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.

Purpose: The growing adoption of Industry 4.0 offers opportunities and promotes changes in markets, business models, supply chains and operations. However, adopting new technologies and practices is beyond the simple rational decision and the search for efficiency. There are contextual social and cultural systems that influence the behavior of people and organizations. Hence, institutional theory can yield interesting insights in the study of Industry 4.0. The purpose of this article is to examine how and to what extent institutional theory has been used to explain Industry 4.0.Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of Industry 4.0 and the broader field of digitalization was performed using Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The authors analyzed the results using multivariate techniques (Descending Hierarchical Classification and Correspondence Factor Analysis) with the aid of the IRAMUTEQ software.Findings: Results indicate there is little research that uses an institutional perspective to investigate Industry 4.0. Most of them are quantitative and are based on the concept of institutional isomorphism. Qualitative studies, e.g., case studies and the use of theories such as institutional logics and institutional work could generate a richer comprehension of Industry 4.0. Besides, consideration of meso (e.g., organizational fields) and macro (e.g., countries) level of analysis should be more extensively explored.Originality/value: This paper identifies research gaps and points to relevant issues frequently not considered by researchers and practitioners. It reinforces a call for an institutional perspective where the concept of Industry 4.0 can be understood as a rationalized myth. Therefore, the meaning, practices, and consequences of Industry 4.0 implementation are expected to vary across organizations and countries.

Organizational climate impacts on the employee’s well-being, commitment and positive behavior. Most studies to assess climate in healthcare organizations use qualitative and/or statistical methods. Here, we propose a general framework, based on a multiple criteria decision making/aid (MCDM / A) method, which considers different objectives in a single problem. Such framework includes internal and external factors to assess organizational climate and presented adequate results when tested in a particular case. To assess the organizational climate, we use the ELECTRE TRI method, an outranking method that combine the decision-maker (DM) preferences and his value judgments. We conclude that MCDM methods can improve agility, provide a systemic vision on organizational climate assessment and contribute to the decision-making process

Purpose: This paper aims to propose and assess a framework to analyse the institutionalization of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) through a framing analysis. Design/methodology/approach: The framework was developed by combining the institutional approach with orders of worth, drawing insights from a comprehensive literature review. To assess it, the authors conducted a qualitative analysis of annual reports from companies with the largest market capitalization over a six-year period and interviewed union representatives in Spain and Sweden. Findings: The framework comprises five dimensions (industrial, market, civic, green and connectionist). The empirical results reveal that companies consistently frame I4.0 with an emphasis on industrial and market perspectives. In contrast, unions place a stronger emphasis on civic issues, with Spanish unions holding a more negative view of I4.0, expressing concerns about working conditions and unemployment. Research limitations/implications: The proposed framework brings interesting insights into the dispute over the meaning of I4.0. Although this empirical study was limited to companies and unions in Sweden and Spain, the framework can be expanded for broader investigations, involving additional stakeholders in one or more countries. The discussion outlined using the varieties of capitalism approach is relevant for understanding the connection between the meso and macro levels of this phenomenon. Practical implications: In navigating the landscape of I4.0, managers should remain flexible, and ready to tailor their strategies and operations to align with the distinct demands and expectations of stakeholders and their specific institutional environments. Similarly, policymakers are urged to acknowledge these contextual intricacies when crafting strategies for implementing I4.0 initiatives across national settings. Social implications: Based on the empirical findings, this study underscores the importance of fostering social dialogue and involving stakeholders in the implementation of I4.0. Policymakers and other stakeholders should take proactive measures, tailored to each country’s context, to mitigate potential adverse effects on labour and workers. Originality/value: The study presents a novel framework that facilitates the systematic comparison of I4.0 framing by different actors. This contribution is significant because the way actors frame I4.0 affects its interpretation and implementation. Additionally, the aggregate analysis of results enables cross-country comparisons, enhancing our understanding of regional disparities.

This article investigates the evolving domain of Startup 4.0/5.0, which leverages advanced Industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies to support startups’ processes and activities. As startups face increasing complexity and competitiveness, understanding how digital innovations and emerging approaches contribute to improved performance, agility, and innovation becomes essential. Through a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed articles published up to December 2024, this study maps the current research landscape. The review responds to key research questions related to business sectors, applied tools, decision objectives, conceptual framings, and required skills and competences. Findings reveal a growing yet still underexplored field, with multidisciplinary relevance and a concentration of research in countries like Brazil and Germany, spanning sectors such as Advanced Manufacturing, Agrotech, Healthcare, and Education. Most reviewed works emphasize technical, managerial, and market-oriented perspectives, focusing on productivity and competitiveness, while elements central to Industry 5.0, such as sustainability, human-centric design, and resilience, remain marginal, appearing in few studies. Decision objectives were classified into key areas, including innovation, sustainability, digital transformation, and interinstitutional collaboration, highlighting the strategic role of digital technologies in business model redesign and ecosystem development. Moreover, the review identifies critical competences required for professionals in Startup 4.0/5.0 contexts, organizing several core competences into personal, social, and cultural categories and linking them to specific technologies, aiming to inform workforce training and behavioral change. By synthesizing these insights, the article contributes to a deeper theoretical understanding of Startup 4.0/5.0 and offers practical implications for this field.

The growing concern about climate change and the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions have prompted the construction sector to adopt innovative sustainability strategies. Bioinspiration—defined as the use of natural forms, processes, and systems as design models—offers a wide range of potential applications. Within this discipline, three complementary approaches are distinguished: biointegration, bioimitation, and bioutilization. While prior research has investigated low-carbon practices in construction, there is limited systematic analysis of how bioinspired strategies are applied across different life-cycle phases. This study addresses that gap by systematically identifying and analyzing bioinspiration in the construction sector. A review was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, and Engineering Village, complemented by a proprietary industrial database. The methodology followed a structured sequence: identification of keywords, screening against inclusion and exclusion criteria, classification by life-cycle phase and biomimicry scale, and synthesis according to technology readiness levels (TRLs). Results show that the materials and components phase exhibits the highest prevalence of applications, particularly mineralization and biobased composites, followed by planning and design, where thermal regulation and regenerative frameworks predominate. When these strategies are explicitly oriented toward sustainability and regenerative objectives, they can be considered examples of biomimicry, contributing to carbon neutrality through direct CO₂ uptake, reduced material intensity, extended service life, and enhanced energy efficiency. The framework developed enables a clearer classification of contributions and their maturity levels, thereby improving their generalizability across contexts. By aligning bioinspiration with the challenges of the sector, and biomimicry with its sustainability goals, this review provides insights of practical value for professionals, researchers, and decision-makers working toward carbon-neutral built environments. Graphical Abstract Schematic overview of biomimetic approaches to carbon neutrality in construction across the life-cycle stages highlighting nature-inspired pathways for CO₂ uptake, emissions reduction, material effi ciency, and service-life extension.