###### Abstract
Despite the complex nature of the operational environment, it shows a lack of preparedness, an unwillingness to embrace new paradigms, and an insistence on governing organizations using obsolete procedures. The Fourth Industrial Revolution, commonly referred to as Industry 4.0 (I4.0), integrates advanced computer science (CS) technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), data mining, cloud computing, and cybersecurity [15]. Artificial intelligence, for example, has become a focal point in recent years, with the aim of developing machines and computers capable of emulating human behavior in service delivery and production processes [16; 17]. In addition, I4.0 seeks to empower organizations by leveraging these transformative technologies, facing challenges similar to those encountered in previous industrial revolutions. These include limitations in disciplines, workforce competencies, organizational cultures, strategies, and structures [18]. Historically, humanity has struggled to fully comprehend the social repercussions of replacing human labor with \"intelligent\" machines. This challenge requires the integration of physical, cybernetic, and social systems, a contemporary framework referred to as cyber-physical-social systems (CPSSs) [19; 20; 21]. On a global scale, institutions and nationsnot only strive to identify the most effective strategies to adapt to emerging technologies but also ensure that these adaptations minimize negative impacts on the ecosystems in which organizations operate, regardless of their size [22; 23]. Key considerations include environmental sustainability, human well-being, and the dynamics of human-machine interaction (cybernetics) [24]. Industry 5.0 (I5.0), a concept introduced in Europe in the early twentieth century [25], embodies these principles by emphasizing conservation, ethical production, and service practices that address both internal and external aspects of business operations. Although I4.0 continues to be a dominant trend in management, in the last few years, I5.0 has emerged as an alternative visionary management concept due to providing a different vision of the future of industry [26]. Throughout various revolutions, humanity has adapted in the most suitable way allowed by each corresponding management paradigm of the era, and I4.0 is no exception. However, at the beginning of 2020, the relevance of I5.0 prompted technology and organizations to look for sustainability. According to [PERSON] et al. [27], I5.0 is value-based, and I4.0 is technology-based; the two complement each other, although the idea of I5.0 has not been widely adopted by researchers. Sustainability and human well-being are the primary goals of I5.0, which is a subset of Society 5.0. In this sense, I5.0 shows how industry migration impacts social needs and raises the standard of living with the future scope to make it more human-centric and sustainable [28]. The problem, when migrating to one or both, lies in the fact that managers and owners of organizations, from small to large companies, face the aforementioned challenges, as their current operational methods do not provide them with the ability to effectively execute an industry transformation. On the one hand, there is a dilemma with regard to knowledge of and adaptation to processes and infrastructure for I4.0 tools. On the other hand, I5.0 requires the construction of more inclusive jobs, resilient supply chains, and the adoption of more sustainable production methods accompanied by I4.0 technologies [29; 30]. However, according to [PERSON] et al. [31], digital technologies influence SMEs to enhance the creation of economic and social value. Reviewing the current state [32; 33; 34; 35; 36] reveals that the models that have been used for the adoption of technology are based on models used for the implementation of digital technologies such as TOE, TAM, etc.