5.0: A Survey on Enabling Technologies and Potential Applications.” Journal of Industrial Information Integration 26), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100257.
  • Madhavan, M., S. Wangtueai, M. A. Sharafuddin, and T. Chaichana. 2022. “The Precipitative Effects of Pandemic on Open Innovation of SMEs: A Scientometrics and Systematic Review of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8 (3), https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030152.
  • Maharjan, D., M. Agüero, D. Mascarenas, R. Fierro, and F. Moreu. 2021. “Enabling Human–Infrastructure Interfaces for Inspection Using Augmented Reality.” Structural Health Monitoring 20 (4): 1980–1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921720977017.
  • Manitsaris, S., G. Senteri, D. Makrygiannis, and A. Glushkova. 2020. “Human Movement Representation on Multivariate Time Series for Recognition of Professional Gestures and Forecasting Their Trajectories.” Front Robot AI 7: 80. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.00080.
  • Maier, M. 2021. 6G as if People Mattered: From Industry 4.0 toward Society 5.0: (Invited Paper). Paper presented at the 2021 International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 19-22 July 2021.
  • Mark, B. G., S. Hofmayer, E. Rauch, and D. T. Matt. 2019. “Inclusion of Workers with Disabilities in Production 4.0: Legal Foundations in Europe and Potentials Through Worker Assistance Systems.” Sustainability 11 (21), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215978.
  • Mark, B. G., E. Rauch, and D. T. Matt. 2021. “Worker Assistance Systems in Manufacturing: A Review of the State of the art and Future Directions.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 59: 228–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.02.017.
  • Martinez, S., A. Mariño, S. Sanchez, A. M. Montes, J. M. Triana, G. Barbieri, … M. Guevara. 2021. “A Digital Twin Demonstrator to Enable Flexible Manufacturing with Robotics: A Process Supervision Case Study.” Production & Manufacturing Research 9 (1): 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2021.1964405.
  • Mattsson, S., Å Fast-Berglund, D. Li, and P. Thorvald. 2020. “Forming a Cognitive Automation Strategy for Operator 4.0 in Complex Assembly.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.08.011.
  • Mattsson, S., J. Partini, and Å. Fast-Berglund. 2016. “Evaluating Four Devices that Present Operator Emotions in Real-time.” Procedia CIRP 50: 524–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.013.
  • Mavrodieva, A. V., and R. Shaw. 2020. “Disaster and Climate Change Issues in Japan’s Society 5.0—A Discussion.” Sustainability 12 (5): 1893. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1893.
  • Merati, F. A., L. Gualtieri, B. G. Mark, R. Rojas, E. Rauch, and D. T. Matt. 2021. Application of Axiomatic Design for the Development of Robotic Semi- and Fully Automated Assembly Processes: Two Case Studies. Paper presented at the 2021 International Conference on Electrical, Computer, Communications and Mechatronics Engineering (ICECCME), 7-8 Oct. 2021.
  • Mertes, J., D. Lindenschmitt, M. Amirrezai, N. Tashakor, M. Glatt, C. Schellenberger, … H. D. Schotten. 2022. “Evaluation of 5G-Capable Framework for Highly Mobile, Scalable Human-Machine Interfaces in Cyber-Physical Production Systems.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 64: 578–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.08.009.
  • Miqueo, A., M. Torralba, and J. A. Yagüe-Fabra. 2020. “Lean Manual Assembly 4.0: A Systematic Review.” Applied Sciences 10 (23): 8555. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/23/8555.
  • Moencks, M., E. Roth, T. Bohné, and P. O. Kristensson. 2022a. “Augmented Workforce: Contextual, Cross-Hierarchical Enquiries on Human-Technology Integration in Industry.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 165: 107822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107822.
  • Moencks, M., E. Roth, T. Bohné, D. Romero, and J. Stahre. 2022b. “Augmented Workforce Canvas: A Management Tool for Guiding Human-Centric, Value-Driven Human-Technology Integration in Industry.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 163: 107803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107803.
  • Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. Altman. 2009. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” PLoS Medicine 6 (7): 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.
  • Mourtzis, D., J. Angelopoulos, and N. Panopoulos. 2021. “Smart Manufacturing and Tactile Internet Based on 5g in Industry 4.0: Challenges, Applications and new Trends.” Electronics (Basel) 10 (24): 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10243175.
  • Mourtzis, D., J. Angelopoulos, and N. Panopoulos. 2022. “A Literature Review of the Challenges and Opportunities of the Transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0.” Energies 15 (17), https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176276.
  • Mourtzis, D., N. Panopoulos, J. Angelopoulos, B. Wang, and L. Wang. 2022. “Human Centric Platforms for Personalized Value Creation in Metaverse.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.11.004.
  • Mourtzis, D., V. Zogopoulos, and E. Vlachou. 2017. “Augmented Reality Application to Support Remote Maintenance as a Service in the Robotics Industry.” Procedia CIRP 63: 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.154.
  • Mukhuty, S., A. Upadhyay, and H. Rothwell. 2022. “Strategic Sustainable Development of Industry 4.0 Through the Lens of Social Responsibility: The Role of Human Resource Practices.” Business Strategy and the Environment 31 (5): 2068–2081. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3008.
  • Müller, J. 2020. Enabling Technologies for Industry 5.0: Results of a Workshop with Europe’s Technology Leaders: Publications Office. Luxembourg: Office of the European Union.
  • Muslikhin, M., J. R. Horng, S. Y. Yang, M. S. Wang, and B. A. Awaluddin. 2021. “An Artificial Intelligence of Things-Based Picking Algorithm for Online Shop in the Society 5.0′s Context.” Sensors 21 (8), https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082813.
  • Mylonas, G., A. P. Kalogeras, G. Kalogeras, C. Anagnostopoulos, C. Alexakos, and L. Munoz. 2021. “Digital Twins from Smart Manufacturing to Smart Cities: A Survey.” Ieee Access PP: 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3120843.
  • Nagy, L., T. Ruppert, A. Löcklin, and J. Abonyi. 2022. “Hypergraph-based Analysis and Design of Intelligent Collaborative Manufacturing Space.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.08.001.
  • Nahavandi, S. 2019. “Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric Solution.” Sustainability 11 (16): 4371. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4371.
  • Naqvi, S. M. R., M. Ghufran, S. Meraghni, C. Varnier, J.-M. Nicod, and N. Zerhouni. 2022. “Human Knowledge Centered Maintenance Decision Support in Digital Twin Environment.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.10.003.
  • Neumann, W. P., S. Winkelhaus, E. H. Grosse, and C. H. Glock. 2021. “Industry 4.0 and the Human Factor – A Systems Framework and Analysis Methodology for Successful Development.” International Journal of Production Economics 233: 107992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107992.
  • Nguyen, T. D., C. Bloch, and J. Krüger. 2016. “The Working Posture Controller: Automated Adaptation of the Work Piece Pose to Enable a Natural Working Posture.” Procedia CIRP 44: 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.172.
  • Nguyen Ngoc, H., G. Lasa, and I. Iriarte. 2022. “Human-centred Design in Industry 4.0: Case Study Review and Opportunities for Future Research.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 33 (1): 35–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-021-01796-x.
  • Nikiforova, A. 2021. “Smarter Open Government Data for Society 5.0: Are Your Open Data Smart Enough?” Sensors 21 (15), https://doi.org/10.3390/s21155204.
  • Nikitas, A., K. Michalakopoulou, E. T. Njoya, and D. Karampatzakis. 2020. “Artificial Intelligence, Transport and the Smart City: Definitions and Dimensions of a New Mobility Era.” Sustainability 12 (7): 2789. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2789.
  • Noor-A-Rahim, M., F. Firyaguna, F. John, M. O. Khyam, D. Pesch, E. Armstrong, … H. V. Poor. 2022. “Toward Industry 5.0: Intelligent Reflecting Surface in Smart Manufacturing.” IEEE Communications Magazine 60 (10): 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.001.2200016.
  • Ozdemir, V., and N. Hekim. 2018. “Birth of Industry 5.0: Making Sense of Big Data with Artificial Intelligence, “The Internet of Things” and Next-Generation Technology Policy.” Omics-a Journal of Integrative Biology 22 (1): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2017.0194.
  • Palasciano, C., C. Toscano, R. Arrais, N. M. Sobral, F. Floreani, M. Sesana, and M. Taisch. 2021. “A Predictive Simulation and Optimization Architecture Based on a Knowledge Engineering User Interface to Support Operator 4.0.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 54 (1): 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.08.038.
  • Panagou, S., F. Fruggiero, and A. Lambiase. 2021. The Sustainable Role of Human Factor in I4.0 scenarios. Paper presented at the International Conference of Industry 4.0 and Smart Manufacturing.
  • Panetti, E., A. Parmentola, S. E. Wallis, and M. Ferretti. 2018. “What Drives Technology Transitions? An Integration of Different Approaches Within Transition Studies.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 30 (9): 993–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1433295.
  • Papetti, A., F. Gregori, M. Pandolfi, M. Peruzzini, and M. Germani. 2020a. “A Method to Improve Workers’ Well-Being Toward Human-Centered Connected Factories.” Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 7 (5): 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwaa047.
  • Papetti, A., M. Rossi, R. Menghi, and M. Germani. 2020b. “Human-centered Design for Improving the Workplace in the Footwear Sector.” Procedia CIRP 91: 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.179.
  • Park, J., M. B. G. Jun, and H. Yun. 2022. “Development of Robotic bin Picking Platform with Cluttered Objects Using Human Guidance and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN).” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 63: 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.05.011.
  • Paschek, D., C.-T. Luminosu, and E. Ocakci. 2022. “Industry 5.0 Challenges and Perspectives for Manufacturing Systems in the Society 5.0.” In Sustainability and Innovation in Manufacturing Enterprises: Indicators, Models and Assessment for Industry 5.0, edited by A. Draghici, and L. Ivascu, 17–63. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
  • Pathak, P., P. Pal, M. Shrivastava, and P. Ora. 2019. “Fifth Revolution: Applied AI & Human Intelligence with Cyber Physical Systems.” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology 8: 23–27.
  • Peruzzini, M., F. Grandi, and M. Pellicciari. 2020. “Exploring the Potential of Operator 4.0 Interface and Monitoring.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.047.
  • Peruzzini, M., and M. Pellicciari. 2017. “A Framework to Design a Human-Centred Adaptive Manufacturing System for Aging Workers.” Advanced Engineering Informatics 33: 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2017.02.003.
  • Pilati, F., M. Faccio, M. Gamberi, and A. Regattieri. 2020. “Learning Manual Assembly Through Real-Time Motion Capture for Operator Training with Augmented Reality.” Procedia Manufacturing 45: 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.093.
  • Pinzone, M., F. Albè, D. Orlandelli, I. Barletta, C. Berlin, B. Johansson, and M. Taisch. 2020. “A Framework for Operative and Social Sustainability Functionalities in Human-Centric Cyber-Physical Production Systems.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.028.
  • Podgórski, D., K. Majchrzycka, A. Dąbrowska, G. Gralewicz, and M. Okrasa. 2017. “Towards a Conceptual Framework of OSH Risk Management in Smart Working Environments Based on Smart PPE, Ambient Intelligence and the Internet of Things Technologies.” International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 23 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2016.1214431.
  • Potocan, V., M. Mulej, and Z. Nedelko. 2021. “Society 5.0: Balancing of Industry 4.0, Economic Advancement and Social Problems.” Kybernetes 50 (3): 794–811. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-12-2019-0858.
  • Qiu, L., L. Dong, Y. Gao, Z. Wang, J. Tan, and Z. Ji. 2022. “An Enhanced Approach for Joint Configuration of a Robot Performing in a Repetitive Task.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 64: 454–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.07.009.
  • Rabelo, R. J., D. Romero, and S. P. Zambiasi. 2018. Softbots Supporting the Operator 4.0 at Smart Factory Environments. Paper presented at the Advances in Production Management Systems. Smart Manufacturing for Industry 4.0, Cham.
  • Rauch, E., C. Linder, and P. Dallasega. 2020. “Anthropocentric Perspective of Production Before and Within Industry 4.0.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.018.
  • Reiman, A., J. Kaivo-oja, E. Parviainen, E.-P. Takala, and T. Lauraeus. 2021. “Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing in the Industry 4.0 Context – A Scoping Review.” Technology in Society 65: 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101572.
  • Renda, A., S. S. Schwaag, D. Tataj, A. Morlet, D. Isaksson, F. Martins, and E. Giovannini. 2022. Industry 5.0, a transformative vision for Europe: governing systemic transformations towards a sustainable industry. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.2777/17322.
  • Robert, M., P. Giuliani, and C. Gurau. 2022. “Implementing Industry 4.0 Real-Time Performance Management Systems: the Case of Schneider Electric.” Production Planning & Control 33 (2–3): 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810761.
  • Rojas, R. A., E. Wehrle, and R. Vidoni. 2020. “A Multicriteria Motion Planning Approach for Combining Smoothness and Speed in Collaborative Assembly Systems.” Applied Sciences 10 (15). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155086.
  • Romero, D., O. Noran, J. Stahre, P. Bernus, and Å Fast-Berglund. 2015. Towards a Human-Centred Reference Architecture for Next Generation Balanced Automation Systems: Human-Automation Symbiosis. Paper presented at the Advances in Production Management Systems: Innovative Production Management Towards Sustainable Growth, Cham.
  • Romero, D., and J. Stahre. 2021. “Towards The Resilient Operator 5.0: The Future of Work in Smart Resilient Manufacturing Systems.” Procedia CIRP 104: 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.183.
  • Romero, D., J. Stahre, T. Wuest, O. Noran, P. Bernus, A. Fast-Berglund, and D. Gorecky. 2016. Towards an operator 4.0 typology: A human centric perspective on the fourth industrial revolution technologies. Paper presented at the CIE 46 Proceedings, Tianjin, CIna.
  • Roring, R., and B. How. 2022. “Towards Society 5.0: A Pilot Study on Costless Smart Transportation Business Model.” International Journal of Business and Society 23: 73–87. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.4599.2022.
  • Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt. 2001. “More Evolution Than Revolution: Transition Management in Public Policy.” Foresight 3 (1): 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003.
  • Rožanec, J. M., J. Lu, J. Rupnik, M. Škrjanc, D. Mladenić, B. Fortuna, … D. Kiritsis. 2022a. “Actionable Cognitive Twins for Decision Making in Manufacturing.” International Journal of Production Research 60 (2): 452–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.2002967.
  • Rožanec, J., E. Trajkova, I. Novalija, P. Zajec, K. Kenda, B. Fortuna, and D. Mladenić. 2022b. “Enriching Artificial Intelligence Explanations with Knowledge Fragments.” Future Internet 14: 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi14050134.
  • Sachsenmeier, P. 2016. “Industry 5.0—The Relevance and Implications of Bionics and Synthetic Biology.” Engineering 2 (2): 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2016.02.015.
  • Saggiomo, M., M. Loehrer, D. Kerpen, J. Lemm, and Y. S. Gloy. 2016. Human-and Task-Centered Assistance Systems in Production Processes of the Textile Industry: Determination of Operator-Critical Weaving Machine Components for AR-Prototype Development. Paper presented at the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 5-8 Jan. 2016.
  • Sarfraz, Z., A. Sarfraz, H. M. Iftikar, and R. Akhund. 2021. “Is COVID-19 Pushing us to the Fifth Industrial Revolution (Society 5.0)?” Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 37 (2): 591–594. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.2.3387.
  • Schiffeler, N., V. Stehling, M. Haberstroh, and I. Isenhardt. 2018. Fostering social construction of knowledge in hybrid teams by augmented reality. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 17-20 April 2018.
  • Schlagowski, R., L. Merkel, and C. Meitinger. 2018. Design of an Assistant System for Industrial Maintenance Tasks and Implementation of a Prototype Using Augmented Reality. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 10–13 Dec. 2017.
  • Schot, J., R. Hoogma, and B. Elzen. 1994. “Strategies for Shifting Technological Systems: The Case of the Automobile System.” Futures 26 (10): 1060–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(94)90073-6.
  • Segura, Á, H. V. Diez, I. Barandiaran, A. Arbelaiz, H. Álvarez, B. Simões, … R. Ugarte. 2020. “Visual Computing Technologies to Support the Operator 4.0.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.060.
  • Serras, M., L. García-Sardiña, B. Simões, H. Álvarez, and J. Arambarri. 2020. “Dialogue Enhanced Extended Reality: Interactive System for the Operator 4.0.” Applied Sciences 10 (11), https://doi.org/10.3390/app10113960.
  • Seyfang, G., and A. Haxeltine. 2012. “Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30 (3): 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222.
  • Sgarbossa, F., E. H. Grosse, W. P. Neumann, D. Battini, and C. H. Glock. 2020. “Human Factors in Production and Logistics Systems of the Future.” Annual Reviews in Control 49: 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2020.04.007.
  • Shahbakhsh, M., G. R. Emad, and S. Cahoon. 2022. “Industrial Revolutions and Transition of the Maritime Industry: The Case of Seafarer's Role in Autonomous Shipping.” Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (1): 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2021.11.004.
  • Sharma, M., R. Sehrawat, S. Luthra, T. Daim, and D. Bakry. 2022. “Moving Towards Industry 5.0 in the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Sector: Challenges and Solutions for Germany.” Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3143466.
  • Shneiderman, B. 2020. “Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36 (6): 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118.
  • Sindhwani, R., S. Afridi, A. Kumar, A. Banaitis, S. Luthra, and P. L. Singh. 2022. “Can Industry 5.0 Revolutionize the Wave of Resilience and Social Value Creation? A Multi-Criteria Framework to Analyze Enablers.” Technology in Society 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101887.
  • Slayton, R., and G. Spinardi. 2016. “Radical Innovation in Scaling up: Boeing’s Dreamliner and the Challenge of Socio-Technical Transitions.” Technovation 47: 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.08.004.
  • Smith, A., A. Stirling, and F. Berkhout. 2005. “The Governance of Sustainable Socio-Technical Transitions.” Research Policy 34 (10): 1491–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005.
  • Soltysik-Piorunkiewicz, A., and I. Zdonek. 2021. “How Society 5.0 and Industry 4.0 Ideas Shape the Open Data Performance Expectancy.” Sustainability 13 (2), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020917.
  • Stahl, B. C., and M. Coeckelbergh. 2016. “Ethics of Healthcare Robotics: Towards Responsible Research and Innovation.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 86: 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.018.
  • Sun, S., X. Zheng, B. Gong, J. García Paredes, and J. Ordieres-Meré. 2020. “Healthy Operator 4.0: A Human Cyber–Physical System Architecture for Smart Workplaces.” Sensors 20 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/s20072011.
  • Taj, I., and N. Jhanjhi. 2022. “Towards Industrial Revolution 5.0 and Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities.” International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems 12 (1): 285–310. https://doi.org/10.12785/ijcds/120124.
  • Tancredi, G. P., L. Tebaldi, E. Bottani, F. Longo, and G. Vignali. 2020. “Analysis and Testing of an Online Solution to Monitor and Solve Safety Issues for Industrial Systems.” Procedia Manufacturing 42: 542–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.029.
  • Taylor, M. P., P. Boxall, J. J. J. Chen, X. Xu, A. Liew, and A. Adeniji. 2020. “Operator 4.0 or Maker 1.0? Exploring the Implications of Industrie 4.0 for Innovation, Safety and Quality of Work in Small Economies and Enterprises.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.047.
  • Thomas, J., and A. Harden. 2008. “Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 (1): 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
  • Thomas, C., L. Stankiewicz, A. Grötsch, S. Wischniewski, J. Deuse, and B. Kuhlenkötter. 2016. “Intuitive Work Assistance by Reciprocal Human-Robot Interaction in the Subject Area of Direct Human-Robot Collaboration.” Procedia CIRP 44: 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.098.
  • Tranfield, D., D. Denyer, and P. Smart. 2003. “Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence: Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review.” British Journal of Management 14: 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
  • Umbrello, S., and R. V. Yampolskiy. 2022. “Designing AI for Explainability and Verifiability: A Value Sensitive Design Approach to Avoid Artificial Stupidity in Autonomous Vehicles.” International Journal of Social Robotics 14 (2): 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00790-w.
  • Verma, A., P. Bhattacharya, N. Madhani, C. Trivedi, B. Bhushan, S. Tanwar, … R. Sharma. 2022. “Blockchain for Industry 5.0: Vision, Opportunities, Key Enablers, and Future Directions.” Ieee Access 10: 69160–69199. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3186892.
  • Vijayakumar, V., F. Sgarbossa, W. P. Neumann, and A. Sobhani. 2022. “Framework for Incorporating Human Factors into Production and Logistics Systems.” International Journal of Production Research 60 (2): 402–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1983225.
  • Villalba-Diez, J., and X. Zheng. 2021. “Quantum Strategic Organizational Design: Alignment in Industry 4.0 Complex-Networked Cyber-Physical Lean Management Systems.” Sensors 20: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20205856.
  • Voß, J.-P. 2014. “Performative Policy Studies: Realizing “Transition Management”.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27 (4): 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2014.967666.
  • Wahyuningtyas, R., G. Disastra, and R. Rismayani. 2022. “Toward Cooperative Competitiveness for Community Development in Economic Society 5.0.” Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Ahead-of-Print(Ahead-of-Print), https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-10-2021-0149.
  • Wanasinghe, T., T. Trinh, T. Nguyen, R. G. Gosine, L. A. James, and P. J. Warrian. 2021. “Human Centric Digital Transformation and Operator 4.0 for the Oil and Gas Industry.” Ieee Access 9: 113270–113291. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3103680.
  • Wang, L. 2022. “A Futuristic Perspective on Human-Centric Assembly.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 62: 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.11.001.
  • Wang, B., X. Li, T. Freiheit, and B. I. Epureanu. 2020. Learning and Intelligence in Human-Cyber-Physical Systems: Framework and Perspective. Paper presented at the 2020 Second International Conference on Transdisciplinary AI (TransAI), 21-23 Sept. 2020.
  • Weiss, A., A. Huber, J. Minichberger, and M. Ikeda. 2016. “First Application of Robot Teaching in an Existing Industry 4.0 Environment: Does It Really Work?” Societies 6 (3), https://doi.org/10.3390/soc6030020.
  • Winkelhaus, S., and E. H. Grosse. 2020. “Logistics 4.0: A Systematic Review Towards a New Logistics System.” International Journal of Production Research 58 (1): 18–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1612964.
  • Wong, P.-M., and C.-K. Chui. 2022. “Cognitive Engine for Augmented Human Decision-Making in Manufacturing Process Control.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.09.007.
  • Xu, X., Y. Lu, B. Vogel-Heuser, and L. Wang. 2021. “Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, Conception and Perception.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 61: 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.006.
  • Xu, L. D., E. L. Xu, and L. Li. 2018. “Industry 4.0: State of the Art and Future Trends.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (8): 2941–2962. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806.
  • Yan, J., and Z. Wang. 2022. “YOLO V3 + VGG16-Based Automatic Operations Monitoring and Analysis in a Manufacturing Workshop Under Industry 4.0.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 63: 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.02.009.
  • Zhang, R., J. Lv, J. Li, J. Bao, P. Zheng, and T. Peng. 2022. “A Graph-Based Reinforcement Learning-Enabled Approach for Adaptive Human-Robot Collaborative Assembly Operations.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 63: 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.05.006.
  • Zheng, T., M. Ardolino, A. Bacchetti, and M. Perona. 2021. “The Applications of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Manufacturing Context: A Systematic Literature Review.” International Journal of Production Research 59 (6): 1922–1954. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1824085.
  • Zhou, J., Y. Zhou, B. Wang, and J. Zang. 2019. “Human–Cyber–Physical Systems (HCPSs) in the Context of New-Generation Intelligent Manufacturing.” Engineering 5 (4): 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.07.015.
  • Zhu, Q., S. Huang, G. Wang, S. K. Moghaddam, Y. Lu, and Y. Yan. 2022. “Dynamic Reconfiguration Optimization of Intelligent Manufacturing System with Human-Robot Collaboration Based on Digital Twin.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 65: 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.09.021.
  • Zizic, M. C., M. Mladineo, N. Gjeldum, and L. Celent. 2022. “From Industry 4.0 Towards Industry 5.0: A Review and Analysis of Paradigm Shift for the People, Organization and Technology.” Energies 15 (14): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145221.
  • Zolotová, I., P. Papcun, E. Kajáti, M. Miškuf, and J. Mocnej. 2020. “Smart and Cognitive Solutions for Operator 4.0: Laboratory H-CPPS Case Studies.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 139: 105471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.032.

Appendices

Appendix A. Summary of paper sources

Figure A1. A graphical illustration of paper sources.

Graphical illustration of numbers of included journal, conference and white papers categorised as IN 4.0 or IN 5.0 papers.
Figure A1. A graphical illustration of paper sources.

Appendix B. Publication trend overtime

Figure B1. A graphical illustration for publication trend overtime.

Data analysis of included journal and conference papers on human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 over the time.
Figure B1. A graphical illustration for publication trend overtime.

Appendix C. Summarised overview of empirical studies

Appendix D1. Summary of IN 4.0 reviewed papers regarding technologies and sustainability pillars

Appendix D2. Summary of IN 5.0 reviewed papers regarding technologies and sustainability pillars

Appendix E1. Definition of technologies for IN 4.0

Appendix E2. Definition of technologies for IN 5.0