Stop Saying ‘Industry 5.0’

Sep 11

Alright, let’s get this out of the way: I’m a fan of the concepts behind Industry 5.0. Who wouldn’t love the idea of making our industries more human-centric, sustainable, and resilient? But here’s the kicker… I really dislike the name. ‘Industry 5.0’ makes it sound like we’ve suddenly leaped into a new era, leaving poor old Industry 4.0 in the dust. Spoiler alert: We haven’t.

History of the Term and Concept of Industry 4.0

The origins of Industry 4.0 trace back to a collective effort in Germany that aimed to ensure the country's manufacturing sector would continue to lead in an increasingly digital world. While the term ‘Industrie 4.0’ was officially introduced at the Hanover Fair in 2011, the groundwork for this concept was being laid years earlier by a group of forward-thinking industrial strategists, academics, and government officials.

At the heart of this initiative was Germany’s High-Tech Strategy 2020, a national plan that sought to keep the country at the forefront of technological innovation. The concept of Industrie 4.0 emerged from this strategy as a response to the growing need for integrating digital technologies into manufacturing. The term itself was intended to symbolize the dawn of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, following the previous revolutions of mechanization, mass production, and automation.

Industrie 4.0 was designed to transform manufacturing into a highly interconnected and intelligent system, where machines, products, and systems communicate with each other in real-time. This concept was not just about automation but about creating "smart factories" that could optimize themselves, predict issues before they occur, and even adapt to changes in demand or supply conditions autonomously. The focus was on the integration of cyber-physical systems, the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, and advanced robotics into every aspect of manufacturing.

This ambitious vision was shaped by influential figures like Henning Kagermann, the former CEO of SAP, Wolfgang Wahlster, the founder of the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), and Henrik von Scheel, who played a role in aligning the initiative with broader global digital trends. However, the real strength of Industrie 4.0 lay in the collaborative nature of its development.

Acatech, the German National Academy of Science and Engineering, played a pivotal role in bridging the gap between academia, industry, and government. This collaboration ensured that the concept was both innovative and practical, with clear pathways for implementation. Plattform Industrie 4.0, established in 2013 by the associations BITKOM, VDMA, and ZVEI, was another critical component. This platform brought together thousands of companies and stakeholders from across the industrial spectrum, providing a forum for sharing best practices, developing standards, and driving the digital transformation of the manufacturing sector.

The German Federal Government’s commitment to this initiative, particularly through the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK), was crucial in turning the concept of Industrie 4.0 from vision to reality. Their support provided the necessary resources and policy backing to ensure that Germany’s manufacturing sector could lead the way in the digital age.

When Industrie 4.0 was officially launched at the Hanover Fair in 2011, it was more than just a new term—it was the beginning of a movement that would redefine manufacturing on a global scale. The initiative quickly gained international attention, with countries like the United States, Japan, and China adopting similar strategies under different names, such as "Smart Manufacturing" and "Made in China 2025."

History of the Term and Concept of Industry 5.0

The concept of ‘Industry 5.0’ began to emerge around 2015, not from a single national strategy like its predecessor, but from broader discussions about the future direction of industrial development. Originating from Japan’s Society 5.0 concept, Industry 5.0 blends advanced technology with a focus on human well-being and environmental sustainability, enhancing industrial efficiency while promoting societal and ecological welfare. One of the early proponents of this idea was Michael Rada, who began writing about Industry 5.0 as a way to reintroduce the human element into an increasingly automated and technology-driven industrial landscape. Rada’s vision was to create a framework where humans and machines could collaborate more closely, leveraging the strengths of both to achieve greater efficiency, personalization, and sustainability in production.

Unlike Industry 4.0, which was launched with significant governmental backing and a clear technological focus, Industry 5.0 arose from a more grassroots movement. It reflected a growing concern that the rapid pace of automation and digitalization was leaving human workers behind. Industry 5.0 proposed to shift the focus back towards human-centric processes, where technology serves to enhance rather than replace human capabilities.

The European Commission later adopted and formalized the concept around 2020, expanding on the ideas first introduced by thought leaders like Rada. The Commission framed Industry 5.0 as an evolution of Industry 4.0, rather than a separate revolution, emphasizing three main pillars: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. These principles were intended to ensure that industrial development would not only focus on technological advancements but also consider social and environmental impacts.

The Problem with the Term ‘Industry 5.0’

While the principles behind Industry 5.0—such as human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience—are important, the term itself has sparked significant controversy and criticism. Here’s why the term ‘Industry 5.0’ is problematic:

Not a New Revolution: The name ‘Industry 5.0’ suggests a fifth industrial revolution, implying a major shift similar to the previous four industrial revolutions. However, Industry 5.0 is more of an evolution of Industry 4.0, focusing on expanding existing technologies like IoT, AI, and cyber-physical systems by integrating human elements and societal goals. It's not introducing a fundamentally new paradigm to the industrial world.
- Industry 1.0 = 1st Industrial Revolution
- Industry 2.0 = 2nd Industrial Revolution
- Industry 3.0 = 3rd Industrial Revolution
- Industry 4.0 = 4th Industrial Revolution
- Industry 5.0 = Evolution of 4th Industrial Revoltion? (because that makes sense…🤣)
Already Part of Industry 4.0: The ideas promoted by Industry 5.0 are already inherent in the ongoing Industry 4.0 movement. Human-machine collaboration, sustainability, and resilience are natural extensions of the digital transformation that Industry 4.0 is driving. In this sense, Industry 5.0 is not separate from Industry 4.0 but a continuation and expansion of it.
Creates Confusion and Fragmentation: By introducing the term ‘Industry 5.0,’ there is a risk of overshadowing the ongoing efforts and innovations of Industry 4.0. The term can create a false impression that Industry 4.0 is complete or outdated, which is not the case. The ongoing digital transformation is still very much in progress.
Undermines the Current Narrative: The term ‘Industry 5.0’ risks fragmenting the narrative of industrial progress by suggesting a false dichotomy between the two concepts. Industrial evolution is continuous, and introducing a new label can create the illusion of disjointed leaps rather than a natural progression. This could lead to misplaced focus, diverting attention from the essential work still being done under the Industry 4.0 banner.

Sentiment toward ‘Industry 5.0’

Don’t just take my word for it! The sentiment toward Industry 5.0, from what I can tell, also matches the argument that the term itself is problematic and unnecessary. Industry leaders and experts have not been shy in expressing their concerns about the term, which they believe creates more confusion than clarity.

Prominent figures and organizations within the industrial sector, such as the Research Council Industrie 4.0 and the Plattform Industrie 4.0 in Germany, have voiced strong opposition to the term ‘Industry 5.0.’ They argue that the human-centric, sustainable, and resilient principles promoted by Industry 5.0 are not revolutionary but are already embedded within the broader framework of Industry 4.0. For instance, Peter Liggesmeyer, a spokesperson for the Industry 4.0 Research Advisory Board, has pointed out that the content currently being discussed under the Industry 5.0 label is fully encompassed within Industry 4.0. The introduction of a new term, he warns, could confuse companies and potentially slow down the momentum of ongoing digital transformation efforts.

This criticism is not limited to academic circles; it resonates across the industry as a whole. The general sentiment is that Industry 5.0 is not a distinct revolution but rather a natural progression of the Industry 4.0 movement, and that creating a separate label does little to advance the conversation.

To get a broader sense of how the industry perceives this term, I conducted a LinkedIn poll that drew responses from 764 professionals around the world. The results were telling:

51% of respondents said they like the concept but believe it should be considered a part of Industry 4.0. This majority reflects a strong belief that the ideas of Industry 5.0 are an extension of what Industry 4.0 is already doing, rather than something entirely new.

15% liked the concept but felt that a new name is needed. These respondents recognize the value in the principles behind Industry 5.0 but agree that the term itself is not the right fit.
13% of respondents supported both the concept and the name. This smaller group sees Industry 5.0 as a distinct and necessary step forward in industrial evolution.
21% of respondents didn’t like either the concept or the name. However, I believe that this group’s dissatisfaction stems more from a rejection of the need for a separate term rather than opposition to the principles themselves. It’s unlikely that these respondents would argue against the importance of human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience; rather, they see these as inherent to what we should already be focusing on within Industry 4.0.

When we look at the numbers more closely, 87% of respondents fall into categories that express some level of dissatisfaction with the name "Industry 5.0." Whether they see the concept as part of Industry 4.0, believe a different name is needed, or don’t support separating these ideas at all, the overwhelming sentiment is that "Industry 5.0" is not the right term.

Further analysis of the poll reveals some interesting trends. For instance, the EMEA region (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) showed more opposition to the term than support, which is particularly significant considering that the concept originated in Europe. Additionally, manufacturers were proportionally more opposed to the term than solution providers, likely because they are more directly involved in implementing the technologies and practices of Industry 4.0 and see the principles of Industry 5.0 as a natural continuation rather than a separate movement.

My Viewpoint

Since 2011, two different viewpoints on Industry 4.0 have emerged. On one side, there's a perspective that clings to the original "Industrie 4.0" concept, which revolves around a fixed set of nine pillars like IoT, big data, and autonomous systems. On the other side, there's a broader, more flexible interpretation that sees Industry 4.0 as a way to describe the ongoing, ever-evolving revolution in manufacturing and beyond. When you look at it from the first viewpoint, it's easy to understand why the concept of Industry 5.0 came about, focusing on three main areas: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. And honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see yet another variation emerge in a few years because these definitions are pretty rigid in their scope and focus.

But if you see Industry 4.0 the way I do, more as a fluid description of the revolution we’re living through, then it’s clear there isn’t a single, unchanging goal or focus. Figure 2 here is a perfect example of the difference between a change in focus versus expansion and evolution. The original ‘Industrie 4.0’ from 2011 is locked into its nine pillars, and now European Industry 5.0 has similarly fixed itself on three main areas. But the Industry 4.0 global viewpoint is dynamic; it’s constantly evolving, and what we consider to be its scope today could very well shift by next year!

That’s why I’m part of the group that acknowledges the visions from 2011 were bound to change, shaped by geopolitical pressures, technological advances, and industry responses, among many other factors. What we see as Industry 4.0 today will continue to evolve, but we’re not yet at the point where we need to call it a whole new industrial revolution. Let’s save that term for the distant future, decades away. Instead, we should integrate the valuable ideas from Industry 5.0 into the ongoing Industry 4.0 narrative. Let’s bring this work into the public domain and give it a name that reflects its essence—something like the ‘Socially Responsible Push’ or similar. This way, we maintain the continuity of the revolution we’re currently experiencing while still embracing new and important developments.

I hope my arguments make a compelling case, and that we can collectively agree to retire the term ‘Industry 5.0’—at least until a true fifth industrial revolution comes along. The concepts it promotes are crucial, but they’re already embedded in the ongoing Industry 4.0 movement. Let’s keep our focus where it belongs, streamline our language, and avoid unnecessary confusion. Together, we can continue to drive meaningful progress without getting lost in the hype of a misleading label. Who’s with me?