Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This study examines the human-centric dimension of Industry 5.0 (I5.0) through a sociotechnical systems (STS) perspective. We investigate how worker-oriented practices, organizational conditions and technological resources, individually and as an internal sociotechnical configuration, relate to workers' and operational performance. We further examine whether supply chain digital strategy, representing the external environment, improves these relationships. Design/methodology/approach Survey data from 481 manufacturing firms in an emerging economy were analyzed using factor analysis and hierarchical regression. The internal sociotechnical configurations draw on labor issues, automation, base technologies and front-end technologies, while supply chain digital strategy is examined as a moderator and external factor. Two internal sociotechnical configurations were operationalized using a quadratic index. Findings Labor issues and base technologies were positively associated with both performance dimensions, while automation was associated with operational performance and front-end technologies with workers' performance. The internal sociotechnical configurations were negatively associated with workers' and operational performance, but these relationships became positive at higher levels of supply chain digital strategy. The findings indicate that pursuing the human-centric dimension requires considering internal sociotechnical configurations alongside the external digital supply chain environment. Originality/value The study extends STS theory to I5.0 by considering implementation challenges such as technostress, technology-induced complexity and digital transformation failure. It shows that factors associated with the human-centric dimension may relate differently to performance when considered individually or as part of an internal configuration, and that external factors play an important role in these relationships.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aniceski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: