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

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 future research. Overall, Construction 5.0 aims to achieve sustainable development and become a robust and resilient provider of prosperity in an industrial community of a shared future. The study expects to spark debate and promote pioneering research toward the Construction 5.0 paradigm.

1. Introduction

The concept of Industry 5.0 developed only briefly after the introduction of Industry 4.0 and since, has provoked much debate [1]. The “smart factory” is the epicenter of Industry 4.0, bringing together cyber-physical production systems [2,3] through intelligent 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 light by the COVID-19 outbreak, leading some to question the efficacy of the Industry 4.0 paradigm [5,6]. As a result, Industry 5.0 was developed as a follow-up to Industry 4.0 that considers environmental and social factors [7]. The adaptability of production methods and their effect on the environment are also significant concerns in the Industry 5.0 paradigm [8,9,10].

The European Commission (EC) [7] defines Industry 5.0 as a natural progression from Industry 4.0, focusing on research and innovation as the engine of a resilient, human-centered, and environmentally friendly European industry. In contrast to the technology-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 techniques. “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, organizations, 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 concepts 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 professionals 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, notwithstanding 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 Construction 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 productivity, 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. Prefabrication, 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 scenarios 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 biotechnology have ushered in a new age in the construction sector [24,25,26,27]. 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 facilitate 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.

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.

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.

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 advancing 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 [34,35,36]. A human-centric manufacturing approach is essential for factories to achieve flexibility, agility, and disruption resilience [37,38,39]. 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 potential [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 employee 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 industrial revolutions [45]. Renewable energy is an essential component of the future, but sustainable manufacturing is the key to its long-term survival [46]. Sustainable manufacturing 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 challenging 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. 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	[1,6,15,28,29,53,54,55,56]
1.2	System resiliency of all human–machine systems
1.3	Autonomous machines capable of understanding human intentions and desires
1.4	Cobots working alongside human operators to perform tasks
1.5	Efficient production process with increased value, decreased waste and expenses, and improved safety
2	Society 5.0
2.1	Human-centric society	[6,10,14,15,30,31,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]
2.2	Merging cyberspace with physical space
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	[1,4,6,10,15,29,30,31,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,75]
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
3.4	Demanding intelligent robots that can understand the interconnected relationships between humans and machines in unstructured environments
3.5	Autonomously ensuring the security and stability of communication networks that serve as social infrastructure
4	Sustainability
4.1	Sustainable production vision involving the decentralized connection of socialized production resources and products to deliver mass-individualized products and services
4.2	Implementation of Construction 5.0 balances the three pillars (economy, environment, and society) in different stages to achieve success	[1,6,10,15,45,46,47,48,49,53]
4.3	Customers expecting information on social sustainability
4.4	Traceability in multi-tier supply chains through blockchain technology
4.5	Achieving Construction 5.0 with greater quantity, faster speed, better quality, and cost savings through sustainable practices
5	Resilience
5.1	Re-thinking existing working methods and approaches	[1,6,10,15,29,50,51,52,53]
5.2	Reducing the vulnerability of supply chains
5.3	Focusing on the ability of firms to cope with external uncertainties
5.4	Focusing on the resilience of a wider range of industrial systems
5.5	Technology systems and solutions prioritizing stability over resilience and providing more 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	[7,15,32,33,76,77]
6.2	Construction 4.0, Society 5.0, and Operator 5.0 are to be combined into a unified system Construction 4.1
6.3	Society 5.0 provides a social foundation for the transition to Construction 5.0
6.4	Operator 5.0 serves as a reference point for the human–robot collaboration in smart production
6.5	Harmony between machines, humans, values, tasks, knowledge, and skills, leading to customized products and services

.

3. Construction 5.0 Framework

The overview of the research methodology involving theoretical and practical approaches is depicted in Figure 4.

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:

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 design, 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. Distribution of respondents according to company type, role, size, and region.

Company Type	Construction Manager: 23%	Design Manager: 21.5%	BIM Coordinators: 21%	Digitalization Consultants: 18.5%	Academic: 16%
Role	BIM: 19% Digital twin: 4%	BIM: 16% Digital twin: 5,5%	BIM: 16% Digital twin: 5%	Digital twin: 3% Digitalization: 6% BIM: 8% Software development: 2,5%	Ph.D. student: 16y%
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%

displays the survey participants’ demographic information.

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. Measurement model evaluation.

Scale Items	Item	Mean	SD	Loadings	AVE	CR	α
Construction 5.0 Framework
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 intentions and desires	OP3	3.796	0.751	0.773	0.784	0.812	0.732
Cobots working alongside human operators to perform tasks	OP4	3.865	0.773	0.791
Efficient production process with increased value, decreased waste and expenses, and improved safety	OP5	3.884	0.784	0.806
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
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 digitalization	HC2	3.874	0.776	0.792
Prioritizing human needs and interests as the foundation of the production process	HC3	3.844	0.763	0.786	0.788	0.820	0.742
Demanding intelligent robots that can understand the interconnected relationships between humans and machines in unstructured environments	HC4	3.873	0.775	0.797
Autonomously ensuring the security and stability of communication networks that serve as social infrastructure	HC5	3.866	0.771	0.793
Sustainability	SUS
Sustainable production vision involving the decentralized connection of socialized production resources and products to deliver mass-individualized products and services	SUS1	03.841	0.762	0.784
Implementation of Construction 5.0 balances the three pillars (economy, environment, and society) in different stages to achieve success	SUS2	3.874	0.776	0.795
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 technology	SUS4	3.824	0.751	0.776
Achieving Construction 5.0 with greater quantity, faster speed, better quality, and cost savings through sustainable practices	SUS5	3.866	0.771	0.799
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 uncertainties	RES3	3.741	0.734	0.758	0.764	0.798	0.720
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 solutions	RES5	3.842	0.762	0.786
Construction 5.0 Model	CON
Need for a buffer period between Construction 4.0 and Industry 5.0.	CON1	4.124	0.822	0.841
Construction 4.0, Society 5.0, and Operator 5.0 are to be combined into a unified system, Construction 4.1	CON2	4.224	0.832	0.855
Society 5.0 provides a social foundation for the transition to Construction 5.0	CON3	4.016	0.811	0.833	0.845	0.880	0.782
Operator 5.0 serves as a reference point for human–robot collaboration in smart production	CON4	4.010	0.813	0.839
Harmony between machines, humans, values, tasks, knowledge, and skills, leading to customized products and services	CON5	4.226	0.833	0.859

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]:

$${\rho }_{c\xi j}=\frac{{\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^{K_j}{\lambda }_{jk}\right)}^2}{{\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^{K_j}{\lambda }_{jk}\right)}^2+{\theta }_{jk}}$$

(1)

where:

K_j is the number of indicators of construct ξ_j;

λ_jk are factor loadings;

Θ_jk is the error variance of the kth indicator (k = 1, …, K_j) of construct ξ_j.

$${\theta }_{jk}={\displaystyle \sum }_{k=1}^{K_j}1-{\lambda }_{jk}^2$$

(2)

The definition of average variance extracted (AVE) for construct ξ_j is expressed as follows [79]:

$$AVE{\xi }_j=\frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^{K_j}{\lambda }_{jk}^2}{\left({{\displaystyle \sum }}_{k=1}^{K_j}{\lambda }_{jk}^2\right)+{\theta }_{jk}}$$

(3)

where:

K_j is the number of indicators of construct ξ_j;

λ_jk are factor loadings;

Θ_jk is the error variance of the kth indicator (k = 1, …, K_j) of construct ξ_j.

As shown in Table 3, all of the constructs showed satisfactory levels of internal reliability 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. Construct intercorrelations and discriminant validity.

Latent Construct	Operator 5.0	Society 5.0	Human-Centricity	Sustainability	Resilience	Construction 5.0 Model
Operator 5.0	0.887
Society 5.0	0.782	0.886
Human-Centricity	0.734	0.748	0.886
Sustainability	0.686	0.734	0.726	0.884
Resilience	0.698	0.736	0.748	0.760	0.885
Construction 5.0 Model	0.708	0.782	0.794	0.788	0.786	0.888

Note: values on diagonal (in bold) are the square root of average variance extracted (AVE).

. As a result, the measurement model was considered reliable enough to study the interplay of the constituent parts.

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, SS_tot measures the total variation, SS_reg measures the explained variation, and SS_res measures the unexplained variation. As SS_res + SS_reg = SS_tot, R² = Explained variation / Total Variation. R² = 1 − SS_res/SS_tot = 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 sustainability 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. 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 Operator 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 [15,28,28,29,53,54,55,56,82]. 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 Society 5.0 and human-centricity highlighted in H2 are coherent with the previous studies [13,30,31,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,83,84]. 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 construction 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 society 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 [15,34,36,45,46,47,48,49]. 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 construction 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 environmental 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 [30,31,50,51,52]. 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 disruptions 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 studies [4,6,13,31,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Human-centricity and sustainability are deeply interconnected in the context of Construction 5.0. Human-centricity places humans at the core of technological 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 development. 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 environmental 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 [15,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. The relationship 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, considering 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 [4,6,7,13,15,31,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,76,77]. 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 combining 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 [7,15,32,33,50,51,52,76,77]. 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 circumstances, 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 sustainability and the Construction 5.0 model highlighted in H9 align with the previous studies [7,15,33,45,46,47,48,49,76,77]. The relationship between sustainability and the Construction 5.0 model is fundamental to advancing the construction industry within the context of Industry 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 management. 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 building materials, and innovative technologies that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, sustainable construction practices in Construction 5.0 encompass 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 environmental 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 Construction 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 industrial 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.