"The Nexus of Sustainability and Industry 5.0: Assessing Canadian Organizations'
Readiness for the Next Technological Revolution."

Professor Dr. Nisa Chand

Ada del Carmen Sandoval Madrid (2027372)
University Canada West
MBAR 661 Consulting / Research Project
September 2023

2

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Research Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Data Analyses ............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Data Findings and Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 38
Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................................................... 52
Opportunities for Future Research................................................................................................................ 53
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... 54
References .................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Appendixes..................................................................................................................................................................... 66

3

Abstract
The contemporary business landscape currently witnesses one of the most profound and
revolutionary technological transformations -Industry 5.0. This revolution compels organizations
with the need to navigate the intricate balance between the adoption of innovation and upholding
the principles of sustainable economic growth. This investigation aims to uncover the strategies
currently employed by Canadian organizations in anticipation of the challenges and opportunities
presented by the synergy between sustainability and technological integration.
Industry 5.0 presents an emerging phase that envisions a novel confluence: The
empowerment of human beings in their interactions with machines, and cutting-edge
technologies. In an era of technological innovations, the incorporation of artificial intelligence,
and machine learning, a paradigm shift towards the importance of human-centric values is a key
driver of sustainability. The paper argues that this human-centric approach is vital to attain
efficient, long-term, sustainable social, environmental, and economic practices.
This thesis presents a qualitative approach to research based on fourteen in-depth
interviews conducted with senior managers and executives from various industrial sectors in
Canada.
Results obtained from a qualitative approach show that Canadian organizations have
adopted sustainable practices, mainly to comply with required normative and governmental
policies formally. These practices have yet to fully permeate private enterprises due mainly to
the high costs of incorporating sustainable practices in all areas and departments or to budgetary
restrictions and priorities in other strategic areas. Public organizations, on the other hand, show
more standardized and formal sustainable strategies implementation framework.

4
On the topic of the adoption of new technologies and the implementation of Industry 5.0related practices, results show that the concept still needs to be fully understood. Organizations
in both public and private sectors have adopted the latest trends in hardware, software,
automatization of processes, and technology; however, several areas of opportunities are
identified, regarding training and development programs, adoption of costly technologies, and
fostering a change mindset across organizations.

5

Introduction
Organizations face new challenges to balance economic growth with sustainable practices
in an era of rapid technological advancements, adaptive environments, and changing global
settings as part of a world becoming more inclusive, respectful, and emphatic towards humancentric values (Prasanna et al., 2019; Gupta, 2022).
Canadian organizations are no exception in the face of unprecedented global environmental
challenges. Like many enterprises around the world, they have recently accepted the relevance and
importance of implementing sustainable practices and incorporating cutting-edge technologies in
their organizational goals and regular operations to foster a more ethically responsible business
landscape (Dodds & Holmes, 2011; Delannon et al., 2016; Matson et al., 2016).
As Industry 4.0 set the foundations for a more digitally connected and efficient
manufacturing landscape in the last decades, Industry 5.0 presents the new phase of the industrial
revolution by providing an opportunity for organizations to find a balance between the latest
technologies and the opportunity to reach financial objectives through sustainable, more humancentered practices (Ben Youssef & Mejri, 2023). Industry 5.0 represents the convergence of
technology and human-centered, sustainable practices within organizational settings (Aslam et al.,
2020). After the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that business excellence and financial
success for organizations could be reached in the upcoming decades only through business models
characterized by long-term, sustainable, and resilient development models (Suciu et al., 2023).
To better comprehend the relationship between sustainable organizational practices and
Industry 5.0, it is necessary to systematically examine relevant literature on the evolution of both
concepts through history and, more particularly, the history of sustainable practices and the
embrace of new technological trends within Canadian organizations. How are Canadian

6
organizations adapting to the convergence of sustainability and Industry 5.0, and how are their
technological and sustainable strategies implemented? In order to answer these questions, this
thesis outlines a qualitative academic research study aimed at exploring how Canadian
organizations are navigating the encounter between sustainable practices and technological
advancements to embrace Industry 5.0 to explore the status of sustainable organizational practices
and how Canadian organizations are responding to the rapid technological advancements and a
growing emphasis on human-centric values.
Through an extensive literature review and in-depth interviews with employees of diverse
Canadian organizations located in the province of British Columbia from different industries and
diversity of hierarchical levels, this research aims to explore some of the current strategies
employed by Canadian organizations in preparation for the upcoming challenges and potential
synergies between sustainability initiatives and technological integration.
It is crucial to clarify that, in a world in which seeing, assessing, and identifying pivotal
events as linear, chronologically happening, one after another, to understand the notion of Industry
5.0 fully, it is required to adopt a new vision, to be open to a new perspective in order to fully
understand the relevance of such a pivotal trend in which technology meets human-centric,
sustainable practices within organizations. Although, in order to understand the foundations of
where sustainability and Industry 5.0 meet, a chronological journey through a literature review
must be addressed, readers should go beyond a sequential analysis of events and more through a
discovery of how the synergy between technology and the evolution of human-centric efforts in
an organization has created a new pivotal angle from which to analyze and understand the
readiness of organizations for a new technological revolution in which technological advances
cannot be measured without a symbiotic relation with humans and society.

7

Literature Review
The urgency for environmental concerns in organizations from the beginning of this
twenty-first century has compelled organizations to reevaluate their operations' quality and adopt
sustainable practices (Matson et al., 2016; Gupta, 2012). Industry 4.0 has brought to systems and
operations a wide range of technological innovations such as artificial intelligence, blockchain,
and the Internet of Things (IoT), opening new opportunities for organizations to optimize
procedures, increase efficiency, and revolutionize business models (Gupta, 2012). Industry 4.0
has given rise to a more digitally connected manufacturing scene in several industries; Industry
5.0 envisions a more harmonious coexistence between humans and machines, emphasizing value
creation, sustainability, and social problem-solving (Prasanna, 2019; Xu et al., 2021; Turner,
2022; Yitmen et al., 2023).
However, as opposed to all previous industrial revolutions, Industry 5.0 does not
necessarily represent the "next step" as this trend has gained momentum in parallel with Industry
4.0. In order to understand the foundations of where sustainability and industry 5.0 meet, a
chronological journey through a literature review must be addressed; however, we must go
beyond a sequential analysis of events and more through a discovery of how the synergy
between technology and the evolution of human-centric efforts in an organization has created a
new pivotal angle from which to analyze and understand the readiness of organizations for a new
technological revolution in which technological advances cannot be measured without a
symbiotic relation with humans and society. As Xu et al. (2021) have recently expressed,
"Industry 5.0 is not a technology-driven revolution, but a value-driven initiative that drives
technological transformation with a particular purpose" (Xu, 2021, p. 533).

8
The Industrial Revolutions
The analysis and studies of the industrial revolutions have aimed to understand the
economic impact of diverse technological advancements on societies and economies worldwide.
All these revolutions have opened the window to new realities for civilization in education,
manufacturing, innovations and economic development, productivity, and work efficiency. The
relevance of these industrial paradigms can be defined in three major revolutions in the world
based on the introduction of new products through diverse means of production, a disruption of
the accepted status quo, and new requirements for workforce and infrastructure as these so-called
revolutions generated the necessity for new rules of engagement in business, production, and
manufacturing, changing the dynamics of the economy and social structures (Koc & Teker,
2019). What all industrial revolutions have in common is an apparent "transformation of the
human, biological, labor, and social capacity within the main industrial formations" (Melnyk et
al., 2019, p. 384).
Industry 1.0
The Industrial Revolution 1.0 was defined in England in 1760, reaching the new United
States of America in the late 18th century by the standardization of mechanical production based
on water and the steam engine, substituting the handicraft-based economy dominant until then.
(Adel, 2022). The use of cast iron gave birth to textile industry technologies and a generalization
of industrial production, replacing some processes completed through craftsmanship and manual
labor (Popkova et al., 2018; Loy et al., 2021). Using machines for the first time brought a rise in
productivity. It took manufacturing a step ahead, away from the dependency of manual
elaboration of goods depending on manual skilled labor (Coleman, 1956). The main effect of this
first industrial revolution was improving the standards of quality of life in the Western world, in

9
which the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita grew significantly due to the emergence of
modern capitalistic economies (Loy et al., 2021).
Some of the social effects that Industry 1.0 brought to society mostly rely on the
significant shift from artisanal crafty work at home to going to the factories. However, there
were no safety regulations, and most workers had to work more than fourteen hours per day, six
or seven days a week, to secure minimum wage; most workers would risk their lives without
complaining to keep their jobs secure. Women and children were paid even less, increasing the
factory owners' economic gains (Loy et al., 2021).
Industry 2.0
This era witnessed notable economic expansion, heightened business efficiency, and
increased unemployment due to the automation of tasks previously performed by human labor in
factories (Adel, 2022). These two characteristics completely changed the manufacturing
process's paradigm and history. The assembly line significantly improved manufacturing
efficiency by reducing production costs, producing goods faster, and creating higher-wage jobs.
With the generation of mass production, division of labor took place as different workers would
oversee different stages of producing goods. The development of innovations, technologies, and
mechanisms related to the transportation of goods from factories, as well as the standardization
of the telegraph to improve communication regardless of the distance, allowed for new ways to
efficiently communicate and improve commercial trade (Koc & Teker, 2019; Loy et al., 2021).
These first industrial revolutions generated a life-changing deal in society. The social effect for
women of the Industrial Revolution 1.0 meant a new paradigm in modern societies. Women
entered the workforce for the first time and competed with men for jobs, as women were
commonly paid a third of a man's salary (Loy et al., 2021).

10
Industry 3.0
Several advancements in computer technology drove the Industrial Revolution 3.0, the
emergence and normalization of personal computers, the emergence of semiconductors as drivers
of new technological innovations, the transfer from analog to digital systems, and the birth of the
internet (Melnyk et al., 2019). Commonly identified as having originated in 1969 with the
invention of the first programmable logic controller (PLC), the third industrial revolution took
manufacturing to automate production through electronics, introducing information technologies
and helping organizations reach levels of productivity and efficiency never encountered before.
The main characteristic of this revolution is defined by b mass production and the use of digital,
integrated circuit chips (Adel, 2022). It was until the decade of the eighties and nineties that the
use of information and communications technology (ICT) with the integration of
telecommunication, the use of microelectronics in several industries, the use of renewable energy
and resources, as well as the generalization of energy efficiency and renewable energy-based
technologies entered the realm of business and organizations beyond manufacturing and
production (Janicke & Jacob, 2013).
During this stage of industrial development, the relevance of human labor experienced a
decline for the first time, as the speed of production due to the use of new technologies in
organization generated a shift in the necessities of human labor in the process and manufacturing
of products (Koc & Teker, 2019).
From the societal perspective, globalization and global governance became regular terms
related to industrialization and manufacturing processes, as the automation of factories, the
advancements in telecommunications, and the development of biotechnology crossed frontiers;
the development of these three core technologies of this industrial revolution, microelectronics,

11
computers, and telecommunications, generated the environment for economic globalization of
markets, production research, and development (Khan, 1987; Taalbi, 2019).
Industry 4.0
The term Industrial Revolution 4.0 was initially used in 2011 by the German government
and later popularized in the 2015 World Economic Forum (Bai et al., 2020). Industry 4.0 became
a technological revolution characterized by the deep integration of communication, information,
and intelligence technologies into the production processes, which aims to improve efficiency
and productivity in a high-tech plan to become more competitive in a new, globalized world (Xu
et al.,2021).
This revolution is based on the concept of Cyber-Physical-Systems (CPS), in which a
world where machines can talk to each other easily through the Internet of Things (IoT), and
people can join through the Internet of People (IoP) is envisioned. This change allows
organizations to put their labor systems into virtual environments and use artificial intelligence to
analyze changing data and make intelligent choices. Integrating new technologies is believed to
lead to several benefits for organizations by making business models more profitable and
improving workplace conditions' efficiency and quality (Bai et al., 2020). Studies by scholars
such as Goetz & Jankowska (2020) and Dos Santos (2021) have proved that the implementation
of new technologies related to Industry 4.0 is linked to a sustainable increase of a company's
levels of competitiveness regardless of the industry where these technological innovations are
being implemented.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is based on the utilization of high-tech production
equipment to maximize the use of computerized processes in production and manufacturing,
under the assumption that when reducing the number of human labor and interaction in

12
production, human mistakes diminish, making production more cost-efficient. Another goal of
the fourth industrial revolution is creating more choices and flexibility in the production line to
meet personalized customer requests. By accelerating the production process, the fourth
industrial revolution intends to increase communication channels with the final consumer and
reduce the waiting period for orders to proceed (Koc & Teker, 2019). "With the integration of
technologies like artificial intelligence, automatization, and the Internet of Things (IoT), the
industry has experienced unprecedented levels of efficiency and productivity" (Suciu et al., 2023,
p. 2). Industry 4.0 focuses more on implementing new technologies, digitalization, and the use of
AI to increase production rather than sustainability or a people-centered approach (Suciu et al.,
2023).
This new phase of the industrial revolution comes with some direct consequences for
human labor, as digitalization and technological innovations affect the labor market, as certain
functions performed by employees in the past can now be realized by software, robotic
processes, and technologically enhanced assembly lines. New jobs requiring unique and different
specialization skills will require developing new types of specialization and training (Suciu et al.,
2023).
Industry 4.0 has also shown organizations lack qualified human resources to efficiently
deal with the implementation of current advanced technological solutions, as the innovation
cycle is occurring at a faster pace than changes can be made to the labor markets to develop
employees' skills, which imbalances the market and industry growth, reflected in high and longterm structural unemployment (Suciu et al., 2023).
The challenges presented by the fourth industrial revolution, however, have also become
the platform for the birth of industrial revolution 5.0 by recognizing the potential risks implied in

13
the latent possibility of losing control over artificial intelligence and technological cyberphysical systems add the future challenge of societal degradation because of a diminished
necessity for human labor as part of the production processes, and reduced need for human skills
in a new era characterized by the Internet of Things (IoT) (Melnyk et al., 2019).
Identifying sustainability drivers in Industry 4.0 has become a growing research topic, focusing
on sustainable and green manufacturing (Gupta, 2022). Authors like Stock et al. (2018), Jena et
al. (2020), Farrell et al. (2020), and Ghobakhloo et al. (2021) have most recently centered their
research on the effects of Industry 4.0 on finding cleaner and innovative technological
production solutions, implication on social sustainability, optimization in the utilization of
resources, waste reduction and waste management, as well as other social implications of this
industrial revolution in employment generation and technological skills development.
Industry 5.0
The progress that information technology and digital transformation tools have shown in
recent years has ignited the substantial shift in both the business and the industrial sectors known
as Industry 4.0, which has emphasized mainly all technological aspects related to business,
operations, and production, buy it has lacked a holistic vision which also involves sustainable
social and environmental practices, as well as the human elements of the business (Mourtzis et
al., 2022; Saniuk et al., 2022).
The European Commission officially used the term Firth Industrial Revolution (Industry
5.0) in two virtual workshops with several research and technology organizations' participants
during discussions on the "Industry 5.0 - Towards a Sustainable, Human-centric and Resilient
European Industry" report released on January 5th, 2021 (European Commission, 2021; Xu et
al., 2021). The European Commission defines Industry 5.0 as a natural progression from 4.0,

14
focusing on research and innovation as the engine of a resilient, human-centered,
environmentally friendly European industry (Yitmen et al., 2023).
According to Nahavandi (2019), "Industry 5.0 brings back the human workforce to the
factory, where human and machine are paired to increase the process efficiency by utilizing the
human brainpower and creativity through the integration of workflows with intelligent systems"
(Nahavandi, 2019, p. 3).
Industry 5.0 is a future-looking concept that involves human-centered sustainable
manufacturing systems in collaboration with robotic technologies and resilient manufacturing
systems (Baradaran, 2019). Huang et al. (2022) state that "the industry 5.0 paradigm promotes
systems' agility and resiliency by utilizing flexible and adaptable technologies. Furthermore,
attempts to lead action on sustainability, respect planetary boundaries, and promote talents and
diversity" (Huang, 2022, p. 425). When analyzing the evolution of the 5.0 paradigms, some key
enablers can be identified: a vision of human-centricity, resilience, and sustainability, where the
causal relationships between these factors meet the advancements in technology and innovation
(Xu et al., 2021; Yitmen et al., 2023).
According to authors like Yitmen et al. (2023), the COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the
necessity of shedding light on employee value and environmental and social factors in the
technologies and innovations developed through Industry 4.0. The pandemic's impact led
businesses to address the vulnerabilities of global supply chains and the necessity to build more
resilient organizations with a sustainable vision and perspective centered around human wellbeing (Xu et al., 2021). "The adaptability of production methods and their effects on the
environment are significant concerns in the industry 5.0 paradigm" (Yitmen et al., 2023, p. 1).
This new paradigm is already enlightening the fact that as Industry 5.0 emphasizes the

15
relationship between human and machine collaboration, human resources in organizations will
be impacted as the transition to a more human value-centered vision will bring new opportunities
but also challenges for both employers and employees (Siciu et al., 2023).
Siciu et al. (2023) define Industry 5.0 as a Human Industry based on combining human
creativity and know-how with the 6 Rs of sustainability: Recognize, Reconsider, Realize,
Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. "In Industry 5.0, humans and robots collaborate and work together"
(Siciu et al., 2023, p. 3), for which human labor must have specific core competencies and skills.
For Industry 5.0 to be successful, several implications must be addressed and prevented. For
example, proper training will aid the human workforce in quickly adapting to the new
technologies while collaborating with automatized processes and artificial machine intelligence
(Siciu et al., 2023).
Zutshi (2019) emphasizes specific characteristics and specifications when comparing
Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0, as seen in Figure 1. Industry 5.0 brings back the social,
environmental, and sustainable dimensions into regular business operations and functions. The
focus on the new industrial revolution changes from machines to enhancing customer
experiences; for example, it brings back the value of human-centric functions into factories.
Figure 1
Highlights of Industry 5.0 compared to Industry 4.0

16

Note. Industry 5.0—Bringing Empowered Humans Back to the Shop Floor, by Zutshi, Aarop
(2019). 30th International Exhibition for Industrial Automation, 5IR: The Emergence of an
Experience-Driven Manufacturing Economy. Future is Digital, Smart, Flexible, and Intuitive,
Frost and Sullivan.
Industry 5.0 represents the new phase of industrial development, marked by a resurgence
of human labor within factory settings, decentralized production processes, and smart and
adaptable supply chains. (Zutshi, 2019).
According to Figure 2, according to Demir et al. (2019), two main visions are emerging
from the concept of Industry 5.0. One is related to the "human-robot co-working" atmosphere
that organizations will foster and witness because of the collaboration of humans and
technologies; the second vision is related to using resources for industrial purposes, in balance
with ecological practices and economic gains for organizations.

17
Table 1.
Comparison

of

Industry

4.0

and

Industry

5.0

in

two

visions

Note. Comparison of Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 Visions, by Demir, K. A., Döven, G., &
Sezen, B. (2019). Industry 5.0 and Human-Robot Co-working. Procedia Computer Science, 158,
688–695.
Vision number 1 accentuates an outlook on human-technology collaboration. In contrast,
Vision Number 2 focuses on sustainability as its primary focus of interest and motivation,
including the smart use of renewable resources through a dual perspective (Demir et al., 2019).
For Industry 5.0, it is essential to recognize the importance of human creativity,
capabilities, and decision-making while new technologies advance and bring new benefits to
industries. The new industrial revolution centers its attention on facilitating the interconnection
between three interconnected core values: human centricity, sustainability, and resilience to
changes in organizations (Breque et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021; Ben Youssef et al., 2023). The
values emphasized by Industry 5.0 marks a shift from the technology-driven main characteristics

18
of Industry 4.0. It also reflects a broader understanding of societal and environmental factors and
the role of industry and business in their effects (Xu et al., 2021).
Human Centricity
One of the pillars of Industry 5.0 is the focus on humans as they interact with technology.
In this new revolution, the needs of humans become the central interest in the production
process. From Industry 4.0, which had a more technology-driven approach, the fifth revolution
brings the value back to the workers and human power instead of only on the financial cost. In
this new paradigm, technology is intended to aid people and aim at employees' needs. Human
centricity focuses on providing a secure and safe environment for the human capital. At the same
time, it guarantees the protection of human rights, human dignity, and employees' mental health.
While Industry 5.0 focuses on providing the workforce with opportunities for training and
development programs to improve their skills, employees' career prospects improve, prioritizing
the well-being of the personnel (Xu et al., 2021; Breque et al., 2021).
Organizational Resilience
Organizational resilience refers to an organization's ability to adapt, recover, and respond
effectively to problematic situations, crises, unexpected disruptions, and arising challenges.
Resilience refers, within most industries, to the capacity of the supply chain to mitigate the
impacts of any disruptions and the capacity to reduce recovery times, ensuring operational
continuity in facing those challenges. The future shows that corporations and industries must
show organizational resilience to effectively navigate geopolitical shifts and natural disruptions
like climate change. Adopting resilience strategies within any organization enhances its ability to

19
cope with disruptions, ensuring the uninterrupted effectiveness of its operations while responding
to unexpected situations (Namdar et al., 2020).
Practices of Sustainability
Sustainability involves a holistic perspective that combines an equal interest and attention
to social, environmental, and financial indicators. A business landscape emphasizing
sustainability is expected to obtain more attention and improve its reputation, as sustainable,
responsible entities are perceived as more ethical and just by customers and society. This new
vision and importance paid to sustainability has evolved into integrating social sustainability into
the business world, which has become of significant relevance and importance for manufacturing
and production processes in all types of industries (Ajmal et al., 2018; Bengtsson et al., 2018).
Sustainability and Sustainable Practices
Sustainability has become essential for organizations as climate change, water scarcity,
natural disasters, and poor labor conditions have started affecting business and industrial
operations worldwide (Whelan & Fink, 2016).
The latest findings on climate change have brought to light in the last decade the
importance of carbon emission reduction, transition to renewable energy, recycling, and
intelligent and responsible disposal of waste. The rise of social inequalities, economic disparities,
and the increment of unequal opportunities have made more inclusive development and circular
economies preponderant (Koop & Van Leeuwen, 2017; Geissdoerfer, 2017).
As the world transitions into Industry 5.0, the significance of sustainability becomes more
relevant when the advancements of new technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial

20
intelligence, and innovations allow a parallel evolution within sustainable practices in
organizations (Shaikh et al., 2015).
Defining Sustainability
The term sustainability originates from the Brundtland Report of 1987, which addressed,
for the first time, concerns regarding the aspiration of society to develop better levels of life and
commodity while facing limitations imposed by nature (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010).
Sustainability determines the ability to preserve the equilibrium between the ecosystem and
human activities so that both elements can foster societal well-being and healthy economic
systems (Mensah, 2019).
There are four well-known pillars of sustainability. Environmental sustainability refers to
the responsible use of natural resources, the reduction of contamination, and the reduction of
climate change. Human sustainability refers to the attention paid to developing the human
component in society and organizations by guaranteeing communities have covered their
minimum necessities, such as education, justice, and healthcare. On the other hand, social
sustainability refers to the development of fair and equal labor practices, the responsibility and
engagement the organizations have with their community, and the respect for human rights.
Finally, economic sustainability refers to creating long-term value and financial viability for
business. Overall, sustainability is about managing resources wisely, while social,
environmental, and economic aspects while keeping a balance with societal well-being and longterm economic stability (Duić et al., 2015; Jitmaneeroj, 2016).
For organizations, following sustainable practices is no longer an option, as it has become
a source of competitive advantage, extending beyond environmental concerns and encompassing

21
social and economic dimensions; organizations that adopt sustainable practices position
themselves as leaders, while consumers and investors have started to prioritize responsible and
ethical practices in organizations when it comes to choosing where to invest, or where to buy
their products or services (Huang et al., 2015; Galping et al., 2015; Haseeb et el., 2019).
Dyllick and Hockert define corporate sustainability as the ability to meet the needs of the
direct and indirect stakeholders while protecting, sustaining, and enhancing the human and
natural resources currently in the present and the future (Engert, 2016). As sustainability
becomes, over time, more connected to organizational strategies, new terms and concepts arise.
However, many companies still need a strategic approach to corporate sustainability integration
(Engert, 2016). However, over time, not only do companies recognize that adopting
sustainability strategies will benefit the planet and their brand reputation, but regulatory
pressures around the globe are changing the dynamics of sustainable practices by pushing
organizations to adopt more responsible actions (Caroll, 2015).
Sustainability and Industry 5.0
In the context of Industry 5.0, sustainability becomes eminent, as sustainable practices
involve the responsible use of technologies while reducing environmental harm, improving
societal equity and inclusivity, and fostering resilient, flexible, and socially responsible
organizations (Zhanbayev et al., 2023). An "interesting benefit of Industry 5.0 is the provision of
greener solutions compared to the existing industrial transformations, neither focusing on
protecting the natural environment", as Maddikunta et al. (2021, p. 2) affirmed. The new
technological revolution brings new technological advancements in both manufacturing and

22
production, while it will also require organizations to reevaluate how they responsibly respond
through ethical, sustainable practices.
The emphasis Industry 5.0 puts on bringing back the value of human beings by
empowering the workforce through proper, equitable, and inclusive training and development
programs. At the same time, the fast evolution of technology exponentially speeds up its growth
and can help organizations realize the potential to meet their sustainability goals in the upcoming
years. Industry 5.0, in this sense, can provide, besides technological advancements and
innovations for organizations, potential solutions, and strategies to address the sustainability
challenges they face, as immediate innovative actions are needed to act on responsible, respectful
practices that may provide immediate benefits to internal stakeholders, as well as the community
and society organizations operate in (Maddikunta, 2021).
The principles of sustainability -environmental, social, and economic, align with the
overall objectives of Industry 5.0, which are based on reducing ecological footprints through
advanced technologies, the potential to create equitable workforce opportunities, and offering
organizations long-term economic viability through efficiency gains and cost reductions in
operations (Demir et al., 2019; Voulgaridis et al., 2022; Rajumesh, 2023).
Ghobakhloo et al. (2022) have recently presented sixteen functions in which Industry 5.0
can generate sustainable development value for organizations. These essential functions, like
employee technical assistance, intelligent automatization, open, sustainable innovation, and
supply chain adaptability, among many others, present a sample of the interconnected scenarios
that will provide insight into how Industry 5.0 will play a crucial role in promoting sustainable
practices within organizations in the upcoming years (Ghobakhloo et al., 2022).

23

Research Methodology
Using qualitative research methodologies is considered appropriate when exploring a novel
study area to establish a precedent for developing theories about relevant issues. According to Cruz
& Tantia (2017), qualitative research methods are used to describe experience processes, to "make
meaning of experiences or phenomena by following data as they emerge" (Cruz & Tantia, 2017,
p. 81).
In qualitative research, a method describes how data will be collected and analyzed (Cruz
& Tantia, 2017). The most common qualitative methods utilized to obtain an in-depth and
extensive understanding of the topic when addressing a novel study area are interviewing and
observation (Jamshed, 2014). Semi-structured interviews facilitate a detailed understanding of
research participants' perspectives, experiences, and perceptions (Galletta, 2013). This approach
in qualitative research allows for data collection and interpretation to happen simultaneously,
which means that the methods used to manage qualitative data must be adaptable (Kennedy &
Thornberg, 2018).
The research objective has been to assess and discover the status of sustainability and
technology initiatives adopted by organizations based on the opinions and perceptions of
collaborators involved in decision-making processes within their organizations. Due to the novelty
of research and studies on Industry 5.0, an abductive approach and abductive thematic analysis are
performed in this research.
The Abductive Approach
According to Kovács & Spens (2005), several authors like Andreewsky and Bourcier
(2000), Kirkeby (1990), and Taylor et al. (2002) define the abduction approach as "the
systematized creativity or intuition in research to develop new knowledge," since creativity

24
becomes necessary to "break out of the limitations of deduction and induction which are delimited
to establish relations between already known constructs" (Kovács & Spens, 2005, p.136). Differing
from deductive approaches, in which a predetermined theory provides a specific framework to
perform research, an abductive approach aims at understanding data to extend existing theories.
Using the abductive approach, researchers can pay attention to unique aspects that may differ from
the usual pattern when studying and analyzing a phenomenon. The researcher may then suggest
new propositions and hypotheses based on the data analyzed (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).
Abductive analysis encourages researchers to approach qualitative research with a solid
theoretical foundation, incorporating existing theories in the research process and using them as a
base and framework for developing new insights while offering flexibility and adaptable logic for
discovering new phenomena (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).

25

Data Collection
According to Busseto et al. (2020), qualitative interviews are "a conversation with a goal."
(p.3). Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions that can be used as a
guide in which a broad area of interest is defined. (Busseto et al., 2020)
Semi-structured interviews require preparation and previous knowledge of the research
topic, as the questions must be determined before the interview. Data collection through semistructured interviews allows for the goal of qualitative research, to gain a rich understanding of a
phenomenon, to be achieved (Kallio et al., 2016).
An interview guide was developed, divided into two sections: a set of questions regarding
the sustainability strategies and approaches of the organizations being studied, and the second part
focused on their approach to new technological advancements and innovations. (Appendix 3) This
questionnaire was elaborated using the theoretical framework presented in the first section of this
thesis to meet the requirements of a "rigorous development of a qualitative semi-structured
interview guide," which has been proved and confirmed by authors like Kallio et al. (2016) to
contribute "to the objectivity and trustworthiness of studies and makes the results more plausible."
(Kallio et al., 2016, p. 10)
Selection of Participants
When designing qualitative sampling plans, researchers work with estimates. While
methodological studies may require fewer than ten interviews, grounded theory studies an average
of 20 to 30 interviews; when performing content analysis, 15 to 20 interviews are estimated to be
sufficient to fully understand a phenomenon (Moser & Korstjens, 2018). The sampling plan for
our study included 15 interviews. Twenty-five invitations were sent, from which 16 prospective
participants agreed to collaborate. Due to time restrictions, only fourteen interviews took place.

26
The fourteen semi-structured interviews took place between August 24th and September
8th, 2023, via the MS TEAMS Online meeting platform. Each one of the interviews took an
average of 30 to 40 minutes. Each interview was recorded in video, and the interaction between
the interviewer and interviewees was adequately transcribed. Thirty questions were used as a
guide; the first fifteen questions aimed at understanding the current role of sustainability in
organizations, and the second half of the questions aimed at assessing the role of technology.
(Appendix 3)
Once the final decision was provided by UCW's Board of Ethics on August 17th August,
202 (Appendix 1), twenty-five invitations were sent to prospective candidates to participate in our
qualitative research (Appendix 2). The prospective candidates had been previously selected via
their LinkedIn profiles under the following conditions:
•

The research subjects' roles and hierarchical positions in their organizations. From

Mid-level superior to Senior-level management and Directors.
•

They had been working with their organization for at least one year.

•

Their organizations had to be operating within Canada.

•

Their organizations had to belong to one of the classifications of the North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) by the Canadian Government (2022).
•

All participants must have been involved at least at a certain degree in decision–

making processes within their organizations.

27
Only one of the prospective participants who agreed to collaborate in the study came as a
referral. Advanced understanding or knowledge about their industry's latest technology and
sustainability trends was optional.
Sixteen participants responded affirmatively to the twenty-five invitations sent to the
prospective candidates, confirming their willingness to collaborate in the research; two interviews
are still pending.
Subjects were provided a copy of the consent form and a list of interview questions before
the interview.
The following graphs present the general demographics of the fourteen participants.:
Figure 2
Gender of Participants

Gender

14%

Female
Male

86%

Note. Pie chart expressing the percentages of male and female participants.

28
Figure 3
Role of Participants

Note. Pie chart expressing the percentages of participants according to their organizational roles.
Based on the classification of types of industries (Ramantswana et al., 2019), the following
chart presents the type of industries the organizations of the participants belong to.

29
Table 2
Type of Industry

Note. Standard industrial classification. From “Headquarters site selection of public listed firms:
a self-explicated conjoint model, by T. Ramantswana, K. Cheruiyot, & S. Azasu. University of
Witwatersrand,

South

Africa,

2019,

Pacific

Rim

Real

Estate

Society

Conference(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338101820_Headquarters_site_selection_o
f_public_listed_firms_A_self_self-explicated_conjoint_model). Copyright 2019, Pacific Rim
Real Estate Society Conference Proceedings.

30
Figure 4
Role of Participants

Type of Industry of participants organizations

14%
29%
Primary (2)
Secondary (9)

Tertiary (3)

57%

Note. Pie chart showing the percentages of participants according to their type of organization.
Of the fourteen organizations analyzed, four belong to the public sector, and ten belong to
the private sector. It is essential to mention that, even though all organizations operate in British
Columbia, two of the private enterprises being studied have been recently acquired, in the past
year to be more exact, by multinationals from outside Canada.

31
Figure 5
Participants’ Industries based on the NAICS

Note. Pie chart showing the percentages of participants according to the Type of Industries of the
organizations where they work.

32

Data Analyses
Qualitative Thematic analysis is a qualitative method of analysis to identify, analyze, and
decode patterns or themes (Clark & Vealé, 2018). Thematic analysis involves observing and
recording patterns while offering flexibility, allowing it to be used within most theoretical
frameworks and distinguished from other qualitative analysis methodologies (Terry et al., 2017).
The strategies used to handle and analyze qualitative data are part of an iterative process in
which the researcher explores, codes, reflects, and creates queries (Vaughn & Turner, 2016).
NVIVO is a software that scholars and researchers have approved as reliable and effective for
analyzing qualitative data, as “NVivo can work well with most research designs and analytical
approaches.” (Zamawe, 2015, p. 14). To effectively analyze the qualitative data obtained, NVIVO
was used, allowing the qualitative data to be first organized and later coded.
The strategies used to handle and analyze qualitative data are part of an Iterative Process
in which the researcher explores, codes, reflects, and creates queries (Vaughn & Turner, 2016).

33
Figure 6
Qualitative research cycle

Note. Qualitative research iterative cycle, from Immersion-Crystallization: a valuable analytic tool
for healthcare research, by J. Borkan, 2022 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/JeffreyBorkan/publication/357835967_ImmersionCrystallization_a_valuable_analytic_tool_for_healthcare_research/links/61e1c41f8d338833e36b
7505/Immersion-Crystallization-a-valuable-analytic-tool-for-healthcare-research.pdf.
In the following figure, Williams and Mosser (2019) present an overview of the coding
process in qualitative research, whose objective is to facilitate a rigorous and systematic analysis
of data to find and present new information that may become the ground for a new theory
(Williams & Mosser, 2019).

34
Figure 7
Overview of the Coding Process

Note. Image showing an overview of the coding process in qualitative research. From “The art of
coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research”, by M, Williams & T. Mosser, 2019,
International

Management

Review,

15(1),

45-55.

(https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-

journals/art-coding-thematic-exploration-qualitative/docview/2210886420/se-2)

Copyright

©

2023 ProQuest LLC.
Qualitative thematic analysis was used in order to identify most common topics addressed by
the interview subjects, and to identify patterns and relationships. Qualitative thematic analysis is a
qualitative method of analysis to identify, analyze, and decode patterns or themes." (Clark &
Vealé, 2018)

35
Figure 8
Overview of the Coding Process

Note. How to analyze qualitative data using thematic analysis, from Introduction to Thematic
Analysis, by R. Menzies, 2021. Rachel Menzies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=jgq62UZuCEU
Through qualitative thematic analysis, data has been coded and classified to be analyzed.
Patterns related to sustainable practices and technological advancements were identified, providing
valuable insights into the current state of Canadian organizations.
Using the features NVIVO provides to qualitative researchers, having coded the data collected
from the semi-structured interviews, the following cloud tree and tree map were obtained as a
result of the data analysis.

36
Figure 9
Word Cloud obtained from Data Analysis using NVIVO

Note. Word cloud showing the most frequently used words by participants.

37
Figure 10
Tree Map obtained from Data Analysis using NVIVO

Note. Tree Map showing the hierarchical relationships of the topics most used by research
subject.

38

Data Findings and Discussion
The main themes identified throughout the fourteen interviews were coded and classified,
having obtained seven main themes. The findings are presented as follows:
1) Sustainability as part of Organizational Strategies
a. Linked to regulations.
b. Related to customers’ requirements.
Figure 11
Sustainability and Organizational Objectives

Sustainability and Organizational Objectives

21%
Yes (11)
Inferred but not clearly stated (3)

79%

Note. Pie chart showing the percentage of participants responses regarding the relationship
between Sustainability and the Organizational Objectives in their organizations.
79% of the participants affirmed that sustainability is part of their organizational
objectives, placing more emphasis on the relevance and importance of this concept mostly in

39
public organizations or in organizations in which, albeit being private, they receive benefits,
sponsorships, or financial support from public organizations. Two of the participants working
with private organizations affirmed that the concept of sustainability could have been of little
importance in the past; however, since being recently acquired by larger corporations, the
concept of sustainability has become a big emphasis for the corporation. 21% of the
organizations in which sustainability needs to be started as part of their strategic planning or
organizational objectives are private corporations, considered big/medium companies. Four
participants linked the role of sustainability with their organization's focus on the triple bottom
line, which is the framework with three parts: social, environmental, and economic in
organizations.
Another important finding was that at least half of the participants who affirmed
sustainability was indeed a part of the organizational objectives of their organization also added
that this necessity and focus on sustainable practices were linked to satisfying clients' and
customers' requirements. Customers' requirements and necessities are changing, and to obtain
contracts and be able to participate in bids, participants affirmed that their organizations had to
incorporate more sustainable practices and initiatives to meet the customers' expectations.
2) Sustainability part of Decision-making initiatives and practices
a. Depending on each area or department
b. Depending on the cost or budgetary limitations

40
Figure 12
Sustainability and Decision-making Process

Is Sustainability part of the Decision-making
process?

13%
Yes (10)

14%

No (2)
Not sure (2)

73%

Note. Pie chart showing the percentage of participants responses regarding the relationship
between Sustainability and Decision-making processes in their organizations.
Most of the participants affirmed that sustainability is part of the decision-making process
in most or several areas of their organization; however, four out of ten participants added that the
incorporation of this practice was primarily due to the necessity to comply with the normative
and regulations established by the government or regulatory organizations in their industry.
The participants also added that even though they could affirm that sustainability was
part of the decision–making, this was also closely related to the nature of the area or areas in
which they collaborate; for example, in construction companies, the decisions had to be made to
comply with the normative and regulations, whereas, in other departments of the organization,

41
these decisions were up to the head manager or the executive in charge of the operations of each
department.
Another topic of interest in this matter was how adopting sustainable practices would be
linked and connected to financial indicators and budgetary limitations, as some of the industries
participants belong to are considered cost driven. Some of the participants who shared that the
sustainability practices were just limited to what was required by regulations also expressed their
awareness that committing to practice sustainable practices is of higher cost for their
organizations; therefore, the decisions to switch or change to sustainable initiatives must be
justified entirely via cost-benefit criteria.
3) Sustainability Measures and Targets
a. Public/private organizations

42
Figure 13
Sustainability Targets and Indicators

Organization has Sustainability Targets and
Indicators

14%
Yes (7)

19%

No (2)

67%

Not clearly defined (5)

Note. Pie chart showing the percentage of participants responses regarding the relationship
Sustainability targets and indicators in their organizations.
Half of the participants expressed that their organization had clear indicators and targets
to be met regarding sustainability. These indicators were mainly established to comply with the
regulations in both some of the private and all the public organizations. The need for clear
sustainability targets was also linked to the necessity to comply with normative regulations,
mainly in the public sector. In contrast, the private sector seemed less structured in defining such
targets.

43
Participants who expressed that their organizations did not have formal measures or
targets established as a corporation could affirm, they could identify specific areas and
departments within their organizations in which the managers and directors would establish their
internal sustainable parameters and constantly communicate those to their staff.
The communication of sustainability targets and indicators with internal and external
stakeholders also depended on the transparency required by public organizations, in which all
targets, measures, and indicators were shared quarterly and annually.
Private corporations showed more secrecy regarding sustainability measures and targets
being met, sometimes even within their internal stakeholders.
4) Sustainability and Technology Training and Development Programs
All participants affirmed that their organizations provide training programs and make
several courses available to all employees to develop sustainability and technology. Most
interviews affirmed that their organizations achieve this goal through partnerships and
agreements with universities and open-access education organizations like Coursera or LinkedIn.
Several courses are always available; however, five of the fourteen participants, mostly
from private corporations, affirmed that most employees do not have the time to take any of the
courses or commit to their career development through the programs offered by their
corporations due to excess workload and priorities to other work-related commitments. Even
though private corporations have well-structured and established training and development
programs to promote better sustainable practices and incorporate new technological innovations,
except for the manufacturing industries, participants expressed the need for more free time
employees must be trained in their corporations' development programs and courses. As these

44
training programs are optional and not part of the staff's working hours of a formal career plan,
only a few staff members are formally trained in sustainability and new technological tools that
may not be directly connected to their everyday functions. The private sector is more lenient in
this matter, as described by research subjects.
In public organizations, or those receiving public sponsorship or funding, training
programs about sustainable practices were more formal and, in some cases, included as part of
their working hours and career plans; therefore, the participants affirmed that most employees
receive mandatory ongoing training as part of the organizational targets and objectives.
Most interviewees affirmed that their corporations fostered a collaborative culture of
ongoing learning and innovation with their collaborators as part of their organizational strategies.
5) Integration and Embracement of New Technologies
All participants were able to confirm that their organizations had a positive and open
attitude toward the embracement of new technologies. However, the extent to which these new
technologies have been adopted depends on the type of industry and the area or department in
which some participants work.
For example, those working in the manufacturing industry shared examples about
automating processes in the production line and using software that could make results more
efficient. However, participants from private organizations shared the limitations in budget their
companies faced when attempting to acquire either software or hardware that was still
considered of high cost to their corporations. Some participants expressed that several coworkers still need to feel more confident embracing the new technologies, even though the
organization is pushing to adopt new technologies. They expressed that there are still silos within

45
the corporations in which some collaborators who have been working with the company for a
long time do not easily adopt new software, for example, and prefer to keep registering their
data, for example, elaborating their reports manually.
Depending on their industry, participants were able to predict that some of the upcoming
advancements would help enhance the way organizations run projects, artificial intelligence will
aid in making advanced data analytics more accurate and efficient, and it would make the
operations of manufacturing industries more efficient. Several interviews, however, also shared
that due to the characteristics of their industries, construction, for example, they could not see
how the new advancements of technology could aid in specific procedures that are very
physically detailed and in which human labor is still required to perform most activities.
The telecommunication and information technology industries were the ones where more
technological advancements could be perceived in the future and in which the adoption of
technological advancements is the foundation for their operations.
Four private sector participants showed reluctance to the feasibility of their organizations
adopting the new technological advancements due to high costs and their corporations having
other mid and long-term priorities. Participants from the private sector believe their
organizations may more easily adopt sustainable and technological practices if the benefits of
adopting new technologies could be shown financially to their top management, clearly stating
the future financial gains and ROI of adopting such practices.
Research subjects of three public organizations confirmed that old software and hardware
are still being used, as most technological innovations take a long time to approve. Bureaucracy
and lengthy, tedious procedures to upgrade technology make public organizations, in real life

46
and everyday practices, still solve most problems with an Excel table instead of using software
some private organizations already use to improve their results.
6) Perception of Concept Industry 5.0
Most participants knew of the latest technological innovations related to their industries, such
as robotizing specific processes or incorporating AI tools in some practices. However, all the
participants expressed a need to fully understand what Industry 5.0 was about, and how it could
be incorporated into the operations of their organizations.
Figure 14
Sustainability Targets and Indicators

Understanding the Concept Industry 5.0

7%

29%

Yes (1)
No (4)

64%

Not quite (9)

Note. Pie chart indicating the percentages of research subjects understanding the concept
Industry 5.0

47
However, when it came to understanding the relevance and importance of the workforce
developing new abilities and skills to effectively engage in collaboration with automatization,
robotization, and artificial intelligence in the future, most participants agreed that organizations
would have to create the necessary conditions to assure the workforce learns how to collaborate
effectively with the new technology.
Most participants mentioned that all industries will have to provide the necessary training
and development programs to develop employees' skills and abilities to meet the demands of
emerging sustainable and technological novelties.
Five out of the fourteen participants expressed that they are starting to see and realize the
necessity of planning the balance between human and machine collaboration; however, the
research subjects did not identify this trend as related to the concept of Industry 5.0.
7) The Role of Sustainability and Environmental Considerations in Shaping
Organizational Future Strategies and Technological Choices
All participants affirmed that they believed sustainability would continue to guide and shape
many of the decisions made as part of their organizational objectives and philosophy, permeating
from all areas and functions, from strategic planning to everyday operations.
All the participants believed there are several opportunities for their organizations to start
paying more attention to these relevant topics. From formally incorporating sustainable targets
into their organizational objectives and corporate strategies to starting to plan for the
incorporation of new technological innovations into all areas of their operations, participants
affirmed that organizations in Canada have a new window of opportunities opened by the
incorporation of new technologies to promote more responsible and sustainable practices.

48
Most participants in the private sector expressed their interest in this type of research,
emphasizing that they could understand the relevance of bringing the topics of sustainability and
new technologies for discussion into their organizations. Research subjects from public
organizations also affirmed that they could foresee several areas of improvement, mainly those to
do with the implications related to how incorporating new technologies could affect the human
factor, to which corporations will have to guarantee their safety and well-being.
8) Need of Change Mindset to Adapt to Trends in Sustainability and Technology
A topic that was not originally part of the initial questionnaire but that constantly kept
appearing in most of the interviews was that of a change mindset in their organizations. Besides
the words 'sustainability,' 'organization,' and 'technology,' the words that most appeared were
'think,' 'training,' 'industry,' 'question,' 'practices,' 'stakeholders,' and 'change.'
Eleven out of the fourteen participants added that they believed organizations had to show
resilience, flexibility, and adaptation to face the new advancements and technology and to
incorporate all new practices being developed to be socially, ecologically, and financially
sustainable.
The tree map obtained as a result of the data analysis, the word ‘change’ among the main 10
words used by the participants. As a second group of other words that brought light into what
were the interest and concerns of the participants were ‘development’, ‘community’, ‘different’.
In a third group, the words ‘decision’, ‘strategies’, advancement’, ‘embrace’, ‘financial’,
‘future’, ‘implementation’, ‘initiatives’, ‘approach’, ‘reputation’, and ‘results.
The categories in which these outcomes were organized resulted in:

49
1. Category 1. Decision-Making and Strategic Planning
2. Category 2. Sustainability and Organizational Focus
3. Category 3. Training and Industry Practices
4. Category 4. Development and Community
Some of the quotes shared by participants regarding the topic of Change Mindset, were:
-

“We should live with that mindset of being ready for change.”

-

“The deployment (of new initiatives) always is, you know, like a bit of a difficulty

because it requires change management and if you have a strong change agent that that could be
done easily.”
-

“The fear of unknown when we're thinking about such a rapid advancement in

technology and AI and what the future may hold.”

50

Limitations
Limitations of this study are based on the relatively small sample of interviews, which
may only partially represent the diverse range of perspectives and practices across all Canadian
organizations in British Columbia. There have been qualitative studies based on 10 to 20 indepth interviews since qualitative studies have been found to reach saturation at small sample
sizes (Bekele & Ago, 2022; Hennink & Kaiser, 2022).
As the participants interviewed hold mid-senior management positions, the busy agendas
of research subjects were also a significant limitation. It took several days, several days, in some
cases weeks, for most of the interviews to be arranged. In some cases, interviews had to be
rescheduled, and several no-shows due to last-minute work commitments took place throughout
the few weeks planned for data collection. In the end, two of the participants who had initially
agreed to collaborate had to reschedule at the last minute, and their interviews did not meet the
deadline for this paper.
Another limitation is the rapidly evolving nature of technological and sustainable
practices. New academic papers and research on sustainability and Industry 5.0 are constantly
being published and presented at conferences worldwide (Akundi et al., 2022). New
technological innovations and sustainable initiatives are also being developed rapidly to meet
competitive industries' demands and regulations and norms changes (Alvarez-Aros & BernalTorres, 2021). The findings of this study, adding relevant insight to the body of knowledge on
the topic, will need timely reflections and revisions due to the fast pace of new technologies
being developed and launched.
The author had to change the initial research topic mid-way as it was very ambitious, for
which data collection in only three months presented considerable challenges. The time

51
limitation resulting from this change of topic placed additional pressure to present the results and
analysis of this research.
It is important to add, this is research in process, as several research subjects have not
been able to accommodate their busy schedules to hold the semi-structured interviews according
to the previously stablished formal protocol of this qualitative study.

52

Ethical Considerations
The ethics of research, including informed consent, confidentiality, and respect for the
participants' privacy, will be strictly upheld throughout our research. The information obtained
will be used for academic purposes. The participants' identities and organizations will remain
private per the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
(TCPS 2). Some of the participants showed concern about their names and the names of their
organizations not being disclosed and were provided the consent form and assurance of complete
anonymity.

53

Opportunities for Future Research
Several areas and topics can be identified as opportunities for future potential research.
*Impact of Sustainability and Industry 5.0 initiatives on Organizational Performance.
Conducting research or organizational performance in organizations where sustainability
initiatives and industry 5.0 practices are being implemented could bring light to assessing the
impact on productivity, profitability, or other KPIs.
*Cost–benefit analysis of Sustainable practices supported by Industry 5.0 practices.
While researching the implications of applying sustainable practices to organizational processes,
organizations can obtain objective results to justify the financial investments of sustainable
initiatives while benefiting from the technological advancements at hand.
*Assessing the effectiveness of HR Strategy and Training and Development Programs as
sustainable Industry 5.0 practices permeate industries. By assessing the effectiveness and impact
of sustainability and technology training and development programs, new adjustments,
adaptations, and improvements can be made, proposed, or justified to help the workforce within
organizations develop new abilities and skills.
*Organizational Culture and Change Management. Assessing the role of organizational
culture in several industries and corporations to identify the strategies in which they facilitate or
hinder the adoption of sustainable practices and new technologies and how they foster a change
mindset within the organization.
*Cross – industry Comparative research. Identifying commonalities and differences in
the integration of sustainable practices and technological innovations in different industries,
beyond regulatory compliances, in or der to share best practices and find transferable strategies.

54

Conclusion
Industry 5.0 promises to surpass its predecessor, Industry 4.0, aligning more effectively
with sustainability goals and highlighting the importance of human well-being and
environmental health. The future of Industry 5.0 is still being written as scholars continue to
research the connection between the advancement of technology and the intrinsic relationship
with the workforce, emphasizing a higher value in human interaction.
This qualitative research aimed to reveal initial relevant insights and add to the emerging
knowledge on the conjunction of Sustainability and Industry 5.0. The implications of this
research are relevant for academics, industry experts, and policymakers since these results can
shed light on the challenges Canadian organizations will face in pursuing sustainable practices
and technology integration in the upcoming years. The findings also reveal threats and
opportunities Canadian organizations have in incorporating new technological innovations to
respond to the growing necessity of sustainable policies and practices in all industries.
In response to the research question: How are Canadian organizations adapting to the
convergence of Sustainability and Industry 5.0, and how are their technological and sustainable
strategies implemented? We can affirm that Canadian organizations are somehow prepared to
face the convergence of Sustainability and Industry 5.0; however, there are many opportunities
for improvement, like public organizations adapting more rapidly to technological innovations or
private organizations including training and development programs as part of the role description
and obligations for employees to truly benefit from these programs aimed at helping
collaborators better adapt to the changes in every industry.

55
The data presented can guide business executives and strategy planners in balancing
profit-driven growth and environmental, sustainable, and ethically responsible practices in a
more effective, focused manner. The findings also contribute to the evolving development of
Industry 5.0 and Sustainability in public and private enterprises in the dawn of novel and
disruptive technological advancements.
Understanding these concepts will be crucial for developing corresponding theories and
business applications, as the concepts of Sustainability and Industry 5.0 will shape the trajectory
of industry and society as organizations head toward the future. Fostering a continuous culture of
innovation, flexibility, and adaptability will be essential for organizations to meet customers'
demands and look for environmentally and socially responsible organizations to associate with.
A changed mindset will also be necessary to adapt to governmental authorities' new regulations
and requirements regarding sustainable, responsible practices.
Organizations must monitor and measure the effectiveness and impact of their sustainable
initiatives and practices, understanding how these actions affect their financial results, the
perception, reputation, and competitive advantage of their enterprises. Only those parameters and
actions that can be measured can be later improved.
More research, field studies, and analysis are needed in all relevant industries to assess
the effectiveness of current strategies in all areas and departments of organizations. Strengths and
weaknesses must be identified to make the necessary adjustments and apply the necessary
policies to guarantee profitability and efficiency.

56
Canadian organizations navigate an ocean of opportunities and new challenges set by the
principles of Sustainability and human-centric values. The future scenario, characterized by the
joint of Sustainability and new Technological innovations, brings a plethora of opportunities for
Project Management, Human Resources, Operations Management, Financial Strategic Planning,
CEOs, and Chief Executive Officers to undertake a multifaced approach to face the challenges
industrial revolution 5.0 implies effectively.
In this fast-paced, evolving landscape, only those organizations that rapidly adapt to new
industry trends and dynamics and learn how to embrace change effectively will ultimately thrive
and continue to achieve their ultimate goals.

57

References
Adel, A. (2022). Future of industry 5.0 in society: Human-centric solutions, challenges, and
prospective research areas. Journal of Cloud Computing, 11(1), 1-15.
Akundi, A., Euresti, D., Luna, S., Ankobiah, W., Lopes, A., & Edinbarough, I. (2022). State of
Industry 5.0—Analysis and identification of current research trends. Applied System
Innovation, 5(1), 27.
Alvarez-Aros, E. L., & Bernal-Torres, C. A. (2021). Technological competitiveness and
emerging technologies in industry 4.0 and industry 5.0. Anais da Academia Brasileira de
Ciências, 93.
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.
Bai, C., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G., & Sarkis, J. (2020). Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A
sustainability perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 107776.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107776
Baradaran, B. (2019). How Design thinking can be leveraged and supported by artificial
intelligence. Politecnico Di Milano. Dipartemento Di Ingegneria Gestionale Management
Engineering.
Bekele, W. B., & Ago, F. Y. (2022). Sample size for interview in qualitative research in social
sciences: A guide to novice researchers. Research in Educational Policy and
Management, 4(1), 42-50.
Ben Youssef, A., & Mejri, I. (2023). Linking Digital Technologies to Sustainability through
Industry 5.0: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 15(9), 7465.

58
Bengtsson, M., Alfredsson, E., Cohen, M., Lorek, S., & Schroeder, P. (2018). Transforming
systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable development goals:
Moving beyond efficiency. Sustainability science, 13, 1533-1547.
Borkan, J. M. (2022). Immersion–Crystallization: a valuable analytic tool for healthcare
research. Family Practice, 39(4), 785-789.
Breque, M., De Nul, L., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric
and resilient European industry. Luxembourg, LU: European Commission, DirectorateGeneral for Research and Innovation.
Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research
methods. Neurological Research and practice, 2, 1-10.
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility. Organizational dynamics, 44(2), 87-96.
Clark, K. R., & Vealé, B. L. (2018). Strategies to enhance data collection and analysis in
qualitative research. Radiologic technology, 89(5), 482CT-485CT.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research
designs: Selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.
Coleman, D. C. (1956). Industrial Growth and Industrial Revolutions. Economica, 23(89), 1.
doi:10.2307/2551266
Cruz, R. F., & Tantia, J. F. (2017). Reading and understanding qualitative research. American
Journal of Dance Therapy, 39, 79-92.
Delannon, N., Raufflet, E., & Baba, S. (2016). Corporate community engagement strategies and
organizational arrangements: A multiple case study in Canada. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 129, 714-723.

59
Demir, K. A., Döven, G., & Sezen, B. (2019). Industry 5.0 and Human-Robot Co-working.
Procedia Computer Science, 158, 688–695. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.104
Dodds, R., & Holmes, M. R. (2011). Sustainability in Canadian B&Bs: comparing the east
versus west. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(5), 482-495.
Dos‐Santos, S. M. (2021). Relationship between innovativeness and competitiveness in
networked organizations: A perspective from the electric and electronic industry in
Brazil. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(2), 248-267.
Duić, N., Urbaniec, K., & Huisingh, D. (2015). Components and structures of the pillars of
sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 88, 1-12.
Engert, S., Rauter, R., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Exploring the integration of corporate
sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. Journal of cleaner
production, 112, 2833-2850.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, and Innovation, Breque, M., De Nul,
L., Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric, and resilient
European industry, Publications Office of the European Union.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/308407
Farrell, L., Newman, T., & Corbel, C. (2021). Literacy and the workplace revolution: a social
view of literate work practices in Industry 4.0. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics
of education, 42(6), 898-912.
Fraga-Lamas, P., Lopes, S. I., & Fernández-Caramés, T. M. (2021). Green IoT and edge AI as
key technological enablers for a sustainable digital transition towards a smart circular
economy: An industry 5.0 use case. Sensors, 21(17), 5745.

60
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design
to analysis and publication (Vol. 18). NYU press.
Galpin, T., Whitttington, J. L., & Bell, G. (2015). Is your sustainability strategy sustainable?
Creating a culture of sustainability. Corporate Governance, 15(1), 1-17.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–A
new sustainability paradigm? Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757-768.
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.
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Mubarak, M. F., Mubarik, M., Rejeb, A., & Nilashi, M.
(2022). Identifying industry 5.0 contributions to sustainable development: A strategy
roadmap for delivering sustainability values. Sustainable Production and Consumption,
33, 716-737.
Gupta, A. (2022). Sustainability in Industry 4.0. Ushus Journal of Business Management, 21(3).
Haseeb, M., Hussain, H. I., Kot, S., Androniceanu, A., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Role of
social and technological challenges in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage and
sustainable business performance. Sustainability, 11(14), 3811.
Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A
systematic review of empirical tests. Social science & medicine, 292, 114523.
Huang, K. F., Dyerson, R., Wu, L. Y., & Harindranath, G. (2015). From temporary competitive
advantage to sustainable competitive advantage. British Journal of Management, 26(4),
617-636.

61
Huang, S., Wang, B., Li, X., Zheng, P., Mourtzis, D., & Wang, L. (2022). Industry 5.0 and
Society 5.0—Comparison, complementation, and co-evolution. Journal of manufacturing
systems, 64, 424-428.
Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of basic
and clinical pharmacy, 5(4), 87.
Janicke, M., & Jacob, K. (2013). A third industrial revolution. Long-term governance for socialecological change, 47-71.
Jena, M. C., Mishra, S. K., & Moharana, H. S. (2020). Application of Industry 4.0 to enhance
sustainable manufacturing. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 39(1), 13360.
Jitmaneeroj, B. (2016). Reform priorities for corporate sustainability. Management Decision,
54(6), 1497–1521. doi:10.1108/md-11-2015-0505
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.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological
review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide.
Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
Kennedy, B. L., & Thornberg, R. (2018). Deduction, induction, and abduction. The SAGE
handbook of qualitative data collection, 49-64.
Khan, R. N., (1987) The third industrial revolution. An economic overview. Impact of science on
society. UNESCO Taylor & Francis.
Koc, T. C., & Teker, S. (2019). Industrial revolutions and its effects on quality of life.
PressAcademia Procedia, 9(1), 304-311.

62
Koop, S. H., & van Leeuwen, C. J. (2017). The challenges of water, waste and climate change in
cities. Environment, development and sustainability, 19(2), 385-418.
Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2005). Abductive reasoning in logistics research. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(2), 132–144.
doi:10.1108/09600030510590318
Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is sustainability? Sustainability, 2(11), 3436-3448.
Loy, A. C. M., Chin, B. L. F., & Sankaran, R. (2021). 1.1 Industrial Revolution 1.0. The
Prospect of Industry 5.0 in Biomanufacturing, 1.
Maddikunta, P. K. R., Pham, Q.-V., B, P., Deepa, N., Dev, K., Gadekallu, T. R., … Liyanage, M.
(2021). Industry 5.0: A survey on enabling technologies and potential applications.
Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 100257. doi:10.1016/j.jii.2021.100257
Matson, P., Clark, W. C., & Andersson, K. (2016). Pursuing sustainability: a guide to the science
and practice. Princeton University Press.
Melnyk, L. H., Kubatko, O. V., Dehtyarova, I. B., Dehtiarova, I. B., Matsenko, O. M., &
Rozhko, O. D. (2019). The effect of industrial revolutions on the transformation of social
and economic systems.
Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and
implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent social sciences, 5(1), 1653531.
Menzies, R. (March 16, 2021). Introduction to Thematic Analysis. Rachel Menzies [YouTube
Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=jgq62UZuCEU
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3:
Sampling, data collection and analysis. European journal of general practice, 24(1), 9-18.

63
Mourtzis, D., Angelopoulos, J., & Panopoulos, N. (2023). The Future of the Human–Machine
Interface (HMI) in Society 5.0. Future Internet, 15(5), 162.
Namdar, J., S. A. Torabi, N. Sahebjamnia, and N. N. Pradhan. (2021). Business ContinuityInspired Resilient Supply Chain Network Design. International Journal of Production
Research 59 (5): 1331–1367.
Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0—A human-centric solution. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371.
Popkova, E. G., Ragulina, Y. V., & Bogoviz, A. V. (2018). Fundamental Differences of
Transition to Industry 4.0 from Previous Industrial Revolutions. Studies in Systems,
Decision and Control, 21–29. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94310-7_3
Prasanna, R. P. I. R., Jayasundara, J. M. S. B., Naradda Gamage, S. K., Ekanayake, E. M. S.,
Rajapakshe, P. S. K., & Abeyrathne, G. A. K. N. J. (2019). Sustainability of SMEs in the
competition: A systemic review on technological challenges and SME performance.
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(4), 100.
Rajumesh, S. (2023). Promoting sustainable and human-centric industry 5.0: a thematic analysis
of emerging research topics and opportunities. Journal of Business and Socio-economic
Development.
Saniuk, S., Grabowska, S., & Straka, M. (2022). Identification of social and economic
expectations: Contextual reasons for the transformation process of Industry 4.0 into the
Industry 5.0 concept. Sustainability, 14(3), 1391.
Shaikh, F. K., Zeadally, S., & Exposito, E. (2015). Enabling technologies for green internet of
things. IEEE Systems Journal, 11(2), 983-994.

64
Statistics Canada (2022). North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Canada 2022
Version 1.0. Government of Canada.
https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1369825
Stock, T., Obenaus, M., Kunz, S., & Kohl, H. (2018). Industry 4.0 as Enabler for a Sustainable
Development. A Qualitative Assessment of its Ecological and Social Potential.
University of Berlin, Germany.
Suciu, M. C., Plesea, D. A., Petre, A., Simion, A., Mituca, M. O., Dumitrescu, D., ... & Nasulea,
D. F. (2023). Core Competence—As a Key Factor for a Sustainable, Innovative and
Resilient Development Model Based on Industry 5.0. Sustainability, 15(9), 7472.
Taalbi, J. (2019). Origins and pathways of innovation in the third industrial revolution. Industrial
and corporate change, 28(5), 1125-1148.
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2, 17-37.
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research. Sociological
Theory, 30(3), 167–186. doi:10.1177/0735275112457914
Turner, C., Oyekan, J., Garn, W., Duggan, C., & Abdou, K. (2022). Industry 5.0 and the circular
economy: Utilizing LCA with intelligent products. Sustainability, 14(22), 14847.
Vaughn, P., & Turner, C. (2016). Decoding via coding: Analyzing qualitative text data through
thematic coding and survey methodologies. Journal of Library Administration, 56(1), 4151.
Voulgaridis, K., Lagkas, T., & Sarigiannidis, P. (2022, May). Towards industry 5.0 and digital
circular economy: Current research and application trends. In 2022 18th International
Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS) (pp. 153-158). IEEE.

65
Whelan, T., & Fink, C. (2016). The comprehensive business case for sustainability. Harvard
Business Review, 21(2016).
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative
research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45-55.
Yitmen, I., Almusaed, A., & Alizadehsalehi, S. (2023). Investigating the Causal Relationships
among Enablers of the Construction 5.0 Paradigm: Integration of Operator 5.0 and
Society 5.0 with Human-Centricity, Sustainability, and Resilience. Sustainability, 15(11),
9105.
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.
Zhanbayev, R. A., Irfan, M., Shutaleva, A. V., Maksimov, D. G., Abdykadyrkyzy, R., & Filiz, Ş.
(2023). Demoethical Model of Sustainable Development of Society: A Roadmap towards
Digital Transformation. Sustainability, 15(16), 12478.
Zutshi, A. (2019). Industry 5.0—Bringing Empowered Humans Back to the Shop Floor.

66

Appendixes
Appendix 1
Letter of Approval by UCW Research Ethics Board Committee

67
Appendix 2
Invitation to Participate in Academic Research

68
Appendix 3
Questionnaire approved by UCW Research Ethics Board Committee for Semi-structured
Interviews.

69