From Industry 4.0 to Construction 5.0: Exploring the Path towards Human-Robot Collaboration in Construction

The study investigates how the digitalization paradigm of Industry 4.0 has diffused into construction (Construction 4.0) and whether Industry 5.0—emphasizing human-centric production and human-robot collaboration (HRC)—can realistically evolve into Construction 5.0. Motivated by the rapid proliferation of ‘4.0/5.0’ concepts and the need to temper optimistic rhetoric with evidence, the paper aims to: (1) map the conceptual evolution and adoption barriers of Construction 4.0; (2) assess Industry 5.0’s scope and literature momentum; and (3) appraise the feasibility and requirements for HRC in construction as a foundation for Construction 5.0. The work’s importance lies in grounding an emerging paradigm (Construction 5.0) in bibliometric evidence and sector-specific realities, highlighting the implications for technology adoption, workforce, and industry transformation.

Industry 4.0 comprises horizontal integration across organizations, end-to-end digital integration via CPS, and vertical integration within firms, promising productivity and competitiveness gains. Construction 4.0 emerged as the sector’s counterpart, initially encompassing digital data, automation, connectivity, digital access, and tools such as e-tendering, digital procurement, GPS/RFID, drones/robots/3D laser/mobile cloud/3D printing, quality tracking, analytics-driven customer apps, digital after-sales, and especially BIM as a digital backbone enabling CDEs and digital twins. Over time, VR/AR, IoT, and blockchain were incorporated; procurement-focused elements were deemphasized due to weaker ties to production. Bibliometric evidence indicates 101 Scopus-indexed journal publications (as of Feb 2023) with ‘Construction’ and ‘4.0’ in titles, showing a predominantly conceptual focus and organizational/social adoption themes, with few specific AI application studies. Adoption is slowed by costs, skills gaps, interoperability and health concerns, immature technology, fragmented supply chains, and project uniqueness and variability. Comparative analysis with lean construction shows lean’s clearer theoretical foundations and sector-specific adaptation (e.g., Last Planner, IPD, target value delivery), contrasting with Industry 4.0/Construction 4.0’s conceptual ambiguity and lack of a coherent action framework. Industry 5.0 is framed as a human-centric expansion of Industry 4.0; academic literature positions HRC as its defining feature, while EU policy reports emphasize sustainability, resilience, and worker well-being. Bibliometric analysis of Industry 5.0 (132 Scopus-indexed journal papers by Feb 2023) reveals exponential growth since 2019, dominated by general digitalization/AI/smart manufacturing themes, with a strong trend in cobots/HRC and limited presence of bioinspired technologies or energy efficiency. Adoption drivers of HRC include ergonomic and productivity improvements, safety benefits, and richer job profiles, while concerns involve OHS, trust, mental workload, employment insecurity, ethics, training, and legal/data governance. In construction, HRC definitions are adapted due to sector-specific characteristics; a taxonomy focusing on cognitive interaction (pre-programming, adaptive manipulation, imitation learning, improvisatory control) has been proposed. However, actual HRC research and implementation in construction remain sparse and early-stage, with greater feasibility in prefabrication/industrialized contexts.

A systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus focusing exclusively on peer-reviewed journal articles (excluding conference proceedings, books, and chapters) to capture rigorous and current research. The objectives were: (1) to qualitatively characterize current research in Construction 4.0 and Industry/Construction 5.0; and (2) to generate bibliometric data (publication volume over time, source venues, citations) to support analysis and comparisons. Search terms: for Construction 4.0—‘Construction’ AND ‘4.0’; for Industry/Construction 5.0—(‘Industry’ OR ‘Construction’) AND ‘5.0’, excluding ‘Society’ and ‘Energy’ to avoid conflation with Society 5.0 and Energy 5.0. Searches were restricted to publication titles and, secondarily, author-selected keywords to ensure relevance and manageable scope. All results were screened for relevance; non-relevant entries were removed. No time restrictions were applied. The search was executed in early February 2023. From this process: (a) 120 initial Construction 4.0 hits were refined to 101 relevant journal publications across 50 journals; (b) 132 journal publications with ‘Industry 5.0’ in titles were identified. These datasets underpinned the bibliometric analyses and cross-paradigm comparisons.

- Construction 4.0 bibliometrics: 101 Scopus-indexed journal publications (title contains ‘Construction’ and ‘4.0’), spanning 50 journals (as of Feb 2023). Thematic emphasis is largely conceptual (including 19 reviews), examining frameworks, implications, and organizational/social adoption challenges, with fewer focused AI application studies (e.g., additive manufacturing, SVM, CPS). - Source venues: ‘Buildings’ (MDPI) leads with 16 occurrences (~22.7%); ‘Sustainability’ (MDPI) and ‘Proceedings of ICE—Management, Procurement and Law’ each have 8; ‘Construction Innovation’ and ‘Journal of Information Technology in Construction’ each have 5. Highly cited works include Oesterreich & Teuteberg (Computers in Industry, 700 citations) and Dallasega et al. (Computers in Industry, 231 citations). ‘Automation in Construction’, ‘Smart and Sustainable Built Environment’, and ‘Ain Shams Engineering Journal’ also show strong citation performance. - Adoption drivers/barriers (Construction 4.0): Drivers include sustainability, efficiency, safety, quality, and predictability improvements. Barriers include high setup and training costs, skills shortages, resistance to change, interoperability and practical difficulties, health/safety concerns, workspace constraints, and immature technology. Survey evidence (RICS 2022) shows significant adoption gaps: ~40% of respondents report no use of digital technologies on projects; top barriers include cost/effort/changes, skill shortages, unclear client demand, inconsistent supply chain approaches, and difficulty realizing benefits. - Lean vs. Industry/Construction 4.0: Lean’s success in construction is linked to a clear theoretical foundation and sector-specific adaptation (e.g., Last Planner, IPD), while Industry/Construction 4.0 remains conceptually vague and lacks an actionable implementation framework, explaining slower institutionalization. - Industry 5.0 bibliometrics and scope: 132 journal publications with ‘Industry 5.0’ in titles (by Feb 2023), with 86% published in 2022–2023; a 395% year-over-year increase from 19 (2021) to 94 (2022). HRC/cobots form the most distinct and dominant theme; bioinspired technologies/energy efficiency are scarcely represented. Compared to its first four years, Industry 5.0’s output is lower than early Industry 4.0, but its growth and volume exceed Construction 4.0/Industry 4.0-in-construction over comparable periods. - HRC in construction: Construction-specific HRC taxonomy emphasizes cognitive interaction levels (pre-programming, adaptive manipulation, imitation learning, improvisatory control). Practical adoption remains limited due to site variability, scale, non-linear processes, dynamic environments, and navigation needs; robots are more feasible in prefabrication/industrialized settings. Key risks include organizational culture/investment, operator safety perceptions, robot accuracy, cost, and project-specific safety constraints. - Overall: HRC is confirmed as the core differentiator of Industry 5.0 vs. Industry 4.0. Construction’s current readiness suggests a staged path: establish effective robotics use (Construction 4.0) before advancing to full HRC-enabled Construction 5.0.

The findings substantiate the paper’s central inquiry: while Industry 4.0 has catalyzed a strong conceptual and bibliometric presence in construction, practical adoption remains uneven and hindered by structural sector characteristics and technology maturity. Industry 5.0’s human-centric orientation, with HRC as its distinguishing feature, is rapidly gaining traction in the literature. However, transferring HRC into construction entails greater complexity than in manufacturing due to larger workspaces, higher safety constraints, and less standardization and repeatability. Thus, the results support a pragmatic, staged trajectory: (1) consolidate Construction 4.0 foundations, particularly robotics and digital integration (BIM/CDE, digital twins); (2) progress to HRC in controlled, industrialized settings (off-site/prefabrication); and (3) expand to on-site HRC as machine learning and vision capabilities advance and safety/trust frameworks mature. The comparison with lean highlights the need for a clear theoretical and implementation framework tailored to construction’s realities, suggesting that a human-centric Construction 5.0 may need to encompass not only HRC but also broader worker well-being and sustainability technologies (e.g., safety analytics, ergonomic monitoring, training/skill upgrading, stress management). These insights are relevant to policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers designing adoption strategies, training programs, and regulatory/safety standards for future construction work.

Construction 4.0 is well-established in the literature but remains conceptually diffuse and practically constrained by sector-specific barriers and technology immaturity. Industry 5.0 reframes ongoing digital transformation by prioritizing human-centric technology use, with HRC as its hallmark. In construction, robotics and HRC remain largely experimental, making a direct leap to Construction 5.0 impractical without first maturing Construction 4.0 capabilities. The paper’s contributions include: mapping Construction 4.0’s evolution and dynamics; contrasting its transfer conditions with lean; clarifying Industry 5.0’s human-centric, HRC-focused core; providing bibliometric evidence of Industry 5.0’s rapid growth; and realistically assessing the pathway and requirements for Construction 5.0. Future research should deepen machine learning and computer vision for safe, intuitive HRC in complex construction environments and consider broadening Construction 5.0 to human-centric applications that directly impact worker well-being and sustainability (e.g., safety prevention, ergonomic monitoring, training/upskilling, stress control, and transparent digital procurement).

The study relies on Scopus as the sole data source and includes only journal articles, excluding conferences and books; thus, relevant works outside these constraints may be missed. Searches were restricted to titles (and secondarily keywords), so pertinent studies without the exact terms ‘Industry/Construction 4.0’ or ‘Industry 5.0’ in titles may have been overlooked. A broader query (title/abstract/keywords) could yield higher counts but at the cost of specificity and feasibility. Bibliometric findings represent a time-bound snapshot (early Feb 2023) in a rapidly evolving field; follow-up studies are needed to track shifts over time.