Introduction

Innovation processes in the economy have always been at the very centre of interest in economics and management sciences. There are numerous publications in academic literature that address interorganisational collaboration and innovation, including corporate innovation (see, e.g., Pietruszka-Ortyl 2019; Aluchna et al. 2013; Bratnicka, 2014; Wallis, 2016). This is likely due to the fact that innovation and various dimensions of cooperation between organisations are viewed as determinants of corporate efficiency and as a driving force behind the economic and social growth of specific territorial areas. In recent years, the global economy has been implementing a concept known as Industry 4.0, which aims to revolutionise the way industry operates technologically through digitisation. In many countries, Industry 4.0 is viewed as a phenomenon that will significantly alter the economic landscape at the local, regional, and global levels. However, before this concept became firmly established in literature, many authors (see, e.g., Moczydłowska 2023; Walicka, Czemiel-Grzybowska 2023; Rządkowski, Sidor-Rządkowska 2024; Januszewska, Fetela 2024) began to formulate the principles of the Industry 5.0 concept, an evolution of Industry 4.0 that emphasises the design of innovative solutions and crisis-resilient, human-centred sustainable development. The question therefore arises as to whether the academic discussion regarding the Industry 4.0 concept in the context of economic development and technological change is still relevant, particularly as the Industry 5.0 concept is currently being developed. In peripheral areas, characterised by a lower level of socio-economic development, it remains relevant. In this context, peripherality is understood as a state of lag relative to more developed regions (for further details, see Idczak 2013; Demianiuk, Szymańska 2016; Wilkin 2003; Feser, Malizia 1999). This view is supported by the statement of American writer William F. Gibson: “The future is already here – it’s just not evenly distributed ” (Gibson 2003), which highlights inequalities in access to progress across different societies and territorial areas.

Literature Review

Groundbreaking technological changes have always altered the manner and structure of production processes. In literature, these changes are referred to as industrial revolutions (for more details, see, e.g., Chalvantharan, 2023; Eason et al., 1955; Moloi, Marwala, 2020). The First Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century and was linked to the invention of the steam engine (Lu 2017, pp. 1-10). This process significantly transformed the economy, which had been based on agriculture and artisanal production, replacing them with mechanised production utilising water and steam power. The Second Industrial Revolution emerged at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and was linked to the development of electricity, which enabled mass production and increased the manufacturing efficiency of enterprises. This period also saw the development of numerous management processes that increased productivity, including through the division of labour, in which each worker performs a specific part of the overall work (Ślusarczyk 2019, pp. 5-6). The First and Second Industrial Revolutions led to increased prosperity among workers and urbanisation. The Third Industrial Revolution emerged in the late 1960s and was linked to advances in the development of computers and electronics. These changes enabled even greater automation and optimisation of production processes than in the second phase, known as programmable logic control systems, leading to increased efficiency and improved quality (Müller et al. 2018, pp. 2-17). The next stage of change was the digital revolution known as Industry 4.0, which was formulated in Germany as early as in 2011 and was an attempt by the German government to address the negative effects of the economic crisis. The term Industry 4.0 (German: Industrie 4.0) first appeared in an article published in November 2011 by the German government, stemming from an initiative regarding the high-tech strategy for 2020 (Ślusarczyk, 2019, p. 4). Currently, the term Industry 4.0, referring to the fourth wave of the industrial revolution, has come to denote the digital transformation of the manufacturing process. Many definitions of the Industry 4.0 concept appear in scientific literature; one of them, by H. Lasi, indicates that “Industry 4.0 describes the growing digitisation and automation of the production environment, as well as the creation of digital value chains to enable communication between products, the environment, and business partners” (Lasi et al., 2014, pp. 239-242). Thus, this paradigm of industrial change encompasses digital manufacturing, networked communication, computer technologies, and automation, as well as many other areas of business activity (see also, e.g., Kiełtyka, Charciarek 2019).

The Industry 4.0 concept is based on the premise of implementing digital technologies and automating manufacturing processes. The technologies used within the Industry 4.0 concept include, among others: the Internet of Things (IoT); Big Data; Artificial Intelligence; Robotic Process Automation; Cloud computing; Virtual Reality; Additive Manufacturing (for more details, see Kaczmar-Kolny, Pośpiech 2023; Gajdzik, Grabowska 2018; Różanowski 2007; Szajna et al. 2018).

Objective

The objective of this article is to present the opinions of local entrepreneurs from the Brzozów, Sanok, Lesko, and Bieszczady counties located in southern Poland, which, due to their economic and social conditions, can be considered peripheral areas regarding technological changes within the “Industry 4.0” concept. The article also aims to identify, in the entrepreneurs’ view, the main determinants and barriers to the development of the Industry 4.0 concept in peripheral areas. Furthermore, the article attempts to answer the question of whether the knowledge of local entrepreneurs and their attitude toward technological changes within the Industry 4.0 concept are a path to sustainable development or a barrier to economic growth in the local area. The research was conducted between February and May 2025 as part of the Science for Society II programme, funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. The study included 133 randomly selected local entrepreneurs, and the research tool was a questionnaire containing 43 questions. The collected data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics.

Survey results

The entrepreneurs participating in the survey were mainly males 49 years of age or younger.

A significant majority of respondents had a college degree (80 respondents, i.e. 60% of the total), while 52 respondents had a high school diploma, and only one person had a vocational certificate.

The surveyed entrepreneurs are primarily individuals holding senior positions within companies; 44 of the surveyed entrepreneurs (33% of the total) stated that they hold the position of CEO or are part of the management team, while 60 of the total respondents indicated that they currently work in specialist or expert roles (45% of the total). This structure of the respondents’ education, work experience, and positions held may indirectly indicate that the surveyed entrepreneurs should be aware of the importance of the technological changes currently taking place in production processes.

The majority of survey respondents represented micro-enterprises employing fewer than 10 employees (33 respondents, i.e. 26% of the total) and small enterprises (10-49 employees; 45 respondents, i.e. 34% of the total). In 2023, these enterprises generated revenues of up to PLN 20 million (69 respondents, i.e. 52% of the total). This means that the size of the surveyed enterprises, as well as the scale of their revenues, may constitute a limitation in the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept. Technologies related to the Industry 4.0 concept were designed for large enterprises and were only later implemented in the SME sector, and their implementation costs are high.

The type of business activity in the surveyed enterprises is presented in the table below.

The surveyed companies were mainly engaged in industrial processing (34 respondents, i.e. 26% of the total)

Most local companies had no foreign capital in their structure.

Foreign capital was generally absent from the capital structure of the surveyed companies (56 responses, i.e. 42% of the total), and only 15 entrepreneurs (11% of the total) indicated that foreign capital constitutes the majority of the company’s capital structure. Furthermore, it was determined that the main revenues of the surveyed companies come from the domestic market (55 companies, i.e. 41% of the total).

During the study, it was found that more than half of the surveyed entrepreneurs (74 people, i.e. 56% of the total) indicated that they were familiar with the term Industry 4.0. Entrepreneurs also indicated which technologies within the Industry 4.0 concept they were familiar with. The most well-known technologies among respondents were additive manufacturing (225 mentions, i.e. 14% of the total; number of mentions ≠ number of respondents, multiple-choice question), Big Data and AI (217 mentions, i.e. 13% of the total; number of mentions ≠ number of respondents, multiple-choice question), and intelligent robotisation and autonomous vehicles (207 mentions, i.e. 13% of the total number of mentions ≠ number of respondents, multiple-choice question).

Entrepreneurs from the Brzozów, Sanok, Lesko, and Bieszczady counties indicated that, in their opinion, technologies related to the Industry 4.0 concept, such as smart robotics and autonomous vehicles (42 responses, i.e. 32% of the total), as well as Big Data and AI (38 responses, i.e. 29% of the total), will have the greatest impact on the competitiveness of the economy in the future.

However, in the respondents’ opinion, the least viable applications in their companies – given the conditions characteristic of peripheral areas – will be intelligent robotisation and autonomous vehicles (25 responses, i.e. 19% of the total), as well as augmented and virtual reality (24 responses, 18.0% of the total).

An important element of the study was determining which Industry 4.0 technologies are currently used in companies in the surveyed peripheral areas.

Among the surveyed entrepreneurs, the technologies currently used in their companies mainly include cybersecurity (70 mentions, 28% of the total), systems integration (42 mentions, 17% of the total), and simulation technologies (36 mentions, 14% of the total).

It should be clearly noted that half of the respondents (67 people, i.e. 50% of the total) considered the Industry 4.0 concept to be a significant issue that could have a major impact on industry, public administration, and the reality around us. As many as 38 entrepreneurs (29% of the total) considered these issues to be very important. This indicates that local entrepreneurs are well aware of how Industry 4.0 technologies will influence production processes in the future, as well as public administration more broadly.

Many authors conducting research on the Industry 4.0 concept have pointed out that high financial costs associated with implementing these solutions may act as a barrier to digitisation and technological progress.

Similar opinions were also expressed by the surveyed entrepreneurs from the Brzozów, Sanok, Lesko, and Bieszczady counties. The biggest barriers to implementing digital transformation in the surveyed companies were budget constraints (75 responses), employee resistance to change (58 responses), and employees’ fears of potential job loss (38 mentions). This means that in peripheral areas, digital transformation will not be possible without external financial support for local businesses, as well as without information campaigns targeting employees to change their attitude toward the technological development of local businesses.

A key finding of the research was that local entrepreneurs believe the main barriers to implementing various Industry 4.0 solutions in peripheral areas differ from those in central areas. As many as 74 respondents (56% of the total) shared this view, 45 entrepreneurs had no opinion on the matter, and only 14 respondents stated that there are no differences between central and peripheral areas in this regard.

In the opinion of entrepreneurs from peripheral areas, the greatest barriers to implementing the Industry 4.0 concept include limited availability of a skilled workforce – migration of young people to cities (101 mentions); low investment levels – high implementation costs (100 mentions); limited availability of a skilled workforce – a shortage of technology specialists (99 mentions); low technological awareness – lack of education and training (94 mentions); and problems with the integration of production systems – older, outdated production systems (93 mentions).

A concerning finding identified during the field research was the lack of interest among entrepreneurs in the digital transformation of their own companies.

Nearly 40% of the surveyed entrepreneurs stated that they do not plan a digital transformation of their companies, and 31 respondents (23% of the total) indicated that they are currently at the beginning of their digital transformation. Only 4 companies (3% of the total) indicated that they are currently at an advanced stage of transformation. This means that without an external system supporting the technological transformation of businesses – e.g. through financial incentives – local entrepreneurs from peripheral areas may not participate in the digital transformation and modernisation of their own companies.

In contrast, the factors that entrepreneurs from peripheral areas believe may primarily determine the adoption of the Industry 4.0 concept were: sustainable development policy (including Environmental, Social, and Governance: “Environment, Society, and Governance/Corporate Governance”) – 55 mentions; sustainable development policy (including Green Transition – 51 mentions; innovation support ecosystem (accelerator programs and innovation incubators) – 49 mentions; innovation support ecosystem (local technology clusters) – 47 mentions; cooperation with the science and research sector (local research and development centres) – 47 mentions; investments in technological infrastructure (expansion of the 5G network and telecommunications infrastructure) – 42 mentions.

During the analyses, an attempt was also made to identify statistical relationships between variables that may influence the implementation of the Industry 4.0 concept in peripheral areas of southeastern Poland.

An analysis was conducted to determine whether variables such as gender, education, and job position influence awareness of the Industry 4.0 concept. A Chi-square test analysis of variables such as gender, age, and education level among the surveyed entrepreneurs did not reveal any statistically significant correlations between respondents’ familiarity with the concept of Industry 4.0. However, in the case of the “position held” variable, it was determined that there is a statistically significant relationship between the respondent’s position and their familiarity with the concept of Industry 4.0. (χ² = 10.771; p = 0.005; Cramér’s V = 0.285). The value of Cramér’s V indicates a weak effect size. Entrepreneurs in higher-level positions were more likely to be familiar with the concept of Industry 4.0. We also examined whether familiarity with the term Industry 4.0 was influenced by the respondent’s place of origin (county) and the type of municipality (rural, urban, or urban-rural) where the company is located. It turned out that a statistically significant relationship exists between familiarity with the term Industry 4.0 and the county in which the enterprise is located (χ² = 9.005; p = 0.029; Cramér’s V = 0.26), but it is not very strong. However, no statistically significant relationship was found between familiarity with the term Industry 4.0 and the type of municipality (χ² = 5.001; p = 0.082; Cramér’s V = 0.194).

During the analyses, an attempt was also made to determine whether there are statistically significant correlations between the importance of the Industry 4.0 issue to the respondent and variables such as gender, education, position held, the entity’s location, and the type of municipality in which the company is located. Chi-square analysis for variables such as gender (χ² = 0.301; p = 0.860), education (χ² = 1.896; p = 0.387), the respondent’s position (χ² = 1.067; p = 0.90), and the type of municipality in which the company is located (χ² = 4.329; p = 0.363) indicated that there are no statistically significant relationships between these variables. However, in the case of the variable “location of the surveyed entity” (the relevant county) and the importance of Industry 4.0 to the respondent, a statistically significant relationship was found between these variables (χ² = 14.593; p = 0.024; Cramér’s V = 0.234), though this relationship was not very strong. Entrepreneurs from Sanok county indicated more frequently than other respondents that the topic of Industry 4.0 is an important issue for them.

It was significant to note that familiarity with Industry 4.0 among local entrepreneurs makes this concept particularly important to them. It turned out that there is a statistically significant relationship between these two variables (χ² = 20.670; p=0.001; Cramér’s V = 0.394), and this correlation was of moderate strength. This means that greater awareness among local entrepreneurs regarding changes associated with the Industry 4.0 concept leads them to believe that these issues are extremely important for entrepreneurs and may influence the future operations of their companies.

Final Conclusions

An analysis of available literature indicates that the Industry 4.0 concept in peripheral areas remains important and requires further scientific exploration. The local entrepreneurs participating in the study were educated individuals holding senior positions in companies that belonged mainly to the SME sector. More than half of them were familiar with the term Industry 4.0 and believed that technologies such as intelligent robot-isation and autonomous vehicles, Big Data, and AI would have the greatest impact on the economy’s competitiveness in the future, as well as a significant impact on industry, public administration, and the reality around us. The biggest barriers to digital transformation for the surveyed companies were budget constraints, employee resistance to change, and their fears of job loss. The main barriers to the development of the Industry 4.0 concept in peripheral areas include the migration of young people to cities, high implementation costs, and a lack of education and training within the local community. Conversely, the determinants of the development of the Industry 4.0 concept include the pursuit of a sustainable development policy, the presence of an innovation support ecosystem, and local technology clusters. Collaboration with the scientific sector and investments in technological infrastructure are also crucial. Research has confirmed that there is a correlation between familiarity with the term Industry 4.0 and local entrepreneurs’ awareness that the process of technological transformation is important for companies in the future. A concerning finding was that local entrepreneurs in peripheral areas are only in the initial phase of digital transformation or do not plan to undertake it at all. This means that without an external (supra-local) system supporting digital transformation – e.g. through financial incentives – local entrepreneurs in peripheral areas may not participate in the digital transformation and modernisation of their own companies or may delay this process. Furthermore, in peripheral areas, it is essential to have a local system in place to support innovation and cooperation between businesses and the scientific sector. Otherwise, the Industry 4.0 concept – which, according to the authors, rep-resents a development opportunity for small and medium-sized enterprises – will become a barrier to development in peripheral areas. Empirical research has shown that in peripheral areas, local entrepreneurs’ knowledge of Industry 4.0 can be a path to sustainable development, but their attitude toward the technological transformation of companies can be a barrier to growth.