Supply chain X.0 marks turning point in industry sustainability and digital resilience

A major bibliometric analysis has mapped the evolution of supply chain management from its earliest manual stages to the intelligent, human–robot collaborative systems of today.

The study, titled “The Impact of Implementing Supply Chain X.0: A Bibliometric Literature Review Using PRISMA Protocol,” was published in Engineering Proceedings (2025) and offers the first unified synthesis of how six successive stages of Supply Chain X.0, spanning from 0.0 to 5.0, have transformed efficiency, sustainability, and technological innovation across industries worldwide.

Tracing the technological evolution of supply chains

Supply Chain X.0 is a comprehensive term for the transformation of supply chains through mechanization, automation, digitalization, and artificial intelligence. Each phase represents a step toward more efficient, transparent, and resilient systems capable of adapting to real-time changes and global disruptions.

The authors analyzed 83 peer-reviewed papers published between 1998 and 2025, following the PRISMA protocol for systematic reviews. Using bibliometric tools such as VOSviewer, they examined keyword networks and research patterns, identifying key themes like artificial intelligence, blockchain, sustainability, and human–machine collaboration. The analysis demonstrates that while earlier supply chains were focused purely on cost and speed, later versions have integrated smart technologies that emphasize predictive analytics, automation, and circular economy principles.

Their findings reveal a measurable trajectory of improvement:

• Supply Chain 1.0, defined by mechanization, improved productivity by 12–18%.
• Supply Chain 2.0, with automation systems, boosted speed by 18–22%.
• Supply Chain 3.0, marked by IT integration through ERP software, reduced costs by up to 20%.
• Supply Chain 4.0, driven by IoT and AI, decreased lead times by 20–28% and reduced emissions by 12–18%.
• Supply Chain 5.0, which integrates human–robot collaboration, enhanced resilience by 25–35% and reduced waste by 15% through circular practices.

These metrics show how the global shift toward Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 technologies has permanently reshaped logistics, manufacturing, and distribution. The review underscores that supply chains are no longer linear or reactive systems but dynamic, data-driven ecosystems capable of self-adjustment and predictive response.

Balancing performance gains with sustainability and human adaptation

The analysis finds that while earlier generations (0.0–3.0) prioritized speed and cost reduction, environmental and social responsibility began to emerge as defining priorities from stage 4.0 onward.

Supply Chain 4.0 introduced digital integration through the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence, allowing companies to optimize routes, minimize energy use, and reduce waste. Supply Chain 5.0 expanded this progress by emphasizing human–robot collaboration, positioning workers as partners in smart factories rather than replacements. This integration aligns with the European Industry 5.0 framework, which promotes human-centric and sustainable innovation.

The review reveals that the sustainability impact of digitalized supply chains is quantifiable: emissions fell by nearly one-fifth during the transition to 4.0, and resilience improved by more than a quarter under 5.0. However, these gains came with challenges. High implementation costs, the need for workforce reskilling, and data security vulnerabilities remain persistent obstacles.

Moreover, the study found that the human element of digital transformation remains underexplored. Keywords like “worker satisfaction” and “decision-making” appear on the periphery of the literature, suggesting that while technology dominates the discourse, the human adaptation to automation is still insufficiently addressed. The researchers argue that the next phase of industrial innovation must integrate socio-technical design principles to ensure equitable participation in the digital economy.

Research gaps, geographic imbalances and future directions

The bibliometric review not only traces historical development but also identifies significant research gaps in current supply chain scholarship. The early stages (0.0–2.0) lack empirical studies, leaving foundational performance data largely unverified. Similarly, Supply Chain 5.0, despite being the most advanced stage, remains supported primarily by pilot studies rather than longitudinal assessments.

Another major limitation is the geographic concentration of research. Most of the existing studies are based in developed economies in Europe, North America, and East Asia. Developing regions, particularly Africa and Southeast Asia, are underrepresented despite being critical nodes in global logistics networks. This imbalance limits the generalizability of findings and prevents a full understanding of how Supply Chain X.0 can be adapted to different infrastructural and economic contexts.

The authors also focus on the lack of standardized sustainability metrics. While environmental goals have become central to Industry 4.0 and 5.0, inconsistent carbon accounting and eco-efficiency measurement frameworks make it difficult to compare results across regions or industries. Without universal metrics, it remains challenging to evaluate the true environmental impact of digital transformation.

The authors propose six directions for future research:

• Longitudinal studies to validate the resilience of 5.0 systems across multiple years.
• Standardized eco-metrics to measure environmental performance consistently.
• Inclusion of developing economies in global supply chain research.
• Advanced technology integration, exploring AI, blockchain, and robotics in real-time logistics.
• Cost–benefit analyses to guide investment decisions for small and medium enterprises.
• Human-centered design research to address the social dimensions of automation and collaboration.

These recommendations reflect a growing recognition that technological progress alone cannot guarantee sustainability or resilience—it must be balanced with inclusive design and equitable access to innovation.