Guest editorial: Beyond Industry 4.0: humancentricity, resilience and sustainability in the age of digital transformation

The 21st century has been shaped by rapid advances in the adoption and application of digital technologies and tools, in a process now popularly described as digital transformation (DT). DT has been described as a disruptive, evolutionary process that has radically changed the ways we live and do business (Melović et al., 2020). Increasingly, digital technologies are being deployed to upend traditional business models, as organisations find new ways to deliver and capture value (Li, 2020; Kolade et al., 2021; Kraft et al., 2022; Troise et al., 2022).The past decade, for example, has been marked by the rise of multisided digital platforms and the concomitant emergence and growth of the sharing economy, defined as an economic model that is based on trading, swapping and renting products and services (Kolade et al., 2022b). In the finance sector, fintech organisations are deploying blockchains and other Industry 4.0 technologies to drive growth and inclusion, while challenging the dominance and strategies of traditional finance institutions (Palmié et al., 2020). In the manufacturing sector, the introduction of additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, has precipitated significant disruption of the traditional supply chain and offers a departure from centralised high-volume production and large inventory stocking (Kolade et al., 2022a).As the buzz around Industry 4.0 reaches a fever pitch, a paradigm shift is already afoot. Stakeholders are questioning the prevailing logic of Industry 4.0 and the focus on the use of digital technologies to enhance growth, improve efficiency and maximise profit (Kolade and Owoseni, 2022). Technology, it is argued, should be harnessed with due consideration and respect for the boundaries of the planet and its limited resources and capacity (Xu et al., 2021). In addition, production processes should prioritise human needs and workers' welfare above maximisation of production as an end. This challenges the traditional notion of human labour as a tool for creating surplus value, replacing it instead with a model in which human workers are positioned as co-creators and innovators in collaboration with machines (Johri et al., 2021). With the new approach, human contribution is measured not only in terms of productivity but also in terms of quality of life and creativity.The COVID-19 pandemic has also focused minds on the imperative of resilient supply chains and production systems that are more adaptable and responsive to sudden disasters and unpredictable disruption. Thus, stakeholders have proposed a shift in thinking to Industry 5.0, which is not conceived as a linear progression of Industry 4.0 in terms of new technologies, but a discontinuous trajectory underpinned by new priorities and values to guide the use of Industry 4.0 technologies (Xu et al., 2021). In other words, Industry 5.0 does not seek to inhibit or limit the reach of technologies by imposing artificial barriers. Instead, it sets new direction and new heights for technological ambitions. For example, new technologies being deployed to promote the circular economy are more ambitious in their target to upend societal lock-in to traditional, linear models of production and consumption that have been found to be wasteful and unsustainable (Kolade et al., 2022). Frontier technologies are at the heart of this drive to promote circular products and habits using cleaner and leaner methods and processes.Given the preceding, the three pillars of Industry 5.0 have been presented as: humancentricity, resilience and sustainability (Breque et al., 2021). The humancentricity imperative underlines the need to prioritise human needs in the use of technology, and so mitigate fears of humans being enslaved by technologies. This concept lends itself to nuanced operationalisation across domains, with varying emphases on related constructs such as user experience, customer experience and patient centricity. The overarching principle can be summed up in the maxim that technology should serve the needs of humans, and not humans serving the needs of technology (Padovano et al., 2024). The sustainability pillar complements the human-centric dimension by focussing attention on the limits and capacities of the planet. In effect, the deployment of technology to meet human needs is not an open check at the expense of the planet. In effect, while technological innovations should be oriented towards human needs, their deployment must also account for planetary and environmental impacts. In this positive sum game, in which human needs and planetary health are entwined, technology can and should simultaneously serve both purposes. The corollary is that human needs are inevitably compromised and jeopardised if the planet is endangered and the ecosystem is depleted, and a zero-sum approach to deployment of technology is detrimental to both planet and humans. Finally, the resilience dimension focuses on creative re-imagining and ambitious deployment of technology to mitigate disruption. This, again, challenges and expands the traditional notion of technological progress, which has historically focused on production efficiency and profit maximisation. Instead, the resilience pillar of Industry 5.0 emphasises the need for adaptive, flexible and resilient systems that can withstand disruptions and can cope well with uncertainty and complexity-beyond the linear pursuit of increased efficiencies.This new vision of DT, beyond Industry 4.0, is still in its early stages of development. There are significant knowledge gaps regarding its operational challenges, opportunities and nuances across a whole spectrum of public and private sector organisations. Questions have been raised about terminological ambiguities and operational peculiarities of Industry 5.0 principles across domains (Padovano et al., 2024). Other researchers have grappled with the questions around the co-existence of the two industrial revolutions and the new age of augmentation, underpinned by human-machine collaboration and symbiosis (Johri et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021). New questions about the future of work have also come to the fore, including debates about job polarisation, technological unemployment, precarious work and the gig economy (Kolade and Owoseni, 2022). Recent developments in frontier Industry 4.0 technologies, such as artificial intelligence, have heightened public interest and scholarly engagement in these debates.To address this lacuna, this Special Issue invited contributions that illuminate the processes and strategies by which organisations can foster humancentricity, sustainability and resilience through novel applications of digital technologies.The first paper examined the impact of blockchain technology on sustainable supply chains in the garment industry. Shah et al. (2023) adopted an ecological modernisation theory, along with the triple bottom line perspectives, to investigate the relationship between blockchain-enabled supply chain practices and the social, environmental and economic performance of firms. The authors highlight the merits of a circular supply chain, which enables firms to optimise material consumption and re-use worn garments, thereby reducing waste generation and capacity impacts on landfills. However, while the study reports the positive impacts of blockchain on sustainable supply chain practices, the uptake of this technology is currently not at a sufficient scale to generate an ecosystem effect. In order to achieve this, the authors argued for greater connectivity and synergy among key stakeholders across the supply chain, from input suppliers to production, warehousing, distribution and retailing.In the next paper, Nazemi et al. (2024) present a bibliometric study of service ecosystems. The paper highlights how frontier digital technologies such as virtual reality, augmented reality and the expanding metaverse are transforming traditional service ecosystems. Aligning with the imperatives of Industry 5.0, the metaverse seamlessly integrates real and virtual environments through digital twins, creating immersive, interactive service experiences. This evolution can redefine service ecosystems by enhancing customer engagement, satisfaction and loyalty through advanced, intelligent technologies. By merging virtual collaboration, avatars and synchronised features, the metaverse service ecosystem introduces a new paradigm for service delivery – spanning retail, hospitality and entertainment – ushering in a future where human interaction with technology becomes increasingly immersive. The authors also raise significant questions for future exploration: how will the metaverse influence the fundamental structure, materials and objectives of the service ecosystem? Moreover, what innovations in service design will emerge as this virtual world becomes more integral to business and customer experiences?Bringing attention to the humancentricity pillar of Industry 5.0, Mendy and AlGhanem (2024) examined the role of human-oriented strategies in firms' implementation of DT in the non-Western, Arabic context. The authors explored the imbalance between financial and non-financial approaches to DT within Bahrain's oil and gas sector, particularly regarding climate change and sustainability goals. Drawing on 26 interviews and energy case studies, they introduced a new People-centric, Sustaining Network Leadership Model, thereby challenging the dominant financialisation strategies in DT and focussing attention on leadership's socio-cultural and organisational impacts. The model integrates leaders’ experiences and socio-political awareness, offering insights into how and why DT initiatives are deployed. The paper fills a gap in DT scholarship and expands Network Leadership literature, especially within the Arabic context.Still on the non-Western contexts, Tran et al. (2024) examined the impact of DT within the context of corporate governance in Vietnam. Taking a knowledge-based view, with particular emphasis on dynamic capabilities, the authors seek to unpack the process through which organisations seek to adjust and reconfigure their resources and competences in response to digital disruption of the business landscape. They found that, taken alone, both DT and corporate governance each has a negative impact on corporate restructuring. However, when combined, corporate governance and DT are an effective driver of corporate restructuring. Their findings underline the importance of non-technological components, including organisational processes and human decision-making, that underline how technology is deployed and what benefits are realised. The paper therefore highlights the importance of effective board supervision over DT initiatives, and the importance of company ethos and employee re-skilling for successful implementation of DT strategies.The convergence of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 is concomitant with the integration of human and machine intelligence for deep multi-level cooperation within the intelligence system. To explicate this, Nair et al. (2024) conducted a bibliometric review of 296 papers to analyse trends in organisations' DT strategies and practices. They identified a gradual shift towards human-centric practices, with organisations prioritising investment in employee re-skilling and up-skilling and ensuring data privacy and security are at the heart of their DT strategies. These human-centric priorities, the authors note, are critical for Industry 5.0's success, requiring value-driven ethical frameworks to foster human-machine collaboration. They highlight frontiers of active research in these areas, where scholars are interrogating challenges and opportunities for aligning technological progress with societal values, in order to promote sustainable development through people-centric practices in the Factory of the Future.From humancentricity in DT practices, Narkhede and colleagues turned attention to sustainability in the manufacturing sector-against the backdrop of environmental degradation and the imperative of planetary health. They found that, through the integration of frontier technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data analytics, manufacturers are able to enhance process efficiency, reduce wastage and implement other proactive sustainability measures. They also highlighted the contributions of human elements, such as creativity, in the process through which digital technologies are harnessed to drive the sustainability agenda. This, once again, underscores the synergistic essence of the three pillars of Industry 5.0. It also contributes to the fundamental argument that Industry 5.0 is not merely a technological shift but a transformative revolution in the manufacturing landscape.The remaining collection of papers digs deeper into sectoral applications of Industry 5.0 principles, offering nuanced insights into how diverse domains integrate humancentricity, sustainability and resilience. By examining creative economies, digital workplace well-being, digital inclusion in agriculture and circular economy transitions, these contributions illuminate cross-sectoral opportunities and challenges in leveraging Industry 5.0 for transformative impacts.Sneha's exploration of the creative economy situates human creativity within the broader Industry 5.0 paradigm. Her work emphasises the potential of the creative economy to drive economic and social value when aligned with sustainability principles, particularly in emerging economies. This complements Nair et al.’s findings on the rising prioritisation of human-centric digital practices, underscoring the critical role of human agency in the future of DT.Saini's research shifts the focus to workplace dynamics, investigating technostress among IT employees caused by excessive social media usage. The study highlights the dual-edged nature of digital tools, pointing to the necessity of organisational resilience to mitigate negative impacts. This resonates with Tran et al. (2024)’s analysis of corporate governance in Vietnam, which demonstrates how governance frameworks, combined with DT, drive effective corporate restructuring. Together, these studies call for robust organisational strategies to enhance workplace well-being amidst rapid digital disruptions.Abioye's investigation into smallholder farmers in Nigeria explores barriers and enablers of digital tool adoption, emphasising the importance of equitable technological deployment. This aligns with Shah et al.’s (2023) call for multi-stakeholder engagement to foster inclusive and sustainable practices. Abioye's work provides a grounded perspective on how digital inclusion can promote socio-economic equity, particularly in agriculture, a critical sector for developing economies.Oyinlola et al.’s study on the circular plastics economy in Africa underscores the systemic barriers to achieving sustainability. Their call for regime-level changes mirrors Mendy's leadership framework, which advocates people-centric approaches to drive transitions. Both studies stress the necessity of aligning technological initiatives with structural and policy-level interventions to ensure sustainable outcomes.These contributions reveal commonalities in advocating interdisciplinary approaches and the integration of human and ecological priorities in technological practices. However, sectoral differences highlight varying challenges – from scalability in the creative economy to workplace governance and agricultural inclusion. While the studies align on the importance of human-centric strategies, they underscore the need for cross-sectoral collaboration to bridge operational and strategic gaps.The papers in this Special Issue contribute to decades-old debates around the idea that digital technologies are value-free or value-laden. In many ways, the two sides of the argument help illuminate some of the differences between the underlying principles of Industry 4.0 vs Industry 5.0. Broadly, Industry 4.0 aligns with the value-free position: that technologies are neutral instruments designed to optimise processes and solve specific technical or operational challenges. In effect, the primary focus of Industry 4.0 is technological utility and the assumption that technology would benefit society as long as they are used effectively. Conversely, the focus of Industry 5.0 is on human agency, rather than technological utility. Thus, Industry 5.0 takes a more sceptical view of the inherent character of technology. It assumes that technology can have intrinsic negative or positive qualities, and human agents are required to shape it in order to optimise the positive qualities and mitigate the negative attributes. From this latter perspective, Industry 5.0 pillars of humancentricity, resilience and sustainability are the values that guide, not only how technology is deployed, but also how it is designed. For example, AI algorithms, trained with biased or incomplete data, are inherently and to negative This is a of intrinsic and not of Special Issue therefore attention to the critical importance of non-technological including organisational and and employee that guide and the applications of digital technologies. These non-technological also influence the of technologies. Thus, et al. (2024) highlight the importance of regime-level changes and in the from linear technologies and models of production to circular In effect, and colleagues with the assumption that linear technologies are inherently of how they are they work at with the sustainability agenda. they it is not that circular technologies are to be technologies. There is a need for a multi-stakeholder of human agents to the and and processes that can drive changes underpinned by circular it must also be that the does not reduce to a of vs technologies. of a digital technologies a spectrum in which some are or than in terms of their ecological impacts. Thus, the argument of Industry 5.0 is that, a technology is on the human agents and non-technological a role in the benefits or that from their deployment. Industry 5.0 is in a linear progression from Industry 4.0, in terms of technologies emerging in the of Industry 4.0 technologies. It is rather a discontinuous trajectory underpinned by a new emphasis on human-centric values for sustainable use and resilient deployment of technological rather than a drive towards the of more related argument focuses on the potential impacts of Industry 5.0 on technological It is that Industry 5.0 principles are to the of on the of and creativity that drive technological progress, therefore at the of that have human address the and challenges in have also that the concept of Industry 5.0 is and it attention from the evolution and progress of Industry 4.0, they is from the argument of Industry 5.0 is that it is not a linear progression from Industry 4.0 in terms of the emergence of new technologies, but rather a new of and Industry 4.0 technologies. In this it is for Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 to in It is to the development of Industry 4.0 technologies, while at the promote and new values and principles to guide their deployment. Industry 5.0 to rather than the of for technological It does this by and the of technological based on human needs and ecological Industry 5.0 the of technological by its principles on the pillars of humancentricity, resilience and sustainability. technologies that enhance human well-being, focussing on and ethical This not only but ensuring that AI and do not human as a challenges technologies to withstand and to from economic to climate challenges, ensuring and in the by that technologies align with ecological including and waste These the objectives for Industry 4.0 technologies, requiring to integrate seamlessly into sustainable practices while equitable human By these principles into the Industry 5.0 the evolution of Industry 4.0 technologies, their and to meet societal and ecological of digital technologies to at once and mitigate disruptions align with the of human needs at the heart of Industry 5.0. This Special Issue highlights some of the key in which resilience and humancentricity in a et al. the rise of digital technologies and social media in the especially in has precipitated a that employee productivity and This underlines the need for resilient systems and governance to mitigate the negative of By environments where technology is designed and deployed to prioritise human needs, organisations can ecosystems that enhance employee well-being while as and limited to digital can economic agricultural productivity and social particularly in with significant socio-economic By inclusive technological adoption, digital can bridge gaps in agricultural supply chain efficiency and farmers with digital platforms their resilience to economic and climate Thus, the Industry 5.0 focus on The focus on digital that technological benefit resilience in while prioritising human et al. systemic barriers to the from linear production models to circular economies, particularly in the environmental impacts and economic disruptions of waste generation and In technologies such as AI and big data sustainable practices, such as waste and material ecological and economic The shift to a circular economy how resilience is with human-centric technological not only address environmental challenges but also improve quality of life by creating and sustainable underline how technological innovations can simultaneously enhance resilience and prioritise human By workplace challenges, digital inclusion and Industry 5.0 aligns technological progress with human-centric values to systems that to and papers in this Special Issue the transformative potential of Industry 5.0, particularly its pillars of humancentricity, resilience and in the of These contributions a that technological when aligned with human and ecological priorities, can drive inclusive and sustainable progress across diverse key is the critical between resilience and The insights that, while digital they also present challenges such as workplace stress and in Thus, in line with the organisations are to systems that prioritise employee well-being, foster and for development. By these principles, organisations can ensure that technology human needs, rather than significant is the necessity of systemic approaches to sustainability. The papers highlight the from linear to circular economic models as a imperative for ensuring efficiency and environmental is positioned not merely as a but as of a broader ecosystem that structural collaboration and to sustainable the papers the importance of in technological deployment. From creative to agriculture, ensuring that are in DT processes as a governance and equitable to technology are to socio-economic and the potential of Industry the Special Issue provides insights and contributions to explicate the synergy of technological innovations with social and ecological Thus, dynamic synergy is presented as the of human-centric and sustainable a future where technology