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

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.


Introduction
IN 4.0, or the fourth industrial revolution, is considered a technology-driven (or technocentric) and hightech strategy (Demir, Döven, and Sezen 2019;Müller 2020;Xu et al. 2021) 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 2018) and minimum human intervention (Demir, Döven, and Sezen 2019).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 2018).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. 2022;Müller 2020;Neumann et al. 2021;Sgarbossa et al. 2020;Sindhwani et al. 2022), at the expense of other socio-environmental concerns such as regional inequality and environmental degradation (Renda et al. 2022).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 2018) but which also places emphasis not just on profit maximisation but also on humans, society and the environment (Breque, Nul, and Petridis 2021;Ghobakhloo et al. 2022;Müller 2020;Renda et al. 2022).
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 2021;Gladden 2019;Nahavandi 2019).In this way, IN 5.0 is expected to complement and extend the hallmark features of IN 4.0 (Müller 2020); 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 2021;Müller 2020).IN 5.0 is linked to 'society 5.0 which was first presented by the Japanese government in 2016 (Huang et al. 2022).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. 2022;Maddikunta et al. 2022).For an in depth comparison of the two concepts, see Huang et al. (2022).
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. 2021).The disruptive impact of technological revolutions was initially captured by the concept of technological waves (Kondratieff and Stolper 1935), 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 2021).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. 2022).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 2022).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: 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.

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 2021;Baroroh and Chu 2022).A number of theories have been used to explain how and why technological transitions occur as well as how to manage or promote them.Coenen, Benneworth, and Truffer (2012), 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.

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. 2018).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.
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 2013; Panetti et al. 2018).
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 2004).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.

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 2019).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), sociotechnical 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 2002;Geels 2005;Geels and Schot 2007).There is no single cause or driver of change at work (Geels 2011), but rather, there is 'circular causality' in which processes at different levels interact with each other (De Propris and Bailey 2021).

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. 2017).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 2022;Xu, Xu, and Li 2018).For example, by redesigning the organisation of production inside firms, emerging technologies may impact on employment (De Propris and Bailey 2021).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 2021).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. 2020).

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 2002).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 2002).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 2004).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 2007).

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 2002;2004;2006;2018).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 2019;Geels 2002).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 2021).

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).
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 2021;Cotrino, Sebastian, and Gonzalez-Gaya 2020;Di Pasquale et al. 2021;Kadir, Broberg, and Conceição 2019;Mukhuty, Upadhyay, and Rothwell 2022).The second camp of studies under this group explore technological advancements within IN4.0 that provide human and societal advantages (Agnusdei, Elia, and Gnoni 2021;Baroroh and Chu 2022;Glock et al. 2021;Mark, Rauch, and Matt 2021;Miqueo, Torralba, and Yagüe-Fabra 2020;Nikitas et al. 2020;Zheng et al. 2021).A third camps explores stakeholder expectations or perceptions or policy and regulations involving IN 4.0 as well as technological advancements that can 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. 2022;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. 2022), Digital Twins (Mylonas et al. 2021) or AI (Brunetti, Gena, and Vernero 2022) 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. 2022).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 2022). Similarly, Grabowska, Saniuk, andGajdzik (2022)  We identified only two papers under the fourth camp (Mourtzis, Angelopoulos, and Panopoulos 2022;Zizic, Mladineo, Gjeldum, and Celent 2022)

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 (2007) 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.

SLR principles and methods
Following the MLP theory outlined in the earlier section, (Geels 2002;2004;2005;2006;2007;2011;2018), 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 Figure 1, 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.

Systematic literature review method
In order to provide a neutral basis for data collection and analysis (Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart 2003) 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. 2009).The PRISMA flow chart that reports the different phases of this systematic literature review is shown in Figure 2.

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).

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:

Data analysis
Collected data were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis.The qualitative analysis involved thematic and content synthesis through three-stagesline-by-line coding, formulation of descriptive themes and development of analytical themes (Thomas and Harden 2008).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.

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 Figure 1 and the PRISMA diagram shown in Figure 2, 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.

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.

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 (2021), 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 (2019), 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.

Analysis of content-based categories of included papers
According to the content-based categories in Figure 3, 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.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.

Data analysis with specific purposes: three research questions
The data analysis for the three questions include both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

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 (2019) discuss Digital Twins and Artificial intelligence as technologies related to Flexible production/Resilience.

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. (2021), IoT and Cloud computing were discussed as technologies with an impact on Pollution reduction.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).

Overview of key enabling technologies for economic, social, and environmental sustainability
A brief definition of these technologies is provided in Appendix E2.

Policy/regulations
Among the IN 4.0 papers, the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) (Mark et al. 2019) is discussed as a driver for the use of physical and cognitive assistance support technologies.Responsible research and innovation (Stahl and Coeckelbergh 2016) 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 2022).Many IN 5.0 papers discussed policies such as United Nations sustainable developmental goals UN SDG (Althabhawi, Zainol, and Bagheri 2022;Amadasun et al. 2021;Ávila-Gutiérrez, Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and Aguayo-González 2022;Carayannis, Draper, and Bhaneja 2021;Ghobakhloo et al. 2022;Potocan, Mulej, and Nedelko 2021;Renda et al. 2022;Roring and How 2022;Sindhwani et al. 2022;Taj and Jhanjhi 2022).Others focus on occupational Health and Safety policy (Ávila-Gutiérrez, Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and Aguayo-González 2022) or regulations around responsible implementation science (Ozdemir and Hekim 2018) 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.

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 2017), cobots or AR (Cimini et al. 2019;Fast-Berglund and Romero 2019;Kaasinen et al. 2020;Neumann et al. 2021).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 2019;Berrah et al. 2021;Cimini et al. 2020).For example, improved robotic systems (Weiss et al. 2016) and the use of Drones (Cimini et al. 2020) 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 2019;Huang et al. 2022;Longo, Nicoletti, and Padovano 2022;Renda et al. 2022).
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. 2021;Mattsson et al. 2020;Rojas, Wehrle, and Vidoni 2020) or concern about technologies leading to social problems at work (Kadir and Broberg 2021).Similarly, social concerns related to a collaborative work environment were discussed in IN 5.0 papers (Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello 2020;Lu et al. 2022;Nagy et al. 2022;Renda et al. 2022;Wahyuningtyas, Disastra, and Rismayani 2022).

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. 2018;Faber, Bützler, and Schlick 2015;Fletcher et al. 2020;Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello 2020;Neumann et al. 2021;Shneiderman 2020;Tancredi et al. 2020;Zhang et al. 2022)

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. 2020;Martinez et al. 2021;Zhang et al. 2022).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. 2022;Paschek, Luminosu, and Ocakci 2022;Pathak et al. 2019;Sharma et al. 2022).

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, realtime data and sensor-generated data, which is accessible, meaningful and useful, is now an expectation of many stakeholders (Moencks et al. 2022a;Nikiforova 2021;Soltysik-Piorunkiewicz and Zdonek 2021;Taj and Jhanjhi 2022).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. 2022).

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 2022).

Socio-cultural Factors
The Ageing of the working population is discussed as a driver for human centric IN 4.0 (Digiesi et al. 2020;Kagermann, Wahlster, and Helbig 2012;Panagou, Fruggiero, and 8. For the IN 5.0 papers, there is more emphasis on environmental factors (15 times) compared to socioculturalageing 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.

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, 2006) 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. 2022), advanced IoT including internet of No Things (6G), Internet of Abilities, Internet of Things Services and People (IoTSP) (Maddikunta et al. 2022;Mourtzis et al. 2022), Advanced Blockchain including Blockchain integrated with IoT, i.e.B-IoT (Maier 2021), and Advanced Robotics including persuasive robots (Maddikunta et al. 2022) 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 Figure 6.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, 2006) as the pattern by which the transition from IN 4.0 towards IN 5.0 is taking place.
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, 2006).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.

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 Figure 6, 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.

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 2020).
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 2002), 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.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.

Conclusion
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. 2018).Therefore, future studies might explore other transition theories or a combination of theories.

Notes on contributors
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.
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 UKRIfunded 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.
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.

( 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?
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.
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 (2022) 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.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria and their explanations.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The PRISMA flow chart that reports the different phases of the systematic literature review (SLR).
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).
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 4 and 5 below, provide visual representations of key words that appeared most frequently within human centric IN 4.0 and IN 5.0 papers.

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

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Cluster map for frequently appearing keywords in IN 5.0 papers.
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 (2022a) discuss next generation Digital Twins as a technology that is related to Cognitive & Perceptual support.
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.
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.
Some IN 4.0 papers(Berrah et al. 2021;Jiao et al. 2020;Mark et al. 2019;Stahl and Coeckelbergh 2016; Umbrello and Yampolskiy 2022) and IN 5.0 (Ávila-Gutiérrez, Suarez-Fernandez de Miranda, and Aguayo-González 2022; Gladden 2019; Longo, Padovano, and Umbrello 2020;Lu et al. 2022) 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.
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.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.
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.
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 . 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 2021).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.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Multilevel perspective overview of the transition.
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 7 .
Regime factors discussed in IN 5.0 papers.

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