Evaluation of Sustainability 4.0 Practices in Service Companies

Abstract

Industry 4.0, Sustainability, and the service sector are topics that have been explored little in the literature. Thus, this article aims to evaluate Sustainability 4.0 practices in service companies in Pernambuco, a state located in northeastern Brazil. The choice to investigate the connections between Industry 4.0 technologies and the adoption of sustainability practices in the service sector in Pernambuco, Brazil, is justified by the growing relevance of these areas for the economic and environmental development of the region. Pernambuco, with its significant industrial development and strong presence in the service sector, represents a fertile field for the implementation of innovative technologies. The service sector, although less explored in comparative studies with other sectors, offers numerous opportunities for the application of these technologies in favor of sustainability, from improving energy efficiency to optimizing logistics. This combination of local and sectoral factors makes the study relevant and urgent, in addition to filling a gap in the existing literature, contributing to the advancement of knowledge on the intersection between technological innovation and sustainable practices. Through the existing literature, it was possible to identify 27 impacts that technologies have on the sustainability of service companies. Thus, the survey method was used, with the application of a structured questionnaire based on the impacts found. Thus, a total of 22 responses were collected from companies in Pernambuco, and the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Kendall coefficient. Among the results obtained, it was found that the factors that had the greatest impact were more related to economic and environmental gains, while social factors were less evident. In addition, the analysis demonstrated that impacts such as the reduction in the use of materials, reduction of waste and costs, generation of less waste, and improvement in the quality of life at work were among the most relevant for companies. Therefore, the research contributes to expanding this line of studies, offers insights into Sustainability 4.0 practices in services, and promotes sustainable development in services, benefiting both academia and society.

1. Introduction

Sustainability refers to the ability of current generations to use natural resources to meet their needs without compromising the use of these resources for future generations [1]. Inspired by this concept, John Elkington coined the highly regarded Triple Bottom Line (TBL), which establishes that to achieve sustainable development, there must be a balance between three pillars: economic, environmental, and social, thus composing a strategy adopted by companies to integrate value and competitiveness [2].

In this way, the concept of sustainable development emerged in the 1980s. The best-known report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) is the report “Our Common Future”, published in 1987, in which they conceptualized sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” [3], in addition to describing a list of measures that should be taken by countries to promote sustainable development [3].

Currently, with the arrival of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, known as Industry 4.0 (I4.0), it has promoted significant advances in industrial and corporate environments through the integration of innovative technologies, providing a significant increase in operational efficiency [4]. However, in addition to the rapid intensification of productivity, I4.0 also significantly impacts sustainable development, based on the Triple Bottom Line [5].

Thus, I4.0, characterized by its disruptive technologies, such as the Internet of Things, cloud computing, Artificial Intelligence, autonomous robots, blockchain, additive manufacturing, visualization technologies, among others, can be a great ally in sustainable development. The use of such technologies can improve processes, making them more efficient and flexible, while reducing impacts on the environment and improving the work environment for employees [6].

In this sense, the concept of Sustainability 4.0 (S4.0) emerges, which, according to [7], is a holistic approach that uses I4.0 technological tools to reconcile economic, environmental, and social development. Although the term “Sustainability 4.0” is not yet commonly used in the literature, there is already a large amount of research that analyzes the implications arising from the use of 4.0 technologies in sustainability.

However, there are obstacles to the implementation of S4.0, since there are difficulties in establishing I4.0 itself in companies, and this is often related to problems linked to economic and social dimensions. For example, high initial costs, lack of qualified labor, and lack of internal resources and financial resources are some of the obstacles that hinder this adoption [7,8]. Despite the existence of such barriers, several sectors have already seen I4.0 as an area that will drive future trends [9,10,11]. The tertiary sector is one of the sectors that can see increased productivity being boosted by I4.0 [12]. The use of technology can provide greater ease in the delivery of personalized services, in addition to making new service proposals available, which allow for greater customer satisfaction [13]. Furthermore, the current reality changes the way in which consumers interact with this sector due to a greater need to resolve demands through digital services [14]. However, when it comes to studies that address I4.0, it is possible to verify a greater tendency in production environments, leaving a gap between the service sector and I4.0 [12,15]. In [7], the authors emphasize the concentration of studies that seek to understand the influence of I4.0 on sustainable development in the manufacturing area and highlight “the service sector lacks studies and faces similar challenges, such as mass customization, digital development, smart work environments and efficient supply chains” (p. 2, [7]).

The choice of location in Pernambuco, Brazil, should be justified based on specific regional characteristics. Pernambuco is a state that has shown considerable industrial development and is increasingly attentive to sustainability issues. The gap in the existing literature on this specific interface in the context of Pernambuco indicates an opportunity for a unique and valuable contribution.

Regarding the choice of the service sector, it should be mentioned that, although other economic sectors are often highlighted in discussions on sustainability, the service sector plays a crucial role in the global and local economy. This sector can benefit immensely from the application of Industry 4.0, enabling technologies to improve operational efficiency, reduce waste, and increase customer satisfaction. Specifically, in Pernambuco, the service sector is significant and diverse, encompassing everything from tourism to information technology, indicating a vast field for research.

Given this context, there is a gap in the literature for studies that seek to understand the connection between the service sector, sustainability, and Industry 4.0, justifying the originality of this research due to the contribution of new understandings to this line of research. Thus, based on the elements presented, it was possible to elaborate the research question of this work, namely: How are sustainability 4.0 practices evaluated in service companies in Pernambuco? That said, this article aims to evaluate sustainability 4.0 practices in service companies in Pernambuco, a state in northeastern Brazil, based on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) and the enabling technologies of Industry 4.0.

To justify the importance of the proposed study on the connections between Industry 4.0 and the adoption of sustainability practices, it is essential to contextualize the relevance of this topic. Industry 4.0, characterized by the integration of emerging technologies, has the potential to revolutionize production processes, making them more efficient and less harmful to the environment [7]. It is argued that the adoption of these technologies can result in resource savings, reduced carbon emissions, and optimization of the entire supply chain, thus promoting sustainability practices. The study by Tsani et al. [16] explores the intersections between sustainability and Local Content Policies (LCPs), standing out for addressing a significant gap in the existing literature. The authors conduct a comprehensive analysis on how LCPs, which traditionally aim to maximize the use of local resources, labor, and services to stimulate economic development, can be aligned with sustainability agendas. In this sense, the authors suggest that, although the main objectives of LCPs focus on strengthening local economies and reducing dependence on foreign inputs, there is untapped potential for these policies to also promote sustainable practices. The study highlights the importance of developing strategies that not only encourage local technological innovation and capacity building, but also align these efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals, aiming at inclusive and sustainable development in the long term. Thus, the work prepared by the authors of [16,17] highlights the need for a holistic approach that incorporates sustainability as an essential component of local content policies, something that is still little explored in the current definitions and implementations of these policies.

Due to the growing number of studies that seek to analyze the effects of 4.0 technologies on sustainable development, the practical importance of this article lies in the fact that it offers insights that can help professionals, especially those in the service sector, given that this sector has a shortage of studies that analyze the effects of S4.0 on it, thus enabling the adoption of sustainable practices in a more assertive manner.

In addition, this article contributes to enriching the understanding of this line of study by demonstrating the academic importance of the subject addressed, as well as its social relevance in the current era, given that it is essential to minimize the environmental impacts caused by economic activities to guarantee the existence of current and future generations while also allowing the economic viability of companies. Finally, this study promotes the concept of S4.0 by offering practical guidance for professionals, as well as expanding the topic in the field of the literature.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Industry 4.0

Over the centuries, society has undergone different Industrial Revolutions, each of which presented an evolution in production, evidencing an increase in the efficiency of production systems [17]. Thus, Industry 4.0 (I4.0) refers to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is characterized by the progress of transformative technology. This environment is characterized by its various enabling digital technologies linked to the Internet, such as Cyber–Physical Systems, Big Data, the Internet of Things, the Internet of Services, Cloud Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Robotics, and several others [18].

Currently, the adoption of 4.0 technologies allows the modernization of services, where factors such as digitalization, virtualization, automation, data analysis, additive manufacturing, visualization, and smart work are increasingly penetrating this market. Companies in this sector are realizing the opportunities that these technological processes can provide them, and in this way, the service sector is moving towards a new industrial revolution [19].

Therefore, the impacts that the technological categories mentioned above can have on service organizations are diverse. One of the main benefits generated by the digitalization of operations is the improvement in efficiency through the optimization and automation of internal organizational processes, as well as the possibility of offering better personalized services [19].

In addition, other impactful factors of digitalization relate to the social and environmental transformation generated. The use of information technologies allows for a higher level of interaction, as well as accessibility of services, by consumers. Furthermore, the digitalization of service systems allows for the elimination of paper records, thus contributing to environmental sustainability [20].

Due to the proliferation of technologies that allow for the understanding of a vast set of data, companies now have increasingly useful information. In this way, data analysis allows them to obtain insights into customer needs, purchasing behavior, possible organizational problems, performance evaluations, among others, thus providing advanced analyses that will serve intelligent decision-making, resulting in improved service quality and efficiency [21].

Concomitantly, visualization is another powerful tool that allows you to summarize complex data sets from a source and transform them into clear visual representations, such as graphs and tables, facilitating the understanding of information and its sharing at different organizational levels [22].

Thus, the application of such technologies described can allow the boosting of service automation, eliminating/reducing repetitive and low-skilled work, such as the implementation of chatbots in customer service. In addition, the use of automation tools facilitates the standardization of tasks and process control, generating increased productivity and quality [19].

Given the constant evolution of information systems, companies can now use a virtualized system that allows multiple isolated environments to be managed on a single device. Thus, virtualization technologies allow a reduction in the use of the organization’s physical infrastructure while generating greater scalability, providing its services more quickly and broadly. Furthermore, virtualization provides greater security, reliability, flexibility, and cost reduction [23]. In addition to the great popularity of digital technologies and automation in the service sector, the use of 3D printing technologies, known as additive manufacturing, is also observed. Although there are barriers to the implementation of this technology in several areas, it can be useful for companies with business models based on servitization. Thus, the use of such technologies favors smart work, which consists of the use of tools that allow human work efficiency through operational optimization [24,25]. In this context, Gallo et al. [26] investigated how companies benefit from the use of I4.0 tools and which ones tend to be most adopted. The study demonstrated that IoT, Big Data, Cloud, CPS, and Robotics tend to be most used. The authors emphasize that these technologies, combined with the human factor, allow for increased production capacity and business efficiency, resulting in greater flexibility and a gain in competitive advantage.

However, although I4.0 is a highly efficient model, it does not guarantee successful implementation in all organizations. Davies et al. [27] discuss the sociotechnical aspects that can ensure the successful implementation of I4.0 tools. The authors argue that the adoption of technical architecture impacts organizational culture. Therefore, the adoption of a methodology aimed at I4.0 would allow for adequate training of workers, since it would create a common organizational way of thinking, allowing greater adherence to the methodological structure, ensuring business improvements.

Furthermore, the age and type of organization are also factors that can influence the successful adoption of this structure. Soomro et al. [28] show that older and larger companies are better suited to adopting I4.0 tools. In addition, they also have a better ability to lead and develop innovative strategies within the I4.0 framework.

This creates room to verify how SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) adapt to this new era and whether they have structures that enable this adoption. In this sense, Ingaldi and Ulewicz [29] state that the implementation of I4.0 technologies in the context of SMEs can be difficult and complex, since the lack of financial resources to invest, limited production, and resistance to change are some of the problems to be faced. In addition to I4.0 technologies boosting the business environment, they also directly affect other important social issues. Cannavacciuolo et al. [30], through an SLR, demonstrated that I4.0 technological innovations reflect socioeconomic, environmental, organizational, and political aspects, which generate both current and future impacts.

From this perspective, it is possible to highlight some contributions that I4.0 can promote in the development scope involving the mentioned aspects. The innovative environment of I4.0 can promote opportunities to develop a country’s economy. In this sense, incentives and measures carried out by political decision-makers to promote I4.0 can lead to increased competitiveness and economic development, thus encouraging local and regional innovation systems [30].

Regarding environmental aspects, the use of Cyber–Physical Systems can result in the minimization of significant environmental impacts [31]. Regarding organizational impacts, it was seen that this technological innovation enables a restructuring of systems and, therefore, impacts human capital, since human–machine interactions require new training for workers [32].

Thus, the I4.0 paradigm proves to be highly effective and relevant in the current situation. However, it goes beyond the improvements made to production and service provision systems; it also presents new challenges and impacts on the work environment. In addition, discussions around how I4.0 can enable an improvement in the development of sustainable aspects are becoming increasingly present.

2.2. Services 4.0

The long-term evolution of the service sector in Brazil is a topic that involves the analysis of several economic and cyclical variables. The service sector began to gain greater relevance in relation to the industrial and agricultural sectors during the 1980s, when the Brazilian economy faced a series of challenges, including high inflation rates and external debt crises. With the economic changes of the Plano Real in the 1990s, the service sector grew even more. With the growth of the middle class in the 2000s, the service sector was driven not only by traditional services (such as commerce and transportation), but also by financial, educational, health, and information technology and communication services. The expansion of credit and the improvement in family income were important factors in this progress [33].

Between 2010 and 2014, Brazil witnessed continued growth in the service sector, with emphasis on the advancement of technologies and the digitalization of services. However, starting in 2014, Brazil entered an economic recession that affected all sectors, including services. Even so, the sector remained the main component of Brazil’s GDP, reflecting its resilience and structural importance to the economy [34]. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020, brought significant challenges to the service sector in Brazil. Social distancing measures and the temporary closure of businesses severely affected sectors such as tourism, food, and entertainment. However, the crisis also accelerated digital transformation, with an increase in demand for delivery services, e-commerce, and other online services [35].

The long-term evolution of the service sector in Brazil can be associated with several growth factors, such as increasing urbanization, expanding access to education and technology, and the diversification of services offered [34]. Monthly data provided by entities such as the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) are essential for monitoring the performance of the service sector on a shorter-term basis. They indicate seasonal variations, impacts of economic policies, and responses to specific events, offering a detailed and up-to-date overview of how the sector is behaving.

According to the Monthly Survey of Services by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the service sector in Brazil continues to grow. In February 2025, the volume of services increased by 0.8% compared to January 2025 and by 4.2% compared to February 2024. This is the eleventh consecutive increase [36]. Compared to February 2020, the period before the pandemic, the service sector is 16.2% higher, although it is still 1.0% below the historical peak recorded in October 2024 [36]. The main driver behind the increase in February 2025 was information and communication services, which grew by 1.8%. Within this group, information technology (IT) services continue to reach new peaks each month, driven by high demand for services such as software development and licensing, IT consulting, Internet portals, content providers, search engines, and data processing [36].

Thus, as it is a sector that represents a high level of importance for the economy and is growing in development, the sector follows the changes to adapt to the pace of innovation. In this sense, due to recent technological advances, the paradigm shift in production systems has driven the start of the fourth industrial revolution, which encompasses not only the manufacturing sector but also the primary and tertiary sectors [37].

Although technological innovations refer to “Industry 4.0” (I4.0), they do not apply only to the manufacturing industry; they also extend to other sectors. As seen, the service sector is one of the segments that is growing more and more; however, studies on I4.0 applied to the service sector remain somewhat scarce in the literature. In [15], this gap is emphasized by the authors, who state that the study of services in the field of I4.0 is neglected by academia in comparison to manufacturing. Additionally, in the same study, the authors seek to analyze the relevance of the service industry within the scope of I4.0 and find that “service engineering and management can be an important component of the “Industry 4.0” project” (p. 337, [15]). Even though services in I4.0 do not yet have as large a scope in relation to those in the secondary sector in the literature, national governments have given them increasing relevance, using terms such as “Smart Services World” [38]. Figure 1 presents a timeline presenting the characteristics of the four Eras of services.

Although the term “Services 4.0” is still in its embryonic phase, as it is little used and not clearly conceptualized, this article refers to the term as the innovation of services through the use of new technologies and disruptive concepts arising from I4.0, aiming at the development of the supply and demand of improved services, which allow for increased efficiency in services, as well as the generation of added value for consumers [15,19,39].

In view of the search for the generation of added value for customers and the connection between digital and service transformation, [40] studied how servitization is moving towards services 4.0. The authors present the concept of digital servitization, which refers to the “development of new services and/or the improvement of existing ones, through digital technologies that enable new business models and the change to the service business of product-centric companies” (p. 149, [40]). In this way, the use of I4.0 technologies changes the way these services are being provided, enabling the innovative offering of products associated with services, co-creating value. In this way, service organizations can benefit from the application of I4.0-enabling technologies in many ways. The research in [41], through an empirical examination, examines the benefits, challenges, and critical success factors in the implementation of I4.0. The study presents benefits to the service sector, such as improved customer satisfaction, the use of big data to assist in better decision-making, the development of intelligent services through personalization, better customer relationship management, and a better service experience provided to consumers.

In view of these benefits, the authors of [42] examines how I4.0 technologies can be used by the hotel industry to obtain better and automated feedback based on quality and customer satisfaction. Technologies such as IoT, cloud, AI, ML, deep learning, robotics, and blockchain are used to improve the development of feedback systems. In addition, the use of big data and AR/VR can change operations management and help obtain insights for intelligent decision-making. The authors of [43] conducted a review focusing on the application of I4.0 technologies in healthcare. In the study, it was possible to verify some applications, such as the use of IoT-based remote monitoring systems, the use of big data to manage corporate data and support services, and the development of electronic health record systems using blockchain, among other practices associated with these technologies. In this way, it is verified how the use of 4.0 tools can add to the development of internal processes in organizations, as well as to the efficiency of services. That said, the use of these technologies extends to various service sectors, and their application can vary greatly from sector to sector. However, advantages such as increased possibilities for offering services, service customization, the ability to satisfy customer needs, increased market performance, improvements in competitiveness and organizational processes, processing of a large database, and better use of information systems are some of the benefits that easily extend to many service sectors, regardless of the area [39,44].

At the same time, it is worth noting that sustainable development in the service sector has proven to be highly relevant to business. Through an online survey, distributed to 96 senior management professionals in companies in Asia, North America, and Europe, Sony et al. [41] obtained the classification of 10 critical success factors (CSFs) in the implementation of I4.0. According to the results, operational, economic, environmental, and social sustainability ranked second among the 10 CSFs in the service sector, demonstrating how organizations seeking to align themselves with the I4.0 concept must also be sustainable in various areas to be successful.

Thus, it is clear how the implementation of I4.0-enabling technologies generates positive returns, especially regarding the perception of the quality of the service provided. In this context, 4.0 services can be advantageous for both adopting organizations and customers. Therefore, the adoption of I4.0-enabling technologies allows a transformation of the service sector, in addition to subsidizing sustainable development.

2.3. Sustainability 4.0

Filgueiras and Melo [7] demonstrated their pioneering spirit by conceptualizing sustainability 4.0 as an approach that aims to balance economic, social, and environmental development using I4.0 tools, enabling technology to improve individuals’ quality of life. Beyond that, this study is, to date, one of the few that relates sustainability, industry 4.0, and the service sector in such a well-unified manner.

Thus, the authors of [7] contributed not only to the exploration of this line of study, but also to providing valuable insights for the area. The results revealed 100 benefits of sustainability 4.0 applied to the service area. In the categorization carried out, it is demonstrated that the economic benefits are more related to the benefits of innovation, finance, efficiency, and performance, while other social benefits are more related to the benefits focused on customers, employees, the work environment, and the earnings. Environments are related to the benefits effects and organizational inputs. The authors of [45] used the Interpretative Structural Modeling (ISM) method to understand the contextual connections between sustainable I4.0 solutions based on the principles and pillars of Industry 4.0 in services, applied in law firms. Among the results obtained, it was demonstrated that sustainable solutions such as Increased Safety, Improved Quality, Personalized Service, Flexibility in Service Delivery, End of Waste, Infrastructure, and Smart Services were among the most relevant. The authors of [46] conducted a survey to verify the organizational impacts of early versus late adopters of Industry 4.0 in manufacturing and service companies. In the study, the results demonstrated that in operational performance, there was an improvement in the quality of products and services, and consequently, there was a reduction in internal failures and costs. In financial performance, it was demonstrated that the adoption of I4.0 tools generates positive returns on profits, allowing sustainable economic advantages, and their adoption can result in innovative activities within the company.

The research in [46] also presents benefits related to environmental and social dimensions. It was seen that the use of 4.0 technologies results in better management of environmental regulations, as it allows monitoring of environmental management, making it possible to obtain real-time data related to environmental emissions. Finally, in the social field, a more direct connection with consumers of all demographic groups is perceived, through multiple digital channels. It was demonstrated that I4.0 improves working conditions, impacting the quality of professional life.

Thus, it is noticeable how sustainability 4.0 can add value to service organizations through a set of benefits that range from an increase in operational efficiency to even a lower contribution of pollutant emissions. In this sense, the use of 4.0 technologies in services can result in positive environmental impacts such as minimizing the resources used and the reducing waste, and increasing energy efficiency. Initiatives 4.0 combined with concepts such as circular economy and lean production can contribute to the implementation of a more sustainable organizational culture by applying environmental standards throughout the entire supply chain, thus creating a sustainable competitive advantage [47].

In view of the advantages mentioned, it is clear how sustainability 4.0 applied to the service sector can result in the improvement of an entire organizational system. However, despite the opportunities generated, there are also some challenges that can hinder this adoption. During this transformation process, in addition to the lack of qualified labor, there is also a difficulty in increasing employee experience to improve the quality of services. This may occur due to the complexity of service operations, employee resistance to adapting to changes, and the difficulty of the company imposing its vision of 4.0 services [12].

Although there is currently a focus on studying how 4.0 technologies affect sustainability in the manufacturing sector, it is possible to see that this focus is gradually shifting to the service sector. The theoretical and practical study on this topic have proven to be highly relevant, and the more studies are developed, the faster it will be to verify the opportunities and barriers in the adoption of sustainability in 4.0 services. Based on the literature, it was possible to list 27 impacts of the use of I4.0-enabling technologies on sustainability in service companies from the economic, environmental, and social dimensions (

Table 1. Impacts of using I4.0-enabling technologies.

Dimension	Code	Impacts	References
Economic	Impact 1	Investment value of 4.0 technologies as a barrier to adoption.	[7,8,13,26,44,45,46,48,49,50,51,52,53]
	Impact 2	Increased financial profits.
	Impact 3	Increased efficiency and better service performance.
	Impact 4	Greater personalization and flexibility in service delivery.
	Impact 5	Reduced losses and failures in service provision.
	Impact 6	Reduced costs by mitigating internal and external failures.
	Impact 7	Greater number of innovative activities in the company (such as new digital service platforms, generation of innovative solutions to problems, driving advances in the company, etc.).
	Impact 8	Contribution to generating greater competitive advantage.
	Impact 9	Significant improvement in service quality.
Environmental	Impact 10	Minimization of waste generated.	[31,45,47,51,52,53,54,55]
	Impact 11	Minimization of resources used.
	Impact 12	Reduction of waste of materials.
	Impact 13	Reduction of environmental emissions.
	Impact 14	Improved energy efficiency and reduced energy consumption.
	Impact 15	Greater compliance with environmental regulations.
	Impact 16	Adoption of a more sustainable organizational culture.
	Impact 17	Establishment of environmental standards throughout the service provision chain.
	Impact 18	Improved environmental management of the company.
Social	Impact 19	Difficulties during the implementation of 4.0 technologies due to a lack of professional guidance.	[12,14,19,20,29,41,46,48,56,57]
	Impact 20	Difficulty in finding qualified professionals to provide guidance during the implementation process.
	Impact 21	Difficulties related to the adaptation of employees to the use of 4.0 technologies.
	Impact 22	After the employees adapted to the technologies, an improvement in working conditions was noticed.
	Impact 23	Improved productive performance and improved quality of life at work.
	Impact 24	Greater agility in customer service.
	Impact 25	Better feedback from customers about the quality of services provided.
	Impact 26	More direct connection with consumers.
	Impact 27	Difficulties in presenting the vision of 4.0 services to employees and suppliers.

).

3. Materials and Methods

Scientific research encompasses several dimensions, such as the approach adopted, the nature of the study, the intended objectives, and the methodological procedures used [58]. Thus, this research is defined as quantitative in its approach, as it uses mathematical data to generate statistical inferences. Regarding its nature, it is defined as applied due to its practical nature. Regarding its objectives, it is defined as exploratory and descriptive, as it examines little-known phenomena while seeking to describe and analyze them [58].

Finally, about methodological procedures, this work used the survey research method through online questionnaires via the Google Forms platform for service companies, anonymously and with the aim of collecting their opinions. The questionnaire (Appendix A) used in this study consisted of a total of 45 questions, subdivided into four distinct parts.

The first part covered the analysis of the companies’ profile, consisting of 3 questions that sought to analyze the profile of the interviewees, asking them about the type of service provided, the size of the company, and the number of employees. The type of company directly influences the type of service offered, since different sectors have different demands, objectives, and target audiences. For example, the services provided by a public company tend to differ significantly from those offered by a financial institution, both in terms of scope and approach. In addition, the type of company also influences the way it adopts and uses 4.0 technologies, especially about its concern for sustainability. Public companies refer to a company or organization owned by the government or public entities. In these cases, the shares or interests in the company are held by government agencies, rather than by private or public investors in the stock market.

The second part included 9 questions that aimed to evaluate the integration of 4.0 technologies in service institutions. Participants were asked to express their opinions using a 5-point scale, from extreme 1 (no use) to extreme 5 (full use). In total, 7 technologies were evaluated (Digitalization, Virtualization, Automation, Additive Manufacturing, Data Analytics, Smart Working, Visualization).

In addition, at the end of this section, two questions were asked related to the topic of this study, about how long a company has used these technologies and about the endorsement or growth of I4.0 in Brazilian companies. The participants’ perspectives were explored to deepen the understanding of their opinions on Industry 4.0, especially on technological factors. The third part evaluated the sustainable impacts of 4.0 under the use of enabling technologies, totaling 27 questions. This part was based on the study [7]. Finally, the fourth stage sought to find out which were the most relevant impacts for service companies in terms of economic, environmental, and social impacts. This last stage was conducted entirely qualitatively and had a total of 3 questions. The questionnaire was distributed using the snowball method so that non-random respondents could invite other participants to participate in the study. In addition, the questionnaire was also distributed via email and WhatsApp to the public randomly on social networks and academic communities. The distribution was accompanied by the Google Forms link, to allow online and anonymous responses. A total of 22 companies responded to the questionnaire, and the data were analyzed using statistical techniques.

The identification of public companies was carried out through Question 1 of the questionnaire, which asked respondents to specify the type of service provided. Based on the answers provided, the researchers were able to identify which respondents represented public companies. This identification allowed for a differentiated analysis of the perceptions and adaptations of public companies in relation to Sustainability 4.0 technologies.

4. Results

The study in question sought to analyze the profile of the companies interviewed, considering variables such as the type of service offered, size, and number of employees. Regarding the type of service provided, five companies are in the advisory/consulting area; four companies in the education area; three companies in the legal sector; three companies in the health area; two companies in the financial sector; and the other sectors of construction and renovation, logistics, sales, public service, and technology represented one each. This indicator demonstrated the diversity of the service sectors studied. Thus, it is possible to recognize that due to this diversity, there may be variability in the responses, which is a positive aspect, since it recognizes the possible influences that each segment can exert. It is worth noting that the results obtained reflect the sample studied and cannot be generalized.

Table 2. Characteristics of the companies studied.

Characteristic	Dimension	Frequency	Percentage
Type of service provided	Advisory/Consulting	5	22.7%
	Construction and renovation	1	4.5%
	Financial	2	9.1%
	Logistics	1	4.5%
	Education	4	18.2%
	Legal	3	13.6%
	Health	3	13.6%
	Sales	1	4.5%
	Public service	1	4.5%
	Technology	1	4.5%
Size	Microenterprise	6	27.3%
	Small business	6	27.3%
	Medium business	3	13.6%
	Large business	7	31.8%
Number of employees	Up to 19 employees	11	50%
	Between 20 and 99 employees	3	13.6%
	Between 100 and 499 employees	1	4.5%
	More than 500 employees	7	31.8%

presents the characteristics of the companies studied.

4.1. Assessment of Technology Categories

To assess technological maturity, a five-point scale was used, ranging from extreme 1 (no use) to extreme 5 (full use). When observing

Table 3. Assessment of technological categories.

Technology	Response Frequency					Mean	Standard Deviation
	1	2	3	4	5
Digitalization	1	0	2	5	14	4.409091	0.984382174
Virtualization	2	3	4	5	8	3.636364	1.332988936
Automation	2	4	10	3	3	3.045455	1.106890515
Additive Manufacturing	15	2	1	3	1	1.772727	1.276779264
Data Analytics	1	3	6	8	4	3.5	1.076610844
Smart Working	3	3	6	5	5	3.272727	1.320530822
Visualization	5	3	5	6	3	2.954545	1.364393729

, among the technological aspects analyzed, digitalization, virtualization, and data analysis lead in the usability ranking, with the highest averages of 4.40, 3.63, and 3.5 points, respectively. Technologies such as smart work and automation showed slightly less evidence, with 3.27 and 3.04 points, respectively. Finally, the aspects with the lowest averages concern visualization and additive manufacturing, with 2.95 and 1.77 points, respectively.

Since digitalization is the most widely used technology, according to the sample, its high applicability reflects the way in which digital transformation changes the provision of services. It is increasingly common for people to start resolving demands through digital services, and new market circumstances contribute to this scenario, since companies may lose competitive advantage by not adapting to this new reality, as explained by [7].

The technologies that lead this ranking have some points in common. They all allow for cost reduction, as well as service improvement, and are also easier to apply to most segments when compared to other technologies [41]. This may indicate better adaptation by companies, both large and small, thus justifying their high relevance.

On the other hand, the technology with the lowest incidence was additive manufacturing (1.77 points). This low index suggests that, although this technology is seen as applicable to services, its application is low. This may be directly related to the fact that this technology is aimed at creating parts, so even though it is part of a portion of the services market, this technology does not prove to be useful for all segments. This is confirmed when looking for studies in the service area that make use of additive manufacturing, since most of these refer to product-centered services, such as [59,60].

The radar chart, which can be seen in Figure 2, was constructed based on the averages of the evaluations under the use of each technological category and provides a visual representation of their usability by the participating service companies. When analyzing the chart, it is possible to identify areas of greater consensus, represented by lines further from the center, which indicates that these technologies are widely used by companies.

Moreover, the companies were also asked how long they had been using the technological categories analyzed. Therefore, to obtain a more comprehensive analysis, the verification of the time of use of the technologies was demonstrated by the size of the company, as shown in

Table 4. Time of use of technological categories by size.

Time	Microenterprise	Small Enterprise	Medium Enterprise	Large Enterprise
Up to 2 years	2	3	0	3
Between 2 and 4 years	2	1	1	0
Between 4 and 6 years	0	1	1	1
Between 6 and 8 years	1	1	0	0
Between 8 and 10 years	0	0	0	0
Over 10 years	1	0	1	3

.

Thus, it is possible to see that, over the years, the technological presence has grown significantly, and there has been a recent boom in growth. Furthermore, the variability in the sizes of the latest adopters reflects how technological transformation is revolutionizing the entire market, suggesting that the digital revolution is in fact seen as a driver of improvements and future trends. This is further confirmed when analyzing the perception that respondents have regarding the development of Industry 4.0. To this end, the question was asked: “In your opinion, is the development of Industry 4.0 in Brazilian companies currently showing slow progress or is it growing exponentially?” For 13 companies, the development of Industry 4.0 in Brazilian companies is showing exponential growth. However, for 9, development is showing slow progress. This is evident in some statements, such as: “I believe it depends a lot on the segment. In the area of Education, I think advancement is exponential if it is for private colleges and schools as well. Since I work in a municipal agency, the reality is very far away” and “The development of Industry 4.0, I think it can be improved. Investment in public policies should be greater to subsidize companies/industry in the advancement of technologies and sustainability 4.0”. Thus, the type of segment can directly influence the technological advances seen, even more so when it refers to segments of public agencies. This suggests that, although I4.0 is increasingly well developed, it is necessary to direct attention to some segments that are not managing to keep up with this growth, to develop strategic measures to keep up with the technological transformation.

4.2. Impacts of Technologies on Sustainability

The third part of the questionnaire sought to assess respondents’ perceptions of the impacts of the use of technologies on sustainability 4.0, providing information on how companies assess the integration of sustainability 4.0 in their environment and, therefore, contributing to the understanding of direct impacts in the context of the service sector. Respondents’ responses were subjected to descriptive analyses and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (Kendall’s W), and the results can be seen in

Table 5. Frequency, mean, and standard deviation of the impacts of the use of technologies on sustainability.

Ranking	Impacts	Response Frequency					Mean	Standard Deviation
		1	2	3	4	5
1	Impact 24	1	1	2	6	12	4.227	1.11
2	Impact 8	0	2	3	6	11	4.182	1.006
3	Impact 4	0	2	4	6	10	4.091	1.019
4	Impact 9	0	1	4	8	9	4.136	0.889
5	Impact 12	0	1	6	5	10	4.091	0.971
6	Impact 25	1	2	3	6	10	4.0000	1.195
7	Impact 3	0	1	4	10	7	4.045	0.844
8	Impact 5	0	3	4	7	8	3.909	1.065
9	Impact 23	1	1	4	9	7	3.909	1.065
10	Impact 10	0	1	8	4	9	3.955	0.999
11	Impact 16	2	1	4	7	8	3.818	1.259
12	Impact 6	0	3	4	8	7	3.864	1.037
13	Impact 15	0	2	8	3	9	3.864	1.082
14	Impact 26	1	1	6	6	8	3.864	1.125
15	Impact 22	1	1	5	8	7	3.864	1.082
16	Impact 11	0	2	7	5	8	3.864	1.037
17	Impact 7	0	3	6	5	8	3.818	1.097
18	Impact 1	0	4	4	9	5	3.682	1.041
19	Impact 13	0	3	8	3	8	3.727	1.12
20	Impact 18	1	2	7	4	8	3.727	1.202
21	Impact 2	1	3	6	5	7	3.636	1.217
22	Impact 14	0	7	4	5	6	3.455	1.224
23	Impact 17	2	4	6	4	6	3.364	1.329
24	Impact 19	3	5	5	3	6	3.182	1.435
25	Impact 21	1	5	8	2	6	3.318	1.249
26	Impact 27	1	7	6	4	4	3.136	1.207
27	Impact 20	2	5	7	3	5	3.182	1.296
Cronbach’s alpha	0.94
Kendall’s W	0.106
Chi-Square	60.585
S.D.	26

.

The data present a ranking, with means and standard deviations for each impact related to the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. The responses related to the economic dimension indicate a positive perception of the relationship between sustainable practices and economic aspects, with means ranging from 3.63 to 4.18 (difference of 0.54), demonstrating a high consensus.

In the environmental aspects, a positive evaluation was also verified regarding the interaction between sustainability and environmental factors, with means ranging from 3.36 to 4.09 (difference of 0.72). Finally, the perception of social aspects was the dimension with the highest mean variation, ranging from 3.18 to 4.22 (difference of 1.04), indicating that it is the dimension with the lowest impact.

The ranking shows that the questions with the highest means refer to 24 (social), 8 (economic), 4 (economic), and 9 (economic), with 4.22, 4.18, 4.09, and 4.13 points, respectively. Thus, it is suggested that the points with the greatest agreement are those that are directly linked to the benefits felt by customers and the advantages generated for the company, such as greater agility in service, greater personalization and flexibility in service delivery, significant improvement in service quality, and contribution to generating greater competitive advantage.

On the other hand, the impacts that presented the lowest averages are concentrated in the social category, namely, impacts 20, 27, 21, and 19, with 3.18, 3.13, 3.31, and 3.18 points, respectively. Although the social factors above are verified as the most dispersed, it is necessary to analyze their context. Thus, the statements of these impacts refer to difficulties during the adoption of technologies, difficulties related to the lack of professional guidance, and the difficult search for qualified professionals, as well as difficulties related to the adaptation of employees to technologies and the difficulty in exposing the vision of services 4.0 to their employees. According to [12,57], these factors are some of the main barriers to the adoption of 4.0 technologies, and the high dispersion and low incidence of these impacts proves to be a positive aspect, since it shows that some companies are managing to overcome these obstacles. Thus, the factors from least to greatest impact were “Difficulty in finding qualified professionals to guide during the implementation process” and “Greater agility in customer service”. Regarding the issue of qualified professional guidance, the low impact suggests that the disagreement is related to the fact that the search for qualified professionals is not scarce. Professional training plays a vital role in the current job industry, so it is no longer difficult to find specialized people. This idea was partially discussed by [12].

Cronbach’s alpha is a statistical measure that provides an estimate of the degree of internal consistency of a questionnaire [61]. This method was used and calculated to verify the reliability between the questions evaluated by this research. The value obtained, 0.94, reveals high reliability in responses to the questionnaire. According to the standard Cronbach’s alpha scale, this value indicates that the questions are highly correlated and consistent.

To measure the degree of agreement between the companies’ responses, the nonparametric test known as Kendall’s coefficient of agreement (Kendall’s W) was used. The choice of Kendall’s W demonstrates the suitability of this method for the specific objectives of this study, since this test is one of the best methods when dealing with ordinal data, as it considers the order of the classifications made. Its values range from 0 to 1, so a coefficient close to zero indicates greater disagreement between the respondents, while a result close to 1 suggests a greater degree of agreement [62]. The hypotheses tested for the 27 impacts studied are presented below:

• H0: the companies’ agreement regarding the impacts of technologies on sustainability is due to chance.
• H1: the companies’ agreement regarding the impacts of technologies on sustainability is not due to chance.

That said, indicating a low level of agreement, Kendall’s coefficient resulted in 0.106. Thus, it was possible to verify that the null hypothesis should be rejected, since the p-value for the 27 factors was less than = 0.05; that is, the companies’ agreement regarding the impacts of technologies on sustainability is not due to chance. The result of Kendall’s W suggests that, although there is a certain degree of agreement in the responses, this agreement is not significant, demonstrating high diversity in the participants’ responses. This analysis allows us to understand the plurality that the different service segments have regarding the perception of the impacts of technologies on sustainability practices, highlighting nuances in the opinions of the interviewees. The Chi-square indicator is a statistic used to assess the significance of the association between categorical variables in a data set. In the context of this study on the evaluation of S4.0 practices in services, the chi-square was applied to analyze the different categories of responses from service companies. The chi-square value obtained was 60.585, with 26 degrees of freedom (N-1). This result suggests that there is a significant statistical association between the companies’ responses.

This significant association indicates that the respondents’ responses did not occur by chance and are related to some specific pattern. The objective of the chi-square test seeks to understand the statistical dependence between the variables, contributing to a deeper understanding of the factors that influence the perception of service companies regarding the impacts of the use of 4.0 technologies on sustainability. Finally, the chi-square value strengthens the statistical validity of the present study, supporting the reliability of the results obtained.

The analysis developed in this section makes a discovery about the perceptions of the adoption of Industry 4.0 practices among service companies. The main finding is that these perceptions are not strongly connected to sustainability, and the practical results of this application are modest, focusing mainly on the reduction of paper and waste.

This observation is highlighted by the fact that, although the adoption of advanced technologies is widely implemented, the integration of these practices with sustainability has not been widely recognized or explored by service companies. As shown in the impacts table, the variations in the means and the low level of agreement between the responses reinforce this gap.

Regarding the economic impacts, the results showed a positive trend in the perceptions, with high means and little variation. This suggests that the economic benefits of Industry 4.0 are more evident and consensual, such as greater agility, personalization, and improvements in service quality. Although environmental impacts were also assessed positively, the variation in the averages indicates a diverse range of opinions. Companies recognize the environmental benefits, but practical application is still limited. Social impacts, on the other hand, showed the greatest variation, reflecting challenges in organizational adaptation and professional qualification. Aspects such as the difficulty in finding qualified professionals and in adapting the workforce to new technologies were frequently mentioned as significant barriers.

The disconnect between Industry 4.0 practices and sustainability is a critical point, considering that advanced technologies have vast potential to promote sustainability in several dimensions, such as resource efficiency and emissions reduction, sustainable and automated supply chain, talent development, organizational resilience, compliance and incentives, etc.

The radar chart, which can be seen in Figure 3, was constructed based on the averages of the impacts assessed in different issues and provides a visual representation of the sustainable impacts, as perceived by the participating service companies.

Each question is associated with a line on the graph, and the position of the line indicates the average importance attributed by companies to each impact. By analyzing the graph, it is possible to identify areas of greater consensus, represented by lines further from the center, indicating that these factors are perceived as having a high impact, while lines closer to the center suggest areas with divergent opinions and impacts of lesser evidence.

4.3. Most Relevant Sustainable Impacts

The fourth and final part of the questionnaire sought to verify which sustainable impacts the respondents considered to be the most relevant caused by technological transformation. For this section, qualitative questions were used to seek to understand in greater depth the companies’ perception of the most significant economic, social, and environmental impacts.

The results obtained were subjected to qualitative analysis, demonstrated below. The first question was related to the economic impacts caused by technological transformation, highlighting the most relevant ones for the company in terms of sustainability. It was demonstrated that the reduction in spending on materials was the biggest factor in the responses (around nine responses), mainly about the reduction in the purchase and use of paper. This is said in some statements, such as “I noticed the reduction in administrative material, such as paper. With the savings in purchasing this material, we started to make small repairs and buy a new copier”and “Dramatic reduction in paper consumption and printing with the use of SEI”, among other statements.

Regarding the most relevant economic impacts, respondents also reported benefits related to financial gains, time saved, process improvements, support for innovative practices, savings in the use of resources, and cost reduction through waste reduction. These factors were the most frequently observed among the responses analyzed in the economic dimension and confirm the findings in Table 2.

Regarding the most relevant social impacts noted, the most significant impact on social sustainability is related to improving work. This is seen in responses such as “Improved work environment for frontline employees”, “Shared work and visible management”, “Greater integration between employees allowing more frequent and efficient joint actions”, and “Less stress”. Another interesting social aspect, mentioned in some responses, refers to the opportunity for training and qualification, as seen in the following statements: “Technological transformation can provide opportunities for digital and social inclusion, allowing access to new technologies and knowledge, training of the workforce, creation of qualified jobs”, “Ease of communication, emergence of new career possibilities, demand for new skills, innovation”, and “Access to qualifications, qualified labor”. The presence of this impact strengthens the thesis that technological transformation does not make human labor replaceable but rather drives the development of new positions and careers, as discussed by [19]. Finally, when asked about which environmental impacts they considered most relevant, the leading aspect in responses referred to the generation of less waste; this is seen in several statements, such as “Reduction of waste, I thought the accumulation of waste from paper was absurd”, “Reduction of waste linked to the process”, and “We do not generate waste”, among others. Other impacts seen in more than one statement refer to the reduction of resource consumption and the reduction of waste. Such environmental impacts can be perceived as the most significant due to the use of digitalization, since authors such as [53] have already reported that its use enables a significant reduction in waste and input used.

Thus, it was possible to verify that most of the reported responses refer more to digitalization than necessarily to concerns about sustainability. Although this research addresses the economic, social, and environmental impacts of technological transformation on sustainability, it is pertinent to recognize that many of the impacts mentioned by the respondents, in fact, are not directly connected to the broader notion of sustainability but rather to the efficiency and gains arising from digitalization.

In the economic aspect, the qualitative analysis showed that the respondents link sustainability mostly to the saving of material resources, without a more integrated approach that includes more comprehensive sustainable practices, such as the adoption of renewable energy or the analysis of the life cycle of products.

In the social aspects, the analysis focused on the improvement of working conditions and the increase in communication efficiency. Although positive, these factors reflect more a consequence of the adoption of digital technologies than a deliberate strategy of social sustainability. Another point observed was the creation of new training and qualification opportunities, which reinforces the need for workers to adapt to new technologies, but this denotes a focus on digitalization and its side effects rather than a more robust sustainable social strategy.

Finally, in the environmental aspect, many responses were centered on reducing waste through digitalization. These impacts are largely related to the replacement of analog processes with digital solutions and not necessarily to the implementation of more complex sustainable environmental practices. Thus, while the results showed significant advances in the adoption of digital technologies and their immediate effects, a more comprehensive vision and deliberate sustainability strategies need to be better explored and implemented by companies to maximize the sustainable benefits of technological transformation.

5. Discussion

Although the economic bias has a greater impact, the impacts of the environmental dimension have also proven to be positive, even if a little more dispersed. The environmental findings are largely concentrated on the effects that the adoption of technologies has had on the reduction of the use of organizational inputs, either by reducing waste or by reducing residues. This analysis is in line with studies by [45].

The low incidence of respondents in the social impacts of this research is revealed as an important finding for the present study. Since the social impacts analyzed as the smallest impacts concern some of the main barriers to be faced by companies, such as the search for qualified professionals and the difficulty of exposing and adapting employees to the new transformation [12,57], their low relevance is contrary to the literature. This finding may indicate that this antagonistic scenario is finally being transformed positively.

In addition, when observing the financial barrier as a limiting factor for the adoption of 4.0 technologies, this aspect did not prove to be one of the most impactful. This may be linked to the fact that, due to increased digitalization, the use of digital transactional and operational systems is becoming increasingly frequent. These mechanisms not only allow for increased process efficiency but also allow for cost reduction. Thus, financial limitations may no longer be seen as a barrier, since the cost of adopting some types of mechanisms may not have such a significant impact when compared to the benefits that such mechanisms can add to the provision of services, as partially discussed by [19].

In addition, when considering the number of different sizes of the responding companies, there is room to suggest that the companies studied adapt to this new digital era, regardless of size. This implies that the present study contradicts the literature presented throughout this work regarding the adaptation of SMEs to Industry 4.0 [49,51,63].

When analyzing the results on the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in the service sector, it is important to contrast them with the findings of studies conducted by local entities, such as trade associations, industry federations, and the government. The studies by Guimarães Júnior et al., Guimarães et al., Guimarães and Júnior, and Azevedo and Rufino [64,65,66,67] indicate that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face significant barriers in implementing these technologies due to lack of financial resources and training and resistance to change. These barriers are like those found by the National Confederation of Industry (CNI) in its survey on digital transformation in Brazilian industries [68].

However, the findings of this article show an effective adaptation of companies of different sizes to technologies such as digitalization, virtualization, and data analysis. This suggests that, despite the barriers pointed out, there is a broader implementation of these less complex and lower initial cost technologies. A study by Maia et al. [69] on the degree of digitalization in law firms found similar results, indicating a growing trend in the adoption of basic digital technologies.

Government studies, such as those carried out by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) [70], indicate that the ability of public companies to keep up with Industry 4.0 innovations is limited by bureaucracy and the lack of adequate incentives. The findings of this article corroborate this view, showing a slower penetration of Industry 4.0 technologies in the public sector. In these companies, specific support policies seem to be necessary to foster a more agile and efficient adoption of new technologies.

Therefore, the comparison with local academic studies reveals that, while the findings of this article highlight progress in the adaptation of service companies to Industry 4.0 technologies, there are still significant challenges to be overcome, especially financial and training challenges, as also highlighted by Gomes et al. [71]. These divergences highlight the need for continued support measures and incentive policies to overcome these barriers and harmonize technological adoption across different sectors.

Regarding the conclusions about public service companies, it was observed that these companies have a slower penetration of Industry 4.0 technologies. This observation was possible due to the identification of public companies through Question 1 of the questionnaire, where respondents indicated the type of service provided. This procedure allowed the researchers to specifically analyze the challenges and barriers that public companies face in adopting sustainability and Industry 4.0 technologies. Through this analysis, it was possible to conclude that, although there is a general advance in technological adoption, public service companies may need specific policies and strategies to keep up with these innovations.

In the study by Vacek et al. [49], it was observed that SMEs face significant challenges in adapting to the technological and organizational requirements of Industry 4.0, especially due to limited resources, lack of technical knowledge, and resistance to change. Contrary to these observations, this study found that companies of different sizes, including SMEs, have demonstrated effective adaptation to technological changes. The companies contained in the sample studied showed that they are implementing Industry 4.0 practices effectively, regardless of their resource limitations.

For Marquardt [63], one of the main barriers for SMEs is the complexity of developing and integrating smart services, which requires a significant transformation both technologically and organizationally. In this article, it was found that, despite the complexities mentioned, several participating SMEs have managed to overcome these barriers through strategic initiatives, training, and technological partnerships, enabling the successful implementation of smart services.

Pandya and Kumar [51] state that, despite high expectations, few SMEs can implement Industry 4.0 technologies in a way that promotes sustainability due to financial limitations and lack of institutional support. In contrast, the data presented in this article indicate that several SMEs have achieved effective implementation of sustainable practices using Industry 4.0 technologies, focusing on areas such as waste reduction and resource optimization, although the direct link with broader sustainable practices is still limited.

However, it is necessary to analyze the context of the best-evaluated technologies. In general, such technologies refer to digitalization, virtualization, and data analysis. These technologies require a much lower initial investment when compared to technologies such as additive manufacturing, making it easier for smaller companies to adopt these technologies. However, this study focuses on evaluating sustainability 4.0 practices in service companies and, therefore, does not delve into the possible limitations and implications that the size of companies may influence. For this purpose, future research along these lines is suggested.

Finally, it is still possible to see discrepancies between service segments. Qualitative responses demonstrated that the public service sector is sometimes not keeping up with the pace of Services 4.0. The identification of the public service sector was carried out through question 1 of the first part of the questionnaire. This inference should be considered, since the use of technologies allows for the impact of improving an entire system.

In general, the research indicates a positive view regarding the ability of service companies to develop sustainability 4.0 practices using enabling technologies. These conclusions help managers make decisions regarding the implications that sustainability 4.0 may have in the specific context of the service sector.

The findings on utilities highlight the need for a specific focus on these entities, given that the penetration of Industry 4.0 technologies is slower when compared to other sectors. This suggests that additional policy interventions and support mechanisms may be needed to facilitate this technological transition.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to evaluate Sustainability 4.0 practices in 22 service companies located in the state of Pernambuco, Northeast Brazil. To this end, the survey research method was used through online questionnaires via the Google Forms platform. Through the data collected, we sought to verify which factors had the greatest impact on Sustainability 4.0 within the companies. Thus, the contributions of this study are notable, starting with its approach focused exclusively on service companies. Based on the literature presented, it was possible to list 27 impacts (9 economic, 9 environmental, and 9 social) that I4.0 technologies cause in the service area, impacts that served as the basis for the preparation of the questionnaire. Thus, the results demonstrated a strong positive assessment of I4.0-enabling technologies to assist the economic, environmental, and social dimensions in companies. Although the impacts with lower averages are concentrated in the social category, their findings also suggest a positive assessment regarding sustainable development, since such impacts refer to the challenges that companies face when adopting technologies, so that their low incidence reveals itself to be a positive factor.

Moreover, it was found that impacts such as reduced use of materials, reduced waste and costs, reduced waste generation, and improved quality of life at work were among the most relevant for companies. Thus, the results obtained were able to demonstrate that the use of I4.0-enabling technologies enables sustainable development based on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions in service companies in the state of Pernambuco. It is worth noting that through the practices resulting from the implementation of I4.0-enabling technologies, it is possible not only to develop Sustainability 4.0 in the service area but also to generate added value for consumers and provide an improvement in the quality of services, since the best-evaluated impacts refer to factors linked to the benefits felt by customers and the advantages generated for the company. Thus, the contributions of this study to society focus on the relevance given to I4.0-enabling technologies to assist in the sustainable pillars of service companies, as well as provide an improvement in the quality of services. Thus, this research was practical in nature, as it allowed managers to make decisions based on the implications that I4.0-enabling technologies may have for the sustainable development of service companies, thus providing insights that can assist in the development of competitive strategies. In addition, its contributions also extend to academia, since this research contributes to the expansion of this line of study, enabling future studies that aim to delve deeper into the implications that Sustainability 4.0 has for the service sector.

However, despite the results obtained, it is necessary to recognize some limitations. The sample of this work is relatively limited; therefore, it may not be possible to generalize the results obtained comprehensively to all service segments. To this end, it is suggested that studies be developed that cover a larger number of companies in Brazil and around the world. In addition, new studies are suggested that expand the research location to visualize possible differences between regions, since only companies from Pernambuco participated in the study. Even in a small sample, discrepancies between different service segments could be seen in some responses. It was superficially found that the public service sector faces the slow penetration of Industry 4.0 in its environment; thus, it is suggested that studies be developed that seek to deepen the adaptation of public services to the pace of Services 4.0.

Although the consulting, logistics, and healthcare segments mention digitalization, virtualization, automation, additive manufacturing, data analytics, smart work, and visualization technologies, the study did not include a specific analysis of technologies such as connectivity (e.g., 5G), rovers and drones, and surgical robots. This is justified, since the focus of the research was directed to the technologies that were most prevalent, as evidenced by the literature search. In this sense, an analysis of these specific technologies is recommended for future studies, aiming to explore a broader range of technological innovations applicable to the mentioned services. Such an approach can further enrich the results and offer a more complete view of the interactions between sustainability and emerging technologies in the various service segments.