Prioritizing Human-Centric and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) Criteria in Industry 4.0 and 5.0 Technologies Using an Integrated AHP-TOPSIS-VIKOR Framework

Authors

https://doi.org/10.48314/ramd.v2i1.57

Abstract

The fast growth of digital technologies in Industry 4.0 brought monumental developments in automation systems and efficiency rates. However, the recent shift to Industry 5.0 has brough its own demands, this time the integration of human-centered, sustainable, and resilient approach into the manufacturing environment. This research establishes a strong Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) framework to meet this imperative knowledge gap in sustainable evaluation of innovative manufacturing and digital technologies. A thorough comparison of ten criteria of sustainability to environmental, economic as well as social indicators was conducted via Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in order to determine their weighted importance. The process of evaluation included the application of Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and VIKOR method to a seven-emerging technology decision-making matrix. Tech C maintained the highest degree of sustainability among any of the alternatives with the TOPSIS value of 0.8106 and recorded a zero VIKOR value. The identical rankings being reached by both TOPSIS and VIKOR methods confirm the credibility of the model. The research provides a technical assessment method which allows stakeholders to select technologies based on Industry 5.0 philosophies through a framework that can be used for pragmatic and repetitive application.  

Keywords:

Human-Centric, Social life cycle assessment, Industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies, AHP-TOPSIS-VIKOR framework

References

  1. [1] Sorooshian, S., Khiavi, S., Karimi, F., & Mina, H. (2024). Link between sustainable circular supply chain and Internet of Things technology in electric vehicle battery manufacturing industry: A business strategy optimization for pickup and delivery. Business strategy and the environment, 33, 8211–8232. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3905
  2. [2] Ansrose, R., & Anand, I. (2025). Resilience and human-centric perspectives for organizations in Industry 5.0. In Human-centric, sustainable, and resilient organizations in the digital age (pp. 75–100). http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-8181-6.ch004
  3. [3] Guandalini, I. (2022). Sustainability through digital transformation: A systematic literature review for research guidance. Journal of business research, 148, 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.003
  4. [4] Ågerfalk, P. (2013). Embracing diversity through mixed methods research. European journal of information systems, 22, 251–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.6
  5. [5] Ketsman, O., Droog, A., & Qazi, S. (2025). Mapping the prevalence of mixed methods research in educational technology journals. Computers & education, 226, 105207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105207
  6. [6] Čajka, A., & Novotný, J. (2022). Let us expand this Western project by admitting diversity and enhancing rigor: A systematic review of empirical research on alternative economies. Ecological economics, 196, 107416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107416
  7. [7] Alves, J., Lima, T. M., & Gaspar, P. D. (2023). Is Industry 5.0 a human-centred approach? A systematic review. Processes, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010193
  8. [8] Sun, X., & Song, Y. (2025). Unlocking the synergy: Increasing productivity through Human-AI collaboration in the Industry 5.0 Era. Computers & industrial engineering, 200, 110657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110657
  9. [9] David, D., Aikhuele, D., Ughehe, P., & Tamuno, E. (2022). Multi-echelon, multi-period supply chain master planning in the food process industry: A sustainability concept. Process integration and optimization for sustainability, 6. 497–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00229-3
  10. [10] Nwachukwu, E., Ighravwe, D., Ajayi, S., Amole, A., Etangetuk, E., Aikhuele, D., & Ogundijo, M. (2024). Analysis of supply chain management internal process criteria for fast moving consumer goods.
  11. [11] Blunck, H., Bouvin, N. O., Mose Entwistle, J., Gronbaek, K., Kjaergaard, M. B., Nielsen, M., … & Wüstenberg, M. (2013). Computational environmental ethnography: Combining collective sensing and ethnographic inquiries to advance means for reducing environmental footprints. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on future energy systems (pp. 87–98). NewYork, USA: Association for computing machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2487166.2487176
  12. [12] Aikhuele, D., Ighravwe, D., & Akinyele, D. (2019). Evaluation of renewable energy technology based on reliability attributes using hybrid fuzzy dynamic decision-making model. Technology and economics of smart grids and sustainable energy, 4(16). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40866-019-0072-2

Downloads

Published

2025-03-18

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): Risk Assessment and Management Decisions (RAMD)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Aikhuele, D. O. . (2025). Prioritizing Human-Centric and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) Criteria in Industry 4.0 and 5.0 Technologies Using an Integrated AHP-TOPSIS-VIKOR Framework. Risk Assessment and Management Decisions, 2(1), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.48314/ramd.v2i1.57

Similar Articles

1-10 of 19

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.