Investigating The Causal Relationships A

sustainability
Article
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
Ibrahim Yitmen 1 , Amjad Almusaed 1 and Sepehr Alizadehsalehi 2, *
1 Department of Construction Engineering and Lighting Science, School of Engineering, Jönköping University,
551 11 Jönköping, Sweden; ibrahim.yitmen@ju.se (I.Y.); amjad.al-musaed@ju.se (A.A.)
2 Project Management Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL 60208-3109, USA
* Correspondence: sepehralizadehsalehi2018@u.northwestern.edu
Abstract: The Construction 5.0 paradigm is the next phase in industrial development that aims to
combine the skills of human experts in partnership with efficient and precise machines to achieve
production solutions that are resource-efficient and preferred by clients. This study reviewed the
evolution of the Construction 5.0 paradigm by defining its features and diverse nature. It introduced
the architecture, model, and system of Construction 5.0 and its key enablers: Operator 5.0, Society
5.0, human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. The study used the SEM method to evaluate the
research model and investigate the causal relationships among the key enablers of the Construction 5.0
paradigm. Nine vital hypotheses were proposed and assessed comprehensively. The critical enablers’
variables were measured to examine the constructs’ reliability and validity. The key findings showed
that Construction 5.0 prioritizes collaboration between humans and machines, merges cyberspace
with physical space, and balances the three pillars of sustainability (economy, environment, and
society), creating a relationship among Operator 5.0, Society 5.0, human-Ccentricity, sustainability,
and resilience. The study also discussed the limitations and challenges and offered suggestions for
Citation: Yitmen, I.; Almusaed, A.;
future research. Overall, Construction 5.0 aims to achieve sustainable development and become a
Alizadehsalehi, S. Investigating the
robust and resilient provider of prosperity in an industrial community of a shared future. The study
Causal Relationships among Enablers
of the Construction 5.0 Paradigm:
expects to spark debate and promote pioneering research toward the Construction 5.0 paradigm.
Integration of Operator 5.0 and
Society 5.0 with Human-Centricity, Keywords: Construction 5.0; Operator 5.0; Society 5.0; human-centricity; sustainability; resilience;
Sustainability, and Resilience. SEM; industrial growth
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9105.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119105
Academic Editor: Wen-Hsien Tsai

1. Introduction
Received: 13 April 2023 The concept of Industry 5.0 developed only briefly after the introduction of Industry
Revised: 23 May 2023 4.0 and since, has provoked much debate [1]. The “smart factory” is the epicenter of
Accepted: 29 May 2023
Industry 4.0, bringing together cyber-physical production systems [2,3] through intelligent
Published: 5 June 2023
products, equipment, storage systems, and data. Although Industry 4.0 has made it
easier for humans to communicate with machines, it should consider humans’ vital role
in achieving socially sustainable developments [4]. Employees’ value was brought to
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
light by the COVID-19 outbreak, leading some to question the efficacy of the Industry
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 4.0 paradigm [5,6]. As a result, Industry 5.0 was developed as a follow-up to Industry
This article is an open access article 4.0 that considers environmental and social factors [7]. The adaptability of production
distributed under the terms and methods and their effect on the environment are also significant concerns in the Industry
conditions of the Creative Commons 5.0 paradigm [8–10].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The European Commission (EC) [7] defines Industry 5.0 as a natural progression from
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Industry 4.0, focusing on research and innovation as the engine of a resilient, human-
4.0/). centered, and environmentally friendly European industry. In contrast to the technology-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119105 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9105 2 of 25
centric approach of Industry 4.0, the value of new technologies is emphasized in Industry
5.0, along with the importance of resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity in value-
creation systems [10]. Kusiak [11,12] and Xu et al. [6] endorse the concept of resilient and
open manufacturing and highlight the value-adding viewpoint of Industry 5.0. According
to the EC [13], the goals of Industry 5.0 include creating more welcoming workplaces,
strengthening supply networks, and adopting environmentally friendly industrial tech-
niques. “Sustainable social wellbeing” is a topic addressed by Choi et al. [14] about
human–machine interactions in the period of Industry 5.0.
Industry 4.0 and 5.0’s underlying principles were analyzed by Zizic et al. [1]. Under
a theoretical and practical framework, they emphasized the importance of people, orga-
nizations, and technology as enablers of their implementation. From a management of
operations and supply chain standpoint, Ivanov [10] laid out a framework for Industry
5.0. The viable supply chain model, reconfigurable supply chains, and human-centric
ecosystems are lenses to place the framework’s consideration of the societal, network,
and plant levels in perspective. Finally, the definition and ramifications of Industry 5.0
for operations and supply chain management, industrial engineering, computer science,
robotics, and automation are examined.
Regarding the transformation of processes and supply chain management, the con-
cepts and technologies of Industry 5.0 may be seen more clearly via the framework lens,
which considers topics such as resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity. A focus on
human needs and well-being, an emphasis on environmental sustainability, and dedication
to maintaining stability in the face of possible problems are the three main elements of
Industry 5.0, as identified by Leng et al. [15]. Maddikunta et al. [16] proposed unique
definitions and ideas of Industry 5.0 based on observations from diverse industry pro-
fessionals and academics and detailed the potential applications and technologies that
may enable Industry 5.0. There must be a more thorough knowledge and conception
of this new paradigm across management, organization, and technology, notwithstand-
ing the expanding study of the technological components of the Industry 5.0 [1,10,15,16]
framework lens.
The concept of “Construction 5.0” as a future paradigm in the construction industry
has not been widely recognized by researchers yet. This is because academic research
processes can be slow and as Industry 4.0 becomes less relevant [17], there may be efforts
to revive the concept [18]. Further research is needed in machine learning and machine
vision to ensure safe and efficient interactions between robots and humans in construction
environments. While the use of interactive robots in construction is currently experimental,
it would be reasonable for researchers to expand the Construction 5.0 paradigm to include
other technologies and applications that have similar impacts on worker well-being and
sustainability in the industry. The focus of Construction 5.0 should be on human-centered
applications, in line with the principles of Industry 5.0, but also practical and compatible
with the needs of the construction industry [19].
There is a lack of comprehensive conceptualization of the Construction 5.0 paradigm
from the human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience perspectives. This study contributes
a conceptualization of Construction 5.0 based on a technology-driven, super-smart society
and a human–robot collaboration perspective. The proposed framework for Construction
5.0 integrates society and cyber-physical systems (CPS), and human–robot collaboration is
contextualized through viable human-centric ecosystems. Construction 5.0 is defined and
its technological, organizational, management, and performance implications, covering
perspectives from Society 5.0 and Operator 5.0, is discussed.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a theoretical context for Construc-
tion 5.0 and its framework. Methodological details, including the SEM model, hypothesis
generation, measurement, and structural model evaluation, are presented in Section 3.
Section 4 discusses theoretical contributions, limitations, and future research directions.
Section 5 of the manuscript comes last.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. The Evolution towards Construction 5.0
It is widely agreed that the goal of Industry 5.0 is to improve upon the resource-
efficiency and consumer-preferred manufacturing solutions of Industry 4.0 by combining
the inventiveness of human specialists with efficient, intelligent, and accurate machinery.
Leng et al. [15] state that several potential technologies and applications are anticipated to
facilitate Industry 5.0 to enhance productivity and provide individualized products in a
natural approach.
2.1.1. Construction 4.0

Construction 4.0 is an adaptation of the Industry 4.0 framework that can boost pro-
ductivity, quality, and safety in the building industry. Cyber-physical systems (CPS) and
digital ecosystems form the backbone of this framework, which also uses other cutting-edge
innovations in areas such as robotics, industrialized building, AI, and more. As a result,
Construction 4.0 has the potential to revolutionize how physical infrastructure is planned,
developed, and produced in the built environment [20].
The future construction industry will rely on CPS for maximum efficiency. Prefabrica-
tion, 3D printing, automation, augmented reality (AR), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
sensors, robots, and big data are all a part of Construction 4.0, which aims to improve
decision-making in real time [21,22]. Using simulation and virtualization at construction
sites is central to the plan to produce smart construction sites. There are three scenar-
ios in Construction 4.0. Scenario I is the integration of digital end-to-end engineering
and technology for automation in the physical construction environment. Scenario II is
interchangeability, and Scenario III is digitalization, which includes both digital end-to-
end engineering integration and technology for automation in the physical construction
environment.
By improving corporate safety, quality, and resource efficiency, as well as increasing
productivity, Construction 4.0 can minimize project delays and costs, manage complexity,
and improve resource efficiency [23]. Architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)
projects that use cutting-edge technology and materials are more visually attractive, cost-
effective, user-friendly, secure, and long-lasting. Recent advancements in materials and
advanced technologies such as AI, robotics, nanotechnology, 3D printing, and biotech-
nology have ushered in a new age in the construction sector [24–27]. Big data and the
Internet of Things have tremendous transformative potential due to falling prices for
sensors, data storage, and computer services. Advanced technology, tools, and materials fa-
cilitate the construction industry’s digital transformation. This transformation provides an
all-encompassing perspective of material advancements, emerging trends, state-of-the-art
technologies, and intelligent building design, construction, and operation methods.
2.1.2. Operator 5.0

The concept of the Resilient Operator 5.0 may be broken down into two parts. The
first part addresses the workforce’s vulnerability by strengthening its “self-resilience.” In
contrast, the second part of a manufacturing system that relies on human operators and
machines to operate together for optimal performance focuses on increasing the “system
resiliency” of all human–machine systems. Each worker’s physical, biological, cognitive,
and psychological well-being and contribution to the overall health and safety of the
workplace are all aspects of self-resilience. Nevertheless, system resilience looks at ways to
maintain human–machine system operation, such as handing off and taking control [15,28].
The goal of Industry 5.0 is to enhance production procedures by combining human
specialists’ efforts with autonomous machines’ efforts. Industry 5.0 emphasizes human
and machine cooperation more than its predecessor, Industry 4.0, which emphasizes
automation. Trust between people and robots will grow when autonomous machines learn
to comprehend human intents and needs. As a result of working together, production
will gain value, waste, reduced costs, and enhanced safety. Collaborative robots (Cobots),
the next generation of robots, will be able to learn rapidly and pick up on human tactics,
resembling apprentices in some ways. Cobots will assist human workers in completing
jobs while monitoring for risks and ensuring all necessary precautions are taken. Seeing
the trend towards this next industrial revolution and seizing the window of opportunity to
adapt correctly is essential for all parties concerned [15,29].
2.1.3. Society 5.0

Both the industry and the larger society depend on one another. According to socio-
technical systems theory, industry shifts can spur societal development and vice versa [30].
Society 5.0 is an idea that proposes integrating cyberspace and physical space to improve
economic and social conditions for all people, regardless of their location, age, gender, or
ability to communicate in a common language [31]. Society 5.0 aspires to revolutionize
the industry by combining IT with the human lifestyle and how people interact with their
surroundings. Society 5.0 is defined by four main ideas: a human-centric society, merging
cyberspace with physical space, a knowledge-intensive society, and a data-driven society.
Figure 1 illustrates these ideas.
Figure 1. The concept of Society 5.0 (adapted from Leng et al. [15]).
2.2. Construction 5.0 Framework

Combining Industry 4.0, Society 5.0, and Operator 5.0 into a single system named
“Industry 4.1” [7] can ease the shift to Industry 5.0, as seen in Figure 2. A European Union
(EU) white paper has addressed the concept of Industry 4.1 [7]. A transition from Industry
4.0 to Industry 5.0 is necessary because of the time required for a new industrial revolution.
The shift to Industry 5.0 requires a social basis provided by Society 5.0, a human-centric
and super-smart society. In smart manufacturing, the human–robot collaboration (HRC)
paradigm emphasizes the significance of human-centric thinking, and Operator 5.0 acts as
a reference point for this approach. While Industry 5.0 is a significant advancement, it is
still just the beginning. As the world’s industrial level and people’s living standards reach
a certain point in industrial history [15], it is unsurprising that Industry 5.0 is emerging.
Figure 2. A unified Industry 4.1 system composed of Industry 4.0, Operator 5.0, and Society 5.0
(adapted from Leng et al. [15]).
This study focuses on deciphering and understanding the HRC and characteristics of
Industry 5.0. The EU concept of Industry 5.0, or the growth of the mass individualization
manufacturing paradigm, has been the primary focus of most research. Despite being
viewed as the “sublation” of Industry 4.0, there is a shortage of systematic research findings
and authorized literature because Industry 5.0 is still in its early investigative phase.
Figure 3 is a conceptual framework adapted from Leng et al. [15] for the connotation system
of Construction 5.0, which summarizes the current state of research and highlights recent
accomplishments in the field. Industry 4.0 and smart production have long emphasized
human creativity as a critical factor in their success.
Figure 3. Construction 5.0 framework (adapted from Leng et al. [15]).
2.2.1. Definition of Construction 5.0

The revolution to Industry 5.0 is motivated by the evolving dynamic between people
and smart systems. There were three definitions and valuations of Industry 5.0 given.
Industry 5.0 is defined by the EC [13] as a human-centered, sustainable, and resilient
manufacturing/production paradigm that considers the industry’s future. Nahavandi [32]
defines Industry 5.0 as the collaboration between humans and machines to enhance process
efficiency by integrating workflows with intelligent systems. According to Friedman and
Hendry [33], new technologies in manufacturing systems need to be implemented with
an emphasis on human aspects to be considered part of Industry 5.0. Industry 5.0 is
the period of the socially intelligent factory when collaborative robots assist humans and
business social networks facilitate conversation between people and cyber-physical systems.
Industry 5.0 restores humanity to manufacturing by integrating AI into formerly manual
processes. Harmony of robots, humans, values, tasks, knowledge, and abilities is at the
heart of Industry 5.0, allowing for individualized products and services.
Industry 5.0 is an evolving concept to increase teamwork and innovation in the
international manufacturing sector. Nonetheless, the following is a summary of the core
ideas of Industry 5.0: worker safety is given priority, and the environment is protected;
simultaneously, humans and machines work together in harmony. The end goal goes
beyond mere economic growth and creating new jobs. Instead, Industry 5.0 advocates for
green development and a super-intelligent society emphasizing environmental ideals. Its
long-term ambition is to become an integral part of a global industrial community united
by shared values and aspirations [15].
2.2.2. Characteristics of Construction 5.0

“Industry 5.0” refers to a recently conceived strategy for further digitizing and ad-
vancing the industry. It assumes that a new paradigm in the sector should contribute to
accomplishing social objectives and boosting productivity, economic development, and the
number of available jobs. A significant number of the digital technologies developed for
Industry 4.0 should also apply to Industry 5.0. [16]. The goal of new technologies, which
must be built on three interrelated fundamental values to fulfill this new vision’s primary
recommendation for change, will be rethought as follows:
Human-centricity refers to the idea that fundamental human needs and interests
and those of society should be at the center of the design and manufacturing processes.
Furthermore, to achieve sustainability, procedures that are carbon-neutral and circular,
which repurpose, recycle, and reuse natural resources, as well as decrease waste and
environmental impact, should be created. This will ultimately result in the creation of
a circular economy. The term “resilience” refers to the need to meet the challenge of
preventing the incidence of interruptions in times of crisis by supplying or sustaining
critical infrastructure. The economic crisis that occurred in 2008, the epidemic caused by
the COVID-19 virus, and the present problem caused by global warming have brought
to light the need to rethink existing working techniques and approaches to lessen the
susceptibility of supply chains.
Human-Centricity
The individualized needs of prosumers [4,34] prevent the industry from replacing
humans with machines or robots. Nevertheless, humans are still necessary for complete
automation and digitalization since their presence improves the system’s fault-handling
capabilities [34–36]. A human-centric manufacturing approach is essential for factories
to achieve flexibility, agility, and disruption resilience [37–39]. Worker health and safety
can be increased while tedious activities are decreased when humans and robots work
together [40,41]. Human-centric manufacturing prioritizes people and their needs and
interests over technological considerations [6].
If human-centricity is one-way only, technologies will never reach their full poten-
tial [13]. As a result, critical socio-environmental data should be analyzed using an AI-
centric way of thinking, leading to AI-enhanced decision support that encourages global
sustainable development [42]. When applied to industrial work systems, critical human-
centric thinking combines human factors and ergonomics to boost system efficiency and em-
ployee satisfaction, all while accommodating the obstacles posed by social technologies [43].
Human-centric explainable AI (HC-XAI) [44] is based on the idea that human-centricity
necessitates intelligent robots that can grasp the interrelated interactions between humans
and machines in unstructured situations. Trust is the foundation of every human-centered
society. The social infrastructure of communication networks may be safeguarded through
cooperative efforts by all community members [31].
Sustainability
Sustainable techniques have been acknowledged for their value throughout past in-
dustrial revolutions [45]. Renewable energy is an essential component of the future, but
sustainable manufacturing is the key to its long-term survival [46]. Sustainable manufac-
turing is a part of both the “Responsible consumption and production” and the “Industry,
innovation, and infrastructure” targets of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). Product and service innovation is essential to long-term sustainability [47].
To provide mass-customized goods and services, a sustainable manufacturing vision calls
for the decentralized linkage of socialized manufacturing resources and open architectural
products [46,48]. Customers require social sustainability information, but it can be chal-
lenging to track down complex supply chains, for which blockchain technology could be
the solution [46,49]. The three components of a sustainable society are the economy, the
environment, and society.
On the other hand, the present paradigm of Industry 5.0 emphasizes human-centered
and social demands more than the other two pillars of sustainability. Nonetheless, economic
sustainability is still crucial, and the three pillars must be balanced at various points in
implementing Industry 5.0 to succeed. The international construction of Industry 5.0 is
intended to be completed with increased productivity, speed, quality, and savings using
environmentally responsible methods [15].
Resilience
For a system to be resilient, it must recover quickly from disruptions, such as those
caused by natural disasters such as the COVID-19 epidemic or considerable, ongoing
pressure [50]. Industry 5.0 relies heavily on a significant level of resilience [51]. This is
because Industry 5.0 emphasizes the resilience of a wider variety of industrial systems, not
just the ability of enterprises to cope with external uncertainties such as the unpredictability
of markets, supply chains, and customers. This involves exposing a country’s or region’s
manufacturing process to unidentified risks [52].
A summary of the literature contributing to the development of the Construction 5.0
framework is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of literature contributing to the development of the Construction 5.0 framework.
No Constructs and Indicators References

Construction 5.0 Framework
1 Operator 5.0
1.1 Self-resiliency of the workforce
1.2 System resiliency of all human–machine systems
1.3 Autonomous machines capable of understanding human intentions and desires
[1,6,15,28,29,53–56]
1.4 Cobots working alongside human operators to perform tasks
Efficient production process with increased value, decreased waste and expenses, and
1.5
improved safety
2 Society 5.0
2.1 Human-centric society
2.2 Merging cyberspace with physical space
[6,10,14,15,30,31,57–74]
2.3 A knowledge-intensive society
2.4 A data-driven society
2.5 New social value
3 Human-centricity
3.1 Machines and robots are not replacing humans in the industry
3.2 Human involvement is essential for achieving automation and digitalization
3.3 Prioritizing human needs and interests as the foundation of the production process
[1,4,6,10,15,29–31,34–53,75]
Demanding intelligent robots that can understand the interconnected relationships between
3.4
humans and machines in unstructured environments
Autonomously ensuring the security and stability of communication networks that serve as
3.5
social infrastructure
4 Sustainability
Sustainable production vision involving the decentralized connection of socialized
4.1
production resources and products to deliver mass-individualized products and services
Implementation of Construction 5.0 balances the three pillars (economy, environment, and
4.2 [1,6,10,15,45–49,53]
society) in different stages to achieve success
4.3 Customers expecting information on social sustainability
4.4 Traceability in multi-tier supply chains through blockchain technology
Achieving Construction 5.0 with greater quantity, faster speed, better quality, and cost
4.5
savings through sustainable practices
5 Resilience
Table 1. Cont.
No Constructs and Indicators References

5.1 Re-thinking existing working methods and approaches
5.2 Reducing the vulnerability of supply chains
5.3 Focusing on the ability of firms to cope with external uncertainties
[1,6,10,15,29,50–53]
5.4 Focusing on the resilience of a wider range of industrial systems
Technology systems and solutions prioritizing stability over resilience and providing more
5.5
prevalent and mass-automation solutions
6 Construction 5.0 Model
6.1 Needs for a buffer period between Construction 4.0 and Industry 5.0
Construction 4.0, Society 5.0, and Operator 5.0 are to be combined into a unified system
6.2
Construction 4.1
6.3 Society 5.0 provides a social foundation for the transition to Construction 5.0
[7,15,32,33,76,77]
Operator 5.0 serves as a reference point for the human–robot collaboration in smart
6.4
production
Harmony between machines, humans, values, tasks, knowledge, and skills, leading to
6.5
customized products and services
3. Construction 5.0 Framework

The overview of the research methodology involving theoretical and practical ap-
proaches is depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Research methodology.

Figure 4. Research methodology.
3.1. SEM Model and Hypothesis Development

Connections among the Operator 5.0, Society 5.0, human-centricity, sustainability,
resilience, and Construction 5.0 models are highlighted in the literature study presented
in Section 2. Figure 5 shows how the connections between Operator 5.0 and the other
tenets of the Construction 5.0 model, including Society 5.0, human-centricity, sustainability,
and resilience, are depicted. To explain and make sense of these interactions and their
orientations, the study establishes a connection between the construct measurements and
the underlying theory. The following hypotheses are derived from this evidence:
Figure 5. Hypothesized SEM model.
H1 : Instituting Operator 5.0 facilitates Society 5.0.

H2 : Initiating Society 5.0 encourages the initiation of human-centricity.
H3 : Activating Society 5.0 maintains sustainability.
H4 : Establishing Society 5.0 strengthens resilience.
H5 : Motivating human-centricity contributes to sustainability.
H6 : Sustaining resilience supports sustainability.
H7 : Facilitating human-centricity stimulates the Construction 5.0 model.
H8 : Maintaining resilience endorses the Construction 5.0 model.
H9 : Incorporating Operator 5.0 and Society 5.0, human-centricity, resilience, and sustainability
facilitates the establishment of the Construction 5.0 model.
3.2. Data Collection

Specialists involved in building construction, architectural design, engineering de-
sign, IT in construction, digital strategy consulting, and academia were contacted via a
computerized self-administered questionnaire (CSAQ) survey. The study’s objectives were
disseminated to 189 organizations worldwide using a variety of communication channels
such as professional network platforms, e-mail, and social media platforms. Each statement
was accompanied by a Likert scale on which respondents were asked to rate their degree of
agreement, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Organizations’ primary contacts
for the survey questions were upper-level executives. Thus, it was expected that their
experience would provide accurate outcomes. Thirty construction managers, 28 design
managers, 27 BIM Coordinators, 24 digitalization consultants, and 21 academics comprised
130 respondents (one respondent from each company).
Appendix A reveals that the questionnaire included 30 questions on the Construction
5.0 model. Prioritizing collaboration between humans and machines, merging cyberspace
with physical space with a knowledge-intensive and data-driven society, prioritizing human
needs and interests in the manufacturing process, balancing the three pillars (economy,
environment, and society) of sustainability in different stages to achieve success, having
the ability of firms in industrial chain/system to cope with external uncertainties, and the
harmony between machines, humans, values, tasks, knowledge, and skills are all central
to this model. The survey questions were designed to evaluate respondents’ familiarity
with Operator 5.0, Society 5.0, human-centricity, and resilience, and how they all play a role
in establishing the Construction 5.0 model for sustainability. Table 2 displays the survey
participants’ demographic information.
Table 2. Distribution of respondents according to company type, role, size, and region.
BIM Digitalization
Construction Design
Company Type Coordinators: Consultants: Academic: 16%
Manager: 23% Manager: 21.5%
21% 18.5%
Digital twin: 3%
Digitalization: 6%
BIM: 19% BIM: 16% BIM: 16% Ph.D. student:
Role BIM: 8%
Digital twin: 4% Digital twin: 5,5% Digital twin: 5% 16y%
Software
development: 2,5%
Company Size
Small (31%) 8% 7% 6% 5% 5%
Medium (37%) 10% 9% 7% 6% 5%
Large (32%) 9% 7% 6% 6% 5%
Operating Region
Scandinavia (34%) 8% 8% 7% 6% 5%
Europe (41%) 10% 10% 9% 7% 5%
N. America (20%) 6% 6% 4% 3% 1%
Middle East (5%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
3.3. Measurement
Multiple items were used in a method that assessed the variables. This approach
improves confidence in the accuracy and consistency of the evaluation. The Likert scale,
with its five levels, was used to rate each item. The collection of perceptual elements used
to evaluate each variable is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Measurement model evaluation.
Scale Items Item Mean SD Loadings AVE CR α

Operator 5.0 OP
Self-resiliency of the workforce OP1 3.788 0.744 0.768
System resiliency of all human–machine systems OP2 3.824 0.760 0.782
Autonomous machines capable of understanding human
OP3 3.796 0.751 0.773 0.784 0.812 0.732
intentions and desires
Cobots working alongside human operators to perform tasks OP4 3.865 0.773 0.791
Efficient production process with increased value, decreased
OP5 3.884 0.784 0.806
waste and expenses, and improved safety
Society 5.0 SOC
Human-centric society SOC1 3.748 0.722 0.754
Merging cyberspace with physical space SOC2 3.824 0.753 0.771
A knowledge-intensive society SCO3 3.782 0.741 0.765 0.773 0.806 0.726
A data-driven society SOC4 3.845 0.764 0.780
New social value SOC5 3.874 0.776 0.794
Human-centricity HC
Table 3. Cont.
Scale Items Item Mean SD Loadings AVE CR α

Machines and robots are not replacing humans in the industry HC1 3.825 0.754 0.772
Human involvement is essential for achieving automation and
HC2 3.874 0.776 0.792
digitalization
Prioritizing human needs and interests as the foundation of the
HC3 3.844 0.763 0.786 0.788 0.820 0.742
production process
Demanding intelligent robots that can understand the
interconnected relationships between humans and machines in HC4 3.873 0.775 0.797
unstructured environments
Autonomously ensuring the security and stability of
HC5 3.866 0.771 0.793
communication networks that serve as social infrastructure
Sustainability SUS
Sustainable production vision involving the decentralized
connection of socialized production resources and products to SUS1 03.841 0.762 0.784
deliver mass-individualized products and services
Implementation of Construction 5.0 balances the three pillars
(economy, environment, and society) in different stages to SUS2 3.874 0.776 0.795
achieve success
Customers expecting information on social sustainability SUS3 3.826 0.753 0.773 0.785 0.818 0.740
Traceability in multi-tier supply chains through blockchain
SUS4 3.824 0.751 0.776
technology
Achieving Construction 5.0 with greater quantity, faster speed,
SUS5 3.866 0.771 0.799
better quality, and cost savings through sustainable practices
Resilience RES
Re-thinking existing working methods and approaches RES1 3.748 0.722 0.745
Reducing the vulnerability of supply chains RES2 3.781 0.742 0.761
Focusing on the ability of firms to cope with external
RES3 3.741 0.734 0.758 0.764 0.798 0.720
uncertainties
Focusing on the resilience of a wider range of industrial systems RES4 3.826 0.753 0.771
Technology systems and solutions prioritizing stability over
resilience and providing more prevalent and mass-automation RES5 3.842 0.762 0.786
solutions
Construction 5.0 Model CON
Need for a buffer period between Construction 4.0 and
CON1 4.124 0.822 0.841
Industry 5.0.
Construction 4.0, Society 5.0, and Operator 5.0 are to be
CON2 4.224 0.832 0.855
combined into a unified system, Construction 4.1
Society 5.0 provides a social foundation for the transition to
CON3 4.016 0.811 0.833 0.845 0.880 0.782
Construction 5.0
Operator 5.0 serves as a reference point for human–robot
CON4 4.010 0.813 0.839
collaboration in smart production
Harmony between machines, humans, values, tasks,
knowledge, and skills, leading to customized products and CON5 4.226 0.833 0.859
services
Note: AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; α = Cronbach alpha.
3.4. Assessment of the Measurement Model

Variance-based structural equation modeling was performed with the support of
SmartPLS 4.0 PLS path modeling. The quality of the measurement model was evaluated by
analyzing convergent validity, discriminant validity, and the standardized factor loadings of
the latent variables in the model [78]. Two tests were accomplished to assess the concurrent
validity of the measured constructs in PLS-SEM: (i) the composite reliability (CR) score
and Cronbach’s alpha for the constructs and (ii) the average variance retrieved (AVE),
which measures the extent to which a construct’s variation from its indicators is affected by
measurement error.
The definition of composite reliability (CR) for construct ξj is expressed as follows [79]:
Kj
2
∑k=1 λ jk
ρcξ j = 2 (1)
Kj
∑k=1 λ jk + θ jk
where:
Kj is the number of indicators of construct ξj ;
λjk are factor loadings;
Θjk is the error variance of the kth indicator (k = 1, . . . , Kj ) of construct ξ j .
Kj
θ jk = ∑ 1 − λ2jk (2)
k =1
The definition of average variance extracted (AVE) for construct ξ j is expressed as

follows [79]:
Kj
∑k=1 λ2jk
AVEξ j = K (3)
∑k=1 λ2jk + θ jk
j
where:
Kj is the number of indicators of construct ξ j ;
λjk are factor loadings;
Θjk is the error variance of the kth indicator (k = 1, . . . , Kj ) of construct ξ j .
As shown in Table 3, all of the constructs showed satisfactory levels of internal reliabil-
ity throughout the measurement model analysis. The CR values for all individual constructs
are more significant than 0.70, falling between 0.798 and 0.880. In addition, the model’s
convergent validity was satisfactory as all constructs had AVE values over 0.5 (ranging
from 0.764 to 0.845). The Cronbach alpha (α) values for the main constructs are greater
than 0.70, falling between 0.720 and 0.782. The square root of the AVE was then calculated
to assess the discriminant validity of the constructs. The construct Construction 5.0 model
had the highest AVE, CR, and α values, 0.845, 0.880, and 0.782, respectively. The human-
centricity construct had the second highest AVE, CR, and α values, 0.788, 0.820, and 0.742,
respectively. Conversely, the construct resilience had the lowest AVE, CR, and Cronbach
alpha (α) values, 0.764, 0.798, and 0.720, respectively. Society 5.0 had the second-lowest
AVE, CR, and Cronbach alpha (α) values, 0.773, 0.806, and 0.726, respectively.
The findings confirmed argument 4, that all constructs had adequate discriminant
validity since all absolute root values were more significant than the correlation values with
all other constructs, as seen in Table 4. As a result, the measurement model was considered
reliable enough to study the interplay of the constituent parts.
Table 4. Construct intercorrelations and discriminant validity.
Latent Construction 5.0

Operator 5.0 Society 5.0 Human-Centricity Sustainability Resilience
Construct Model
Operator 5.0 0.887
Society 5.0 0.782 0.886
Human-
0.734 0.748 0.886
Centricity
Sustainability 0.686 0.734 0.726 0.884
Resilience 0.698 0.736 0.748 0.760 0.885
Construction
0.708 0.782 0.794 0.788 0.786 0.888
5.0 Model
Note: values on diagonal (in bold) are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE).
3.5. Assessment of the Structural Model

Three metrics were used to assess the structural model’s reliability and validity: the
path coefficients’ values, the model’s goodness-of-fit (GoF) value, and the R2 values of
the dependent constructs [78,80]. R2 is the percentage of the dependent variable variation
that the model explains. Statistically, R2 is calculated by subtracting the sum of squares
of residuals (SSres) from the total sum of squares (SStot) and subtracting it from 1. In this
case, SStot measures the total variation, SSreg measures the explained variation, and SSres
measures the unexplained variation. As SSres + SSreg = SStot , R2 = Explained variation /
√
Total Variation. R2 = 1 − SSres /SStot = R2 = [n (∑xy) − ∑x ∑y/ [n × (∑x2 − (∑x)2 )] ×
[n × (∑y2 − (∑y)2 )]]2 , where r = the correlation coefficient, n = the number in the given
dataset, x = the first variable in the context, and y = the second variable. R2 ranges from 0
to 1, with higher values indicating greater explanatory power. As a guideline, R2 values of
0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 can be considered substantial, moderate, and weak, respectively [78,81].
The R2 value of the model indicated that exogenous Operator 5.0 collectively accounted
for 0.692 of the variance in Society 5.0, human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience,
which allowed the Construction 5.0 model to be developed. Positive correlations were
found between the constructs Operator 5.0 and Society 5.0 (correlation coefficient = 0.782,
p < 0.01), Society 5.0 and human-centricity (correlation coefficient = 0.748, p < 0.01), Society
5.0 and Sustainability (correlation coefficient = 0.734, p < 0.05), Society 5.0 and resilience
(correlation coefficient = 0.736, p < 0.05), human-centricity and sustainability (correlation
coefficient = 0.726, p < 0.05), resilience and sustainability (correlation coefficient = 0.760,
p < 0.01), human-centricity and Construction 5.0 model (correlation coefficient = 0.794,
p < 0.01), resilience and Construction 5.0 model (correlation coefficient = 0.786, p < 0.01),
and sustainability and Construction 5.0 model (correlation coefficient = 0.788, p < 0.01), as
√ √
shown in Table 4. The GoF value for this model was GoF = R2 × AVE = 0.692 × 0.783
= 0.736, representing a significant model fit and a high degree of confidence in the model.
The findings of the construct intercorrelations and discriminant validity are presented
in Table 4.
The connection between sustainability and the Construction 5.0 model had the highest
PLS path co-efficient value β = 0.852, representing the particularly most robust positive
relationship between the constructs. The connection between human-centricity and sus-
tainability had the second-highest PLS path co-efficient value β = 0.848, indicating a strong
positive relationship between the constructs. Finally, the relations between Society 5.0 and
resilience and Society 5.0 and human-centricity had the lowest PLS path co-efficient values,
β = 0.796 and β = 0.800, respectively, indicating a strong positive relationship between the
constructs. The significance of all the connections have been inferred as T-statistics > 2. The
T-statistics values range between t = 4.418 and t = 5.326. The results of the PLS analysis
involving construct interrelations are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Results of PLS analysis.
Structural Paths in the Model Sign PLS Path Co-Efficient t-Statistics Inference
H1: Operator 5.0 → Society 5.0 + β = 0.804 ** 4.426 Supported
H2: Society 5.0 → Human-Centricity + β = 0.800 ** 4.418 Supported
H3: Society 5.0 → Sustainability + β = 0.810 ** 4.434 Supported
H4: Society 5.0 → Resilience + β = 0.796 ** 4.178 Supported
H5: Human-Centricity → Sustainability + β = 0.842 *** 5.276 Supported
H6: Resilience → Sustainability + β = 0.826 *** 4.962 Supported
H7: Human-Centricity → Construction 5.0 Model + β = 0.848 *** 5.302 Supported
H8: Resilience → Construction 5.0 Model + β = 0.844 *** 5.288 Supported
H9: Sustainability → Construction 5.0 Model + β = 0.852 *** 5.326 Supported
** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
4. Discussion
This research provides a hypothetical framework to examine the significance of Oper-
ator 5.0 and Society 5.0 integrated with human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience in
developing a Construction 5.0 model.
The findings of assessing the causal relationships between the enablers of Operator 5.0 and
Society 5.0 emphasized in H1 are consistent with the previous studies [15,28,28,29,53–56,82].
The indicators associated with Operator 5.0 play a crucial role in facilitating the realization of
Society 5.0 in the Construction 5.0 framework. One key indicator is the self-resiliency of the
workforce, which forms an integral part of Operator 5.0. When individuals possess physical,
cognitive, and psychological resilience and actively contribute to workplace health and safety, it
lays a solid foundation for achieving Society 5.0’s goals. Similarly, the system resiliency of all
human–machine systems is vital. By ensuring seamless coordination and continuous operation
between human operators and machines, Society 5.0 can thrive and benefit from the efficient
functioning of these systems.
Furthermore, the integration of autonomous machines capable of understanding
human intentions and desires and cobots working alongside human operators brings
immense value. These advancements allow for enhanced adaptability, productivity, and
collaboration within the framework of Society 5.0. Lastly, an efficient construction process
characterized by increased value, reduced waste and expenses, and improved safety is
a critical component of Operator 5.0. Such optimization within construction aligns with
the principles of Society 5.0, leading to a technologically advanced and human-centered
society.
The findings of assessing the causal relationships between the enablers of Soci-
ety 5.0 and human-centricity highlighted in H2 are coherent with the previous stud-
ies [13,30,31,34–44,57–64,83,84]. The indicators associated with Society 5.0 emphasize the
importance of a human-centric society, merging cyberspace with physical space, a knowledge-
intensive society, a data-driven society, and the encouragement of new social value, all
of which contribute to initiating human-centricity in the Construction 5.0 framework. A
human-centric society lies at the core of Society 5.0, focusing on the well-being and needs
of individuals as the driving force behind technological advancements in construction.
By merging cyberspace with physical space, Society 5.0 creates a seamless integration of
digital technologies into employees’ daily operational processes, enhancing connectivity
and convenience in construction. In a knowledge-intensive society, the emphasis is on
acquiring, sharing, and applying knowledge, fostering continuous learning and innovation
in construction. Finally, a data-driven organization harnesses the power of data to drive
insights, informed decision-making, and optimization across various domains in construc-
tion processes. Additionally, encouraging new social value promotes the exploration of
innovative ideas and approaches, prioritizing societal well-being and progress. Together,
these indicators shape the initiation of human-centricity within Society 5.0, fostering a soci-
ety that revolves around human needs, leverages technology for the benefit of individuals,
promotes knowledge sharing and data utilization, and embraces new social values to drive
positive change in the construction processes.
The findings of assessing the causal relationships between the enablers of Society
5.0 and sustainability stressed in H3 align with the previous studies [15,34,36,45–49]. In
the context of society’s contribution to sustainability, several indicators play a crucial
role. One fundamental indicator is the recognition that machines and robots should
not replace humans in the construction industry. Human involvement is essential for
achieving automation and digitalization while preserving the value of human input in
construction processes. Prioritizing human needs and interests as the foundation of the
construction process ensures that technological advancements align with human well-
being and sustainability goals in construction. Another critical aspect is the demand for
intelligent robots capable of comprehending the intricate relationships between humans
and machines in unstructured working environments at construction sites. By emphasizing
this requirement, collaborative and symbiotic interactions can be fostered, maximizing the
benefits of automation in construction processes.
Furthermore, autonomously ensuring the security and stability of communication
networks, which serve as social infrastructure, contributes significantly to sustainability
in construction. These indicators collectively drive the adoption of practices prioritizing
human involvement, understanding, and security, leading to a sustainable society that
leverages technology while maintaining human-centric values in the construction industry.
In the pursuit of sustainability, various indicators play a crucial role in shaping a society’s
contribution in construction. One important indicator is adopting a sustainable construc-
tion vision that entails decentralized connections between socialized construction resources
and products. This approach enables the delivery of mass-individualized products and
services, considering customers’ diverse needs and preferences while minimizing the envi-
ronmental impact of construction processes. Another key indicator is the implementation of
Construction 5.0, which aims to balance the three pillars of the economy, environment, and
society at different stages of construction projects. By incorporating sustainable practices,
Construction 5.0 succeeds while ensuring social and environmental responsibility.
Additionally, customers today increasingly expect information on social sustainability,
driving the need for transparent traceability in multi-tier supply chains in construction.
Blockchain technology provides a reliable and efficient means to achieve this traceability,
enhancing accountability and promoting sustainable practices in construction processes.
Ultimately, achieving Construction 5.0 involves pursuing greater quantity, faster speed,
better quality, and cost savings through sustainable approaches. By combining these
indicators, society can actively contribute to sustainability by embracing decentralized
production, considering social and environmental aspects, promoting transparency, and
striving for continuous improvement in the construction industry.
The findings of assessing the causal relationships between the enablers of Society 5.0
and resilience emphasized in H4 are consistent with the previous studies [30,31,50–52].
Several indicators play a significant role in the pursuit of resilience within Society 5.0.
First and foremost, there is a need to re-think existing working methods and approaches,
embracing innovative and adaptable strategies that can withstand and recover from dis-
ruptions in construction processes. Furthermore, reducing the vulnerability of supply
chains in construction is crucial to ensure the continuous flow of goods and services even
in challenging circumstances. Society 5.0 also emphasizes the importance of focusing on
the ability of firms to cope with external uncertainties, equipping them with the tools and
capabilities to navigate through unexpected events in construction processes.
Additionally, resilience is not limited to individual firms but extends to a wider
range of industrial systems, recognizing the interconnectedness and interdependencies
within the overall construction ecosystem. Finally, technology systems and solutions
prioritizing stability over resilience and providing prevalent and mass-automation solutions
can significantly contribute to the overall resilience of Society 5.0. By embracing these
indicators, Society 5.0 strives to build a resilient society that can withstand and thrive in
the face of various challenges, promoting stability, adaptability, and preparedness in the
technological and industrial landscape in construction.
The findings of the assessment of the causal relationships between the enablers of
human-centricity and sustainability highlighted in H5 are coherent with the previous stud-
ies [4,6,13,31,34–49]. Human-centricity and sustainability are deeply interconnected in the
context of Construction 5.0. Human-centricity places humans at the core of technologi-
cal advancements and construction processes, ensuring that their needs, well-being, and
interests are prioritized. By considering human factors, Construction 5.0 aims to create
a work environment that is safe, inclusive, and conducive to personal growth and devel-
opment. Sustainability, on the other hand, focuses on meeting the present needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It encompasses
environmental, social, and economic dimensions, striving for a harmonious balance. In
Construction 5.0, human-centricity drives sustainability by promoting responsible resource
management, minimizing the environmental impact, and fostering ethical practices in
construction processes. By involving humans in decision-making processes and embracing
their unique skills and capabilities, Construction 5.0 encourages innovation, collaboration,
and continuous improvement. This leads to developing sustainable technologies, efficient
production processes, and creating products and services that align with environmen-
tal and societal well-being. Ultimately, the relationship between human-centricity and
sustainability in Construction 5.0 is associated with human-centric approaches driving
sustainability and sustainability principles reinforcing human-centric values, resulting in a
more balanced, inclusive, and environmentally conscious industrial landscape.
The findings of assessing the causal relationships between the enablers of resilience
and sustainability emphasized in H6 align with previous studies [15,45–52]. The rela-
tionship between resilience and sustainability in Industry 5.0 is vital and interdependent.
Resilience involves the ability of systems, organizations, and societies to withstand and
recover from disruptions, adapt to change, and maintain functionality in construction
processes. Sustainability, on the other hand, encompasses practices that meet the present
needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, con-
sidering environmental, social, and economic dimensions. In Construction 5.0, resilience is
a critical component of sustainability, as it ensures the long-term viability and adaptability
of industrial systems in construction. Construction 5.0 can mitigate the risks and impacts
of disruptions, economic fluctuations, and technological shifts by building resilience into
processes, supply chains, and technologies. This enables businesses to maintain their
operations, minimize downtime, and recover swiftly, thereby supporting the continuity of
production and reducing environmental and social consequences.
Moreover, sustainability in Construction 5.0 involves incorporating practices that
optimize resource efficiency, reduce waste, and promote responsible consumption. By
integrating resilience and sustainability, Construction 5.0 creates a framework that ensures
the longevity and stability of industrial systems and supports the preservation of natural
resources, social well-being, and environmental balance. Resilience and sustainability form
a synergistic relationship that fosters a resilient, adaptable, and environmentally conscious
industrial landscape in Construction 5.0.
The findings of assessing the causal relationships between the enablers of human-
centricity and the Construction 5.0 model highlighted in H7 are consistent with the previous
studies [4,6,7,13,15,31,34–44,76,77]. The relationship between human-centricity and the
Construction 5.0 model is integral to the construction industry’s evolution. Construction
4.1 represents a transition phase that requires a buffer period between Construction 4.0
and Industry 5.0, ensuring a smooth integration of technologies and practices. By com-
bining elements from Construction 4.0, Society 5.0, and Operator 5.0, Construction 5.0
aims to establish a unified system that embraces human-centric principles. Society 5.0
provides a social foundation for this transition, emphasizing the importance of human
well-being and societal needs in driving technological advancements. Operator 5.0 is a
reference point for human–robot collaboration, facilitating the harmonious integration of
machines and humans in smart construction environments. The key objective is to achieve
harmony between machines, humans, values, tasks, knowledge, and skills, enabling the
development of customized products and services that cater to individual needs. Through
the human-centric approach of Construction 5.0, the construction industry can embrace
technological innovations while placing human interests, collaboration, and customization
at the forefront, ultimately leading to a more efficient, sustainable, and people-oriented
construction sector.
The findings of the assessment of the causal relationships between the enablers of
resilience and the Construction 5.0 model highlighted in H8 are coherent with the previous
studies [7,15,32,33,50–52,76,77]. The relationship between resilience and the Construction
5.0 model within Industry 5.0 is crucial for building a robust and adaptable construction
industry. Resilience plays a central role in Construction 5.0, as it focuses on enhancing the
industry’s ability to withstand and recover from disruptions. Construction 5.0 incorporates
practices prioritizing resilience throughout the project lifecycle, from planning and design to
construction and maintenance. This includes implementing resilient technologies, materials,
and construction methods to withstand environmental and societal challenges.
Additionally, Construction 5.0 emphasizes the importance of resilient supply chains,
ensuring the availability of necessary resources and materials despite disruptions. By
embracing resilience, Construction 5.0 enables the industry to adapt to changing circum-
stances, such as, economic fluctuations and technological advancements. This fosters the
industry’s ability to maintain continuous operations, reduce downtime, and swiftly recover
from unforeseen events. The integration of resilience in Construction 5.0 within Industry
5.0 enhances the industry’s sustainability and ensures its long-term viability and capacity
to contribute to overall societal resilience.
The findings of assessing the causal relationships between the enablers of sustain-
ability and the Construction 5.0 model highlighted in H9 align with the previous stud-
ies [7,15,33,45–49,76,77]. The relationship between sustainability and the Construction 5.0
model is fundamental to advancing the construction industry within the context of Indus-
try 5.0. Sustainability is a crucial pillar of Construction 5.0, as it focuses on meeting the
present needs while safeguarding the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Construction 5.0 seeks to incorporate sustainable practices throughout the construction
process, from design and materials selection to construction methods and project manage-
ment. By integrating sustainable principles, such as resource efficiency, waste reduction,
and environmental impact mitigation, Construction 5.0 strives to minimize the industry’s
ecological footprint.
Additionally, Construction 5.0 promotes using renewable energy sources, green build-
ing materials, and innovative technologies that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions. Furthermore, sustainable construction practices in Construction 5.0 encom-
pass social well-being considerations, including worker safety, labor rights, and community
engagement. By prioritizing sustainability, the Construction 5.0 model contributes to the
overall sustainability goals of Industry 5.0, fostering a more environmentally responsible
and socially conscious construction industry. This integration addresses current environ-
mental challenges and ensures the built environment’s longevity and resilience for future
generations.
Limitations and Future Study

A relatively small sample size, a lack of depth in terms of the parameters explored, and
a narrow focus on a subset of considered regions are all limitations of this study. It is clear
from the research that aspects such as Society 5.0, Operator 5.0, human-centered methods,
sustainability, and resilience must be investigated for the Construction 5.0 paradigm to
be realized. Building on this framework, future studies might investigate additional
capabilities in targeted application areas to further improve the Construction 5.0 system.
Future Construction 5.0 research and implementation can be better understood with a well-
defined reference architecture. Human–machine cognitive cooperation in co-innovating, co-
designing, and co-creating tailored products and services is emphasized by the Construction
5.0 view of AI. The Construction 5.0 paradigm can be further enriched by additional
research that delves into one of the recommended topics of investigation or adds new ones.
5. Conclusions
This study reviewed the evolution of the Construction 5.0 paradigm by defining its
features and diverse nature. It introduced the architecture, model, and system of Con-
struction 5.0 and integrated its key enablers: Operators 5.0, Society 5.0, human-centricity,
sustainability, and resilience. The study used the SEM method to evaluate the research
model and investigate the causal relationships among the key enablers of the Construction
5.0 paradigm. Nine vital hypotheses were proposed and assessed comprehensively. The
critical enablers’ variables were measured to examine the constructs’ reliability and validity.
According to the findings, the Construction 5.0 model places a premium on human and
machine collaboration, integrates cyberspace and physical space, and strikes a healthy
balance among the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, and society),
thereby establishing relationships among human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience.
In addition to discussing limits and obstacles, the study included ideas for other avenues of
investigation that were left open. Ultimately, Construction 5.0 is to accomplish sustainable
growth and transform into a reliable and resilient supplier of prosperity within an indus-
trial community with a shared providence. The study intends to spark vigorous debates
in a variety of disciplines and motivate scholars to participate in the pioneering of the
Construction 5.0 paradigm so that it can accomplish its objectives.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.Y., S.A. and A.A.; methodology, I.Y. and S.A.; validation,
I.Y. and A.A.; formal analysis, I.Y., S.A. and A.A.; investigation, S.A. and I.Y.; resources, I.Y. and
A.A.; data curation, I.Y. and. S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, I.Y., S.A. and A.A.; writing—
review and editing, I.Y., S.A. and A.A.; visualization, S.A. and I.Y.; supervision, I.Y. and A.A.; project
administration, I.Y. and A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Questionnaire Survey
Your profession:
Your main technological area of expertise:
The number of years you have been working in the mentioned field:
The company’s name:
The company size (0–50 Employees—Small, 50–250 Employees—Medium,
>250 Employees—Large):
From what country are you mainly operating?
“To what extent do you agree with the following items describing your organization’s
view on Construction 5.0 Framework? (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)”.
Likert Scale Values

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
No Questions Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
Operator 5.0
Self-resiliency in the workforce facilitates
1
Society 5.0
System-resiliency of all human-machine
2
systems facilitates Society 5.0.
Autonomous machines capable of
3 understanding human intentions and desires
facilitates Society 5.0.
Cobots working alongside human operators to
4
perform tasks facilitates Society 5.0.
Efficient production process with increased
5 value, decreased waste and expenses, and
improved safety facilitates Society 5.0
Society 5.0
Human-centric society encourages the
6
initiation of Human-Centricity.
Merging cyberspace with physical space
7
encourages the initiation of Human-Centricity.
A knowledge-intensive society encourages the
8
initiation of Human-Centricity.
A data-driven society encourages the initiation
9
of Human-Centricity.
New social value encourages the initiation of
10
Human-Centricity.
Human-centricity
Machines and robots not replacing humans in
11
the industry contributes to Sustainability.
Human involvement is essential for achieving
12 automation, and digitalization contributes to
Sustainability.
Prioritizing human needs and interests as the
13 foundation of the production process
contributes to Sustainability
Demanding intelligent robots that can
understand the interconnected relationships
14
between humans and machines in unstructured
environments contributes to Sustainability.
Autonomously ensuring the security and
stability of communication networks that serve
15
as social infrastructure contributes to
Sustainability.
Likert Scale Values

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Sustainability
A sustainable production vision involving the
decentralized connection of socialized
production resources and products to deliver
16
mass-individualized products and services
facilitates the establishment of the Construction
5.0 Model.
Implementation of Construction 5.0 balance the
three pillars (economy, environment, and
17 society) in different stages to achieve success
and facilitates the establishment of the
Construction 5.0 Model.
Customers expecting information on social
18
sustainability.
Traceability in multi-tier supply chains through
19 blockchain technology facilitates the
establishment of the Construction 5.0 Model.
Achieving Construction 5.0 with greater
quantity, faster speed, better quality, and cost
20 savings through sustainable practices facilitates
the establishment of the Construction 5.0
Model.
Resilience
Re-thinking existing working methods and
21
approaches supports Sustainability.
Reducing the vulnerability of supply chains
22
supports Sustainability.
Focusing on the ability of firms to cope with
23
external uncertainties supports Sustainability.
Focusing on the resilience of a broader range of
24
industrial systems supports Sustainability.
Technology systems and solutions prioritizing
stability over resilience and providing more
25
prevalent and mass-automation solutions
support Sustainability
Construction 5.0 Model
Needs for a buffer period between
Construction 4.0 and Industry 5.0. facilitates
26
the development of the Construction 5.0
Framework
Construction 4.0, Society 5.0, and Operator 5.0
to be combined into a unified system.
27
Construction 4.1 facilitates the development of
the Construction 5.0 Framework.
Likert Scale Values

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Society 5.0 provides a social foundation for the
transition to Construction 5.0 and facilitates the
28
development of the Construction 5.0
Framework.
Operator 5.0 serves as a reference point for the
Human-Robot Collaboration in smart
29
production, facilitates the development of the
Harmony between machines, humans, values,
tasks, and knowledge and skills, leading to
30 customized products and services, facilitates
the development of the Construction 5.0
Framework.
References
1. Zizic, M.C.; Mladineo, M.; Gjeldum, N.; Celent, L. From Industry 4.0 towards Industry 5.0: A Review and Analysis of Paradigm
Shift for the People, Organization and Technology. Energies 2022, 15, 5221. [CrossRef]
2. Kagermann, H.; Wahlster, W.; Helbig, J.; Hellinger, A.; Stumpf, M.A.V.; Treugut, L.; Blasco, J.; Galloway, H.; Findeklee, U.
Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative Industrie 4.0; National Academy of Science and Engineering: Washington,
DC, USA, 2013.
3. Lasi, H.; Fettke, P.; Kemper, H.G.; Feld, T.; Hoffmann, M. Industry 4.0. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2014, 6, 239–242. [CrossRef]
4. Kong, X.T.R.; Luo, H.; Huang, G.Q.; Yang, X. Industrial Wearable System: The Human-Centric Empowering Technology in
Industry 4.0. J. Intell. Manuf. 2019, 30, 2853–2869. [CrossRef]
5. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Haq, M.I.U.; Raina, A.; Suman, R. Industry 5.0: Potential Applications in COVID-19. J. Ind.
Integr. Manag. 2020, 5, 507–530. [CrossRef]
6. Xu, X.; Lu, Y.; Vogel-Heuser, B.; Wang, L. Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, Conception, and Perception. J. Manuf. Syst.
2021, 61, 530–535. [CrossRef]
7. Müller, J. Enabling Technologies for Industry 5.0—Results of a Workshop with Europe’s Technology Leaders; Publications Office of the
European Union: Luxembourg, 2020.
8. Demir, K.A.; Döven, G.; Sezen, B. Industry 5.0 and Human-Robot Co-Working. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 158, 688–695. [CrossRef]
9. Iftikhar, H.M.; Iftikhar, L. Post COVID-19 Industrial Revolution 5.0. The Dawn of Cobot, Chipbot, and Curbot. Pak. J. Surg. Med.
2020, 1, 122–126.
10. Ivanov, D. The Industry 5.0 framework: Viability-based integration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity
perspectives. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2023, 61, 1683–1695. [CrossRef]
11. Kusiak, A. Open Manufacturing: A Design-for-Resilience Approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 4647–4658. [CrossRef]
12. Kusiak, A. From Digital to Universal Manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 349–360. [CrossRef]
13. EC 2021. Industry 5.0: Towards More Sustainable, Human-Centric, and Resilient European Industry. 2021. Available online:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/468a892a-5097-11eb-b59f-01aa75ed71a1/ (accessed on 15 April
2023).
14. Choi, T.M.; Kumar, S.; Yue, X.; Chan, H.L. Disruptive Technologies and Operations Management in the Industry 4.0 Era and
beyond. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2022, 31, 9–31. [CrossRef]
15. Leng, J.; Sha, W.; Wang, B.; Zheng, P.; Zhuang, C.; Liu, Q.; Wuest, T.; Mourtzis, D.; Wang, L. Industry 5.0: Prospect and retrospect.
J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 65, 279–295. [CrossRef]
16. Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Pham, Q.V.; Prabadevi, B.; Deepa, N.; Dev, K.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Rubu, R.; Liyanage, M. Industry 5.0: A survey
on enabling technologies and potential applications. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 26, 100257. [CrossRef]
17. Oesterreich, T.D.; Schuir, J.; Teuteberg, F. The Emperor’s New Clothes or an Enduring IT Fashion? Analyzing the Lifecycle of
Industry 4.0 through the Lens of Management Fashion Theory. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8828. [CrossRef]
18. Madsen, D.Ø. The Emergence and Rise of Industry 4.0 Viewed through the Lens of Management Fashion Theory. Adm. Sci. 2019,
9, 71. [CrossRef]
19. Marinelli, M. From Industry 4.0 to Construction 5.0: Exploring the Path towards Human–Robot Collaboration in Construction.
Systems 2023, 11, 152. [CrossRef]
20. Sawhney, A.; Riley, M.; Irizarry, J. Construction 4.0: Introduction and overview. In Construction 4.0; Routledge: Abingdon-on-
Thames, UK, 2020; pp. 3–22.
21. Alizadehsalehi, S.; Yitmen, I.; Celik, T.; Arditi, D. The effectiveness of an integrated BIM/UAV model in managing safety on
construction sites. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2018, 26, 829–844. [CrossRef]
22. Alizadehsalehi, S.; Hadavi, A.; Huang, J.C. From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry. Autom. Constr. 2020, 116, 103254.
[CrossRef]
23. Craveiroa, F.; Duartec, J.P.; Bartoloa, H.; Bartolod, P.J. Additive manufacturing as an enabling technology for digital construction:
A perspective on Construction 4. 0. Automation in Construction. 2019, 103, 251–267. [CrossRef]
24. Qi, Q.; Tao, F.; Zuo, Y.; Zhao, D. Digital twin service towards smart manufacturing. Procedia Cirp 2018, 72, 237–242. [CrossRef]
25. Forcael, E.; Ferrari, I.; Opazo-Vega, A.; Pulido-Arcas, J.A. Construction 4.0: A literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9755.
[CrossRef]
26. Perrier, N.; Bled, A.; Bourgault, M.; Cousin, N.; Danjou, C.; Pellerin, R.; Roland, T. Construction 4.0: A survey of research trends. J.
Inf. Technol. Constr. 2020, 25, 416–437. [CrossRef]
27. Statsenko, L.; Samaraweera, A.; Bakhshi, J.; Chileshe, N. Construction 4.0 technologies and applications: A systematic literature
review of trends and potential areas for development. Constr. Innov. 2022. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
28. Inagaki, T. Adaptive automation: Sharing and trading of control. Handb. Cogn. Task Des. 2003, 8, 147–169.
29. Mourtzis, D.; Angelopoulos, J.; Panopoulos, N. Operator 5.0: A survey on enabling technologies and a framework for digital
manufacturing based on extended reality. J. Mach. Eng. 2022, 22, 43–69. [CrossRef]
30. Huang, S.; Wang, B.; Li, X.; Zheng, P.; Mourtzis, D.; Wang, L. Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0—Comparison, complementation and
co-evolution. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 64, 424–428. [CrossRef]
31. Kravets, A.G.; Bolshakov, A.A.; Shcherbakov, M. Society 5.0; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.
32. Nahavandi, S. Industry 5.0—A human-centric solution. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4371. [CrossRef]
33. Friedman, B.; Hendry, D.G. Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. Des. Cult. 2019, 12, 109–111.
34. Lu, Y.; Adrados, J.S.; Chand, S.S.; Wang, L. Humans are not machines—Anthropocentric human–machine symbiosis for ultra-
flexible smart. Manuf. Eng. 2021, 7, 734–737. [CrossRef]
35. Papetti, A.; Gregori, F.; Pandolfi, M.; Peruzzini, M.; Germani, M. A method to improve workers’ well-being toward human
centered connected factories. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2020, 7, 630–643. [CrossRef]
36. Lu, Y.; Zheng, H.; Chand, S.; Xia, W.; Liu, Z.; Xu, X.; Wang, L.; Qin, Z.; Bao, J. Outlook on human-centric manufacturing towards
Industry 5.0. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 62, 612–627. [CrossRef]
37. Fonda, E.; Meneghetti, A. The human-centric SMED. Sustainability 2022, 14, 514. [CrossRef]
38. Nguyen Ngoc, H.; Lasa, G.; Iriarte, I. Human-centred design in industry 4.0: Case study review and opportunities for future
research. J. Intell. Manuf. 2022, 33, 35–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Wang, B.; Zheng, P.; Yin, Y.; Shih, A.; Wang, L. Toward human-centric smart manufacturing: A human-cyberphysical systems
(HCPS) perspective. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 63, 471–490. [CrossRef]
40. Kadir, B.A.; Broberg, O. Human-centered design of work systems in the transition to industry 4.0. Appl. Ergon. 2021, 92, 103334.
[CrossRef]
41. Colla, V.; Matino, R.; Schröder, A.J.; Schivalocchi, M.; Romaniello, L. Human-centered robotic development in the steel shop:
Improving health, safety and digital skills at the workplace. Metals 2021, 11, 647. [CrossRef]
42. How, M.; Cheah, S.M.; Chan, Y.J.; Khor, A.C.; Say, E.M.P. Artificial intelligence-enhanced decision support for informing global
sustainable development: A human-centric AI-thinking approach. Information 2020, 11, 39. [CrossRef]
43. He, W.; Li, Z.; Chen, C.L.P. A survey of human-centered intelligent robots: Issues and challenges. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2017, 4,
602–609. [CrossRef]
44. Horvatic, D.; Lipic, T. Human-centric AI: The symbiosis of human and artificial intelligence. Entropy 2021, 23, 332. [CrossRef]
45. Gholami, H.; Abu, F.; Lee, J.K.Y.; Karganroudi, S.S.; Sharif, S. Sustainable manufacturing 4.0—Pathways and practices. Sustainabil-
ity 2021, 13, 13956. [CrossRef]
46. Leng, J.; Ruan, G.; Jiang, P.; Xu, K.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, X.; Liu, C. Blockchain-empowered sustainable manufacturing and product
lifecycle management in industry 4.0: A survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 132, 110112. [CrossRef]
47. Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Gupta, H.; Sarkis, J. A supply chain sustainability innovation framework and evaluation methodology. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 1990–2008. [CrossRef]
48. Bednar, P.M.; Welch, C. Socio-technical perspectives on smart working: Creating meaningful and sustainable systems. Inf. Syst.
Front. 2020, 22, 281–298. [CrossRef]
49. Venkatesh, V.G.; Kang, K.; Wang, B.; Zhong, R.Y.; Zhang, A. System architecture for blockchain based transparency of supply
chain social sustainability. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2020, 63, 101896. [CrossRef]
50. Touriki, F.E.; Benkhati, I.; Kamble, S.S.; Belhadi, A. An integrated smart, green, resilient, and lean manufacturing framework: A
literature review and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128691. [CrossRef]
51. Peng, T.; He, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, B.; Xu, X. Industrial internet-enabled resilient manufacturing strategy in the wake of COVID-19
pandemic: A conceptual framework and implementations in China. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2021, 34, 48. [CrossRef]
52. Schaltegger, S. Sustainability learnings from the COVID-19 crisis. Opportunities for resilient industry and business development.
Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2020, 12, 889–897. [CrossRef]
53. Romero, D.; Stahre, J. Towards the resilient operator 5.0: The future of work in smart resilient manufacturing systems. Procedia
CIRP 2021, 104, 1089–1094. [CrossRef]
54. Romero, D.; Bernus, P.; Noran, O.; Stahre, J.; Fast-Berglund, Å. The Operator 4.0: Human cyber-physical systems & adaptive
automation towards human-automation symbiosis work Systems. Adv. Prod. Manag. Syst. Initiat A Sustain. World 2016, 488,
677–686.
55. Romero, D.; Stahre, J.; Taisch, M. The Operator 4.0: Towards socially sustainable factories of the future. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020,
139, 106128. [CrossRef]
56. Longo, F.; Nicoletti, L.; Padovano, A. Smart operators in industry 4.0: A human centered approach to enhance operators’
capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory context. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2017, 113, 144–159. [CrossRef]
57. Wang, B.C.; Tao, F.; Fang, X.; Liu, C.; Liu, Y.; Freiheit, T. Smart manufacturing and intelligent manufacturing: A comparative
review. Engineering 2021, 7, 738–757. [CrossRef]
58. Shiroishi, Y.; Uchiyama, K.; Suzuki, N. Society 5.0: For human security and wellbeing. Computer 2018, 51, 91–95. [CrossRef]
59. Muslikhin, M.; Horng, J.R.; Yang, S.Y.; Wang, M.S.; Awaluddin, B.A. An artificial intelligence of things-based picking algorithm
for online shop in the Society 5.0’s context. Sensors 2021, 21, 2813. [CrossRef]
60. Shiroishi, Y.; Uchiyama, K.; Suzuki, N. Better actions for society 5.0: Using AI for evidence-based policy making that keeps
humans in the loop. Computer 2019, 52, 73–78. [CrossRef]
61. Gladden, M.E. Who Will Be the Members of Society 5.0? Towards an Anthropology of Technologically Posthumanized Future
Societies. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 148. [CrossRef]
62. De Felice, F.; Travaglioni, M.; Petrillo, A. Innovation trajectories for a Society 5.0. Data 2021, 6, 115. [CrossRef]
63. Narvaez Rojas, C.; Alomia Peñafiel, G.A.; Loaiza Buitrago, D.F.; Tavera Romero, C.A. Society 5.0: A Japanese concept for a super
intelligent society. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6567. [CrossRef]
64. Fukuda, K. Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward society 5.0. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 220, 107460.
[CrossRef]
65. Nikiforova, A. Smarter open government data for Society 5.0: Are your open data smart enough? Sensors 2021, 21, 5204. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
66. Rauch, E. Industry 4.0+: The next level of intelligent and self-optimizing factories. Des. Simul. Manuf. III Manuf. Mater. Eng. 2020,
1, 176–186.
67. Duggal, A.S.; Malik, P.K.; Gehlot, A.; Singh, R.; Gaba, G.S.; Masud, M.; Al-Amri, J.F. A sequential roadmap to Industry 6.0:
Exploring future manufacturing trends. IET Commun. 2022, 16, 521–531. [CrossRef]
68. Shaddiq, S.; Haryono, S.; Muafi, M.; Isfianadewi, D. Antecedents and consequences of cyberloafing in service provider industries:
Industrial revolution 4.0 and society 5.0. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 157–167.
69. Holroyd, C. Technological innovation and building a ‘super smart’ society: Japan’s vision of society 5.0. J. Asian Public Policy 2022,
15, 18–31. [CrossRef]
70. Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S.; Gajdzik, B. Industry 5.0: Improving humanization and sustainability of Industry 4.0. Scientometrics
2022, 127, 3117–3144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Salimova, T.; Vukovic, N.; Guskova, N. Towards sustainability through Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0. Int. Rev. 2020, 3, 48–54.
[CrossRef]
72. Pereira, A.G.; Lima, T.M.; Charrua-Santos, F. Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0: Opportunities and threats. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng.
(IJRTE) 2020, 8, 3305–3308. [CrossRef]
73. Aquilani, B.; Piccarozzi, M.; Abbate, T.; Codini, A. The role of open innovation and value co-creation in the challenging transition
from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0: Toward a theoretical framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8943. [CrossRef]
74. Saniuk, S.; Grabowska, S.; Straka, M. Identification of social and economic expectations: Contextual reasons for the transformation
process of Industry 4.0 into the Industry 5.0 concept. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1391. [CrossRef]
75. Baicun, W.; Yuan, X. Human-Centered: Intelligent manufacturing: Overview and perspectives. Strateg. Study CAE 2022, 22,
139–146.
76. Skobelev, P.O.; Borovik, S.Y. On the way from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0: From digital manufacturing to digital society. Int. Sci.
J. 2017, 2, 307–311.
77. Fraga-Lamas, P.; Varela-Barbeito, J.; Fernandez-Carames, T.M. Next generation auto-identification and traceability technologies
for Industry 5.0: A methodology and practical use case for the shipbuilding industry. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 140700–140730.
[CrossRef]
78. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int.
Mark. 2009, 20, 277–319.
79. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
(JMR) 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
80. Tenenhaus, M.; Esposito Vinzi, V. PLS regression, PLS path modeling and generalized procrustean analysis: A combined approach
for multiblock analysis. J. Chemom. 2005, 19, 145–153. [CrossRef]
81. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–151. [CrossRef]
82. Kassner, L.; Hirmer, P.; Wieland, M.; Steimle, F.; Königsberger, J.; Mitschang, B. The social factory: Connecting people, machines
and data in manufacturing for context-aware exception escalation. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2017; pp. 1673–1682.
83. Fukuyama, M. Society 5.0: Aiming for a new human-centered society. Jpn. Spotlight 2018, 27, 47–50.
84. Foresti, R.; Rossi, S.; Magnani, M.; Bianco, C.G.L.; Delmonte, N. Smart society and artificial intelligence: Big data scheduling and
the global standard method applied to smart maintenance. Engineering 2020, 6, 835–846. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Investigating The Causal Relationships A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigating The Causal Relationships A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editor: Wen-Hsien Tsai

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119105 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1.1. Construction 4.0

2.1.2. Operator 5.0

2.1.3. Society 5.0

2.2. Construction 5.0 Framework

Figure 3. Construction 5.0 framework (adapted from Leng et al. [15]).

2.2.1. Definition of Construction 5.0

2.2.2. Characteristics of Construction 5.0

No Constructs and Indicators References

No Constructs and Indicators References

3. Construction 5.0 Framework

Figure 4. Research methodology.

3.1. SEM Model and Hypothesis Development

Figure 5. Hypothesized SEM model.

H1 : Instituting Operator 5.0 facilitates Society 5.0.

3.2. Data Collection

Table 3. Measurement model evaluation.

Scale Items Item Mean SD Loadings AVE CR α

Scale Items Item Mean SD Loadings AVE CR α

3.4. Assessment of the Measurement Model

The definition of average variance extracted (AVE) for construct ξ j is expressed as

Table 4. Construct intercorrelations and discriminant validity.

Latent Construction 5.0

3.5. Assessment of the Structural Model

Table 5. Results of PLS analysis.

Limitations and Future Study

Likert Scale Values

Likert Scale Values

Likert Scale Values

You might also like