# Comparing the Evolutionary Trajectories of Industry 4.0 and 5.0: A Management Fashion Perspective
## 1 Introduction  
The concept of Industry 4.0 (4.0) was presented at the Hannover Fair in 2011 as a new visionary concept on how to use new technologies to automate manufacturing processes. Since then, 14.0 has garnered enormous attention and become an influential management trend around the world [1; 2; 3; 4]. During the mid-2010s, Industry 5.0 (15.0) was presented as an alternative concept and vision of the future of industry that was first introduced on social media and in academic research [5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10]. During the last few years, Industry 5.0 has attracted rising interest as an alternative visionary management concept [11; 12].  
Both 4.0 and 15.0 can be considered visionary management concepts since they provide what [PERSON] [13] refers to as envisionings of the future. 14.0 emphasizes how the use of new disruptive technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence, robotics, or big data) can help automate and increase the efficiency and productivity of industry [14; 15]. In contrast, the more recent concept of 15.0 takes a broader and alternative view, emphasizing that industry should become more human-centric, sustainable, and resilient [11; 12; 16].  
Industry 5.0 (15.0) has received significant attention in Europe in large part due to the promotional efforts of the European Commission [17; 18; 19; 20; 21]. In general, interest in 15.0 has grown significantly since the outbreak of the pandemic, and some commentators have suggested that the pandemic has accelerated the transition to 15.0, as issues related to sustainability and resilience have become more salient and pressing [22; 23].  
In this paper, we aim to provide an in-depth examination of the evolutionary trajectories of these two related management concepts. For this purpose, our study utilizes the management fashion theory as a theoretical and interpretive framework [24; 25; 26]. The theory of management fashions focuses on the supply and demand side forces that shape the macrolevel evolution and popularity of management concepts and ideas over time [27; 28]. Thus, in our view, management fashion theory provides an appropriate framework and lens for interpreting and analyzing the evolutionary trajectories of I4.0 and I5.0, i.e., how these concepts emerged and have evolved over time.  
The focus of this paper is to compare the evolution of I4.0 and I5.0 and identify and analyze the various actors that have contributed to these two concepts' development and evolution. This comparative case study illustrates how two highly related but competing management concept movements coevolve and provides novel insights into the trajectories and lifecycles of management concepts, in particular, the early phase where supply-side actors are actively attempting to create and drum up support and interest. In addition, our study casts new light on the coevolution of I4.0 and I5.0, both of which are relatively novel concepts, and so far, not much has been documented about their development and evolution [29]. As a result, this presents an opportunity to study the evolution of new management concepts, as they are still taking shape and unfolding.  
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a brief overview of the research approach. Section 3 contains a research background which includes definitions of the two concepts and a discussion of their main similarities and differences. Sections 4 and 5 provide analyses of the supply and demand sides of the market for I5.0, respectively. Section 6 discusses the findings of this study in relation to key debates in management fashion theory. The paper ends in Section 7 with a summary of contributions, implications, limitations, and directions for future research.