# Comparing the Evolutionary Trajectories of Industry 4.0 and 5.0: A Management Fashion Perspective
## 7 Conclusions
### Theoretical Implications  
This study offers theoretical implications by shedding new light on the evolutionary paths of new and emerging management concepts. We have performed a comparative analysis of the emergence and evolution of I4.0 and I5.0 from a management fashion perspective. Viewing Industry 4.0 and 5.0 from the vantage point of management fashion theory involves analyzing and tracing the involvement activities of the suppliers of the two concepts as well as gauging the concepts' demand side impact. The cases are illustrative of the coevolution of two highly related but competing management concept movements. In the management fashion literature, it is increasingly recognized that management concepts do not evolve in a vacuum, but their popularity is influenced by how a concept relates to other existing concepts [163]. We suggest based on our findings that there are both inter- and intramovement dynamics at play. Different concept movements (e.g., Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering, Benchmarking) compete, and actors may try to undermine other concepts by highlighting shortcomings and their own concept's superiority. There are also intramovement dynamics. Management concept movements often splinter and fracture, resulting in a number of different submovements. For example, this has been observed related to a concept such as Total Quality Management where there are different submovements with their own gurus and teachings [164]. Similarly, within the Agile movement, there are submovements and the concept exists in many different forms [165]. Our study provides novel insights into the trajectories and lifecycles of management concepts, in particular, the early phase where actors are actively attempting to create a wave of interest and drum up support for their particular concept [26; 166]. The evidence reviewed in this paper shows that the supply side has been configured differently in the two cases. Although the emergence of the I4.0 concept was much more top-down and orchestrated by powerful players, such as consulting firms, the I5.0 concept emerged organically because of the work of independent actors. These findings, therefore, provide empirical illustrations that the management fashion arenas [26; 80; 166] around management concepts are configured differently and that these differences may shape the evolutionary trajectory of a particular concept. Generally, the comparative analysis of the cases of Industry 4.0 and 5.0 indicates that the two concepts are at different stages in their lifecycle. The I4.0 concept appears to have entered a stage of consolidation after a period of strong growth. However, the fact that interest and popularity remain high suggests that the I4.0 concept, at least to some extent, has become institutionalized. The case of I4.0 is therefore indicative that management fashion can persist, which has been suggested in the literature on management fashions [28; 158]. The concept of I5.0 is a younger concept and earlier in the lifecycle. Although Industry 5.0 is growing in popularity and is gaining followers and supporters, it is still a more marginal concept and movement. This case study analysis also puts the spotlight on how different supply side actors launch a new vision of the future in business and society and mobilize support for their ideas by latching on to salient issues and influential narratives in the business world and society at large around, for example, sustainability and resilience. These developments illustrate the points made by management fashion researchers that concepts and ideas that capture the zeitgeist or spirit of the times are more likely to prevail in the marketplace [26; 167]. Finally, this study also provides an interesting example of versioning in the market for management concepts and ideas. [PERSON] [1] noted that version \"4.0\" invites new versions in the future (5.0, 6.0, X.0).