From Industry 4.0 to Industry 6.0: Tracing the Evolution of Industrial Paradigms Through the Lens of Management Fashion Theory

Abstract

The industrial landscape has undergone rapid conceptual evolution in recent years, marked by the successive emergence of Industry 4.0, Industry 5.0, and the nascent Industry 6.0. This study explores the emergence of Industry 6.0 as a prospective industrial paradigm, characterized by intelligent, autonomous, and sustainable systems, which builds upon the digital foundations of its predecessors. Using management fashion theory as a theoretical lens, we analyze how these industrial concepts arise, diffuse, and potentially become institutionalized within management discourse. The study reveals that the adoption and dissemination of these paradigms are influenced not only by technological advancements but also by the discursive efforts of a fashion-setting community comprising academics, policymakers, consultants, and media actors. Industry 6.0, while still largely speculative, continues a broader trend of using numbered industrial revolutions to frame ongoing innovation. The findings suggest that such paradigms serve both practical and rhetorical purposes, driving organizational change while also reflecting shifting societal and managerial values. The study concludes with reflections on the implications for managers and policymakers as they navigate the evolving industrial landscape.

1. Introduction

The manufacturing sector has experienced successive waves of transformation, often referred to as “industrial revolutions”, from mechanization in the 18th century to the digital revolution of recent decades. Industry 4.0 (I4.0), a term coined in 2011, marks the fourth industrial revolution, driven by cyber-physical systems, the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, and artificial intelligence (AI) in production [1,2]. Over the past decade, I4.0 has become a global buzzword, experiencing a “meteoric rise in popularity” and dominating management discourse [3].

In its wake, new paradigms have been proposed. Industry 5.0 (I5.0) emerged in the mid-2010s to emphasize human-centric and sustainable manufacturing [4,5,6]. Now, the nascent concept of Industry 6.0 (I6.0) is increasingly being envisioned as the next frontier [7,8]. This study analyzes the emergence of I6.0 and compares it with the earlier I4.0 and I5.0 paradigms. Using management fashion theory as a lens [9,10,11], we examine how these concepts develop, gain adoption, and become (or fail to become) institutionalized in management discourse. We examine how each Industry X.0 (IX.0) concept has evolved over time, the promises each conveys, and the forces influencing their adoption. While the primary contribution of this study lies in its analysis of I6.0, it is necessary to contextualize this discussion by reviewing preceding concepts to illuminate their key similarities, differences, and the range of actors involved in their diffusion and popularization. By unpacking contemporary IX.0 developments, this study contributes to the broader literature on the evolution of management concepts and ideas [9,12].

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive approach to examine how I4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 have been discursively constructed, differentiated, and promoted. The analysis is grounded in a purposive review of secondary sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, policy documents, consultancy white papers, and business media commentary. Using a snowballing-like strategy, e.g., [13,14], we identified influential texts and traced recurring rhetorical patterns and actor framings across these evolving industrial visions. Rather than seeking empirical generalizability, the objective is conceptual: to map the trajectory of the IX.0 discourse and analyze its evolution through the lens of management fashion theory. This framework provides a useful scaffold for understanding how emerging industrial paradigms gain visibility, legitimacy, and narrative coherence—not only through technological advancement, but also through the symbolic work of fashion-setting actors. In doing so, the study contributes to a growing body of scholarship that views industrial futures as socially constructed and rhetorically contested arenas, rather than as linear extensions of technical progress, e.g., [15,16,17,18]. It also contributes to the discourse in the journal Systems, e.g., [19,20], by examining how these industrial imaginaries operate as evolving socio-technical systems shaped by technological innovation, institutional framing, and discursive dynamics.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. Following an overview of I4.0, I5.0, and I6.0 and their key features, we outline the theoretical framework of management fashion. We then analyze the evolution of these concepts in practice and discourse before discussing the implications for academia, managers, and policymakers.

2. Conceptual Background: From Industry 4.0 to Industry 6.0

2.1. Industry 4.0: The Fourth Industrial Revolution

I4.0 refers to the fourth industrial revolution in manufacturing, characterized by the integration of digital technologies into industrial processes. Launched as a strategic initiative at the Hannover Fair in Germany in 2011 [3,15], the concept centers on smart factories and the deep connectivity of machines, products, and people. The key technological pillars of I4.0 include IoT networks linking sensors and machinery, advanced robotics and automation, cloud computing and big data analytics, and AI/machine learning for intelligent decision making [2,21].

Through cyber-physical systems, the physical and digital worlds converge, enabling real-time data exchange across the value chain. I4.0 is often seen as enabling mass customization (the flexible, IT-driven production of individualized products) while maintaining the efficiency of mass production. Organizationally, it promotes horizontal and vertical system integration, breaking silos between departments and linking factories with suppliers and customers in integrated information flows. The popularity of the term “I4.0” spread rapidly beyond its manufacturing origins [22]. By the late 2010s, it had entered the mainstream vocabulary of business strategy, with numerous derivative phrases such as “Work 4.0” and “Innovation 4.0” [23], signaling broad future-oriented change beyond the factory floor [3,24].

Despite its ubiquity in discourse, the concept remained somewhat diffuse [22,25]. In the late 2010s, over 100 different definitions had already been identified in the literature [26]. Researchers noted the almost meme-like propagation of the “4.0” label as shorthand for modernization [22]. This propagation reflects both genuine technological advancements and a degree of hype. Some observers cautioned early on that there might be a risk that I4.0 could become a management fashion [2], given the hype and the fervor of the debate surrounding it [27,28].

2.2. Industry 5.0: Human-Centric and Sustainable Industry

I5.0 is a more recent concept that builds upon the technological foundations of I4.0, reorienting the focus toward the role of humans and societal value in industry. Early mentions of “I5.0” had appeared on social media platforms such as LinkedIn and Medium by the mid-2010s [4,29]; for example, in 2016 and 2017, some researchers began proposing an “I5.0” to address areas including bionics, the bio-economy, and closer human–machine integration [5,29,30,31].

However, the concept gained a clearer definition around 2020–2021, when policymakers in Europe adopted it as a vision for the future of manufacturing [32,33,34,35,36]. The European Commission defines I5.0 as an approach that “aims beyond efficiency and productivity as the sole goals” of industry to place human well-being at the center of production while also respecting planetary boundaries. In other words, I5.0 envisions using advanced technology not just to boost output, but to empower workers and achieve sustainable and resilient operations. It builds upon the I4.0 framework by emphasizing the role of research and innovation in advancing an industrial paradigm that prioritizes sustainability, human well-being, and resilience.

While the European Commission has spearheaded the human-centric I5.0 agenda, parallel discourses have emerged in Asia and North America. Japan’s Society 5.0 initiative, for example, emphasizes technological harmony with social systems [37,38]; the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has advanced human–system integration principles, e.g., [39]; and South Korea’s strategic emphasis on digital twins reflects a technocratic but participatory approach [40]. These regional variations highlight that I5.0 is not a monolithic vision, but a family of loosely coupled discourses shaped by distinct policy frameworks, cultural logics, and national innovation strategies [16,41].

In practical terms, I5.0 emphasizes collaboration between humans and machines (often framed as co-working between human workers and AI-powered robots) rather than full automation [42]. Whereas I4.0 prioritized automation and mass customization, I5.0 is said to enable mass personalization, tailoring products and services to individual customer needs through human–machine synergy. The underlying technological stack remains similar—AI, IoT, robotics, and advanced data analytics—but the orientation shifts: these tools are now applied in ways that augment rather than displace human capabilities. For example, collaborative robots (“cobots”) assist humans in precision assembly tasks, while AI systems handle routine operations, freeing up workers to focus on decision making, customization, and creative problem solving [43,44,45].

Examples of I5.0 principles being implemented at the organizational level are increasingly visible. In manufacturing, companies including Toyota have integrated cobots on assembly lines to support ergonomic co-working, particularly in tasks requiring dexterity and adaptability. In the healthcare sector, wearable robotic exoskeletons are now utilized by nurses and caregivers to reduce physical strain, thereby enhancing both safety and the quality of care [46,47]. Meanwhile, AI-enabled design platforms in the fashion and consumer goods industries enable workers to generate personalized product variations in real time [48,49,50,51]. These examples illustrate how I5.0 is moving beyond abstract policy rhetoric, beginning to reshape work practices through human-centric applications of intelligent technology.

Additionally, I5.0 incorporates goals of sustainability, such as circular economic practices and processes with low environmental impact, as well as social responsibility. One vision is of factories where innovation and efficiency are harmonized with worker satisfaction and environmental responsibility, aiming to deliver broad-based prosperity that extends beyond traditional economic growth while safeguarding the planet. In short, I5.0 diverges from the tech-centric narrative by rebalancing it: it retains the digital and automation-related advancements of 4.0 but emphasizes that humans must be “at the heart of the business”, and that industry should address societal challenges such as resource efficiency and resilience to crises.

2.3. Industry 6.0: Defining the Next Industrial Paradigm

I6.0 is an emerging concept representing a hypothetical sixth industrial revolution. The concept remains largely futuristic, and I6.0 does not yet have a single, authoritative definition [7,8,42,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]. However, early discussions appear to converge on a vision of fully intelligent, autonomous, and sustainable industrial systems vastly exceeding previous capabilities. Scholars characterize I6.0 as a paradigm that encompasses a significantly broader vision than any of the previous industrial revolutions [42]. In this vision, the work culture is transformed by tightly integrating human intellectual capacities with machine execution. For instance, humans might directly operate machines using brainpower, via brain-computer interfaces and AI, blurring the line between human decision-making and automated execution. This cognitive integration leads to increasing interdependence between human judgment and machine learning systems in organizational decision-making: for example, AI-assisted strategic forecasting tools that combine real-time data analytics with human scenario planning. The I6.0 environment is thus imagined as one of seamless human–machine symbiosis: the “noble creativity” of people combined with ultra-advanced production systems [42]. This symbiosis describes collaborative systems in which intelligent machines assist and adapt to human behavior, as seen in wearable robotic exoskeletons used in manufacturing or context-aware service robots in healthcare settings. These examples illustrate how emerging visions of I6.0 move beyond automation toward dynamic co-agency between humans and machines.

Technologically, I6.0 is expected to build upon the digital infrastructure of 4.0 and the human-centric enhancements of 5.0, while incorporating new waves of innovation. Potential hallmarks include the adoption of quantum computing and nanotechnology for unprecedented computational power and material precision, ubiquitous AI and advanced robotics that can self-organize and operate with minimal human intervention [64], and the pervasive use of digital twins and cyber–physical systems to virtualize and optimize everything from supply chains to entire factories in real time. I6.0 is often described as comprising “fully integrated, intelligent systems that can operate autonomously” across organizations [64]. For example, production networks might dynamically reconfigure themselves across different factories and even continents, with little manual oversight, through dynamic inter- and intra-connectivity across organizations. These systems would be highly anti-fragile—not just resilient to disruptions but able to learn and improve from them—and deeply sustainable, operating in harmony with natural resource limits (the vision includes “green sustainability” and “harmony with nature” as core principles) [42].

According to one social media article, I6.0 aspires to “transcend previous revolutions, emphasizing sustainability, intelligence, and holistic integration” [65]. It is portrayed as the convergence of virtually all advanced technologies (AI, biotechnology, quantum tech, etc.) into industry, yielding self-organizing, highly personalized manufacturing on a global scale. Notably, while I5.0 still sees humans and robots working side by side on the shop floor, I6.0 foresees a stage where many processes are autonomously managed by cognitive machines, with humans providing strategic guidance (even directly through cognitive interfaces) rather than hands-on control [64].

Given its futuristic scope, I6.0 is largely conceptual and speculative at this stage. Some authors project it as a mid-21st-century development. For instance, one analysis situates I6.0 roughly between 2050 and 2070 [42]. The concept appeared in academic discussions only recently (around 2021–2022) and in thought leadership pieces envisioning the “next upgrade” after I5.0 [64]. The core idea is that, by the time companies and societies adjust to the human-centric 5.0 model, an even more radical transformation will be on the horizon, driven by relentless technological progress. In summary, I6.0 can be defined as a prospective industrial paradigm characterized by autonomous intelligent systems, extreme interconnectivity, human–machine cognitive integration, and a strong orientation towards sustainability—effectively a leap towards fully self-regulating industrial ecosystems. In the following sections, we examine how such concepts emerge and spread, utilizing management fashion theory to frame the evolution from I4.0 to 6.0.

2.4. Comparison

To better distinguish the conceptual trajectory across the IX.0 landscape,

Table 1. Comparative overview of Industry 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0: technological, societal, and organizational dimensions.

Dimension	Industry 4.0	Industry 5.0	Industry 6.0 (Speculative)
Technological Drivers	Automation, IoT, cyber–physical systems	Human–robot collaboration, cobotics, AI	Anticipatory AI, sentient systems, neurotech
Societal Values	Productivity, efficiency, competitiveness	Resilience, human-centricity, sustainability	Ethical foresight, planetary governance, empathy
Organizational Models	Platform-based, decentralized factories	Hybrid co-working, stakeholder ecosystems	Distributed cognition, adaptive learning networks
Mode of Integration	Device and data interoperability	Human-in-the-loop coordination	Human–machine cognitive symbiosis
Dominant Actors	Technology vendors, consultancies	Policymakers (EU), research consortia	Visionary futurists, foresight labs, AI architects
Temporal Orientation	Present optimization	Post-crisis adaptation	Long-term anticipation and speculative design

synthesizes the key differences in technological, social, and organizational logics across 4.0, 5.0, and the speculative contours of 6.0. This comparative framework offers a structured basis for the discussion of I6.0’s speculative emergence. Table 1 is based on common themes found in key texts describing I4.0 and 5.0 [16,41,66]. The comparison focuses on their main goals, the actors promoting them, and the values they emphasize, such as efficiency versus sustainability, or technological control versus human-centric design.

The three industrial paradigms are compared along six dimensions: technological drivers, societal values, organizational models, integration modes, dominant actors, and temporal orientation. The comparison situates these transitions within a broader historical and anticipatory frame. Moreover, it clarifies how each iteration introduces new technologies and reflects evolving institutional logics and normative aspirations about the role of industry in society.

In terms of technological drivers, I4.0 emphasized cyber–physical systems, IoT, and automation, all of which are oriented toward optimizing productivity. I5.0, by contrast, foregrounded technologies that enable human–machine collaboration, such as cobotics and assistive AI, reflecting a shift toward stakeholder-centric goals such as resilience and personalization. Looking ahead, I6.0 envisions more speculative technologies—such as anticipatory AI, neurotech, and distributed cognition—that are both tools and co-creative agents. These emerging technologies are embedded in a value framework focused less on efficiency or resilience and more on long-term ethical foresight, inclusivity, and planetary governance.

Organizationally, the evolution suggests a progression from platform-based modular firms (I4.0), through hybrid human–machine ecosystems (I5.0), toward fluid, learning-oriented networks capable of anticipating and adapting to future contingencies (I6.0). The mode of integration also becomes increasingly intimate: from technical interoperability in I4.0, to human-in-the-loop feedback in I5.0, and potentially to symbiotic cognitive systems in I6.0. Actor constellations shift accordingly: traditional stakeholders such as technology vendors and policymakers may give way to foresight communities, algorithm designers, and non-state actors who shape imaginaries of what is industrially possible. Finally, temporal orientation extends from present-day optimization in I4.0 to post-crisis adaptation in I5.0 and, in I6.0, toward the proactive anticipation of futures not yet fully imagined—inviting scholars to treat I6.0 not as a deterministic endpoint, but as an evolving discursive horizon.

While Table 1 outlines the evolving content and structure of the IX.0 paradigms, it also raises a broader question about how such industrial visions emerge, circulate, and gain traction across time. The progression from I4.0 to 6.0 is not merely technological but discursive, shaped by actors who construct compelling narratives about the future of industry. Concepts such as I6.0—which is still largely speculative—illustrate how visionary imaginaries can enter the managerial lexicon well before they are operationally defined or empirically substantiated. To make sense of these dynamics, the next section introduces management fashion theory as a conceptual lens. This theoretical framework enables us to analyze not only the substance of these industrial paradigms but also the socio-cultural and institutional processes through which they gain visibility, legitimacy, and momentum. By applying this lens, we can better understand how IX.0 concepts function as management fashions—subject to cycles of popularity, strategic promotion, and eventual displacement.

3. Theoretical Lens: Management Fashion Theory

Management fashion theory offers a lens for understanding how certain ideas or practices in management become popular (and sometimes fade) over time [9,67]. According to Abrahamson [10], management fashions are transitory collective beliefs that certain management techniques are at the forefront of rational management progress. Another definition is provided by Jung and Kieser [68] (p. 329), who emphasize that management fashions are those “management concepts that relatively speedily gain large shares in the public management discourse”. A “fashionable” management concept often gains rapid popularity due to a combination of supply-side promotion and demand-side demand for innovative solutions [8,68]. On the supply side, a constellation of fashion-setting actors, including consultants, gurus, academics, business media, professional associations, and other idea marketers, actively package and disseminate the concept [10,11,69]. They tend to frame the concept as a dramatic new solution to organizations’ problems, often accompanied by lofty promises of improved performance if adopted [11,70]. On the demand side, managers and organizations facing pressures or performance gaps are eager for new ideas [71]. They may latch onto such concepts in the hope of gaining a competitive edge or achieving success.

The popularity trajectory of a management fashion typically follows a lifecycle: an emergence phase (introduction and initial hype), a takeoff phase (widespread adoption in discourse, a “bandwagon” effect), and sometimes a decline as the concept either diffuses into standard practice (institutionalization) or is supplanted by a new fashion when it fails to meet inflated expectations [9,67].

Importantly, management fashion theory does not necessarily claim that the substance of fashionable concepts is useless; rather, it highlights the social dynamics behind their popularity. Many fashionable ideas incorporate effective practices, but they are often presented in trend-driven ways [72]. Fashions often arise in response to an environmental jolt, changing norms, or shifting zeitgeists [11], and their promoters give them labels that resonate broadly [11,73]. Over time, if a concept is perceived positively in terms of value, it may become institutionalized, becoming an integral part of management thinking or practice and losing its novelty status [74,75]. If not, interest may wane once managers grow weary of the concept [73,76] and move on to the “next big thing”.

While the popularity of management fashions varies across time and context [67,77], some ideas endure by being reframed or reconfigured [78,79]. Management ideas may fade from use, but abandoned fashions are often repackaged or relabeled, leading to their revitalization and renewed adoption [80,81].

4. Evolution of the Industry 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 Concepts in Management Discourse

By applying management fashion as a theoretical lens to the IX.0 concepts, we can view I4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 as successive management fashions (or potential fashions) in the industrial domain.

4.1. Industry 4.0: Emergence, Hype, and Institutionalization

The concept of I4.0 offers a textbook example of a management fashion in its rise [3]. In terms of origins, it was developed through a public–private collaboration in Germany, where the term “Industrie 4.0” was introduced in a 2011 strategy proposal aimed at promoting high-tech manufacturing. This origin, situated outside the typical consulting sphere, gave it an initial aura of national strategic importance [3].

The concept promised a sweeping transformation of industry via digital technologies, effectively branding ongoing trends (automation, data exchange, the IoT) as part of a singular revolutionary agenda. Regarding its adoption, in the years following its introduction, I4.0 was aggressively promoted by various stakeholders [15]. Governments adopted it as a competitiveness strategy, technology companies and consultancies used it to market their solutions, and academics framed their research around it. By the mid-2010s, it had diffused internationally; for instance, national strategic initiatives such as “Industrie 4.0” in Germany spawned counterparts such as “Industria 4.0” in Italy, “Made in China 2025”, and discussion of the “Industrial Internet” in the U.S., all overlapping with the I4.0 narrative (see [82,83,84]). The concept’s “meteoric rise” was reflected in extensive media coverage, conference themes, and a sharp increase in publications on the topic [3,85]. The academic interest in I4.0 has been sustained, although it appears to have plateaued (

Table 2. Scopus-indexed publications on I4.0–I6.0 (Source: www.scopus.com; data extracted 13 January 2025).

	Industry 4.0	Industry 5.0	Industry 6.0
2024	5889	1481	43
2023	6674	794	8
2022	6148	377	4
2021	5690	95	0
2020	5366	38	1
2019	4463	18	1
2018	2309	1	0
2017	1271	0	0
2016	573	1	0
2015	220	0	0
2014	91	0	0
2013	29	0	0
2012	2	0	0

).

As management fashion theory would predict, a bandwagon effect took hold: firms felt pressure not to miss out on what was portrayed as the next industrial revolution. This was reinforced by supply-side actors extolling the benefits. For example, consulting firms such as the Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey & Company produced reports showing dramatic gains in productivity and efficiency for adopters of I4.0 technologies [86,87]. Consequently, by the late 2010s, I4.0 had become institutionalized to a certain extent, and it had found its way into national policy roadmaps, industry associations’ programs, and corporate strategies, with many large manufacturers setting up “I4.0” departments or pilot projects [3,15].

However, the trajectory also illustrates typical fashion fluctuations. Initially, the concept was surrounded by lofty promises and high expectations [15,88], as is typical for new management ideas [11,69,70]. Over time, more sober assessments emerged. Some scholars identified a gap between the discursive popularity of I4.0 and its tangible impact [3]. Within a few years, reviews noted that, while I4.0 undeniably influenced conversations about the future of manufacturing, evidence of broad operational transformation was less clear [89]. In other words, many companies talked about I4.0 or planned for it, but actual implementation was uneven. This pattern, where enthusiasm outpaces execution, is a well-known hallmark of management fashions and can lead to disillusionment and the gradual erosion of a popular concept [76]. Still, the fundamental drivers (technological progress in IoT, AI, etc.) continued to advance in the 2020s, preventing I4.0 from being simply a fad that disappeared. Instead, it gradually matured.

In management fashion terms, we could argue that I4.0 is transitioning from a hype phase into an institutionalized phase [74]. Its core idea—the digital integration of manufacturing—is becoming standard practice, even as the buzzword itself loses some of its novelty. Indeed, managers today might drop the “I4.0” label and simply refer to “digital transformation”—a sign that the concept is blending into mainstream management vocabulary. Yet, as interest in I4.0 plateaued, the stage was set for new labels to emerge (e.g., I5.0) to rejuvenate the discourse surrounding industrial innovation.

4.2. Industry 5.0: Broadening the Narrative and Addressing Gaps

The emergence of I5.0 in management discourse can be viewed as both a response to the limitations of I4.0 and an attempt to extend the narrative of industrial innovation. In terms of its origins and early development, I5.0 did not originate from a single event, unlike its predecessor; rather, it emerged through the efforts of multiple thought leaders, almost in parallel [16]. One impetus was the realization that I4.0’s intense focus on automation and efficiency left gaps regarding the human and environmental dimensions. Around the mid-2010s, a few researchers and futurists began to articulate the concept of a fifth industrial revolution [4,5,29,90]. For instance, Sachsenmeier [5] discussed “I5.0” in terms of integrating more biology-inspired technologies (bionics, synthetic biology) into industry.

Others, such as Demir and Cicibas [30], critiqued I4.0 and proposed an I5.0, emphasizing human–robot co-working. These early academic propositions kept the conversation alive, but the concept truly gained momentum when the European Commission and related bodies adopted it. The adoption by the European Commission served as a major discursive anchor, catalyzing broader policy and academic interest. The endorsement by a major institutional actor served as a catalyst for the wider adoption of the term, particularly in policy and academic circles in Europe.

The I5.0 concept has garnered increasing attention. Since 2021, I5.0 has been progressively appearing in conferences, industry white papers, and academic research as the next step beyond I4.0 [91,92,93]. Table 2 shows that academic publications on I5.0 are still growing at a rapid pace. Its diffusion, however, is more nascent and somewhat different in character [16]. While I4.0’s spread was driven by a technological push and competitive anxiety, I5.0’s spread is propelled by a values-based push (e.g., calls for “an economy that works for people” and for greener industry). The supply-side includes not only tech companies and consultants, but also policymakers and social commentators who emphasize inclusion and sustainability [16]. For example, the concept is promoted in EU policy documents highlighting how industry can address climate change and social wellbeing [32,33,34,36].

For managers and firms, the demand-side appeal of I5.0 lies in promises of reconciling efficiency with employee engagement and corporate responsibility. By the mid-2020s, we started seeing I5.0 language in some corporate vision statements, particularly in industries such as manufacturing equipment or automation, where human–machine collaboration is a key selling point. However, the term is not yet as universally recognized or adopted as I4.0 was at its peak, reflecting that it is still in an early stage of diffusion [16].

From a management fashion theory perspective, I5.0 illustrates how a fashion can morph or be rebranded to maintain relevance [78]. As interest in pure automation plateaued, adding a “human-centric” and “sustainability” dimension provided a fresh angle. It is essentially a refashioning of the I4.0 narrative to align with contemporary concerns (e.g., worker wellbeing, environmental impact, post-pandemic resilience). This reframing was timely: by 2020, issues such as job loss due to automation, climate urgency, and supply chain fragility (exposed by COVID-19 disruptions) were of prime significance [94,95]. I5.0 thus resonated as an idea that the “next industrial revolution” will tackle exactly those issues. In management discourse, this broadened narrative helped sustain the momentum of industry transformation conversations. Rather than letting the concept of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” gradually lose steam, thought leaders could now discuss a “Fifth Industrial Revolution”, sustaining a sense of progress. Notably, the number “5.0” also helped signal novelty—as noted in earlier work, the very choice of a version number for I4.0 implies that the last word has not been said, and, in a sense, it invited the move to 5.0 [3].

We are now seeing attempts to institutionalize the principles of I5.0; for example, companies implementing human-centric design in factories or governments funding projects that exemplify sustainable manufacturing under the I5.0 banner. Whether I5.0 will gain widespread adoption in industry practice or remain primarily a policy and academic construct is still unfolding [16,41]. The initial indications, particularly in Europe, suggest it may gain traction; however, its global adoption is uneven. The underlying theme of human–machine collaboration, however, is likely to persist in management thinking, either under the name I5.0 or simply as best practices for augmenting, rather than replacing, human labor.

4.3. Industry 6.0: Emergence of a New Vision and the Continuation of the Trend

I6.0’s emergence in discourse exemplifies the ongoing cycle of introducing new fashions to keep the narrative of industrial innovation moving forward. As of the mid-2020s, I6.0 is primarily a visionary or speculative concept advanced by futurist thinkers, select academics, and forward-looking industry analysts [7,8,42,52,53,54,56]. We can pinpoint the concept’s entry into discourse around 2021–2022. One of the first academic discussions, for instance, presented I6.0 as a “futuristic idea”, expanding on I5.0 and exploring its sustainability implications [42]. By 2023, a few consulting and industry research pieces (e.g., UBS Global Research) began referring to I6.0 as the “next phase” on the horizon [64].

The drivers behind proposing an I6.0 are both technological and rhetorical. On the technological side, rapid advancements in fields such as quantum computing, artificial general intelligence, and space/aerospace technologies (e.g., discussions of “interplanetary manufacturing” in futuristic visions) inspire the idea that another revolution may be possible. On the rhetorical side, as I4.0 and 5.0 become familiar concepts, thought leaders naturally ask “what comes next?”—a classic hallmark of the fashion cycle, seeking the next new idea as the previous one matures.

The COVID-19 pandemic also played a role as a contextual trigger, underscoring the need for more resilient and adaptable industrial systems. This prompted thinkers to leapfrog in their imagination to a future where factories might self-reconfigure in response to disruptions or where supply chains are highly decentralized and robust.

In terms of adoption, I6.0 is currently in an emergent discourse phase rather than a phase of adoption in practice. It is in its infancy, with minimal publications: just 43 in 2024 (Table 2). The concept remains largely exploratory, lacking a cohesive theoretical framework or widespread adoption.

It is discussed in a relatively small but growing number of outlets, including academic studies that outline conceptual frameworks, technical forums that speculate on future manufacturing, and thought leadership blogs. For example, a 2023 industry article describes how “just as many enterprises feel they have begun adapting to I5.0, the latest upgrade is already on the horizon”, highlighting I6.0 as an imminent evolution toward autonomous intelligent systems [64]. This suggests that the concept is being employed to foster a forward-looking mindset among industry stakeholders, even though its concrete implementation remains distant. At this stage, the supply-side actors driving I6.0 are primarily futurists, research analysts, and select tech companies seeking to position themselves as pioneers of the next revolution. The demand-side (managers, firms) is not yet actively “pulling” for I6.0; indeed, many firms are still grappling with 4.0 and beginning 5.0. This mismatch between concept and immediate demand is not unusual in the early stages of fashion; often, the idea is seeded in discourse in anticipation that demand will develop.

Using the management fashion lens, we can see I6.0 as an attempt to extend the fashion cycle by projecting a bold new vision [78]. The concept serves a narrative function: it suggests that the industrial innovation train is not slowing down. This can energize stakeholders (investors, R&D planners, etc.) with a sense of future opportunity. However, it also raises skepticism and highlights the challenge of “fashion fatigue” [76]. Because the gaps between these iterations are growing shorter (I5.0 followed on 4.0’s heels within a decade, and 6.0 emerged in the early 2020s even before 5.0 had been widely realized), some managers may question whether these are substantive shifts or just rebranding. Indeed, a critical view might label I6.0 as mostly hype at this stage: a collection of buzzwords (quantum! autonomous! metaverse! etc.) strung together under a new label. The concept is extremely broad, which is typical in the early hyping of management fashions [76,96]: it promises everything from “total machine independence” to “interplanetary resource gathering” [97]. While inspiring, these are such far-out and far-fetched visions that they risk being dismissed. To gain credibility, proponents of I6.0 will need to demonstrate tangible intermediate steps or pilot examples (as with I4.0 testbeds). These visions, while provocative, illustrate how early-stage management fashions often draw on techno-utopian rhetoric to gain visibility, sometimes at the cost of conceptual coherence.

It is too early to judge the fate of I6.0 as a management concept. It could follow two broad paths: either it gradually gains definition and momentum (much as I4.0 did) as technologies mature—in which case, over the next decade, we would see more companies and institutions referencing “I6.0” in strategy documents—or it might remain a niche futurism term that is superseded by a different concept (I7.0!) before it ever fully materializes. One interesting observation is the institutional backing (or lack thereof): I4.0 had strong government backing [15]. I5.0 has EU backing, e.g., [36], but I6.0 has not been officially championed by a major government or international body so far. It is still early, and this may change; for example, a government could launch an “Industry 2030” initiative that essentially corresponds to 6.0 ideas under another name. For now, I6.0 primarily exists in the realm of forward-thinking discussions. Yet, its presence in discourse performs the valuable role (from the perspective of the fashion-setting community) of keeping industrial innovation a headline topic [10]. It reminds stakeholders that even more transformative changes—AI with virtually no human in the loop, the quantum-driven optimization of entire supply webs, carbon-neutral autonomous factories—could be on the horizon. In summary, I6.0’s emergence illustrates the continuous evolution of management fashions: it builds on the narrative foundation of 4.0 and 5.0 but pushes it to new extremes, driven by both the genuine trajectory of technology and the rhetorical need to sustain excitement about revolutionary change.

5. Discussion

5.1. Framing and Reframing

The evolution of the IX.0 paradigms reflects not only technological advancements but also the strategic discursive work of a fashion-setting community comprising academics, policymakers, consultants, and media actors [68]. As shown in the preceding sections, I4.0 and 5.0 gained traction through active framing as revolutionary shifts—not solely based on their technical merits but also on their alignment with broader societal concerns [16,41].

The transition from I4.0’s emphasis on digital integration to I5.0’s human- and sustainability-oriented vision suggests a deeper pattern: management paradigms evolve through both technical iteration and cultural reframing. This supports the theoretical view that management fashions respond not only to market or technological pressures but also to shifting institutional logics—such as growing emphasis on resilience, stakeholder value, and social responsibility.

5.2. Versioning and Branding

The sequential numbering of I4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 also serves a powerful branding function. As Madsen and Slåtten [16] argue, versioning evokes progress, continuity, and modernity—borrowing rhetorical logic from software development [98]. Yet this format also creates expectations of future updates, encouraging the continual rebranding of industrial innovation. Madsen [3] noted that calling something “4.0” implicitly leaves the door open for a 5.0, 6.0, and beyond. Conceptually, the use of numerical suffixes (e.g., 4.0, 5.0, 6.0) invokes the logic of software versioning, conveying an implicit promise of progressive enhancement over previous models.

For fashion-setting actors, this creates both opportunity and risk. While newer versions can rejuvenate interest in industrial discourse, they may also dilute earlier concepts or lead to version fatigue. Interestingly, the origins of I4.0 in a German government-industry context, rather than in consulting circles, may explain its less cautious use of versioning. Consulting firms, aware of the pitfalls of becoming dated, have responded by adopting more flexible branding. As Alter [99] observes, Accenture’s “Industry X.0” offers a more evergreen label, avoiding obsolescence even as newer paradigms emerge [79,100,101].

5.3. Neologisms and Semantic Diffusion

A notable phenomenon accompanying the emergence of I6.0 is the rapid proliferation of neologisms that attach the suffix “6.0” to various sectors and functional domains. Terms such as Smart Factory 6.0, Marketing 6.0, Hospital 6.0, and Agriculture 6.0 have already appeared in scholarly and practitioner discourse [102,103,104,105]. This semantic trend mirrors earlier waves of neologism formation seen during the rise of I4.0 and 5.0, where terms like Work 4.0, Education 4.0, and Innovation 5.0 gained traction as discursive tools to signal technological modernization and future-readiness [3,16,24]. This linguistic pattern serves both rhetorical and strategic functions.

Pragmatically, these neologisms function as boundary-spanning devices, allowing for the extension of core IX.0 narratives into new professional and societal domains. They also act as attention-grabbing labels that signal alignment with emerging policy priorities, digital transformation efforts, or consulting frameworks.

However, the proliferation of such neologisms can lead to conceptual dilution and increased ambiguity. As observed in earlier research on I4.0, the “meme-like” nature of these labels often results in vague and inconsistent usage across contexts, creating fertile ground for rhetorical inflation and discursive overreach [3,22,23]. In this sense, the evolution of I6.0-related neologisms may exemplify the dynamics of management fashion, wherein symbolic labeling precedes substantive operationalization [76,106].

5.4. Trajectory and Institutionalization

The differing trajectories of I4.0 and 5.0 offer insight into how management fashions mature—or fail to. I4.0 evolved from hype to partial institutionalization: its core principles, such as cyber-physical systems and IoT-driven manufacturing, are increasingly embedded in organizational strategy and national policy frameworks [75,107]. In contrast, I5.0 remains in an earlier phase of the lifecycle. I5.0’s still-evolving diffusion suggests that institutional backing (such as that from the European Commission) significantly influences the trajectory of new management fashions, potentially shaping their adoption and institutionalization on a broader scale [16,41]. Although discursively supported—particularly by the European Commission—it has yet to achieve widespread implementation or conceptual consolidation. For example, recent reviews suggest that the implementation of I5.0 is still in its early stages [108,109].

These observations reinforce a central tenet of management fashion theory: institutional backing by powerful actors can accelerate diffusion, but institutionalization requires alignment with organizational routines and field-level norms [75]. Moreover, the gap between discursive popularity and practical uptake—especially in the case of I5.0—highlights the importance of distinguishing between rhetorical adoption and enacted change [74,76].

5.5. Projecting the Evolution of Management Fashions

The evolutionary trajectories of I4.0 and 5.0 suggest several theoretical implications for the emergence and framing of future paradigms such as I6.0 and beyond. As earlier sections have shown, these concepts are shaped not only by technological developments but also by discursive processes, actor networks, and societal shifts [16,68]. One implication is that future paradigms will likely need to engage with multiple institutional logics—technological, economic, and sociocultural—if they are to achieve legitimacy and widespread uptake [41,74].

Moreover, the sequential branding of Industry “X.0” generates a rhetorical expectation of continual renewal [3,98]. This dynamic aligns with insights from management fashion theory, which emphasize the role of versioning and labeling in sustaining attention cycles and legitimizing new concepts [67,69]. As one paradigm matures, successor concepts are discursively positioned as responses to perceived limitations, even when practical differentiation is modest.

Finally, the case of I5.0 highlights that institutional endorsement by powerful actors, such as the European Commission, can accelerate a concept’s diffusion but does not guarantee its institutionalization [16]. Future paradigms, such as I6.0, may similarly depend not only on rhetorical salience but also on the degree to which they are embedded in organizational routines, policy frameworks, and educational infrastructures. Yet, as of today, I6.0 remains characterized by an ambiguous set of both technical and rhetorical elements [110] (p. 372), drawing primarily on the visions and vocabularies of I4.0 and I5.0.

6. Theoretical, Policy, and Managerial Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implications

Exploring I4.0, I5.0, and the emerging I6.0 through the lens of management fashion theory provides several theoretical insights into the lifecycle and adoption dynamics of industrial paradigms. It reinforces the value of management fashion theory as a robust framework for understanding how technological and organizational concepts diffuse within management discourse [9,67]. The iterative and numbered branding of industrial paradigms (4.0, 5.0, and 6.0) demonstrates how management fashions evolve by integrating both technological advancements and socio-cultural narratives. The explicit numbering of IX.0 paradigms has become an effective rhetorical tool for framing incremental yet significant shifts in management thought [3,16], thereby sustaining ongoing interest and discussion within academic and practitioner communities.

The emergent discourse surrounding I6.0 presents a unique opportunity to examine speculative or future-oriented management concepts within management fashion theory. This speculative nature challenges current theoretical understandings about the immediate practical applicability of management fashions, emphasizing instead their role in sustaining visionary discourse. Similar observations were made about I4.0 earlier in its lifecycle, with Pfeiffer [22] (p. 108) noting that even those who came up with the term I4.0 are “astonishingly vague about the technical details” and instead focus on painting a “big, visionary picture” that is relatively light on specifics. I6.0 thus extends the boundaries of management fashion theory by demonstrating that management fashions not only address existing organizational issues but also proactively frame (almost science-fiction-like) future challenges and opportunities.

Overall, this analysis enriches management fashion theory by illustrating its applicability across a spectrum of paradigms, ranging from well-established concepts to speculative future scenarios; it offers a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics underlying the adoption, diffusion, and institutionalization of management fashions [9,67].

6.2. Managerial Implications

The rolling evolution from I4.0 through 5.0 and now 6.0 carries several implications for business leaders and policymakers. First, managers should approach these fashionable concepts strategically but critically. Each iteration—4.0, 5.0, 6.0—encapsulates real emerging capabilities that can potentially drive improvements in productivity, flexibility, and sustainability. For example, the I4.0 toolbox (IoT, analytics, automation) has shown proven benefits in reducing downtime and enabling data-driven decisions, while I5.0’s emphasis on human–machine collaboration can improve workforce engagement and innovation. Managers can leverage these insights by investing in relevant technologies and training their workforce to work alongside advanced systems. At the same time, managers must be careful not to adopt concepts as empty labels or marketing slogans. The hype surrounding terms such as I4.0 has led some firms to launch poorly planned “digital transformation” projects simply to signal innovativeness. Typically, a more effective approach involves focusing on the underlying business needs (e.g., improving supply chain resiliency or customizing customer solutions) and then determining how new technologies or principles (whether under 4.0, 5.0, or 6.0) can meet those needs. In other words, managers should avoid chasing the fad for its own sake. Instead, the concepts should be used as frameworks to generate ideas and benchmark against peers, while applying rigorous cost–benefit analysis and pilot testing for any new initiative.

One managerial implication specific to I5.0 and 6.0 is the renewed importance of the human element. I5.0 reminds us that humans remain central to manufacturing innovation—creativity, intuition, and problem-solving are strengths to amplify, not replace. Thus, managers should invest in worker upskilling and create environments that enable employees to effectively collaborate with AI and robots. This may involve rethinking job design, adopting enterprise architectures that integrate human input in automated workflows, and fostering a culture of continuous learning. If I6.0’s vision of brain–computer interfacing and human intelligence integration comes to fruition, organizations will need to handle even more complex human–technology interactions, including the ethical considerations of this integration. Forward-looking companies may start laying the groundwork by monitoring relevant R&D, such as advancements in AI autonomy or quantum computing optimization, as well as participating in consortia or standard-setting efforts for emerging technologies.

Managers and policymakers should remain informed, ready to leverage genuine innovations that these concepts herald but also grounded enough to see through buzzwords. Ultimately, whether it is labeled I6.0 or otherwise, the drive toward smarter, more sustainable, and human-compatible industrial systems is a real and pressing endeavor. By studying the rise and fall of management fashions, we gain insight into how to better navigate these ideas: adopt what is useful, adapt to local context, and discard the empty hype. By doing so, we can ensure that each new industrial paradigm, whether in name or in practice, truly advances the goals of both business and society.

6.3. Policy Implications

For policymakers, the rise of these industrial paradigms poses both opportunities and responsibilities. On the opportunity side, concepts such as I5.0 align with policy goals around sustainable development and inclusive growth [111,112]. Governments can harness the momentum of these concepts to drive funding into critical areas, such as research and innovation that make manufacturing greener or improve human-machine interfaces for workers. Policymakers in the EU have already integrated I5.0 into their industrial strategy to help lead the digital and green transitions in tandem. On the responsibility side, policymakers must anticipate and mitigate potential negative externalities of rapid industrial change. As the I6.0 discussions highlight, increasing automation and autonomy could lead to significant workforce displacement and inequality if not managed.

Moreover, there may be new safety, security, and environmental risks alongside technologies such as ubiquitous AI or autonomous networks. Regulatory frameworks and education policies need to evolve in step. Governments should consider updating labor policies and social safety nets to support workers retraining from automated jobs to new roles, effectively ensuring the “human-centric” ethos of I5.0 carries into the I6.0 era. They should also promote standards for data governance, cybersecurity, and interoperability so that the integrated systems envisioned in I6.0 can be implemented safely and reliably. Collaboration between the public and private sectors will be key; for instance, developing ethical AI guidelines for autonomous factories or investing in digital infrastructure that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can utilize, thereby preventing a digital divide. Lastly, policymakers can play a convening role—bringing together academia, industry, and civil society to discuss the direction of technological change, as occurred in Germany for the inception of I4.0. This can help to ensure that the next industrial paradigm, whatever it is eventually called, aligns with societal values and broad economic benefit. In summary, proactive and inclusive policy measures are needed to translate the promises of I4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 into tangible, equitable outcomes [64].

6.4. Ethical Implications

The speculative horizon of I6.0 brings with it not only technological promise but also a range of unresolved ethical tensions. As visions of cognitive integration, anticipatory AI, and human–machine symbiosis take hold, we enter territory where conventional notions of autonomy, accountability, and personhood begin to blur. These imaginaries raise pressing concerns around data sovereignty, surveillance asymmetries, and the offloading of agency to opaque algorithmic systems. While I5.0 introduced a more human-centric corrective to the automation-heavy ethos of I4.0, I6.0 risks swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction—toward a post-humanist techno-futurism that may outpace social, legal, and democratic oversight.

From a management fashion theory perspective, this discursive leap reflects a familiar pattern: as the lifecycle of one fashionable concept matures, new entrants must escalate in ambition and abstraction to capture attention. Visionary rhetoric becomes a key resource for legitimacy, particularly in competitive idea markets where novelty and foresight signal authority. Yet, such rhetorical inflation can obscure critical ethical blind spots, especially when dominant narratives are produced in Eurocentric policy environments with limited inclusion of voices from the Global South. If I6.0 is to move beyond speculative glamour and toward responsible relevance, its proponents must confront the ethical and geopolitical costs of premature institutionalization. Ethical fashion, in this sense, must be more than a buzzword: it must be part of the design brief.

7. Conclusions

7.1. Contributions

The evolution from I4.0 to I6.0 exemplifies how industrial paradigms are not static but are continuously reimagined and reframed in management discourse [16,41]. Each concept builds on prior technologies and lessons: I4.0 harnessed digital integration, I5.0 re-centered attention on humans and sustainability, and I6.0 projects a future of pervasive intelligence and autonomy.

Using management fashion theory to analyze this evolution highlights that these concepts are not only driven by technological imperatives but also by the social process of idea propagation [9,67]. The branding of “Industry X.0” has proven powerful in galvanizing attention, creating a shared language for innovation and spurring organizations to action. At the same time, the fashionable nature of these concepts means that expectations can be inflated, and realities on the ground might lag behind the visionary rhetoric, which could potentially lead to disillusionment [76]. There is a cyclical dynamic where enthusiasm must be balanced with critical evaluation.

More broadly, the analysis reveals how industrial paradigms are not only technological frameworks but also rhetorical devices, mobilized by various actor coalitions to shape the future industrial imagination. This underscores the usefulness of management fashion theory not only as a descriptive tool but as a critical lens on the politics of innovation discourse.

Ultimately, the evolution from I4.0 to I6.0 illustrates how industrial paradigms are shaped not only by technological shifts but also by rhetorical framing and the strategic actions of a fashion-setting community. The numbered “X.0” labels act as both organizing metaphors and future-oriented scripts that structure managerial discourse and innovation narratives. Management fashion theory thus offers a valuable lens for unpacking how these concepts rise, spread, and potentially institutionalize, regardless of whether their practical implementation keeps pace with their discursive prominence. Whether I6.0 will catalyze substantial transformation or remain a speculative extension of the fashion cycle remains uncertain. As such, ongoing empirical research will be essential to discern which elements of these paradigms endure and which fade as managerial fashions evolve.

7.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study, like the concepts it investigates, is not without its own limitations; in acknowledging them, we also identify promising directions for future inquiry. First, our analysis is rooted in secondary sources and discursive interpretation. While this approach is well-suited to tracing the rhetorical evolution of I4.0 through 6.0 and situating these within management fashion cycles, it does not tell us how these visions are actually lived, contested, or operationalized inside organizations. Future research would benefit from ethnographic fieldwork, interviews, or case studies that explore how actors on the ground make sense of, selectively adopt, or even resist the IX.0 narrative arc. Not all firms embrace the future on cue, and studying such frictions could yield valuable insight.

Second, the geographic scope of this analysis reflects the loudest voices in the discourse—primarily, European institutions, East Asian policymakers, and multinational consultancies. This introduces a degree of Eurocentric bias, particularly in the treatment of I5.0 and 6.0. The global industrial imagination is far more plural than current frameworks suggest. Future studies should examine how these visions travel—or fail to travel—across institutional and cultural boundaries [113,114]. How do managers in Lagos, São Paulo, or Jakarta engage with ideas such as human-centric automation or anticipatory AI? Are they translated, hybridized, or simply ignored? A more inclusive empirical lens is urgently needed.

Third, while management fashion theory provides a compelling scaffold for understanding the rise, legitimation, and potential decline of these concepts, additional theoretical lenses could enrich this analysis. Institutional logics, framing theory, and the sociology of technological imaginaries offer complementary insights into how visionary discourses become durable or faddish [115,116,117]. For instance, I6.0 might be read not only as the next step in a fashion cycle, but as a form of strategic mythmaking: a way for certain actors to preemptively define what counts as “the future” and who gets to shape it.

Fourth, future research could also explore how management fashion theory intersects with adaptive systems thinking, particularly in understanding how organizations selectively adopt and integrate new industrial paradigms [118,119,120]. Examining the feedback loops between fashionable discourse and technological implementation may offer deeper insight into how firms navigate uncertainty while maintaining legitimacy. In this regard, frameworks such as the Agent Oriented Smart Factory (AOSF) or the AOSR warehousing strategy under I4.0 provide useful starting points [121,122,123,124]. These models illustrate how organizations respond structurally and operationally to emerging industrial logics. Future studies could examine when, how, and why such adaptive configurations align with, or diverge from, the trajectories set by dominant management fashions.

Finally, the lifecycle of these paradigms remains an open empirical question. Will I5.0 and 6.0 follow the fate of many past fads and fashions—briefly illuminating the managerial sky before fading into obscurity? Or will they entrench themselves as institutional pillars of twenty-first century industrial policy and organizational design? Future research could deploy bibliometric tracking, citation analysis, or digital ethnography to monitor how these concepts diffuse, mutate, or lose their luster over time [125,126,127]. Such work would not only illuminate the fate of I6.0 but also help us better understand how managerial futures are constructed, circulated, and ultimately replaced.