Barriers and Drivers in the Construction Industry: Impacts of Industry 4.0 Enabling Technologies on Sustainability 4.0

Abstract

The civil construction sector is crucial to global economic development, influencing GDP and driving innovation with Industry 4.0 technologies such as BIM and IoT. However, how these technologies can be effectively aligned with the principles of Sustainability 4.0 within the framework of Construction 4.0 remains unclear. This paper aims to identify the barriers and drivers related to the impact of adopting Industry 4.0 enabling technologies on Sustainability 4.0 in the construction sector. To achieve this, we conducted a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) using articles from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, focusing on the period from 2021 to 2025. The methodology applied enabled a comprehensive analysis of 50 articles, highlighting challenges, barriers, and potential facilitators in the adoption of Sustainability 4.0 practices. Among the key findings, advanced technologies such as BIM and IoT have shown positive impacts on sustainability dimensions, like reducing energy consumption; yet, practical implementation still encounters significant barriers, including high costs and insufficient public policies. Only 30% of the reviewed articles discuss adoption in less developed regions, indicating geographical disparity in the application of these technologies. The paper provides valuable insights for managers and policymakers on overcoming existing barriers, emphasizing the importance of innovative business models and the need for cultural and educational adaptation. The study suggests that, with a collaborative approach and adequate support policies, Industry 4.0 technologies can transform sustainable practices in civil construction, fostering a more balanced and environmentally responsible economy.

1. Introduction

The construction industry plays a role of utmost importance within the economy of any country and is also recognized as a sector of strategic importance, and one of the fundamental drivers of the development and progress of a nation [1]. The World Economic Forum [2] showed that the construction industry represents almost 6% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Therefore, it is one of the sectors that contributes most to global economic development [3].

Due to its contribution to global GDP, this sector has become vital to infrastructure progress, urban and economic development, and job creation [4,5]. In this context, the civil construction industry is experiencing highly relevant and significant transformations, driven by the desire and need to combine productivity, innovation, and environmental responsibility [6,7]. Historically characterized by intensive use of natural resources, high waste generation, and considerable environmental impacts, the sector has been challenged to adopt solutions that can promote a new development model [8].

However, Lavikka et al. [9] argue that there is a lack of knowledge when it comes to implementation and digitalization for value generation, thus creating a gap in the relationship between expectations of transformative performance with the use of digital data and the current implementation in the sector. It is therefore observed that construction companies often lack confidence both in identifying which technologies to adopt and in defining how to implement them effectively [9].

Against this backdrop, the approaches of Industry 4.0 applied to construction, known as Construction 4.0, along with the concept of Sustainability 4.0, emerge, representing the integration of digital technologies with sustainable development principles [10,11,12,13]. Sustainability 4.0 focuses on digitalization, automation, and real-time data analysis, prioritizing energy efficiency, reduction in environmental impacts, resource optimization, and social value generation [14,15,16]. In civil construction, this approach is exemplified by the adoption of technologies such as BIM, the Internet of Things (IoT), smart sensors, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and digital twins. These technological tools enhance the technical performance of projects and enable more informed and sustainable decisions throughout the entire life cycle of buildings [17,18,19,20,21,22,23].

Meanwhile, despite the evident potential of Sustainability 4.0, its adoption continues to encounter significant challenges before it can be fully realized. These barriers are not only technological but also organizational, cultural, and institutional. The fragmentation of the sector, resistance to change, lack of innovative leadership, and absence of long-term strategies hinder the integration of digital technologies with sustainability objectives. Many managers still lack the technical knowledge needed to align practices with new technological solutions, making it difficult to create collaborative and intelligent environments [9].

Also, note that there is a gap between the theoretical advances in discussions about Construction and Sustainability 4.0 (S4.0) and their implementation in the real-world construction environment. Many models presented in academic studies require very little practical experimentation and empirical validation, which makes large-scale replication difficult. This gap between theory and practice is exacerbated by the lack of robust public policies to encourage sustainable innovation and by resource limitations, especially in developing countries [24].

The effective transition to Sustainability 4.0 requires not only investments in technological infrastructure but also a paradigm shift in business models, organizational culture, and sector governance policies. Creating integrated, interoperable, data-oriented environments can facilitate efficient resource management, emissions reduction, and improved working conditions in construction projects [17]. In this context, Sustainability 4.0 in civil construction represents an evolution of traditional paradigms by integrating emerging technologies inspired by Industry 4.0. While traditional sustainability focuses on minimizing environmental impacts through the efficient use of resources and sustainable materials, Sustainability 4.0 incorporates technological tools to optimize energy efficiency and resource management in real time. Additionally, it promotes a circular economy and intelligent energy solutions through smart grids and adaptive systems. This approach not only enhances efficiency and reduces waste but also enables systemic integration that provides an open and dynamic view of the interactions between components and stakeholders, offering a more holistic and proactive response to current and future environmental, social, and economic demands [17,24,25,26,27].

The literature indicates growing attention to the interrelation between sustainability, Industry 4.0, and the construction sector. The originality of this work lies in providing new insights and perspectives into this discussion, particularly regarding Sustainability 4.0. Therefore, this paper addresses the following research question: What are the barriers and drivers influencing the adoption of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies to advance Sustainability 4.0 in the construction industry? To answer this question, this article aims to identify the barriers and drivers related to the impact of the adoption of enabling technologies of Industry 4.0 on Sustainability 4.0 in the construction sector. To achieve these aims, a Systematic Literature Review was conducted using the Web of Science and Scopus databases, covering the period from 2021 to 2025. The methodology followed the stages of planning, implementation, and reporting, resulting in the selection of 50 articles considered relevant. The main barriers identified include high implementation costs, lack of public policies, shortage of qualified labor, and low digital maturity of organizations. On the other hand, the key drivers are management support, institutional commitment, and integration with circular economy principles and sustainable development.

The motivation for conducting this study stems from the urgent need to understand and overcome the challenges faced by the construction industry in adopting advanced technologies that promote Sustainability 4.0. Despite the significant potential of integrating Industry 4.0 technologies to transform sustainable practices, the practical application of these innovations still encounters substantial barriers. These include technological limitations, organizational resistance, and the lack of robust institutional policies, particularly relevant in the context of developing countries. To explore these issues, the study aims to identify the barriers and drivers impacting this transition, offering new perspectives that can guide the construction industry toward a more sustainable, innovative model aligned with contemporary demands for economic, social, and environmental development.

This article is structured into five sections. The introduction presents the research context. Section 2 discusses the main theoretical concepts on the topic, including sustainability and sustainable development in construction, as well as Sustainability 4.0 and Construction 4.0, addressing issues such as circular economy, waste management, and CO₂ emissions. Section 3 describes the methodology adopted in the SLR. Section 4 and Section 5 present the results and conclusions, respectively.

2. Theoretical Basis

2.1. Sustainability and Sustainable Development in the Construction Industry

The notion of sustainability in construction is no longer a marginal issue and has become mainstream. Ming et al. [28] emphasize the need to incorporate sustainability into all stages of the construction process: from planning to deconstruction. Therefore, developing management practices that improve the assessment of green practices on construction sites is necessary, as the sector remains a major contributor to sustainability deficits [29].

Sustainability represents the integration of present and future needs with the aim of improving quality of life within ecosystems, by replacing natural capital with that produced by humans [30]. Although sustainability, along with sustainable construction methods, provides savings in carbon emissions and operational costs, they have not yet been fully adopted in the industry [31,32]. In the literature, it remains incipient, with research focusing on BIM [33,34,35], sustainable construction techniques [36,37], and waste reuse strategies [38,39] as means of advancing sustainability. According to Presley et al. [40] the sustainable success of projects depends on the adoption of indicators that integrate sustainability into management practices.

Despite recent criticism regarding the absence of a well-established sustainable development model [31], such practices can generate significant benefits for both the country and the environment, including the reduction in construction waste [41,42,43], efficient use of natural resources and energy [44,45,46] and improvement of productivity and environmental quality [42,45]. In this sense, researchers argue that the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability must remain balanced and harmonious [47,48,49].

The concept of sustainable construction, considered a subset of sustainable development and is based on ecological principles, resource efficiency [50], as well as climate change mitigation [51]. Defined by UNEP [52], it encompasses the entire building life cycle, from design to construction, ensuring environmentally responsible resource use. Sustainable construction thus emerges as a guiding paradigm for the creation of a built environment that addresses both present and future needs, contributing directly to sustainable development [53]. Masia et al. [54] also show that sustainability in civil construction is achieved through the adoption of sustainable construction projects that generate environmental, social, and economic benefits [55].

Green construction is another term that has gained prominence in response to global sustainability demands. According to Sim and Putuhena [37], it refers to the development of buildings and infrastructure that guarantee safety, quality, cost efficiency, and above all, adherence to sustainability goals. Through this perspective, the implementation of innovative technologies in construction processes is highlighted as a factor capable of revolutionizing the sector, leading to greater efficiency, cost reduction and environmentally responsible practices [56].

2.2. Sustainability 4.0 and Construction 4.0

The construction industry generates a large amount of waste that is often disposed of in large landfills [57], reflecting the fact that the most orthodox construction practices are ineffective and inefficient [58]. A practical example is when advanced materials are adopted, such as recycled materials and ecological alternatives; the construction industry can obtain a significant reduction in its ecological footprint [59]. In this context, the traditional approach to sustainability emphasizes minimizing environmental impacts through the efficient use of resources and sustainable materials.

In 2011, during the Hannover Fair in Germany, the concept of Industry 4.0 emerged, envisioning a significant digital transformation in the structures and industries of global value chains, both in vertical and horizontal dimensions [60]. The in-depth implementation of digital transformation involves a diverse set of digital technologies and applications, such as robotics, augmented reality (AR), building information modeling (BIM), and 3D printing [61]. In pursuit of increased efficiency and productivity, these digital technologies are being adopted by various sectors of the economy, including the manufacturing, aeronautical, and automotive industries. The growing integration of digital transformation in these and other sectors reinforces its transformative impact, an aspect discussed by [62]. The continuous push for broader and more coordinated digitalization, as also outlined by Wang [63], is seen as crucial for achieving industrial development and global sustainability.

Although the Industry 4.0 concept emerged in 2011, it was not until 2016 that the Construction 4.0 concept was formally introduced. This fact highlights that Construction 4.0 (C4.0) is a relatively new concept that needs to be explored from a broad and integrated perspective [23]. Rather than simply applying advanced technologies to traditional civil construction, this concept heralds a new era of transformations based on innovation and responsibility, with a specific focus on increasing efficiency and productivity in the sector [64].

In this context, Construction 4.0 involves the widespread application of digital technologies in the construction industry, underscoring the importance of adopting new work methods [10,65,66]. The transformations include modernizing construction processes, carefully selecting materials, and adopting a renewed perspective on market dynamics. The objective is not only to optimize efficiency and reduce waste but also to promote innovation in the integration of the various phases of the building life cycle, aligning with the principles of Sustainability 4.0 [67,68]. These technologies, such as robotics, augmented reality, building information modeling (BIM), 3D printing, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things (IoT), are seen as significant determinants in the current business scenario, enabling operational advances in diverse sectors such as manufacturing, aeronautics, and automotive. However, much of the research regarding C4.0 is still at the proof-of-concept stage [69]. As the sector transitions to C4.0, understanding the integration requirements of advanced digital technologies will be essential to applying the principles of sustainable development [70].

It is worth noting that when Wahlster [71] defined the concept of Industry 4.0 (I4.0), sustainability was one of the objectives; however, over time, it has been relegated to the background. Besides the lack of implementation of I4.0 in companies, efforts have focused mainly on enabling concepts and technologies [72]. Pedota [73] reaffirms that the adoption of these I4.0 technologies requires improvement in the skills of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) team and also among employees who are not part of ICT. For this reason, the construction sector has greater potential to achieve sustainability goals through technology applied to issues such as resource scarcity and environmental damage. However, what is observed are inconsistencies and gaps in digital infrastructure [74,75].

In this perspective, Sustainability 4.0 in the civil construction sector is viewed as the evolution of traditional sustainability paradigms, incorporating the principles and emerging technologies of Industry 4.0. These tools allow for real-time monitoring and optimization of construction processes, promoting more intelligent resource management and establishing a new model of sustainable development driven by data and technological innovation. Thus, Sustainability 4.0 can be conceptualized as the integration of I4.0 enabling technologies with the dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), contributing to resource optimization and improvements in quality of life [14].

These I4.0 enabling technologies include building information modeling (BIM), Internet of Things (IoT) [10,76] digital twins, artificial intelligence (AI) and Blockchain, which are applied to improve efficiency, collaboration, and sustainability in the construction sector [64,77].

Table 1. Use of I4.0 enabling technologies in the construction industry.

Enabling Technologies	Applications in Civil Construction	Contributions to Sustainability	Dimensions Do TBL	References
Building Information Modeling (BIM)	Planning and simulation of projects; integration with digital gems and IoT.	Reduction in energy consumption; increase in productivity; efficiency in our projects.	Environmental, economic and social	[78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85]
Artificial Intelligence (AI)	Automating and data-based decision making; application of machine learning for process optimization.	Reduce waste and emissions; Sustainable management of the supply chain.	Environmental and social	[10,86,87,88]
Internet of Things (IoT)	Monitoring in real time of works; optimization of safety and operational performance.	Reduction in energy and water consumption; minimization of waste and environmental impacts.	Environmental and Social	[86,89]
Blockchain	Guarantee of transparency and security in transactions; management of smart contracts.	Increased efficiency in the supply chain; fraud reduction.	Environmental and social	[89]
Digital Twins (DT)	Accurate representation and simulation of projects; asset integration and management.	Wonderful energy efficiency and resource management.	Environmental and social	[89,90,91]
Big Data	Collect and analyze data in real time; integration with other technologies for operational and sustainable planning.	Improvement in energy efficiency; Sustainable management of civil construction infrastructure.	Environmental and economic	[10,86,87,88]
Cloud and Mobile Computing	Facilitation of digital communication and implementation of technologies for the site.	Improvement in communication; Greater technological adoption through new and mobile computing.	Economic and social	[92]
Advanced Robotics and Automation	Use of robots for process automation and integration of non-construction systems.	Reduction in errors; increase in the efficiency of construction processes.	Environmental, economic and social	[89,90]

Source: The Authors (2025).

shows the main enabling technologies of I4.0, their most frequent uses in the construction industry and the main impacts on TBL.

Murtagh et al. [93] note that sustainable construction standards, life cycle assessment and analysis, and sustainable procurement procedures are now more common in modern construction projects, thus demonstrating concern and commitment to reducing environmental impact.

Thus, the connection between Construction 4.0 and Sustainability 4.0 occurs through the incorporation of advanced digital technologies to make construction processes more efficient and environmentally responsible. Tools such as BIM, IoT, digital twins, and blockchain allow the monitoring, analysis, and optimization of resource use at all stages of the construction lifecycle, reducing waste and emissions [94,95]. This movement in the construction sector promotes a data-driven approach to support sustainable decision-making, increasing supply chain transparency and aligning the sector with global sustainable development goals [96,97]. Therefore, construction 4.0, while digitalizing construction, also strengthens resilient practices and consolidates the concept of sustainability 4.0 [70,98].

In this way, the convergence between the principles of Industry 4.0 and the practices of Construction 4.0 establishes a new sustainability paradigm, termed Sustainability 4.0. This integration not only redefines how construction processes are planned and executed but also expands the range of strategies enabled by the incorporation of digital technologies capable of promoting intelligent, predictive, and efficient resource management. Thus, Sustainability 4.0 emerges as an expression of digital transformation oriented toward sustainable development, as technological innovation evolves from being merely an instrument of productivity to becoming a strategic element for constructing more resilient, responsible, and environmentally balanced environments in the era of Industry 4.0 [7,64,99].

3. Materials and Methods

To achieve the objective, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was proposed. The process of constructing the SLR must be reproducible by anyone if they use the same criteria and consequently obtain the same results [100]. Therefore, the SLR provides greater confidence and credibility than a traditional literature review [101]. The SLR followed a three-stage development process used by Gomes et al. [102]—(1) planning, (2) conducting and (3) reporting the review—which can be seen in Figure 1.

During the planning phase, the authors discussed academic articles related to the topic to identify potential areas of study. Based on the keywords and the research problem, the databases selected for use were Web of Science (WOS)—Main Collection (Clarivate Analytics) and Scopus.

The choice to use the Web of Science and Scopus databases was based on their size, relevance, and quality of content. Both databases are globally recognized for indexing high-impact journals and providing broad coverage across diverse disciplines, including applied technological and social sciences. Using them ensures that a systematic literature review captures a wide range of high-quality and relevant articles. Despite the existence of other databases, the strategy was to prioritize quality over quantity. The integration of data from these two well-established sources minimizes redundancy and facilitates more rigorous quality control while maintaining an efficient balance between the breadth of research and analytical focus. Adding more databases could increase the volume of items without necessarily adding significant value to the review and could make the selection process more complex and time-consuming. After this selection, various combinations of terms, connectives, and categories were evaluated, resulting in the following keyword combinations, presented in

Table 2. Combination of keywords.

Description of Titles	Connectors and/or	Topic Description
Civil construction	And	Sustainable development
Civil construction	And	Sustainability
Civil construction	And	Industry 4.0
Civil construction	And	Barriers and Sustainability
Civil construction	And	Drivers and Sustainability
Construction 4.0	And	Sustainable development
Construction 4.0	And	Sustainability
Construction 4.0	And	Industry 4.0
Construction 4.0	And	Barriers and Sustainability
Construction 4.0	And	Drivers and Sustainability

Source: The Authors (2025).

.

The term “Sustainability 4.0” was used as a keyword in both WOS and Scopus, but no relevant results were found. It was concluded that, although the term “Sustainability 4.0” was not sufficiently established in the literature, articles related to I4.0 and sustainability could still serve as the basis of this study. The search period was then defined as 2021 to 2025. The decision to focus on the period from 2021 to 2025 for the Systematic Literature Review was based on several strategic considerations. Firstly, the field of Sustainability 4.0, particularly in the context of emerging technologies such as BIM, IoT, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Twins, and Blockchain, is evolving rapidly. Technologies and methodologies relevant today may not have been prominent or available prior to 2021. By focusing on the most recent five years, the study ensures that it captures the most current and relevant discussions, reflecting the latest technological trends and their practical applications in civil construction. Additionally, the need to respond quickly to these sustainability issues makes it imperative to focus on innovative and contemporary solutions. A longer period could dilute the focus on emerging innovations with data that may be outdated or less relevant to the current context.

Articles in English were selected due to the relevance of this language in academia. Finally, the search was categorized only by articles related to management and business, sustainability, and civil engineering, considering the scope of this work for the segment.

Table 3. String Scheme by Base.

Basis	String
WOS—Web of Science	CIVIL CONSTRUCTION (Topic) and SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (Topic) or CIVIL CONSTRUCTION (Topic) and SUSTAINABILITY (Topic) or CIVIL CONSTRUCTION (Topic) and INDUSTRY 4.0 (Topic) or CONSTRUCTION 4.0 (Topic) and SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (Topic) or CONSTRUCTION 4.0 (Topic) and SUSTAINABILITY (Topic) or CONSTRUCTION 4.0 (Topic) and INDUSTRY 4.0 (Topic) or CONSTRUCTION 4.0 (Topic) and BARRIERS (Topic) and SUSTAINABILITY (Topic) or CONSTRUCTION 4.0 (Topic) and DRIVERS (Topic) and SUSTAINABILITY (Topic) or CIVIL CONSTRUCTION (Topic) and BARRIERS (Topic) and SUSTAINABILITY (Topic) or CIVIL CONSTRUCTION (Topic) and DRIVERS (Topic) and SUSTAINABILITY (Topic) and 2021 or 2022 or 2023 or 2024 or 2025 (Publication years) and English (Idioms) and Environmental Sciences or Green Sustainable Science Technology or Environmental Studies or Management or Business or Engineering Civil (Categories of Web of Science) e Articles (Kinds of document).
Scopus	(TITLE-ABS-KEY (civil AND construction) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainable AND development) OR TITLE ABS-KEY (civil AND construction) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainability) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (civil AND construction) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (Industry 4.0) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (construction 4.0) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainable AND development) OR TITLE ABS-KEY (construction 4.0) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainability) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (construction 4.0) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (industry 4.0) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (construction 4.0) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (barriers AND sustainability) OR TITLE ABS-KEY (construction 4.0) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (drivers AND sustainability) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (civil AND construction) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (barriers AND sustainability) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (civil AND construction) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (drivers AND sustainability)) AND LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2023) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2024) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2025)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)).

Source: The Authors (2025).

presents the String Scheme by Base.

Table 4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Code	Inclusion	Code	Exclusion	Justification
CI1	Articles between 2021 and 2025.	CE1	Work outside this period.	The study comes from the current relevance of its theme and the I4.0 concept in consolidation. The year 2021 marks a phase of more intense discussions about digitalization and a more significant beginning of scientific productions focusing on the application of 4.0 technologies in the construction industry. Therefore, starting the timeframe for 2021 reflects a relevant reflection on the technological context of the sector.
CI2	English language.	CE2	Articles in other languages.	Due to the relevance of the English language to the scientific community, other languages will be excluded.
CI3	Related articles: civil engineering, construction technology, green sustainability, management, environmental science and studies, and business.	CE3	Titles and abstracts out of scope.	Articles that are not related to civil engineering, construction technology, green sustainable science technology, management, sciences and environmental studies and business are outside the scope.
CI4	Academic articles only.	CE4	Duplicate articles.	Articles that are in both databases will be removed.
CI5	Related work: Industry 4.0, sustainability and civil construction.	CE5	Articles that are not related to the topic of this study in the title or abstract.	Out of scope are works that do not address directly or indirectly Industry 4.0, sustainability and civil construction.
CI6	Full article reading.	CE6	Paid or unavailable items	Out of scope are works that do not directly or indirectly address Industry 4.0, sustainability and civil construction.

Source: The Authors (2025).

shows the categorization of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the SLR, along with the justifications for these selections. Based on these criteria, it was possible to design the filtering process with initial and final searches, as shown in Figure 2.

In April 2025, without applying exclusion criteria, a total of 24,857 articles were found in the WOS and Scopus databases. After applying the first criterion (date range) and document type (article), this number was reduced to 2621. The second criterion (categories and languages) resulted in 455 articles. After title and abstract screening, followed by full-article reading, the process concluded with 50 articles in total. According to Liberati et al. [103], there is no minimum or maximum number of articles required for an SLR, since during selection, the articles must follow predefined protocols and criteria that guarantee reliability and transparency.

4. Results and Discussion

The results highlight the main findings of the SLR. First, descriptive analyses were conducted, addressing the annual evolution of publications, the countries with the highest scientific output, the most frequent keywords, and the keyword co-occurrence network. In the descriptive analysis, to prepare the frequency graph and the tables, Microsoft Excel was used, which allowed the data to be organized and represented in a clear and accessible manner. The new words, map and occurrence network are developed using RStudio Desktop, free version. Next, a narrative analysis of the 50 selected articles summarizes the barriers and drivers identified regarding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in the construction industry and their impacts on Sustainability 4.0. The final section discusses trends and challenges for the sector.

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis included the organization of articles published by year and their distribution by country, both performed in Excel. A word cloud was generated with all the keywords from both databases, and using the 50 articles identified in WOS and Scopus, a keyword co-occurrence network was constructed.

Initially, the analysis focused on the number of article publications related to the topic per year. Figure 3, prepared by Microsoft Excel software, shows steady growth between 2021 and 2023. In 2021, only two publications were recorded, reflecting an early stage of scientific production. In 2022, this number doubled to four, and in 2023, it nearly doubled again to seven, demonstrating a gradual increase in academic interest. In 2024, production peaked, representing a significant leap, with 24 publications. This growth indicates greater investment in research and innovation in the sector, greater attention to global sustainability goals (such as the SDGs), and the consolidation of Industry 4.0 as a strategic focus in the construction industry. By the first quarter of 2025, nearly 50% of the 2024 total had already been reached, indicating a strong upward trend.

The period from 2021 to 2025 was chosen to ensure that the research captures the most recent and relevant developments in Sustainability 4.0 in civil construction, reflecting rapid changes in emerging technologies such as AI, Digital Twins, and Blockchain. These technologies have seen accelerated implementation due to recent challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. While we acknowledge the historical value of work prior to 2021 for understanding the evolution of Industry 4.0 and sustainability concepts, we emphasize contemporary data to ensure that the review considers innovative solutions that effectively respond to current emergencies. This focus is especially important given the accelerated pace of innovation and recent digital transformations that significantly impact the sector.

A descriptive analysis of the 50 articles studied is presented in

Table 5. Descriptive analysis of selected articles.

Year	Authors	Country	Keywords	Method	Journal	Editor’s Area	Impact Factor
2021	Kumar et al. [104]	India	Environmental dynamism; Environmental performance; Industry 4.0; Market performance; Organizational; Technological	Survey	Industrial Marketing Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management	7.5
2021	Vrchotaet al. [105],	Czech Republic	Critical success factors; Human resources; Industry 4.0; Management; Manufacturing enterprises; Project; Sustainability	Survey	Sustainability (Switzerland)	Environmental engineering, environmental sciences	3.3
2022	El Baz et al. [106]	Morocco	Best-worst method; Environmental and social governance; Externalities; Industry 4.0; Multi-criteria decision making; Sustainability drivers	Case study	Journal of Cleaner Production	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	10.0
2022	Ebolor et al. [107]	Denmark	Cleaner production; ESG; Frugal innovation; Hydraform; Sustainable construction; Sustainable development	Case study	Journal of Cleaner Production	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	10.0
2022	Elghaish et al. [108]	England	Artificial intelligence (AI); Blockchain; Construction circular economy; Emerging digital technologies; Industry 4.0; Internet of Things (IoT)	Literature review	Construction Innovation	Construction and building technology	3.5
2022	Fathalizadeh et al. [109]	Australia	Challenges; Developing countries; Iran; Project management; Stakeholders; Sustainable construction	Literature review	Smart and Sustainable Built Environment	Construction and building technology	4.6
2023	Sajjad et al. [110]	Pakistan	Digitization; Industry 4.0; success factors; sustainable construction management	Literature review	Buildings	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.1
2023	Wu et al. [111]	China	Construction project; Petri net; Environmental impact; Process analysis; Process optimization; C & D	Case study	Environmental Science and Pollution Research	Environmental sciences	5.8
2023	Ahiabu et al. [112]	South Africa	Building projects; Climate change; Construction; Environment; Sustainability; Ghana	Case study	Built Environment Project and Asset Management	Civil Engineering	2.2
2023	Gómez et al. [113]	Colombia	Cluster Analysis; Construction 4.0; Engineering 4.0; Industry 4.0	Literature review	Construction Engineering Magazine	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	0.42
2023	Satyro et al. [114]	Brazil	Circular economy; cleaner production; Industry 4.0; networks; operations; projects; sustainability	Literature review	Sustainability (Switzerland)	Environmental sciences	3.3
2023	Lim et al. [115]	Malaysia	Challenges; Construction industry; Industrial revolution 4.0; Quantity surveying; Students; University	Survey	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.9
2023	Behl et al. [116]	France	Circular economy; Enablers; Industry 4.0; PF-CoCoSo; PF-Delphi; PH-AHP; Sensitivity analysis; Sustainable operations management	Literature review	Technological Forecasting and Social Change	Construction and building technology	13.3
2024	Martin et al. [117]	England	Barriers and solutions; Circular economy; Construction and demolition waste; Eco-innovation; Indicators; Recycling risk; Reduce and reuse; Responsible	Case study	Sustainable Production and Consumption	Environmental sciences; Sustainability and technologies	9.6
2024	Waheed et al. [118]	Egypt	3 R s strategy; design waste causes; design waste sources; designing out waste; lean design seven wastes; lean tools; resources and material	Literature review	HBRC Journal	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	0.26
2024	Lopes and Silva Filho [119]	Brazil	Construction 4.0; developing country; digital transformation; Industry 4.0; new technology	Survey	Buildings	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.1
2024	Masyhur et al. [120]	Malaysia	Construction industry; Green building; Green construction; Malaysia; Sustainability	Literature review	Energy And Buildings	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	7.1
2024	Sanchez et al. [121]	Colombia	Construction 4.0; Influence analysis; Linear infrastructure; Smart cities; Sustainable development	Literature review	Results In Engineering	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	7.9
2024	Wang et al. [122]	China	Barrier; China; Construction 4.0; Digital transformation; Exploratory factor analysis (EFA); Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-S)	Literature review	Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management	Architecture, Construction and Building Technology	3.9
2024	Rashidi et al. [123]	Iran	Building information modelling (BIM); Construction industry; Digital twins (DT); Systematic review; Scientometric	Literature review	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.9
2024	Anjomshoa [124]	Iran	Building information modeling; Smart buildings; Green buildings; Sustainable development; Fuzzy VIKOR method	Survey	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.9
2024	Araújo and Alves [125]	Brazil	Technology; Project Management; Dynamic Capabilities; BIM; Strategic Resources	Case study	Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management	Architecture, Construction and Building Technology	3.9
2024	Wang et al. [126]	China	Intelligent technology; Prefabricated construction; Carbon reduction; Emission reduction; Multivariate regression analysis; Evolutionary game	Literature review	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering, Industrial engineering; Management.	3.9
2024	Wang [63]	China	Digital transformation; AEC industry; CiteSpace; Scientometric analysis; Knowledge map; Topic detection; Co-occurrence analysis; Co-citation analysis	Literature review	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management	3.9
2025	Istri et al. [127]	Indonesia	Green construction; Project performance; Structural Equation Model; Sustainability; Green building	Survey	Civil And Environmental Engineering	Civil engineering	1.0
2024	Han et al. [128]	Australia	BIM; demolition waste management; LCA; MCDA; visual programming; circular economy; sustainability	Model	Waste Management & Research	Environmental engineering, environmental sciences	4.3
2024	Murguia et al. [129]	England	Construction 4.0; Future scenarios; Capability stages; Business models; Skills	Literature review	Construction Innovation-England	Construction and building technology	3.5
2024	Kumar and Padala [130]	India	Building information modeling; Multiobjective optimization (MOO); Nondominated sorting genetic algorithm III (NSGA-III); Sustainable construction; Emb	Model	Construction Innovation-England	Construction and building technology	3.5
2024	Ibrahim et al. [89]	Nigeria	Barriers; Construction 4.0; Digital twin; PLS-SEM; Sustainability; System integration	Survey	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management	3.9
2024	Elghaish et al. [131]	Australia	AI for net zero; Decarbonisation pathways; Digital ecosystem; Digital twins; Emission analytics; Machine learning; Sustainable built environment.	Literature review	Smart and Sustainable Built Environment	Environmental engineering, environmental sciences	4.6
2024	Moyo et al. [132]	Zimbabwe	Sustainable construction; Sustainable indicator; Technical support system; Fuzzy synthetic evaluation; Developing country	Survey	Smart And Sustainable Built Environment	Construction and building technology; Civil engineering; Sustainability and technologies	4.6
2024	Alsehaimi et al. [133]	Saudi Arabia	Industrial revolution 4.0; Construction industry; Digital technologies; Saudi Arabia	Literature review	Construction Innovation (England)	Construction and building technology	3.5
2024	Moyo et al. [134]	Zimbábue	Sustainable construction materials; Sustainability; Barriers; Developing countries	Case study	International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation	Construction and building technology	5.6
2024	Waqar et al. [86]	Pakistan	Sustainable construction; Structural equation modeling; Human-centric technology	Survey	International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation	Construction and building technology	5.6
2024	Kineber et al. [135]	Egypt	Sustainability; Construction and demolition waste management; Barriers; Egypt; Developing nations	Survey	Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy	Environmental engineering; Environmental sciences; Sustainability and technologies	4.5
2024	Labaran et al. [136]	France	Carbon footprint; Construction industry; Environment; Green building; Carbon emission; Construction materials	Literature review	Environment Development and Sustainability	Environmental sciences; Sustainability and technologies.	4.2
2024	Dobrucali et al. [137]	Türkiye	building construction; critical success factors; factor analysis; implementation; sustainability	Literature review	Buildings	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.1
2025	Hasibuan et al. [138]	Indonesia	Circular economy; Construction and demolition waste; Digital tools; Recycling; Sustainability	Literature review	Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	6.2
2025	Jayarathna et al. [139]	Australia	Blockchain; Circular economy; Construction waste management; Sustainability; Waste management	Case study	Construction Innovation	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.5
2025	Kumar and Zhang [87]	USA	Carbon emission reduction; Project delivery methods; Procurement; Construction industry; Artificial intelligence; Sustainability; Policy; United State	Case study	Built Environment Project and Asset Management	Civil engineering	2.2
2025	Ding et al. [140]	China	Bidirectional prestressed precast hollow slab; Carbon emission; Building Information Modeling; Prefabricated buildings; Life cycle assessment	Model	Journal Of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering	Architecture, Construction and Building Technology	1.6
2025	Kussl and Wald [141]	Norway	Construction client; digital innovation; digital transformation; scenario analysis; interaction vs. competition; construction 4.0	Case study	Construction Management and Economics	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.3
2025	Lakhouit et al. [142]	Saudi Arabia	Wastes; Construction wastes; Sustainability; ARIMA; Machine learning	Model	Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy	Environmental engineering; Environmental sciences; Sustainability and technologies	4.5
2025	Guo and Song [143]	China	Waste management; Differential game; Construction and demolition waste; Circular economy; Green materials; Supply chain	Model	Environment Development and Sustainability	Environmental sciences; Sustainability and technologies	4.2
2025	Perera et al. [92]	Australia	Industry 4.0; Construction industry; Technology adoption; Australia	Case study	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.9
2025	Thach et al. [144]	South Korea	Green construction site; Measurement model; Fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE); Construction; Sustainability	Survey	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Environmental engineering; Management.	3.9
2025	Dang et al. [145]	Thailand	Construction firms; Construction industry; Developing countries; Fuzzy synthetic evaluation; Green; Green innovation	Literature review	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	3.9
2025	Liang and Sun [146]	China	Digital transformation; Green innovation; Environmental management; Human capital; Efficient resource allocation	Model	Environment, Development and Sustainability	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	4.2
2025	Alsaadi et al. [147]	Türkiye	Business model innovation; Construction 4.0; Construction companies; Digital layers; Firm performance; Physical layers	Survey	International Journal of Innovation Studies	Civil engineering; Industrial engineering; Management.	5.3
2025	Gohari et al. [148]	Iran	Green building technologies; Barriers; Multi-criteria evaluation; Best-worst method	Survey	Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy	Environmental engineering; Environmental sciences; Sustainability and technologies	4.5

Source: The Authors (2025).

, prepared by Microsoft Excel software. The analysis was carried out based on the year of publication, authors, countries of publication, keywords, Journal, editorial field and impact factor.

The map of publications by country is shown in Figure 4, prepared by RStudio Desktop. Countries with highly representative academic output, such as China, reflect their leadership in technological innovation and environmental policies applied to the construction industry. The United Kingdom and Australia stand out for their advanced sustainability policies and strong integration between universities and the manufacturing sector. South Africa also presents significant output, highlighting initiatives in innovation and sustainability applied to the construction industry. Countries with moderate representation, such as the United States, Brazil, and India, among others, demonstrate growing interest in incorporating the topic into scientific and technological agendas. Southeast Asian countries, such as Vietnam and Indonesia, reinforce the regional relevance of the theme in the context of accelerated urban growth. Scientific output proved to be more substantial in countries with greater technological infrastructure.

Based on the analyses of the selected articles, it becomes evident that scientific publications are distributed across a wide range of countries. Based on this information, a “T” matrix was developed, linking the publications to their geographic origin, journals, and methods adopted. This relationship is presented in

Table 6. T-matrix relating countries, journals and methodologies.

Journals	Engineering Construction and Architectural Management	4	2	4
	Buildings	1		2
	Smart and Sustainable Built Environment	1		2
	Construction Innovation		1	1
	Built Environment Project and Asset Management		2
	Journal of Cleaner Production		2	1
	Sustainability (Switzerland)	1		1
	Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy	2			1
	Construction Innovation-England			2	1
	Waste Management & Research				1
	Industrial Marketing Management	1
	International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation	1		1
	Construction Engineering Magazine			1
	Energy and Buildings			1
	HBRC Journal			1
	Sustainable Production and Consumption		1
	Environment Development and Sustainability			1	1
	Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering				1
	International Journal of Innovation Studies	1
	Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering			1
	Results in Engineering			1
	Environmental Science and Pollution Research		1
	Construction Management and Economics		1
	Technological Forecasting and Social Change			1
	Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management			1
	Civil and Environmental Engineering	1
Research methodology		Survey	Case study	Literature review	Model
Country	Australia		2	2	1
	China		1	3	3
	France			3
	England		1	2
	Iran	2		1
	Zimbabwe	1	1
	Brazil	1	1	1
	Colombia			2
	Egypt	1		1
	Malaysia	1		1
	Pakistan	1		1
	Indonesia	1		1
	Türkiye	1		1
	Saudi Arabia			1	1
	Czech Republic	1
	India	1			1
	Norway		1
	Morocco		1
	Denmark		1
	South Africa		1
	USA		1
	Thailand			1
	South Korea	1

Source: The Authors (2025).

, prepared by Microsoft Excel software.

Based on the results presented in Table 6, a greater number of papers were published in countries such as Australia, China, and England, considering the distribution of methodologies used. Regarding methodology, the literature review emerged as the most frequently adopted approach, followed by the survey method and case study. Model-based approaches were more prominent in Australia, India, and Saudi Arabia. Regarding journals, a concentration was observed in Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, which gathered the largest number of papers (9 articles). Other highlights were Smart and Sustainable Built Environment (3 articles) and Buildings (3 articles), reinforcing the importance of these journals in the field of sustainability and Industry 4.0 in construction.

Figure 5, prepared by RStudio Desktop, illustrates a cloud of keywords found in the 50 articles selected from the WOS and Scopus databases. Among the most relevant expressions identified in the topic are sustainability, construction industry, Industry 4.0, circular economy, sustainable development, and Construction 4.0. Other topics are less frequent but still relevant to the scope of the study, including project management, digital transformation, management, sustainable construction, and others.

Finally, Figure 6, prepared by RStudio Desktop, shows a network where each node corresponds to a keyword, and each edge represents a link or co-occurrence. The red cluster represents sustainability and construction, where the central term is sustainability and connects to the following terms: construction, green construction, drivers, critical success factors, and debris. The blue cluster represents Industry 4.0 and management, where the central term Industry 4.0 connects to digital technologies, artificial intelligence, digitalization, decision-making, and project management. The purple cluster represents sustainable development and sustainable construction, with the central term “sustainable development” connected to the following terms: economics, environmental economics, and framework. The green cluster has the term “circular economy” as its central node and is associated with blockchain, waste management, and construction and demolition waste. The orange cluster has the central term “construction 4.0” and is related to digital transformation, construction companies, and contextual aspects. Finally, the brown cluster contains only the term “factor analysis”.

4.2. Narrative Analysis

After identifying and selecting the 50 works, a concise synthesis of the main arguments and contributions of each article was prepared.

Kumar et al. [104] present an empirical study that explores the influence of environmental dynamism on the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies, with particular attention to the mediating effect of critical factors in this relationship as well as the effect of I4.0 on environmental and market performance. The methodology consisted of a survey using data from Indian manufacturing industries and applying the Partial Least Squares (PLS) framework. The results indicate that environmental dynamism drives the adoption of I4.0, suggesting that firms operating in dynamic environments need to incorporate organizational and technological factors for effective I4.0 implementation and enhanced performance.

Vrchota et al. [105] conducted a study to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) in project management, their relationship with Industry 4.0 (I4.0), Human Resources (HR) and sustainability, based on insights from Czech manufacturing managers. Drawing on responses from 114 managers and applying Mann–Whitney and Pearson correlation analyses, the authors demonstrated that companies with project management present a strong link between sustainability and I4.0, thus concluding that I4.0 is particularly beneficial for sustainability when developed by managers during the project phase.

El Baz et al. [106] investigated how sustainability drivers are considered in the implementation of I4.0. They employed a literature review and an expert, combined with the best-worst method (BWM) for prioritization. They found that the main sustainability drivers for I4.0 are management support, governance, and waste reduction. They concluded that management support and commitment are essential for the successful integration of Sustainability 4.0 into I4.0.

Ebolor et al. [107] analyzed sustainability in the construction industry in Sub-Saharan Africa and examined how frugal innovation can promote it, focusing on Hydraform technology. The methodology consisted of a qualitative case study of Hydraform, using semi-structured interviews with 17 professionals and stakeholders. The results showed that Hydraform is cost-effective, easy to use, and resource-efficient. The study concluded that the solution is viable for sustainable construction, provided supportive policies are implemented to maximize its benefits.

Elghaish et al. [108] examined the relationship between I4.0 digital technologies and the construction industry’s gradual transition to a circular economy. They applied a systematic mixed-methods review and scientometric analysis. The report indicates progress in the adoption of these technologies within the circular economy, although most contributions remain conceptual rather than operational. Thus, they conclude that there is a strong connection between sustainability, design, and circular economy adoption, focusing on technologies such as blockchain, IoT, AI, and digital twins. However, the validation of more practical applications remains necessary.

Fathalizadeh et al. [109] identified barriers to integrating sustainability into project management in Iran. The methodology combined a literature review listing 30 barriers and a questionnaire administered to 176 Iranian professionals. They highlighted economic constraints and limited awareness of the benefits as the most significant obstacles. The authors conclude that it is essential to overcome economic barriers to promote collaboration and awareness.

Sajjad et al. [110] evaluated the success of I4.0 digitalization practices for sustainable construction management in China. The methodology combined a literature review and a questionnaire analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The results revealed 36 success factors grouped into six categories: Sustainability, Technology, Design, Functional, Resource, and Management. This demonstrated the positive impact of digitalization on the construction sector in China, where overcoming barriers requires focusing on factors that increase project success and long-term sustainability.

Wu et al. [111] investigated sludge waste management from construction and demolition in China, proposing platform governance as an alternative solution within the circular economy to validate its effectiveness for integrated management. The methodology combined Petri net modeling and a case study, revealing that this governance model substantially improves efficiency, enhances traceability, and reduces information asymmetry. The authors concluded that platform governance significantly improves sludge waste management, providing superior benefits compared to the traditional approach.

Ahiabu et al. [112] assessed the benefits of adopting sustainable practices in construction projects in Ghana. The methodology applied the modified Delphi method (MDM), in which experts classified the importance of 33 benefits. They classified 26 benefits into social, economic, and environmental dimensions. The most significant included improvements in health, comfort, and well-being; the promotion of social harmony; preservation of environmental integrity; conservation of natural resources; and economic growth. They concluded that sustainable construction practices are the future of the construction industry, offering multiple benefits for achieving the SDGs.

Gómez et al. [113] conducted a bibliographic analysis on Construction 4.0 to clarify its implications for the sector’s development. The methodology relied on the Web of Science (WOS) database, with a corpus of 225 articles analyzed using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer for bibliometric and cluster analysis. The results showed that researchers in Latin America and Africa are less likely to implement these technologies compared to those in developed countries, concluding that the sector must optimize and adopt digital methodologies and technologies for better performance.

Satyro et al. [114] examined strategies for cleaner production in association with Industry 4.0. The methodology involved a bibliographic review in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, from which 32 articles were analyzed. As a result, they classified them into 10 strategies: strategy, waste, recycling, life cycle, resources, energy, production, labor, performance, and environment. They concluded that these strategies bring greater stability to sustainability when combined with technological development, highlighting the need for further research and political support.

Lim et al. [115] investigated students’ perspectives on the challenges of implementing Industrial Revolution 4.0 technologies in the construction sector. They applied a quantitative approach through questionnaires distributed to 191 students, yielding 96 valid responses. The results revealed eight main components of the challenges, with resistance to change and data security issues emerging as the most critical. They argued that identifying these issues and challenges can guide HEIs and industry stakeholders, qualifying professionals for the successful adoption of enabling technologies.

Behl et al. [116] identified, evaluated, and prioritized the enabling criteria for integrating I4.0 and the circular economy into sustainable operations management. They applied a four-step hybrid methodology: PRISMA review, PF-Delphi, PF-AHP, and PF CoCoSo. The results showed that the service structure and industrial ecosystem are the most critical criteria, product lifecycle management is the main enabler, followed closely by IoT, big data, horizontal/vertical integration, and employee training. They concluded that these criteria should be focused on for the integration and implementation of sustainable operations management.

Martin et al. [117] explored the circular economy as a management tool for construction and demolition waste in the United Kingdom, identifying barriers and indicators. The methodology combined qualitative interviews with the Fuzzy Delphi method applied to experts. Their findings indicate that the main barriers are inefficient recycling policies for high-quality materials. They concluded that the circular economy is vital but limited by obstacles, requiring metrics and better policy support for its implementation.

Waheed et al. [118] examined the concepts of lean and sustainability as strategies for reducing waste from the early stages of construction projects. Their methodology consisted of an exploratory review of more than 30 articles published between 2018 and 2023 in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. This research demonstrated that waste reduction strategies are most effective when applied during the project preparation phase. They argued that integrating lean and sustainability into the design phase is crucial for waste reduction. This optimization generates positive environmental, social, and economic results.

Lopes and Silva Filho [119] analyzed technological development and its potential in the Brazilian construction industry, identifying the factors that influence the application of I4.0 technologies. The quantitative research surveyed 104 industry professionals through structured questionnaires and statistical analysis. The results showed that technology adoption is still incipient, varying according to company size and project phase. They also identified barriers and benefits at different stages and concluded that it is necessary to disseminate knowledge and develop strategies to promote I4.0 technologies and overcome these barriers.

Masyhur et al. [120] investigated sustainable and green building practices in Malaysia, aiming to raise awareness. The methodology consisted of a systematic review of 142 articles published between 2013 and 2023, using the Scopus database and the PRISMA protocol. The results revealed that the adoption of green practices is below expectations, due to high costs, lack of preparation and technical knowledge, and low awareness. Thus, they concluded that this low adoption in Malaysia is due to a lack of knowledge and awareness.

Sanchez et al. [121] analyzed the influence of I4.0 technologies on sustainable development when it comes to linear infrastructure projects in smart cities. The methodology applied a systematic literature review, which analyzed 85 papers. The authors identified 37 relevant I4.0 technologies that most strongly impact urban sustainability. The authors concluded that this study provides important guidelines for urban managers on the efficient adoption of I4.0 technologies, which can help reduce carbon emissions, manage resources, and, most importantly, promote more sustainable urban development.

Wang et al. [122] identified, assessed, and categorized barriers to digital transformation in the engineering and construction sectors in China. The study combined a literature review that identified 26 barriers with a questionnaire to 192 construction professionals. The study revealed three main barrier categories: lack of laws and regulations, lack of support and leadership, and lack of resources and professionals. Therefore, they concluded that the implementation of digital transformation in the construction industry faces barriers that require management support and government policies.

Rashidi et al. [123] examined the transition from BIM modelling to digital twins in the construction industry. Their methodology consisted of scientometric and systematic reviews covering 135 records in the Web of Science database, supplemented by VOSviewer and HistCite. The results revealed a growing interest in this field. They argued that the integration of the two technologies leads to improved project delivery, asset management, and sustainability practices, especially during the operational phase.

Anjomshoa [124] identified and classified the most influential factors governing BIM systems in the digitalization and sustainable green buildings. The methodology comprised a descriptive survey using a Likert-type questionnaire administered to 32 experts in Kerman. The results indicate that the most influential factors were energy savings and consumption reduction, increased productivity and efficiency, life cycle assessment, eco-design, and integration with IoT and other technologies. The study concludes that BIM is essential for green and sustainable buildings and that integrating complementary technologies optimizes performance and management throughout the building lifecycle.

Araújo and Alves [125] explored the capabilities of BIM tools in the design phase to ensure long-term success. The methodology employed a quantitative approach, with an online questionnaire administered to 107 professionals. The results show that simply adopting BIM tools is not enough; adequate preparation is necessary. However, BIM tools have a significant impact on project success. They concluded that developing BIM capabilities, in addition to technology, is essential for project success, requiring technological and organizational preparation.

Wang et al. [126] assessed the impacts of smart technologies on CO₂ reduction in buildings using prefabricated materials. Their methodology consisted of a literature review and data collection through expert interviews. The results indicated that technologies such as BIM and IoT have positive impacts on carbon reduction and energy savings. Adopting smart technologies is vital for green development in prefabricated buildings, but it requires flexible and supportive government policies.

Wang [63] mapped digital transformation in the construction industry using a scientometric analysis of 3656 Web of Science publications from 1990 to 2023, via CiteSpace. The study found an increase in publications since 2015, with China, the USA, and the UK leading the rankings. There were also notable high-frequency keywords such as BIM, IoT, and innovation, among others. The study concluded that digital transformation in the construction industry is dynamic, especially with BIM at its core. The research also shows a future trend toward big data, machine learning, and sustainability.

Istri et al. [127] analyzed the influence of green construction on project performance and identified the most influential factors. The methodology applied Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with data collected through questionnaires. The results show that green construction influences cost, time, and quality performance, as well as energy conservation and efficiency. They concluded that green construction significantly influences projects, and identifying key factors contributes to the full implementation of practices and regulations.

Han et al. [128] developed a BIM-based framework to support sustainable decision-making in demolition waste management. The methodology integrated BIM modeling, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). The results demonstrated that the sustainability score increased with the recycling rate. Therefore, the integration of BIM, LCA, and MCDA is effective for sustainable decision-making in demolition waste management.

Murguia et al. [129] developed a conceptual innovation management model for implementing Construction 4.0, addressing strategic transformation and sector improvement. They adopted a multi-method approach, including a literature review, 20 semi-structured interviews, focus groups, workshops, expert consultations, and observation of three digital projects. The results revealed proposals for future scenarios, technological capabilities, servitization businesses, and skills management. They concluded that this model helps in the initial phase of innovation, but transformation depends on the efforts of all stakeholders, particularly for change management and the adoption of disparate technologies.

Kumar and Padala [130] developed a Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) model integrated with BIM to reduce embodied energy and cost. Their methodology combined a real-world case study and a literature review, resulting in successful optimization of embodied energy and cost. They concluded that the tool effectively supports decision-making, material selection, and, most importantly, the promotion of sustainable practices.

Ibrahim et al. [89] identified the barriers hindering the adoption of digital twin technologies for improving sustainable practices in Nigeria. They used a quantitative methodology, collecting 120 responses from construction professionals through online questionnaires. The studies revealed 43 barriers grouped into six categories, the main ones being inadequate system integration, interoperability challenges, deficient university education on the subject, and compatibility with legacy systems. They concluded that overcoming these barriers to digital-twin implementation is essential for promoting sustainability in the construction industry in Nigeria.

Elghaish et al. [131] conducted an in-depth review of the use of predictive digital twin technologies to achieve net-zero carbon emissions in the construction industry. Their methodology comprised a mixed literature review, using bibliographic techniques and critical evaluations of 137 relevant academic articles, primarily from Scopus. The results indicated that the terms “IoT” and “digital twins” are more frequently searched for than “artificial intelligence.” They concluded that the integration of these three technologies is fundamental to decarbonizing the built environment, requiring further practical studies, particularly in existing buildings.

Moyo et al. [132] developed a technical support system based on sustainable construction indicators in Zimbabwe. The methodology adopted consisted of an online questionnaire with 151 professionals, using statistical analysis and fuzzy synthetic evaluation. After the research process, six critical subgroups for the technical support system were identified, with emphasis on innovation and construction sustainability. They concluded that developing countries face barriers in sustainability systems, and that innovation and technical sustainability are important, but require policies and training to boost performance.

Alsehaimi et al. [133] examined the benefits and challenges of implementing Industry 4.0 in Saudi Arabia. They used a systematic literature review and found that the most important benefits were improved coordination and communication, while the most significant challenges included costs and lack of support. They concluded that adoption of Industry 4.0 constitutes an excellent strategy for improving productivity, particularly when targeting the local context.

Moyo et al. [134] identified the barriers to the adoption of sustainable construction materials in Zimbabwe. They used a mixed methodology combining questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, analyzing both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results presented revealed 15 barriers, highlighting the lack of incentives/subsidies, training, government promotion, green codes, and financing schemes. They concluded that overcoming such barriers requires a multisectoral approach and collaboration, thus making it necessary to promote sustainability in construction.

Waqar et al. [86] conducted a study on the integration of human-centered technologies for advancing sustainable construction practices. The methodology used a quantitative approach and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), based on a literature review and interviews, where data were collected online from 138 experts from Pakistan. The results showed a correlation between the adoption of human-centered technologies and success in sustainable construction. They also emphasize that cutting-edge technologies promote sustainability but require comprehensive strategies.

Kineber et al. [135] identified and analyzed the barriers to efficient construction and demolition waste management in Egypt. The methodology used a quantitative survey, collecting 90 responses and analyzing them using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). analysis revealed four main barriers: cultural, resources, efficiency, and procurement. They concluded that overcoming these barriers requires a multi-sectoral approach to enhance sustainability outcomes.

Labaran et al. [136] assessed the carbon footprint of the construction industry and evaluated the sector’s adoption of sustainable practices in Nigeria. They used a literature review and a quantitative survey, with 84 valid responses. The results revealed low use of environmentally friendly materials, limited renewable energy, and barriers, including high material/initial costs, low awareness, and insufficient government policies. They concluded that Nigeria needs to overcome financial, technical, and cultural challenges to advance sustainability and consequently reduce emissions.

Dobrucali et al. [137] investigated the critical success factors for implementing sustainability in the construction industry. Their methodology comprised a literature review and semi-structured interviews conducted in the United States. They identified five groups of factors for the pillars of sustainability. The most important factors for effective implementation were ethical/relational (economic), historical/social relations (social), and material use (environmental). Thus, they concluded that this identification is crucial for ensuring the success of sustainability in the construction sector. With the help of professionals and researchers, the trend indicates better development.

Hasibuan et al. [138] presented a study with the objective of conducting a bibliometric analysis of the integration of the circular economy into construction and demolition waste management. They used the Scopus database, covering the period 2005 to 2025, with the PRISMA protocol for data collection and screening, followed by analysis in VOSviewer. They concluded that the dominance of concrete recycling, but there are gaps in research on plastic and treated wood. One of the main barriers remains high costs and technological limitations. We concluded that the adoption of the circular economy faces practical challenges that require more targeted research to address existing gaps.

Jayarathna et al. [139] investigated the relationship between blockchain technology and circular economy principles to enhance waste management in the construction industry. The methodology consisted of a qualitative approach, using a Delphi study with semi-structured interviews. They identified eight practices that improve waste management in the construction industry, nine integration methods, 20 drivers, and 20 barriers. They concluded that integration is promising despite existing knowledge gaps.

Kumar and Zhang [87] investigated the role of project procurement and delivery methods in reducing carbon emissions in the US construction industry. They used a qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews with nine professionals, complemented by AI-based analysis. The results showed that project owners play an important role in driving sustainability. The barriers identified were material limitations, time constraints, and gaps in technical knowledge. AI proved effective in predictive analysis. They concluded that owners exert significant influence; despite the barriers, the industry has great potential for sustainable change.

Ding et al. [140] evaluated the potential of precast slabs in reducing carbon emissions during the construction phase. Their methodology combined BIM modeling and Life Cycle Assessment theories. The results demonstrated significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, particularly during the material production phase, highlighting the decreased demand for reinforcement and concrete. They concluded that it is necessary to consider emission reductions as a key criterion in the adoption of precast slabs as a more sustainable alternative.

Kussl and Wald [141] investigated the role customers play in the construction industry, with emphasis on digital innovation and digital transformation. They conducted a multiple-case study involving semi-structured interviews with 24 leaders in six organizations, thus providing a qualitative analysis. They concluded that digital transformation is influenced by opinion leaders, concluding that future roles are varied and dynamic.

Lakhouit et al. [142] explored sustainable solutions for construction waste management through accurate estimation. The methodology used a set of machine learning algorithms and resulted in an estimated accuracy of over 90% for construction waste management, demonstrating the effectiveness of optimizing practices and enabling better decision-making, thereby promoting sustainability within the sector.

Guo and Song [143] sought to improve construction and demolition waste management. They applied a differential game model, analyzing the control and state variables. The results showed that the use of subsidies significantly improves quality and sustainability, demonstrating both effectiveness and cost-efficiency in enhancing market circulation and environmental performance.

Perera et al. [92] investigated the extent to which 14 Construction 4.0 technologies have been adopted in Australian companies. The methodology comprised 19 semi-structured interviews with industry professionals, which were analyzed with NVivo software. As a result, they identified five application areas: real-time data capture, digital communication, data analysis, visualization, and off-site construction. Cloud technologies are the most widely used, such as cloud computing, mobile computing, and BIM. They concluded that a cautious transition is necessary for digital transformation in the industry. Customers and use cases also reinforce the drive for the adoption of emerging technologies, such as BIM.

Thach et al. [144] assessed sustainability in construction sites in Vietnam. They used a mixed methodology combining interviews and questionnaires. The analysis was performed using Fuzzy Synthetic Assessment (FSA). The results showed that human factors are the strongest, while water and waste are the weakest. Location, energy, innovation, and materials presented intermediate performance. They concluded that improvements in critical areas, particularly waste and water management, should be implemented through policy and practice guidelines adapted to the Vietnamese context.

Dang et al. [145] evaluated green innovation practices while developing a measurement model for construction companies. The methodology applied a mixed-methods approach, including literature review, expert interviews, and survey data from 88 construction companies in Vietnam. The analyses included Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation (FSE). The results revealed 13 important practices. Green process innovation was the most vital category, followed closely by product and management. They concluded that innovation is crucial for the construction industry to achieve robust sustainability outcomes, and the measurement model is a practical tool that supports decision-making and strategies.

Liang and Sun [146] examined digital transformation and its influence on green innovation in companies in China, from 2008 to 2020. The methodology involved content analysis of annual reports on digital transformation, revealing that this influence improves long-term quality, promotes environmental management, which is mostly reflected in the increase in green patent applications, leading to the conclusion that digital transformation is crucial for advancing sustainable development.

Alsaadi et al. [147] investigated the relationships between Construction 4.0, business model innovation, and the performance of Turkish construction companies in adopting Construction 4.0. The methodology applied a questionnaire survey to 152 managers. Demonstrating that the relationship is positive between Construction 4.0 and company performance, leading to the conclusion that business model innovation plays a central role in the adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies and organizational performance.

Gohari et al. [148] sought to prioritize the most significant barriers to the adoption of green building technologies in Iran. The methodology applied a questionnaire administered to 84 experts, and data analysis was performed using the best-worst method (BWM), a multi-criteria decision-making technique. The results showed political and economic indicators as the highest priorities. The main barriers were insufficient government incentives/support and the high cost of sustainable projects. The lack of knowledge and experience among all stakeholders was also a challenge to be addressed. They concluded that the government has an important role in facilitating the adoption of technologies through incentives.

After conducting the narrative analysis, we identified several interconnections among the reviewed articles, highlighting central themes in the implementation of Sustainability 4.0 in civil construction.

Table 7. Central topics in the implementation of Sustainability 4.0 in civil construction.

References	Main Topic	Methodology	Interconnections
Kumar et al. [104]	Industry Adoption 4.0	Empirical research	Connect with El Baz et al. [106] in critical success factors
Vrchota et al. [105]	Success in Project Management	Correlational analysis	Related to Martin et al. [117] in waste management
El Baz et al. [106]	Sustainability Drivers	BWM Review	Complements Fathalizadeh et al. [109] in barriers to sustainability
Ebolor et al. [107]	Frugal Innovation in Construction	Qualitative case study	Link with Jayarathna et al. [139] in circular economy
Elghaish et al. [108]	Digitalization and Circular Economy	Systematic review	Link with Rashidi et al. [123] in digital technologies
Fathalizadeh et al. [109]	Barriers in Project Management	Review and questionnaire	Related to Wang et al. [122] in implementation barriers
Sajjad et al. [110]	Digitalization in Construction	Questionnaire and SEM	Contrast with Lopes and Silva Filho [119] in regional challenges
Wu et al. [111]	Waste Management in the Circular Economy	Modeling and case study	Complements Martin et al. [117] in circularity
Ahiabu et al. [112]	Sustainability Benefits	Delphi method	Connection with Gohari et al. [148] in environmental impact
Gómez et al. [113]	Construction Analysis 4.0	Bibliometric analysis	Related to Masyhur et al. [120] in regional education
Satyro et al. [114]	More Clean Production	Bibliographic review	Complement El Baz et al. [106] in governance
Lim et al. [115]	Educational Challenges	Questionnaire research	Link with Moyo et al. [134] in professional training
Behl et al. [116]	Circular Economy Integration	Hybrid methodology	Related to Martin et al. [117] in management indicators
Martin et al. [117]	Circular Management Tools	Qualitative interviews	Complements Wu et al. [111] in solid waste
Waheed et al. [118]	Waste Reduction	Exploratory review	Link with Waqar et al. [86] in the context of management
Lopes and Silva Filho [119]	Technological Development in Brazil	Quantitative research	Related to Satyro et al. [114] in clean production strategies
Masyhur et al. [120]	Green Construction Practices	Systematic review	Complement Gómez et al. [113] in regional technological adoption
Sanchez et al. [121]	Sustainability in Cities Smart	Systematic review	Connection with Liang and Sun [146] on urban innovation
Wang et al. [122]	Barriers to Digital Transformation	Review and questionnaire	Related to Fathalizadeh et al. [109] in implementation obstacles
Rashidi et al. [123]	Transition for Digital Twins	Scientometric review	Complements Elghaish et al. [108] in digitalization and sustainability
Anjomshoa [124]	BIM and Sustainable Buildings	Descriptive research	Link with Araújo and Alves [125] about the success of the project
Araújo and Alves [125]	BIM capabilities	Online questionnaire	Related to Anjomshoa [124] in BIM adoption practices
Wang et al. [126]	Technologies and CO2 Reduction	Review and interviews	Complement Ding et al. [140] in carbon emissions
Wang [63]	Digital Transformation Mapping	Scientometric analysis	Related to Satyro et al. [114] in economic transformation
Istri et al. [127]	Green Construction and Performance	SEM Modeling	Link o with Gohari et al. [148] on green innovation practices
Han et al. [128]	Demolition Waste Management	BIM, LCA, MCDA	Complement Wu et al. [11] waste management practices
Murguia et al. [129]	Innovation Management Model	Multimethod approach	Link with Alsaadi et al. [147] in business model innovation
Kumar and Padala [130]	Multiobjective Optimization with BIM	case study	Complement Rashidi et al. [145] in technological integration
Ibrahim et al. [89]	Addition of Digital Gems	Questionnaire	Related to Elghaish et al. [131] in emerging technologies
Elghaish et al. [131]	Digital Twins and Carbon Emissions	Mixed review	Complement Wang et al. [126] on decarbonization solutions
Moyo et al. [132]	Technical Support System	Questionnaire on-line	Link with Ahiabu et al. [112] sustainable practices
Alsehaimi et al. [133]	Implementation of Industry 4.0	Systematic review	Related to Lim et al. [115] in implementation challenges
Moyo et al. [134]	Sustainable Construction Materials	Mixed methodology	Link with Waqar et al. [86] effective construction practices
Waqar et al. [86]	Human-Centered Technologies	PLS-SEM Modeling	Complement Waheed et al. [118] in solutions focused on non-human beings
Kineber et al. [135]	Management of Construction Waste	Questionnaire	Related to Martin et al. [117] in management strategies
Labaran et al. [136]	Carbon Bonding in Construction	Review and questionnaire	Complements Ding et al. [140] in emissions reduction
Dobrucali et al. [137]	Success Factors in Sustainability	Review and interviews	Link with Moyo et al. [134] in sustainable policies
Hasibuan et al. [138]	Circular Economy in Waste	VOSviewer analysis	Connection with Jayarathna et al. [139] circular practices
Jayarathna et al. [139]	Blockchain and Circular Economy	Delphi Study	Related to Ebolor et al. [107] in technological innovation
Kumar and Zhang [87]	Project Delivery Methods	Interviews and AI	Complement Perera et al. [92] project failure
Ding et al. [140]	Prefabricated Slabs and Emissions Reduction	BIM and LCA	Link with Wang et al. [126] in carbon technologies
Kussl and Wald [141]	Digital Transformation in the Sector	Case studies	Related to Wang et al. [63] in transformation trends
Lakhouit et al. [142]	Construction Waste Management	Machine learning algorithms	Complement Guo and Song [143] on residual estimates
Guo and Song [143]	Waste Management Improvement	Differential game model	Link with Lakhouit et al. [142] in optimization techniques
Perera et al. [92]	Adoption of Construction Technologies 4.0	Semi-structured interviews	Connection with Kumar and Zhang [87] in construction methods
Thach et al. [144]	Sustainability in Construction Sites	Mixed methodology	Related to Dang et al. [145] innovative practices
Dang et al. [145]	Green Innovation Practices	Review and interviews	Complement Istri et al. [127] in sustainable projects
Liang and Sun [146]	Green Digital Transformation and Innovation	Content analysis	Link with Sanchez et al. [121] in urban innovations
Alsaadi et al. [147]	Business and Performance Models	Research by questionnaire	Related to Murguia et al. [129] in innovation models
Gohari et al. [148]	Barriers to Green Technology	BWM Research	League with Ahiabu et al. [112] in the adoption of eco-efficient practices

Source: The Authors (2025).

summarizes these interconnections, showcasing the main themes, methodologies, and relationships between the studies. This table provides a visual representation of how researchers have addressed the challenges and opportunities presented by the integration of emerging technologies and sustainability practices in an interconnected manner.

After the narrative of the 50 selected articles,

Table 8. I4.0 enabling technologies used in the construction industry.

Enabling Technology of I4.0	Impacted TBL Dimensions	Barrier Categories	Drivers Categories	Reference
IoT	Environmental and Economic	Lack of technological structure	Environmental dynamism and organizational factors	[104]
IoT	Environmental and Social	Organizational resistance	Project management aligned with sustainability	[105]
IoT	Economic and Social	Economic barriers	Awareness	[109]
IoT	Environmental and Social	Lack of governance	Management support and commitment	[106]
Bim	Environmental and Social	Lack of public policies	Resource efficiency and low cost	[107]
Blockchain, IoT, IA, Digital Twin	Environmental and Economic	Lack of practical applications	Circular economy	[108]
BIM	Environmental and Economic	Lack of traceability	Efficiency and integrated management	[111]
IoT, Big Data, BIM	Environmental and Economic	Lack of policies	Clean strategies	[114]
I4.0	Economic and Social	Resistance to change	Training	[115]
BIM, digitalization	Economic and Environmental	Low adoption in emerging countries	Dissemination of digital technologies	[113]
IoT, Big Data, horizontal/vertical integration	Environmental and Economic	Lack of training	Industrial ecosystem and life cycle management	[116]
IoT, BIM, digitalization	Environmental and Economic	Lack of technological integration	Digitization and increase performance	[110]
Digitization	Environmental and Economic	Lack of traceability	Efficiency and integrated management	[111]
Digitization	Environmental	Organizational culture	Multisectoral approach	[135]
BIM	Social and Environmental	Lack of strategy	Human technologies	[86]
IA	Environmental	Lack of incentives	Multisectoral collaboration	[132]
BIM	Economic	Costs and lack of support	Better coordination	[133]
Digital Twin	Environmental and Economic	Lack of interoperability	Digital sustainability	[89]
BIM + MCDA + LCA	Environmental	Lack of policies	Waste management	[128]
BIM	Environmental and Economic	Lack of training	Improvement in cost and quality	[127]
IoT	Environmental and Social	Lack of clear policies	Engaged professionals	[137]
MBIM	Economic	Lack of laws, support and resources	Policies and leadership	[122]
Digital Twin	Environmental and Economic	Lack of interoperability	Digital sustainability	[89]
BIM + Multi-Objective Optimization	Environmental and Economic	Lack of integration	Cost and energy reduction	[130]
BIM	Economic	Organizational resistance	Conceptual model	[129]
Digital Twin + IoT + IA	Environmental	Lack of practical studies	Net Zero Carbon	[131]
BIM	Environmental	Inefficient recycling policies	Metrics and indicators	[117]
BIM, IoT, digitalization	Environmental and Economic	Lack of technical knowledge	Dissemination and training	[119]
Digitization	Environmental	Lack of initial integration	Lean strategies in the design phase	[118]
BIM	Environmental and Social	High costs, little training	Awareness and policies	[120]
BIM, IoT and AI	Environmental and Social	Governance gaps	Sustainable urban development	[121]
BIM + Digital Twin	Environmental and Economic	Lack of training	Better asset management	[123]
BIM	Environmental and Social	Lack of policies	Sustainable innovation	[134]
BIM is IoT	Environmental	High costs	Green policies	[136]
Big Data, Machine Learning, BIM	Environmental and Economic	Integration challenges	Trend towards digitalization	[63]
BIM is IoT	Environmental	Lack of incentives	CO2 reduction	[126]
BIM is IoT	Environmental and Economic	Lack of integration	Energy optimization	[124]
BIM	Economic	Lack of organizational preparation	Project success	[125]
BIM and digitalization	Economic	Lack of innovation in the business model	Business innovation	[147]
Cloud, BIM e IoT	Economic	Lack of digital maturity	Digital communication	[92]
BIM	Environmental	High costs, technological gaps	Recycling of materials	[138]
Mathematical modeling	Environmental	Lack of incentives	Subsidies	[143]
Machine Learning	Environmental	Lack of data	Waste forecast	[142]
Blockchain	Environmental and Economic	Knowledge gaps	Waste management and traceability	[139]
IoT	Economic	Lack of clear leadership	Transformational leadership	[141]
BIM is LCA	Environmental	Technical limitations	Carbon reduction	[140]
Bim	Environmental and Economic	Lack of innovation management	Process innovation	[145]
AI and Digitalization	Environmental	Technical limitations	Owner support	[87]
IA	Economic and Political	Lack of incentives	Governance	[148]
BIM	Environmental and Economic	Lack of integration	Increase in green patents	[146]
IoT	Environmental and Social	Lack of water and waste management	Policies and innovation	[144]

Source: The Authors (2025).

, prepared by Microsoft Excel software, was developed, systematizing the main enabling technologies of I4.0 for each of the 50 articles, the dimension of impact on sustainability and the Categories of possible barriers and drivers in the construction industry.

From Table 8, prepared by Microsoft Excel software, it was possible to verify the frequency of citation, that is, the number of occurrences per article, of the main enabling technologies of I4.0 in the construction industry identified in the selected articles, which served as the basis for the elaboration of Figure 7.

Figure 7 demonstrates the relevance of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies, with BIM standing out as the most frequently mentioned, with approximately 15 mentions, followed by the Internet of Things and Digitalization, which also feature prominently. Technologies such as Digital Twin, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, Mathematical modeling, Blockchain, Machine Learning and LCA also appear, although with moderate frequency. Cloud and Horizontal/Vertical Integration have a low incidence. The graph highlights the more frequent use of technologies that already have established applications within the sector, indicating a widening gap between mature technologies and those still under development.

4.3. Discussion

The descriptive analysis reveals a strong trend in Asian countries with robust and well-structured economies for understanding the topic developed and proposed by this study. This momentum indicates trends for developing countries to follow suit in terms of engagement and technological and sustainability issues, particularly in the construction sector. However, the literature highlights the existence of barriers to the implementation of Industry 4.0, which are also related to the economic and social problems faced by less resilient countries, such as high costs, political difficulties, lack of communication and interaction between organizations, and insufficient leadership and a shortage of qualified human capital for project implementation.

Another relevant point for discussion is the evolution of debates on the intersection between sustainability and Industry 4.0. It is notable how much interest in investigating the topic intensified and gained visibility in research circles in 2024. This also reflects the reduction in the gap between sustainability and the construction sector, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 also reinforce this connection between sustainability, civil construction, and Industry 4.0. They reaffirm that modern technologies increasingly require renewed approaches to the construction environment, where society not only needs to develop new skills in enabling technologies, but also in the principles and concepts of sustainable development.

The narrative analysis reveals the adoption and impact of Industry 4.0, with an emphasis on critical and driving factors, as demonstrated by Kumar et al. [104], Vrchota et al. [105], Lopes and Silva Filho [119], and their influence on organizational and environmental performance, as demonstrated by [110,140,147]. The integration of Industry 4.0 technologies, such as BIM, IoT, AI, and digital tools, is frequently cited as essential for promoting more sustainable construction practices [104,110]. These advances are seen as strong drivers of energy efficiency and resource management, aligning with the growing need to transition to a circular economy model [108]. However, many studies, including those by Fathalizadeh et al. [109] and Wang et al. [122], highlight significant barriers to the immediate implementation of these technologies in the construction industry. These barriers include the lack of public policies, high costs, and the absence of an innovative organizational culture.

In that regard, sustainability and the circular economy are aligned with criteria and barriers for integration with Industry 4.0 [106,116,138], construction and demolition waste (CDW) as a focus [111,117,148], and adoption in developing countries with their associated challenges [120,132]. Sustainable development requires strategic alignment. The effective and meaningful connection between sustainability and Industry 4.0 is only possible with management support, governance, and planning.

The impact of managerial innovation and the educational challenges of building technical capacity are other points of convergence in these investigations. Studies such as those by Vrchota et al. [105] and Lim et al. [115] emphasize the need for training and management support strategies. In the regional context, Gómez et al. [113] and Moyo et al. [134] indicate that the marked difference in technological infrastructure between developed and developing regions significantly influences the adoption rates of 4.0 technologies.

The issue of barriers to sustainability in the construction industry is a recurring theme. Fathalizadeh et al. [109] and Wang et al. [122] highlighted regulatory gaps, as well as economic and technical limitations in contexts such as Iran and China. This obstacle, along with the lack of knowledge and technical training, is also highlighted by Moyo et al. [134] in developing country contexts such as Zimbabwe, where limited awareness and the absence of effective government policies were also mentioned by Masyhur et al. [96]. In terms of governance, public policies, and training, issues such as the lack of adequate incentives and policies are recurring barriers, as shown by Wang et al. [126], Gohari et al. [148] and Labaran et al. [136].

The role of clients and project owners in driving sustainable change should not be underestimated, as highlighted by Moyo et al. [134], Kussl and Wald [141], and Kumar and Zhang [87]. These articles indicate that stakeholder influence is varied and dynamic, reinforcing the need for a collaborative approach to effectively integrate new technologies. In this sense, public policies and incentives are essential, as this lack of support tends to inhibit innovation in the field of sustainability.

At the crossroads between sustainability and innovation, Satyro et al. [114] and Behl et al. [116] highlight the combination of cleaner production practices with Industry 4.0 technologies, suggesting the need for targeted research and strong political support for the stability of sustainability. The adoption of practices such as green eco-innovation, identified by Sanchez et al. [121] and Dang et al. [145], proves significant in sustainable urban projects and in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Finally, the narrative analysis highlights that the transformation towards Sustainability 4.0 in the construction industry is not simply a matter of adopting new technologies, but also of integrating organizational and governmental factors. Effective managerial innovation, combined with robust policies and technical education, is essential to overcome barriers and maximize the potential of sustainable and economically viable practices in the sector globally.

Based on the above, the integration of sustainability and Industry 4.0 in the construction industry has advanced considerably, particularly in countries with solid economies. However, significant barriers still exist in developing countries, such as a lack of public policies, training, and management support. The growing scientific production reflects a greater interest in the topic and indicates a technological transition that must be accompanied by both cultural and strategic changes, requiring a supportive ecosystem that encompasses governance, leadership, and integrated planning.

To systematize what was found in the SLR,

Table 9. Categories of Drivers and Barriers.

Category	Drivers	Barriers
Technology	BIM (Building Information Modeling)—core technology for digitalization; IoT (Internet of Things)—real-time data collection; Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning—predictive analysis and optimization; Digital Twins—advanced simulation and monitoring; Blockchain—traceability and transparency; Big Data Analytics—data-driven decision making; Cloud Computing—most widely adopted technology currently; Mobile technologies—facilitate implementation; Automation and advanced robotics.	Low digital maturity; High technological implementation costs; Limitations of interoperability between systems; Compatibility with legacy systems; Challenges of inadequate systems integration; Data security issues; Existing technological limitations; Resistance to technological change.
Management and Governance	Senior management support and commitment—critical success factor; Strong leadership for digital transformation; Effective project governance; Product life cycle management; Adequate organizational structures; Integrated strategic planning. Institutional commitment to sustainability.	Lack of management and leadership support; Lack of comprehensive strategies; Deficiencies in organizational governance; Lack of coordination and communication; Organizational resistance to change; Limitations in change management; Lack of digital governance.
Human Capital	Employee training and qualification; Development of technical skills; Education on sustainability; Programs for reskilling/upskilling; Awareness of the benefits of technologies.	Lack of technical knowledge and expertise; Poor university education about I4.0; Low awareness of sustainability; Lack of professional preparation and qualifications; Shortage of specialized human resources; Resistance to change by employees.
Economic-Political	Government incentives and subsidies; Supportive policies and favorable regulations; Adequate financing and financing schemes; Macroeconomic stability; Green codes and standards; Alignment with circular economy.	High initial costs and sustainable materials; Lack of government incentives; Inefficient recycling policies; Lack of adequate regulations; Financial and budgetary limitations; Lack of tangible political support; Significant economic barriers.
Sustainability	Circular economy as a management model; Reduction in waste and carbon emissions; Efficient resource management; Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Eco-friendly materials and renewable energy; Green building practices; Green innovation and clean technologies.	High costs of sustainable materials; Lack of understanding of environmental benefits; Low adoption of green practices; Limitations in waste management; Lack of adequate metrics and indicators; Obstacles in implementing the circular economy.
Sectoral Integration	Multisectoral collaboration; Horizontal and vertical integration in the chain; Strategic partnerships; Integrated industrial ecosystems; Knowledge sharing across sectors; Active participation of customers and users.	Lack of collaboration between stakeholders; Sectoral fragmentation; Lack of multisectoral approaches; Difficulties in coordination between different actors; Gaps in supply chain integration.

Source: The Authors (2025).

, prepared by Microsoft Excel software, presents a synthesis of the most recurring categories of drivers and barriers in the adoption of I4.0 enabling technologies in the construction industry.

For each category listed in Table 9, it identified expected impacts from overcoming these barriers or strengthening the drivers, as shown below:

• In the technology category, increased operational efficiency, reduced errors and rework, and real-time monitoring are expected [89,108,129,131];
• In the management and governance category, improvements in strategic alignment and greater technological adoption are expected [104,105,122];
• In the human capital category, a reduction in human errors and greater technological adoption with less resistance are expected [73,115,132];
• In the economic-political category, greater attractiveness to innovation and an acceleration of the sustainable transition are expected [138,147,148];
• In the sustainability category, optimization of resource use alongside compliance with environmental goals and the SDGs [117,128,140];
• In the sectoral integration category, greater cohesion in innovation strategies and improved collaborative governance are expected [87,113,141].

Given these findings, SLR highlights that the integration of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies, such as BIM, IoT, Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, applied with the concept of sustainability, can profoundly transform the construction sector. The practical implications are equally significant: the data collected reaffirms that these technologies enable smarter decision-making, reduce waste, increase energy efficiency and favor the life cycle. After mapping the most explored technologies and how they relate to sustainable practices, it is possible to outline a strategic direction for companies and managers in the sector. The data also provide support for public policies and future research by identifying gaps and opportunities focused on development and innovation.

Furthermore, the aggregated results of these studies illuminate the importance of a collaborative ecosystem that focuses on overcoming economic, political, and cultural barriers to enable an effective transition to Sustainability 4.0, maintaining a balance between sustainable development and technological advancements, while striving for a broad adoption of efficient and sustainable construction practices globally.

5. Conclusions

Given the evidence presented in this paper, we obtained a deeper understanding of the key drivers and barriers directly linked to the adoption of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies within the context of Sustainability 4.0, as applied to the construction industry. The analysis of the 50 articles revealed that, despite the construction sector’s wide adoption of technologies such as BIM, IoT, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Twins, and Blockchain, some significant issues remain, such as high implementation costs, gaps in public policies, a lack of skilled labor, and, most importantly, low organizational digital maturity.

On the other hand, this technological and sustainable transition is reinforced by managerial and institutional support, efforts toward operational improvement, and the incorporation of the circular economy with sustainable development. We can conclude that this duality between drivers and barriers in the transition to Sustainability 4.0 depends not only on technological advances but also on structural, cultural, and political changes within organizations.

Therefore, a promising scenario exists regarding the strategic use of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies that can be transformative for the construction industry, leading it towards a more efficient, resilient, and, above all, environmentally responsible sector.

This work is original in its approach to articulating the three concepts of Sustainability 4.0, Construction 4.0, and Industry 4.0, a connection still underexplored in the literature. Based on international evidence, this SLR demonstrates how implementing S4.0 in the construction industry is a positive development for society, as it fosters a more robust technological structure and a favorable institutional environment, strengthening sustainable practices, encouraging innovation, and enabling managers to make more assertive decisions based on data.

Although the study provides a detailed analysis of the interrelationships between Industry 4.0, Sustainability 4.0, and Construction 4.0, there are some limitations that could be improved in future research to deepen the understanding of these topics. Four potential limitations of the study can be discussed for greater critical engagement: the conceptual and practical approach, the diversity of regional contexts, the focus on proof of concept, and the qualitative dimensions of digital transformation.

Regarding the conceptual and practical approach, although the study seeks to explore Sustainability 4.0 in the context of Construction 4.0, the topic is not fully developed in the literature. Therefore, one limitation of the study is the need to further explore how these concepts interrelate to form a cohesive model that adds value in both a theoretical and practical context. Regarding the diversity of regional contexts, most of the articles reviewed cover specific country contexts, such as China, Iran, and Zimbabwe, but the generalizability of the results to other contexts may be limited without a more detailed analysis of the unique cultural, institutional, and economic specificities of each region.

Regarding the focus on proof of concept, as highlighted in several articles, many Construction 4.0 approaches are currently conceptual and have not been widely implemented in practice. Therefore, the review may not fully capture the dynamics and implementation challenges faced in the practical reality of construction operations.

Finally, regarding the qualitative dimensions of digital transformation, while many of the methodologies in the reviewed articles focus on quantitative analyses, such as PLS and SEM, there may be an underrepresentation of studies that address the human and cultural dimensions of the digital transformation process. Studies such as those by Lim et al. [91] already highlight cultural resistance as a relevant challenge, but there may be room for deeper investigation into the influence of organizational culture on the adoption of Industry 4.0 and Sustainability 4.0 practices.

Given the identified limitations, there are several opportunities for future research that could significantly contribute to the field of Industry 4.0, Construction 4.0, and Sustainability 4.0. First, it is highly recommended to explore regional nuances in greater depth, especially the specific challenges and opportunities faced by developing countries. Investigating local contexts in more detail, such as those in Africa and Latin America, will help form a more complete understanding of how socioeconomic and cultural barriers can impact the adoption of these sustainable technologies and practices.

Furthermore, it is essential to develop theoretical frameworks that integrate Industry 4.0 technologies with sustainability principles more clearly and robustly. This would not only strengthen the conceptual foundation but also create practical guidelines that could be more easily applied in the daily work of construction managers. Finally, expanding empirical validation efforts on the theories discussed in the article and their proposed practices is crucial. Empirical studies in diverse contexts, especially in emerging economies, can confirm the effectiveness of sustainable practices and facilitate their large-scale application. This approach strengthens the transformative potential of emerging technologies and sustainable practices, aligning them more effectively with the contemporary needs of the sector.