To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The rise of Generative AI has accelerated the shift toward Industry 5.0, marking a critical transition from the technology-centric focus of Industry 4.0 to a human-centric, value-driven paradigm. While its predecessor prioritized automation and technology, Industry 5.0 integrates advanced human–machine collaboration with social imperatives to create resilience. This study advances current literature by presenting a novel systems-based framework, grounded in systems theory and legitimacy theory, which conceptualizes Industry 5.0 as an interconnected ecosystem rather than isolated pillars. We identify technological adaptation, specifically AI integration, and human-centricity as critical inputs that drive economic, environmental, and social sustainability as systemic outputs. By mapping these interdependencies, the model demonstrates how cohesive components collectively fuel organizational transformation. These findings offer actionable insights for aligning corporate strategies with Sustainable Development Goals, providing policymakers and practitioners with future-oriented pathways to navigate this complex, emerging industrial environment.
We argue that it is both timely and critical to make a clearer distinction between destructive/toxic and incompetent leadership to advance research and better mitigate the problems with leadership quality. To achieve this, we first review and integrate the fragmented literature on the subject and specify what competent and effective leadership is. We then propose an operational definition of toxic leadership that is useful for practitioners to make a better distinction between toxic and incompetent leadership. We finally provide recommendations to avoid and deal with toxic leadership in organizations and discuss research directions.