Purpose As Industry 5.0 (I5.0) advances, companies face growing pressure to attract and retain talent through more human-centered recruitment. Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a game-changer, transforming how organizations connect with candidates. This study explores how AI in recruitment influences a company's competitiveness in attracting top talent. Design/methodology/approach An abductive methodology guided the research, combining a systematic literature review and benchmarking of AI recruitment tools – considering their application in each phase of the recruitment process – with results critically evaluated through a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis. Findings Findings show that AI in recruitment extends human resources (HR) management and lifecycle theories by embedding I5.0 principles into talent acquisition. AI-driven recruitment reinforces lifecycle models by demonstrating how digital tools sustain candidate–organization relationships across all stages, from sourcing to onboarding. The study also contributes to strategic HR theory by framing AI not only as an efficiency tool but as a driver of corporate branding, inclusive hiring and sustainable employment relationships. Practical implications This study maps AI recruitment tools to different hiring stages, offering managers clear guidance on tool selection. The final recommendation highlights chatbots as the most advantageous solution, complemented by ATS/CRM systems and onboarding platforms, enabling organizations to enhance efficiency while maintaining a human-centric, I5.0-oriented approach. Originality/value This article uniquely examines AI's role in recruitment within the I5.0 context, offering a critical SWOT analysis and practical recommendations for effectively applying AI tools across all recruitment phases to address current talent acquisition challenges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salvadorinho et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: