What are Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 all about? An integrative institutional model for the new industrial paradigms

Rorato Fogaça, Diego; Grijalvo, Mercedes; Sacomano Neto, Mário Article What are Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 all about? An integrative institutional model for the new industrial paradigms Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Rorato Fogaça, Diego; Grijalvo, Mercedes; Sacomano Neto, Mário (2025) : What are Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 all about? An integrative institutional model for the new industrial paradigms, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040118 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321262 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 24 January 2025 Revised: 11 March 2025 Accepted: 15 March 2025 Published: 22 March 2025 Citation: Fogaça, D. R., Grijalvo, M., & Sacomano Neto, M. (2025). What Are Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 All About? An Integrative Institutional Model for the New Industrial Paradigms. Administrative Sciences, 15(4), 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15040118 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article What Are Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 All About? An Integrative Institutional Model for the New Industrial Paradigms Diego Rorato Fogaça 1,2,3,* , Mercedes Grijalvo 1and Mario Sacomano Neto 2 1Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales (ETSII), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), 28006 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] 2Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos 13565-905, Brazil; [email protected] 3Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Urbanism, and Geography (FAENG), Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS), Campo Grande 79070-900, Brazil *Correspondence: diego.r[email protected] Abstract: Industry 4.0 (I4.0) and Industry 5.0 (I5.0) represent important changes in industrial paradigms. I4.0 is centered on efficiency and competitiveness, and I5.0 adds sustainability, human-centricity, and resilience to the framework. Despite their growing relevance, much of the existing research remains techno-centric, neglecting the sociocultural and institutional forces shaping them. This study investigates how the transition from I4.0 to I5.0 is occurring using an institutional perspective. A qualitative methodology was employed, combining theoretical synthesis and secondary data analysis to develop an integrative model. The proposed model draws on insights from Institutional Theory, Scandinavian Institutionalism, Management Fashion, and Quintuple Helix, emphasizing the role of translation and diffusion in institutionalizing these paradigms. We maintain that both of them are fundamentally discursive, shaped by institutional pressures, shared meanings, and stakeholder interactions. I4.0 already allows for a heterogeneous vision adjusted to different perspectives and stakeholders. I5.0 goes further by responding to criticism about social and environmental issues and introducing resilience, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing climate crisis. As a result, I5.0 aligns with a broader range of actors and interests, increasing its potential for widespread acceptance and long-term impact. This research challenges deterministic views of technology, arguing that this new industrial revolution is not eminently technology-driven but instead emphasizes the central role of discourse and institutional processes in shaping its development. Keywords: industry 5.0; industry 4.0; institutional theory; Scandinavian institutionalism; translation ecology; management fashion; framework; triple helix; sustainability; technology 1. Introduction Industry 4.0 (I4.0), also known as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, emerged over a decade ago as a paradigm for transforming traditional manufacturing and industrial practices through the integration of advanced digital technologies (Lu,2017;L. D. Xu et al.,2018). It encompasses a wide range of innovations aimed at enhancing production processes, efficiency, data management, and overall competitiveness (Piccarozzi et al.,2018). Since then, the concept has expanded beyond manufacturing (Ghobakhloo et al.,2021), with an increasing number of companies from various sectors incorporating it into their business models and value chains (Kohnová & Salajová,2023;Ventura & Silva e Meirelles,2025). More recently, the paradigm of Industry 5.0 (I5.0) has emerged, driven primarily by the Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040118 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 2 of 19 European Commission (2021) report, incorporating the principles of sustainability, humancentricity, and resilience (Ghobakhloo et al.,2023;Martín-Gómez et al.,2024). Research interest in this new paradigm has grown rapidly and exponentially (Ciucu-Durnoi et al., 2024;Espina-Romero et al.,2023;Madsen et al.,2023), bringing new challenges, as it is neither free of contradictions nor ambiguities (Ivanov,2023), leaving companies just beginning to adopt I4.0 confronted with this novelty. Understanding these fast-paced changes requires a deeper discussion of these phenomena. Therefore, the first objective of this article is to discuss the nature of I4.0 and I5.0, which is a necessary step toward understanding how the transition between these paradigms is occurring. Much of the existing literature, especially on I4.0, adopts a technocentric view (Beier et al.,2020). Here, we argue that technology is profoundly socially shaped, and influenced by values, beliefs, and interests (Howcroft & Taylor,2022). It is constituted by shared meanings, structures, and practices—beyond objective and rational considerations—bringing it closer to an institution (Zilber & Goodman,2021). Although there is no consensus on the definition of an institution, it is broadly considered a sociocultural construction essential for providing blueprints for organizations and organizing (Ocasio,2023). Institutionalization is a social process where individuals accept a collective understanding of social reality that is perceived as an objective reality, i.e., becomes accepted as the inherent nature of things and/or the appropriate way of doing them (Aksom, 2022). This definition easily links to I4.0, and, as we argue, is also central to comprehending the emerging paradigm of I5.0. Despite calls for a less techno-centric interpretation of this industrial revolution (Beier et al.,2020), especially through institutionalist lenses (D. Fogaça et al.,2022), few studies have followed this approach. Reischauer (2018) proposed interpreting I4.0 in Germany as a policy-driven discourse to institutionalize innovation systems. U. Meyer (2019) described I4.0 as an envisioned future based on the sense-making processes of different actors, also in Germany. D. R. Fogaça et al. (2024) proposed a framework for systematically understanding the discourse used by different stakeholders in this process across various countries, which can also serve as a basis for examining I5.0. The Management Fashion (MF) approach has also been utilized to understand the emergence of I4.0 (Madsen,2019;Oesterreich et al., 2020) and I5.0 (Madsen & Slåtten,2023), highlighting its proximity to Institutional Theory (Aksom,2022). However, these studies lack a more integrated perspective on how different institutional concepts and mechanisms contribute to forming I4.0 and I5.0 and how they are interrelated. Thus, the second objective of this article is to propose an integrated institutional model for understanding I4.0 and I5.0. Together, both objectives contribute to addressing the general research question of the article: RQ: How is the transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 occurring? We maintain that I4.0 and I5.0 are eminently discursive and institutional phenomena. Industry 4.0 primarily focuses on productivity and competitiveness. Through criticism, pressure, and interactions from various actors and society—along with concrete events such as the pandemic and the climate crisis—elements of sustainability, human-centricity, and resilience were incorporated into a new paradigm known as Industry 5.0. It accommodates broader environmental and social dimensions that meet the expectations of a wider range of stakeholders. The transition from I4.0 to I5.0 is not essentially a technological shift but a reconfiguration of priorities, values, and institutional understandings reflected in a new discourse. We adopt a theoretical–conceptual approach. Unlike empirical studies that formulate and test hypotheses, this research is exploratory and theory-driven, aiming to develop a conceptual model rather than validating predefined assumptions. We conducted an extensive literature review, combining existing theoretical frameworks and secondary Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 3 of 19 sources to propose an integrative institutional model. The primary objective of this study is to analyze how the transition from I4.0 to I5.0 is occurring through an institutional perspective. Specifically, we aim to (i) discuss the nature of I4.0 and I5.0 and (ii) develop an integrative institutional model to understand these phenomena. Drawing on the general conceptual model of Glynn and D’Aunno (2023), we incorporate the empirical insights of D. R. Fogaça et al. (2024) in characterizing the actors and their frames/discourses in I4.0, combined with the concept of translation ecology from Scandinavian Institutionalism (Nielsen et al.,2022) to explain the transition between the two paradigms. In this context, translation refers to the process by which actors adapt and reinterpret ideas, practices, and technologies as they move across different institutional settings. The notion of translation ecology emphasizes that this process is not linear but rather shaped by interactions among various actors, each with distinct interests and frames of reference. These institutional lenses provide a unique opportunity to move beyond deterministic views of technology and reveal how discourse, framing, and translation processes contribute to the institutionalization of these so-called industrial revolutions. In the next section, we present the theoretical review underpinning our model: the conceptualization of I4.0 and I5.0, Institutional Theory and its application to these phenomena, and Scandinavian Institutionalism as a promising approach to explain them. Section 3details the proposed model, including its main elements and the rationale behind its construction. Section 4discusses the article’s objectives: exploring the nature of I4.0 and I5.0 and our integrated institutional model’s theoretical and practical contributions. Finally, Section 5addresses the study’s limitations and suggests future research directions. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 Industry 4.0, also known as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, originated in Germany in 2011 as part of a strategic initiative to establish itself as a leader in integrated industry (L. D. Xu et al.,2018). Despite the lack of consensus regarding its definition (Culot et al., 2020), I4.0 was initially characterized by the integration of advanced digital technologies into manufacturing processes to enhance efficiency, flexibility, and customization (Lu,2017; Oztemel & Gursev,2020). A definition proposed by Rupp et al. (2021, p. 12) describes it thus: “Industry 4.0 is the implementation of Cyber Physical Systems for creating Smart Factories by using the Internet of Things, Big Data, Cloud Computing, Artificial Intelligence, and Communication Technologies for Information and Communication in Real Time over the Value Chain”. More recently, the concept of I4.0 has expanded beyond the factory, encompassing the value chain and other sectors such as construction, healthcare, and agriculture (Ghobakhloo et al.,2021;Kohnová & Salajová,2023). However, the common understanding of I4.0 remains primarily focused on technological and productivity aspects. Alternative and more interdisciplinary approaches may offer a more precise interpretation of I4.0, its impacts, and its blind spots (Beier et al.,2020;D. Fogaça et al.,2022). A frequently cited limitation of I4.0 is that environmental sustainability is not a strategic priority, playing only a limited role in its predominant definition (Beier et al.,2020;Ghobakhloo et al.,2021). Another weakness lies in the insufficient attention given to human factors, labor, and broader social dynamics (Neumann et al.,2021;Sony,2020;Zorzenon et al.,2022). Both limitations are connected to the evolution from a prevailing technical paradigm to one emphasizing social and environmental considerations, as seen in Industry 5.0. The term Industry 5.0 was initially coined by futurist Michael Rada but gained momentum with the release of the European Commission (2021) report (Madsen & Slåtten, 2023). Given its recent emergence, the lack of consensus regarding its definition is even Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 4 of 19 more pronounced than with I4.0. However, a common thread in much of the I5.0 literature is the integration of resilience, sustainability, and human-centric values. This integration prioritizes the collaboration between humans and advanced technologies to create adaptive, inclusive, and eco-friendly systems that benefit society as a whole (Ghobakhloo et al.,2023; Ivanov,2023;Zizic et al.,2022). These three distinctive features of I5.0 have spurred research discussing each in depth—resilience (e.g., Hsu et al.,2024;Leng et al.,2023), sustainability (e.g., Ben Youssef & Mejri,2023;Jamil et al.,2024), and human-centricity—either from a more technical perspective at the factory level (e.g., Nahavandi,2019;Ordieres-Meré et al.,2023) or within a broader social context (e.g., Gamberini & Pluchino,2024;Kolade & Owoseni,2022). Table 1summarizes the main differences and similarities between I4.0 and I5.0. Table 1. Key Similarities and differences between I4.0 and I5.0. Similarities Differences Shared Technological Foundations: rely on IoT, Big Data, AI, and CPS Primary Focus: I4.0 emphasizes automation and mass production, whereas I5.0 incorporates human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience Efficiency and Productivity: aim to enhance industrial performance and operational efficiency Environmental Perspective: I4.0’s sustainability efforts are secondary, mainly targeting process optimization, while I5.0 integrates sustainability as a core principle Customization: promote personalization of products and services Workforce role: I4.0 minimizes human intervention through automation, while I5.0 places humans at the center of production, emphasizing collaboration between workers and machines Influence on Industrial Models: reshape business strategies and production systems Impact: I4.0 is more restricted to industrial transformation, while I5.0 extends beyond factories to address societal challenges Whether I5.0 represents a natural and incremental evolution of I4.0, a radical departure from it, or something in between remains a matter of debate (Ghobakhloo et al.,2024). This article contributes to this discussion from an institutional perspective. The following section provides a brief overview of Institutional Theory, how it has been used to investigate I4.0 and I5.0, and how it can help understand the transition from one paradigm to another. 2.2. Institutional Theory and Development of Industry 4.0/5.0 The New Institutional Theory, also known as New Institutionalism or Neoinstitutionalism, presents a non-rationalist perspective on decision-making for the adoption of organizational practices (Aksom,2022). In their seminal work, J. W. Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that organizations conform to rational myths that are socially constructed and externally validated in pursuit of legitimacy and support. The interpretation of Industry 4.0 as a rational myth was proposed by D. Fogaça et al. (2022). The incorporation of specific techniques, policies, and programs serves as a symbol that the organization is adhering to what is considered proper, adequate, and rational within its social and institutional context. However, these innovations do not necessarily make organizations more functionally efficient. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) introduced three mechanisms that drive organizations to adopt practices and become structurally similar: coercive, normative, and mimetic. The first mechanism is linked to pressures such as governmental regulations, the second to professional standards, and the third to the imitation of other organizations perceived as successful in uncertain environments. This concept—isomorphism—has been and continues to be applied to understand the institutionalization of practices across different sectors, remaining influential across various disciplines (Greenwood & Meyer,2008). The focus of Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 5 of 19 these studies on stability has been complemented more recently by discursive approaches that aim to investigate how institutions are created, maintained, and changed through language (Phillips et al.,2004;Schmidt,2010). These approaches emphasize the substantive content of ideas and the interactive discourse processes within institutional contexts, providing a more dynamic understanding of institutional change. The traditional concept of isomorphism has been employed to investigate the adoption of I4.0 in general (Gupta et al.,2020;Nirmal et al.,2023;Zhou & Zheng,2023), I4.0 readiness (Ali & Johl,2023), and digital transformation (H.-M. Kuo et al.,2022). Additionally, technologies closely related to I4.0, such as Big Data Analytics, Artificial Intelligence (Bag et al.,2021;Dubey et al.,2019), and Blockchain (Wamba & Queiroz,2020), have also been examined through the lens of isomorphism. A discursive approach to characterizing I4.0 was proposed by Reischauer (2018) and indirectly supported by (U. Meyer,2019), who applied the concept of sensemaking to analyze the heterogeneous discourse of actors involved with this phenomenon in Germany. The former argues that I4.0 is an innovation discourse that encourages the institutionalization of the Triple Helix, promoting collaboration among industry, academia, and government. D. R. Fogaça et al. (2024) advance the discursive perspective by proposing a framework to systematize the different frames mobilized by various actors in the discourse on I4.0, enabling comparisons between them and across countries. Another approach to examining the adoption of I4.0 has been through the lens of Management Fashion (MF). This theoretical perspective was used to analyze the emergence of I4.0 (Madsen,2019;Oesterreich et al.,2020) and I5.0 (Madsen & Slåtten,2023). According to Firsova et al. (2023), MF can be considered a special case within the neoinstitutional theory proposed by J. W. Meyer and Rowan (1977) and DiMaggio and Powell (1983), serving as a complementary approach. Aksom (2022) suggests unifying these theories, noting that they share the same ontological basis in social constructivism. He argues that the concept of rational myth is practically interchangeable with Management Fashion.D. Fogaça et al. (2022) propose that I4.0 can be understood as a rationalized myth shaped by diverse institutional contexts and actors during its diffusion. The institutionalization process involves multiple stages across various levels of analysis (Ocasio,2023). Initially, key actors contribute to the conception of paradigms by framing their core ideas and goals, creating shared typifications of roles and practices. These paradigms are then subject to diffusion as their ideas spread across different industries and regions. However, during this process, adaptation occurs, where actors reinterpret and modify the paradigms to fit their local contexts and specific needs. Such processes illustrate how I4.0 and I5.0 can evolve as institutional phenomena. A promising approach for investigating these dynamics is Scandinavian Institutionalism, which focuses on translation and adaptation during diffusion. Despite its potential, we found no studies employing this framework to investigate I4.0 or 5.0. The following section will introduce its basic concepts. 2.3. Scandinavian Institutionalism Scandinavian Institutionalism (SI) offers a distinctive perspective within the broader Institutional Theory framework by emphasizing the dynamic and evolving nature of change (Sahlin & Wedlin,2008). In this context, translation refers to the process by which ideas, models, and practices are continuously reinterpreted, modified, and adapted as they move across different contexts. While traditional institutional theories often focus on stability and continuity, SI views change as constant, involving the continuous translation and reinterpretation of ideas (Wedlin & Sahlin,2017). As ideas travel across contexts, they are not merely adopted but transformed, revised, and adapted. This translation approach is rooted in actor-network theory, particularly in Latour’s model, and it diverges from the Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 6 of 19 more rigid frameworks of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism often emphasized in North American institutionalism (Wæraas,2021;Westney & Piekkari,2020). However, SI has often been related to other mainstream theories. For instance, although it does not explicitly address the concept of institutional logic, studies on public sector reforms in Scandinavia that incorporate private sector practices are linked to the concept of institutional complexity (Perkmann et al.,2022). This occurs when actors are confronted with conflicting or incompatible prescriptions regarding a course of action or goals (Greenwood et al.,2011). Additionally, due to its focus on change, Management Fashion has also been discussed in conjunction with SI (Carlsson,2022;Wæraas & Nielsen,2016;Wedlin & Sahlin,2017). The same applies to institutional entrepreneurship (Czarniawska,2009; Ritvala & Granqvist,2009), where individuals or organizations aim to create, transform, or destabilize established institutional practices and structures (Maguire et al.,2004). One recent promising development in SI is the concept of translation ecology (Westney & Piekkari,2020). Introduced by Sahlin and Wedlin (2008), this concept provides a stronger theoretical foundation for SI by reconnecting it with mainstream Institutional Theory and offering a valuable approach for studies on the adoption and variation of practices (Firsova et al.,2023). It moves away from linear models of idea diffusion and instead proposes a multidirectional and dynamic process (Nielsen et al.,2022). The notion of translation ecology emphasizes that ideas are not translated in isolation but in relation to other ideas, actors, and contexts. These interactions form complex webs, where ideas, once translated, influence both the actors involved and other ideas (Nielsen et al.,2022;Wedlin & Sahlin, 2017). Section 3.3 applies the SI concept, particularly the translation ecology approach, to examine how key actors shape the transition from I4.0 to I5.0. 3. Model Development The integrative institutional model for I4.0 and its transition to I5.0 is outlined in Figure 1. It is based on recent advances in Institutional Theory, such as the proposal of the integrative conceptual model by Glynn and D’Aunno (2023), Ocasio’s (2023) stages of institutionalization, and the idea of ecologies of translation (Nielsen et al.,2022;Wedlin & Sahlin,2017) from Scandinavian Institutionalism. Our model combines these theoretical– conceptual developments with empirical studies on digitalization, I4.0, and I5.0. For instance, the detailing of institutional elements (regulative, normative, and cultural–cognitive) carried out in Section 3.1 is based on a critical analysis of various studies on isomorphism in I4.0 (e.g., Ali & Johl,2023;Bag et al.,2021) and on Management Fashion in I4.0 and I5.0 (Madsen,2019;Madsen & Slåtten,2023). The part of the model related to actors and frames (detailed in Section 3.2) is based on Reischauer’s (2018) idea of I4.0 as a discourse to institutionalize innovation systems within the Triple Helix and on the heterogeneity of sensemaking and sensegiving by actors involved in I4.0, as discussed by U. Meyer (2019). Based on empirical studies, D. R. Fogaça et al. (2024) proposed a framework to better understand the relationship between actors and frames (which are related to discourse and sensegiving/sensemaking) in I4.0. In our model, we apply this framework in more detail and extend it to I5.0. In addition, we integrate the idea of the distinctive characteristics of I5.0 (resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity) with the Quintuple Helix (Carayannis et al.,2022,2023). In the “evolution” from I4.0 to I5.0, we employ the concept of translation ecology (Nielsen et al.,2022;Wedlin & Sahlin, 2017) as a promising mechanism to explain this transition (as detailed in Section 3.3). While Figure 1provides an overview of the entire institutional model, Figure 2complements it by detailing how translation processes unfold among key actors. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 7 of 19 Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Fogaça et al. (2024) proposed a framework to better understand the relationship between actors and frames (which are related to discourse and sensegiving/sensemaking) in I4.0. In our model, we apply this framework in more detail and extend it to I5.0. In addition, we integrate the idea of the distinctive characteristics of I5.0 (resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity) with the Quintuple Helix (Carayannis et al., 2022, 2023). In the “evolution” from I4.0 to I5.0, we employ the concept of translation ecology (Nielsen et al., 2022; Wedlin & Sahlin, 2017) as a promising mechanism to explain this transition (as detailed in Section 3.3). While Figure 1 provides an overview of the entire institutional model, Figure 2 complements it by detailing how translation processes unfold among key actors. In summary, Section 3.1 details the Institutional Elements (left part of Figure 1), the following Section 3.2 describes the Actors and Frames of I4.0 and I5.0 (center of Figure 1), and Section 3.3 discusses how Translation Ecology can explain the transition from I4.0 to I5.0, describing Figure 2 for a more detailed view of the process. Figure 1. Overview of the institutional model for I4.0 and its transition to I5.0. Figure 1. Overview of the institutional model for I4.0 and its transition to I5.0. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Fogaça et al. (2024) proposed a framework to better understand the relationship between actors and frames (which are related to discourse and sensegiving/sensemaking) in I4.0. In our model, we apply this framework in more detail and extend it to I5.0. In addition, we integrate the idea of the distinctive characteristics of I5.0 (resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity) with the Quintuple Helix (Carayannis et al., 2022, 2023). In the “evolution” from I4.0 to I5.0, we employ the concept of translation ecology (Nielsen et al., 2022; Wedlin & Sahlin, 2017) as a promising mechanism to explain this transition (as detailed in Section 3.3). While Figure 1 provides an overview of the entire institutional model, Figure 2 complements it by detailing how translation processes unfold among key actors. In summary, Section 3.1 details the Institutional Elements (left part of Figure 1), the following Section 3.2 describes the Actors and Frames of I4.0 and I5.0 (center of Figure 1), and Section 3.3 discusses how Translation Ecology can explain the transition from I4.0 to I5.0, describing Figure 2 for a more detailed view of the process. Figure 1. Overview of the institutional model for I4.0 and its transition to I5.0. Figure 2. Actors and elements related to translation ecology from I4.0 to I5.0. In summary, Section 3.1 details the Institutional Elements (left part of Figure 1), the following Section 3.2 describes the Actors and Frames of I4.0 and I5.0 (center of Figure 1), and Section 3.3 discusses how Translation Ecology can explain the transition from I4.0 to I5.0, describing Figure 2for a more detailed view of the process. 3.1. Institutional Elements The institutional elements (regulative, normative, and cultural–cognitive) are based on the foundational work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983) regarding isomorphism, were further developed by Scott (2014), and have been applied to I4.0 and digital transformation research by various authors (e.g., Ali & Johl,2023;Bag et al.,2021;Bag & Pretorius,2020; Dubey et al.,2019;Gupta et al.,2020;H.-M. Kuo et al.,2022;Nirmal et al.,2023). The main coercive components include government, regulatory bodies, and powerful buyers and Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 8 of 19 suppliers. Normative elements such as formal education and professional associations and networks are linked to professionalization. Lastly, cultural–cognitive elements are associated with mimetic pressures, where organizations imitate those considered successful, especially in uncertain environments. Most studies that apply these concepts are quantitative, based on survey applications (D. Fogaça et al.,2022). However, several problems have been identified. Some articles erroneously define the normative element as associated with pressures from suppliers and customers (Bag et al.,2021;Gupta et al.,2020), which should actually be linked to coercive pressures. Others provide a correct theoretical definition of normative elements but operationalize them incorrectly (Ali & Johl,2023;Dubey et al.,2019), once again including issues related to buyers and suppliers. We also found problems in the operationalization of mimetic pressures (Bag et al.,2021) by including coercive elements, such as complying with laws and regulations. Some studies do not clearly specify the particular variables used, which hinders the reproducibility of the methods (Bag & Pretorius,2020; Nirmal et al.,2023). Table 2summarizes the main regulative (coercive pressures), normative, and cultural– cognitive (mimetic pressures) elements in light of the critical analysis of articles that use them to understand Industry 4.0 and digitalization. It is possible to conduct research that evaluates institutional pressures without including all items in each category. For instance, (H.-M. Kuo et al.,2022) do not include issues related to buyers and suppliers in the regulative element, nor formal education and professional certification in the normative element. However, it is recommended that these choices be appropriately justified and substantiated on a case-by-case basis. Although we have not found studies analyzing isomorphism in Industry 5.0, these elements are common to both phenomena. Table 2. Main institutional elements. Regulative (Coercive) (Ali & Johl,2023;Bag et al.,2021; Gupta et al.,2020) Normative (H.-M. Kuo et al.,2022; Ullah et al.,2020) Cultural–Cognitive (Mimetic) (Ali & Johl,2023;H.-M. Kuo et al.,2022; Ullah et al.,2020) Legislation and Regulation (at different levels) Standards and Technical Norms (international organizations) Government Policies (including tax incentives, subsidies, and financing initiatives) Powerful Buyers and Suppliers (varying according to field/industry) Formal Education and Training (universities and business schools) Professional Certifications (for emerging technologies, practices, and sustainability) Industrial Associations and Standards (best practices and networking) Professional Associations (standards by professional communities) Best Practices and Technological Innovations (benchmarking; imitating successful competitors and industry leaders) Organizational Culture (values and beliefs within companies) Consulting Firms (best practices, technological innovations, and organizational culture) There are studies on Management Fashion applied to I4.0 (Madsen,2019;Oesterreich et al.,2020) and I5.0 (Madsen & Slåtten,2023). Although they do not explicitly use the concept of institutional elements, they refer to regulative, normative, and cultural–cognitive issues and to central actors associated with them (which will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.2). For example, governments in relation to regulative aspects; business schools, media, and conferences regarding normative pressures; and consulting firms in relation to mimetic pressures. Such studies could benefit from adopting a perspective based on these traditional aspects of Institutional Theory. The same can be said for research investigating the barriers and challenges to the implementation of I4.0 and I5.0 practices, such as (Mukherjee et al.,2023). For I5.0, they identified barriers linked to legal and Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 15 of 19 cation of the concept of translation ecology, which explains how the transition from I4.0 to I5.0 is not linear but instead results from the iterative adaptation and reinterpretation of ideas and practices by different institutional actors across various settings. The proposed model contributes to Institutional Theory by demonstrating the applicability of the conceptual framework that Glynn and D’Aunno (2023) proposed in a concrete context and by integrating insights from Scandinavian Institutionalism and Management Fashion. From a practical standpoint, the findings can provide actionable insights for policymakers, organizations, and educators. Policymakers can use the model to design strategies that foster collaboration and alignment with social and environmental priorities. Companies can benefit from understanding that I4.0 and I5.0 are not solely about technology, technical efficiency, or productivity but are institutional phenomena, where adopting these paradigms is essential to maintaining legitimacy with other stakeholders. Educational institutions can adapt their curricula to address the demands of the new I5.0 paradigm while reflecting on how their activities—research, teaching, and outreach—actively influence the construction and institutionalization of these paradigms. While this study offers significant theoretical and practical insights, some limitations must be acknowledged. Focusing on macro-level institutional dynamics may overlook micro-level processes and the agency of individual actors. Balancing generalization with contextual specificity remains a challenge. Additionally, integrating various theoretical perspectives can lead to oversimplification or a loss of nuance, similar to what can happen with variations between industries and national contexts. The theoretical nature of the proposed model calls for empirical validation. Future research could address this gap by employing primary research methods such as interviews and surveys with stakeholders involved in implementing and developing I4.0 and I5.0. Studies could focus on specific industrial sectors, unpacking the actions of key actors involved. Comparative studies across countries could yield valuable insights by revealing the unique characteristics of the transition from I4.0 to I5.0, detailing stakeholder activities and the influence of each country’s institutional conditions in this process. Particularly promising and underexplored is research on how universities have acted to shape both I4.0 and I5.0. Moreover, longitudinal studies can provide novel insights into institutional change, revealing how certain events or policies can facilitate or hinder the institutionalization of new industrial paradigms. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.R.F., M.G., and M.S.N.; methodology, D.R.F., M.G., and M.S.N.; validation, M.G. and M.S.N.; formal analysis, D.R.F.; investigation, D.R.F.; data curation, D.R.F.; writing—original draft preparation, D.R.F.; writing—review and editing, M.G. and M.S.N.; visualization, D.R.F.; supervision, M.G. and M.S.N.; project administration, M.G. and M.S.N.; funding acquisition, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data supporting this study is available from the corresponding author upon request. Acknowledgments: The second author wants to thank the support provided by the project entitled “Use of robust deep learning methods for the automatic quality assessment of steel products (DeepQuality)” (G.A. No 101034037), which was funded by Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) of the European Union (EU). The sole responsibility of the issues treated in the present paper lies with the authors; the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 16 of 19 References Aksom, H. (2022). Reconciling conflicting predictions about transience and persistence of management concepts in management fashion theory and new institutionalism. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,30(2), 430–453. [CrossRef] Ali, K., & Johl, S. K. (2023). Driving forces for industry 4.0 readiness, sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities: Does firm size matter? Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,34(5), 838–871. [CrossRef] Antonazzo, L., Stroud, D., & Weinel, M. (2023). Institutional complementarities and technological transformation: IVET responsiveness to Industry 4.0—Meeting emerging skill needs in the European steel industry. Economic and Industrial Democracy,44(1), 25–46. [CrossRef] Asif, M., Searcy, C., & Castka, P. (2023). ESG and Industry 5.0: The role of technologies in enhancing ESG disclosure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,195, 122806. [CrossRef] Aslam, F., Aimin, W., Li, M., & Ur Rehman, K. (2020). Innovation in the era of IoT and Industry 5.0: Absolute Innovation Management (AIM) framework. Information,11(2), 124. [CrossRef] Bag, S., & Pretorius, J. H. C. (2020). Relationships between industry 4.0, sustainable manufacturing and circular economy: Proposal of a research framework. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,ahead-of-print. [CrossRef] Bag, S., Pretorius, J. H. C., Gupta, S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Role of institutional pressures and resources in the adoption of big data analytics powered artificial intelligence, sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,163, 120420. [CrossRef] Beier, G., Ullrich, A., Niehoff, S., Reißig, M., & Habich, M. (2020). Industry 4.0: How it is defined from a sociotechnical perspective and how much sustainability it includes—A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,259, 120856. [CrossRef] Ben Youssef, A., & Mejri, I. (2023). Linking digital technologies to sustainability through Industry 5.0: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability,15(9), 7465. [CrossRef] Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton University Press. Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F. J., & Grigoroudis, E. (2022). Helix trilogy: The triple, quadruple, and quintuple innovation helices from a theory, policy, and practice set of perspectives. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,13(3), 2272–2301. [CrossRef] Carayannis, E. G., Canestrino, R., & Magliocca, P. (2023). From the dark side of Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0: Looking “Beyond the Box” to developing human-centric innovation ecosystems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,71, 6695–6711. [CrossRef] Carlsson, J. S. (2022). Exploring the many tales behind success: Understanding translations of the “intrapreneurships” management fashion as editing processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal,17(5), 19–37. [CrossRef] Ciucu-Durnoi, A. N., Delcea, C., Stănescu, A., Teodorescu, C. A., & Vargas, V. M. (2024). Beyond Industry 4.0: Tracing the path to Industry 5.0 through bibliometric analysis. Sustainability,16(12), 5251. [CrossRef] Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis. Academy of Management Review,40(1), 10–27. [CrossRef] Culot, G., Nassimbeni, G., Orzes, G., & Sartor, M. (2020). Behind the definition of Industry 4.0: Analysis and open questions. International Journal of Production Economics,226, 107617. [CrossRef] Czarniawska, B. (2009). Emerging institutions: Pyramids or anthills? Organization Studies,30(4), 423–441. [CrossRef] DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,48(2), 147–160. [CrossRef] Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: Integrating institutional theory, resource-based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management,30(2), 341–361. [CrossRef] Espina-Romero, L., Guerrero-Alcedo, J., Goñi Avila, N., Noroño Sánchez, J. G., Gutiérrez Hurtado, H., & Quiñones Li, A. (2023). Industry 5.0: Tracking scientific activity on the most influential industries, associated topics, and future research agenda. Sustainability,15(6), 5554. [CrossRef] European Commission. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a sustainable, human centric and resilient European industry. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/308407 (accessed on 1 December 2023). Firsova, S., Bilorus, T., Olikh, L., & Salimon, O. (2023). The landscape of post-institutional practice variation theories: From traveling ideas to institutional inertia. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,31(6), 2300–2321. [CrossRef] Fogaça, D., Grijalvo, M., & Sacomano Neto, M. (2022). An institutional perspective in the industry 4.0 scenario: A systematic literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,15(2), 309–322. [CrossRef] Fogaça, D. R., Grijalvo, M., Oliveros Iglesias, A., & Sacomano Neto, M. (2024). Institutionalization and framing of Industry 4.0: A framework for understanding stakeholders and comparing countries. The Bottom Line,37(2), 137–157. [CrossRef] Fogaça, D. R., Grijalvo, M., & Sacomano Neto, M. (2023). Frames of industry 4.0: Comparing companies and labor unions in Brazil and Spain. In F. P. García Márquez, I. Segovia Ramírez, P. J. Bernalte Sánchez, & A. Muñoz Del Río (Eds.), IoT and data science in engineering management (Vol. 160, pp. 213–218). Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 17 of 19 Gamberini, L., & Pluchino, P. (2024). Industry 5.0: A comprehensive insight into the future of work, social sustainability, sustainable development, and career. Australian Journal of Career Development,33(1), 5–14. [CrossRef] Ghobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Maroufkhani, P., & Morales, M. E. (2021). Industry 4.0 ten years on: A bibliometric and systematic review of concepts, sustainability value drivers, and success determinants. Journal of Cleaner Production,302, 127052. [CrossRef] Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Fathi, M., Rejeb, A., Foroughi, B., & Nikbin, D. (2024). Beyond Industry 4.0: A systematic review of Industry 5.0 technologies and implications for social, environmental and economic sustainability. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,ahead of print. [CrossRef] Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Tseng, M.-L., Grybauskas, A., Stefanini, A., & Amran, A. (2023). Behind the definition of Industry 5.0: A systematic review of technologies, principles, components, and values. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,40(6), 432–447. [CrossRef] Glynn, M. A., & D’Aunno, T. (2023). An intellectual history of institutional theory: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals,17(1), 301–330. [CrossRef] Greenwood, R., & Meyer, R. E. (2008). Influencing ideas: A celebration of dimaggio and powell (1983). Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 258–264. [CrossRef] Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals,5(1), 317–371. [CrossRef] Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Bag, S. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and institutional theories for Industry 4.0 and digital supply chain. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal,21(3), 139–157. [CrossRef] Howcroft, D., & Taylor, P. (2022). Automation and the future of work: A social shaping of technology approach. New Technology, Work and Employment,38(2), 351–370. [CrossRef] Hsu, C.-H., Wu, J.-Z., Zhang, T.-Y., & Chen, J.-Y. (2024). Deploying Industry 5.0 drivers to enhance sustainable supply chain risk resilience. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering,17(1), 211–238. [CrossRef] Ivanov, D. (2023). The Industry 5.0 framework: Viability-based integration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity perspectives. International Journal of Production Research,61(5), 1683–1695. [CrossRef] Jamil, M. A., Mustofa, R., Hossain, N. U. I., Rahman, S. M. A., & Chowdhury, S. (2024). A structural equation modeling framework for exploring the industry 5.0 and sustainable supply chain determinants. Supply Chain Analytics,6, 100060. [CrossRef] Kasinathan, P., Pugazhendhi, R., Elavarasan, R. M., Ramachandaramurthy, V. K., Ramanathan, V., Subramanian, S., Kumar, S., Nandhagopal, K., Raghavan, R. R. V., Rangasamy, S., Devendiran, R., & Alsharif, M. H. (2022). Realization of sustainable development goals with disruptive technologies by integrating Industry 5.0, Society 5.0, smart cities and villages. Sustainability, 14(22), 15258. [CrossRef] Kohnová, L., & Salajová, N. (2023). Impact of Industry 4.0 on companies: Value chain model analysis. Administrative Sciences,13(2), 35. [CrossRef] Kolade, O., & Owoseni, A. (2022). Employment 5.0: The work of the future and the future of work. Technology in Society,71, 102086. [CrossRef] Kuo, C.-C., Shyu, J. Z., & Ding, K. (2019). Industrial revitalization via industry 4.0—A comparative policy analysis among China, Germany and the USA. Global Transitions,1, 3–14. [CrossRef] Kuo, H.-M., Chen, T.-L., & Yang, C.-S. (2022). The effects of institutional pressures on shipping digital transformation in Taiwan. Maritime Business Review,7(2), 175–191. [CrossRef] Leng, J., Zhong, Y., Lin, Z., Xu, K., Mourtzis, D., Zhou, X., Zheng, P., Liu, Q., Zhao, J. L., & Shen, W. (2023). Towards resilience in Industry 5.0: A decentralized autonomous manufacturing paradigm. Journal of Manufacturing Systems,71, 95–114. [CrossRef] Lu, Y. (2017). Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 6, 1–10. [CrossRef] Madsen, D. Ø. (2019). The Emergence and Rise of Industry 4.0 Viewed through the lens of management fashion theory. Administrative Sciences,9(3), 71. [CrossRef] Madsen, D. Ø., Berg, T., & Di Nardo, M. (2023). Bibliometric trends in Industry 5.0 research: An updated overview. Applied System Innovation,6(4), 63. [CrossRef] Madsen, D. Ø., & Slåtten, K. (2023). Comparing the evolutionary trajectories of Industry 4.0 and 5.0: A management fashion perspective. Applied System Innovation,6(2), 48. [CrossRef] Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in canada. Academy of Management Journal,47(5), 657–679. [CrossRef] Martín-Gómez, A. M., Agote-Garrido, A., & Lama-Ruiz, J. R. (2024). A framework for sustainable manufacturing: Integrating Industry 4.0 technologies with Industry 5.0 values. Sustainability,16(4), 1364. [CrossRef] Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as Myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 18 of 19 Meyer, U. (2019). The emergence of an envisioned future. Sensemaking in the case of “Industrie 4.0” in Germany. Futures,109, 130–141. [CrossRef] Mukherjee, A. A., Raj, A., & Aggarwal, S. (2023). Identification of barriers and their mitigation strategies for industry 5.0 implementation in emerging economies. International Journal of Production Economics,257, 108770. [CrossRef] Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric solution. Sustainability,11(16), 4371. [CrossRef] Neumann, W. P., Winkelhaus, S., Grosse, E. H., & Glock, C. H. (2021). Industry 4.0 and the human factor—A systems framework and analysis methodology for successful development. International Journal of Production Economics,233, 107992. [CrossRef] Nielsen, J. A., Mathiassen, L., & Newell, S. (2022). Multidirectional idea travelling across an organizational field. Organization Studies, 43(6), 931–952. [CrossRef] Nirmal, D. D., Nageswara Reddy, K., Sohal, A. S., & Kumari, M. (2023). Development of a framework for adopting Industry 4.0 integrated sustainable supply chain practices: ISM–MICMAC approach. Annals of Operations Research,Advance online publication. [CrossRef] Ocasio, W. (2023). Institutions and their social construction: A cross-level perspective. Organization Theory,4(3), 26317877231194368. [CrossRef] Oesterreich, T. D., Schuir, J., & Teuteberg, F. (2020). The Emperor’s new clothes or an enduring IT fashion? Analyzing the lifecycle of Industry 4.0 through the lens of management fashion theory. Sustainability,12(21), 8828. [CrossRef] Ordieres-Meré, J., Gutierrez, M., & Villalba-Díez, J. (2023). Toward the industry 5.0 paradigm: Increasing value creation through the robust integration of humans and machines. Computers in Industry,150, 103947. [CrossRef] Oztemel, E., & Gursev, S. (2020). Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,31(1), 127–182. [CrossRef] Perkmann, M., Phillips, N., & Greenwood, R. (2022). Institutional arbitrage: How actors exploit institutional difference. Organization Theory,3(2), 26317877221090313. [CrossRef] Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review,29(4), 635–652. [CrossRef] Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B., & Gatti, C. (2018). Industry 4.0 in management studies: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 10(10), 3821. [CrossRef] Purdy, J., Ansari, S., & Gray, B. (2019). Are Logics Enough? Framing as an Alternative Tool for Understanding Institutional Meaning Making. Journal of Management Inquiry,28(4), 409–419. [CrossRef] Reischauer, G. (2018). Industry 4.0 as policy-driven discourse to institutionalize innovation systems in manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,132, 26–33. [CrossRef] Ritvala, T., & Granqvist, N. (2009). Institutional entrepreneurs and local embedding of global scientific ideas—The case of preventing heart disease in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Management,25(2), 133–145. [CrossRef] Rupp, M., Schneckenburger, M., Merkel, M., Börret, R., & Harrison, D. K. (2021). Industry 4.0: A technological-oriented definition based on bibliometric analysis and literature review. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,7(1), 68. [CrossRef] Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 218–242). SAGE Publications Ltd. [CrossRef] Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review,2(1), 1. [CrossRef] Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE. Sony, M. (2020). Pros and cons of implementing Industry 4.0 for the organizations: A review and synthesis of evidence. Production & Manufacturing Research,8(1), 244–272. [CrossRef] Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2020). Critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0: A review and future research direction. Production Planning & Control,31(10), 799–815. [CrossRef] Teixeira, J. E., & Tavares-Lehmann, A. T. C. P. (2022). Industry 4.0 in the European union: Policies and national strategies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,180, 121664. [CrossRef] Tortorella, G. L., Saurin, T. A., Hines, P., Antony, J., & Samson, D. (2023). Myths and facts of industry 4.0. International Journal of Production Economics,255, 108660. [CrossRef] Ullah, M., Khan, M. W. A., Kuang, L. C., Hussain, A., Rana, F., Khan, A., & Sajid, M. R. (2020). A structural model for the antecedents of sustainable project management in Pakistan. Sustainability,12(19), 8013. [CrossRef] Ventura, M. A. D. A., & Silva e Meirelles, D. (2025). Business model structuration in Industry 4.0: An analysis of the value-based strategies of smart service providers in Brazil. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,36(1), 134–158. [CrossRef] Wamba, S. F., & Queiroz, M. M. (2020). Industry 4.0 and the supply chain digitalisation: A blockchain diffusion perspective. Production Planning & Control,33, 193–210. [CrossRef] Wedlin, L., & Sahlin, K. (2017). The imitation and translation of management ideas. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 102–127). SAGE Publications Ltd. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 118 19 of 19 Westney, D. E., & Piekkari, R. (2020). Reversing the translation flow: Moving organizational practices from Japan to the U.S. Journal of Management Studies,57(1), 57–86. [CrossRef] Wæraas, A. (2021). Understanding change in circulating constructs: Collective learning, translation and adaptation. The Learning Organization,28(1), 1–14. [CrossRef] Wæraas, A., & Nielsen, J. A. (2016). Translation theory ‘Translated’: Three perspectives on translation in organizational research. International Journal of Management Reviews,18(3), 236–270. [CrossRef] Xu, L. D., Xu, E. L., & Li, L. (2018). Industry 4.0: State of the art and future trends. International Journal of Production Research,56(8), 2941–2962. [CrossRef] Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, conception and perception. Journal of Manufacturing Systems,61, 530–535. [CrossRef] Zhou, B., & Zheng, L. (2023). Technology-pushed, market-pulled, or government-driven? The adoption of industry 4.0 technologies in a developing economy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,34(9), 115–138. [CrossRef] Zilber, T. B., & Goodman, Y. C. (2021). Technology in the time of corona: A critical institutional reading. Information and Organization, 31(1), 100342. [CrossRef] Zizic, M. C., Mladineo, M., Gjeldum, N., & Celent, L. (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), 5221. [CrossRef] Zorzenon, R., Lizarelli, F. L., & De A. Moura, D. B. A. (2022). What is the potential impact of industry 4.0 on health and safety at work? Safety Science,153, 105802. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.