From „Industry 4.0“ to „Society 5.0“ and „Industry 5.0“: Value- and Mission-Oriented Policies

  • The debate about the term "Industry 5.0" is already underway. The comments range from conceptual nonsense (Liggesmeyer 2021) to "necessary course correction", which, significantly, was not initiated by industry itself but by the EU Commission (Buchinger 2021) or Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 are imagined as the futures of Europe (Carayannis & Morawska‐Jancelewicz 2022). Xu et al.(2021) ask if this is the co‐existence of two Industrial Revolutions – the fourth and the fifth – or if this is a continuation and an evolution from one step to another within industrial concepts. One has to agree when Carayannis and Morawska‐Jancelewicz (2022) resume that concepts of Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 are „not a simple chronological continuation or an alternative to Industry 4.0 paradigm“. The main question that follows is if "Green Deal" as "Industry 5.0" or „Society 5.0“ are connectable to "Industry 4.0" (Banholzer 2021c)? As I will argue, the European concepts of „Green Deal“ or „Industry 5.0“ can be seen as an answer to the question of whatThe debate about the term "Industry 5.0" is already underway. The comments range from conceptual nonsense (Liggesmeyer 2021) to "necessary course correction", which, significantly, was not initiated by industry itself but by the EU Commission (Buchinger 2021) or Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 are imagined as the futures of Europe (Carayannis & Morawska‐Jancelewicz 2022). Xu et al.(2021) ask if this is the co‐existence of two Industrial Revolutions – the fourth and the fifth – or if this is a continuation and an evolution from one step to another within industrial concepts. One has to agree when Carayannis and Morawska‐Jancelewicz (2022) resume that concepts of Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 are „not a simple chronological continuation or an alternative to Industry 4.0 paradigm“. The main question that follows is if "Green Deal" as "Industry 5.0" or „Society 5.0“ are connectable to "Industry 4.0" (Banholzer 2021c)? As I will argue, the European concepts of „Green Deal“ or „Industry 5.0“ can be seen as an answer to the question of what normative basis could be found for the governance of network‐society which is as well functional as fragmental differentiated. Modern societies following the innovation paradigm have a need for orientation. Concepts like „Industry 5.0“ underline that a forward‐looking modulation of technological developments to be possible (Rip 2006) and generate a framework for orientation. Similar to the „Industrie 4.0“‐process and the announcement of the Fourth Industrial Revolution of the German government in 2021, the European Commission formally called for the Fifth Industrial Revolution or „Industry 5.0“, after discussions among participants from research and technology organizations as well as funding agencies across Europe, devising a top‐down initiative in response to the changing societal and geopolitical landscape (Xu et al. 2021: 532). Industry 5.0 centers around three interconnected core values of human‐centricity, sustainability, and resilience and therefore is not a technology‐driven revolution but a value‐driven initiative that drives technological transformation with a particular purpose (ibd.: 533). Industry 5.0 addresses the challenges of a functional and fragmental differentiated society. Flexibility,agility, project‐orientation, entrepreneurship are part of the concept. Industry 5.0 focuses on social heterogeneity in terms of values and acceptance, measurement of environmental and social value generation, participation and transparency of customers or interest groups and NGOs, inter-disciplinarity of research disciplines and system complexity, and ecosystem‐oriented innovation policy with outcome‐orientation. But: Industry 5.0 requires also new policies and policy instruments, a Governance 5.0, new partnerships, and new objectives for policies affecting industry, knowledge‐society and economy. Additionally, a portfolio approach to research and innovation projects is needed, combined with the willingness and a mandate to take informed risks – in development paths and financing. In its coalition agreement, the new German "traffic light" coalition has committed itself to a mission orientation in R&I policy and therefore is close to the ideas of Industry 5.0. But: The term Industrie 5.0 is not mentioned within the coalition agreement or in other discussions. The new coalition has described itself as a "progress coalition" and, in the run‐up to and in the coalition agreement placed an emphasis on innovation, science, science transfer and research as the basis of the national economy and the welfare of society. Goals like clima protection and Energiewende or fostering science transfer via (new) innovation agencies are in line with the ideas of the EC (cf.Banholzer 2022a). Response from other governments and industries to Industry 5.0 is still limited for the time being. Academia, though, has quickly embraced the discussions on Industry 5.0 and highlighted the relevance of Industry 5.0 (Xu et al. 2021). The landscape of R&I‐policies in EU membership states is heterogeneous, and often still focussing a linear understanding of innovation. This outlines the challenges and obstacles that have to be passed if Europe wants to climb on top of innovation rankings and parallel helps to solve problems like climate crises or global challenges in health care. The characteristic of Industry 5.0 as a top‐down‐concept is the core point that leads to a very critical aspect. Industry 5.0 as a value‐based conception of society and mission‐oriented policy design implicitly presupposes the discourse on values and on the willingness to bear the costs that arise. But this is done without outlining a conception of the public sphere, political discourse, or deliberative, agonal, or pragmatist debate in pluralistic democracies (cf. Banholzer 2022c). This circumstance is certainly due to the construction of the European Union and the fact that the concept was elaborated and introduced by the European Commission ‐ i.e. it represents a concept of the executive. This again shows the democratic deficit of the European Union, which shows parliamentary representation as not yet fully developed. However, if transparency and participation are demanded in transformation processes and, in addition, the state and politics act as equal network actors on the one hand, while decisively defining the legal framework on the other, this creates a dis-proportion that has a counterproductive effect on the acceptance of mission orientation.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Volker M. BanholzerORCiDGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:92-opus4-8215
DOI:https://doi.org/10.34646/thn/ohmdok-821
ISSN:2701-1712
Subtitle (German):Technological and Social Innovations – Aspects of Systemic Transformation
Series (Serial Number):IKOM Working paper (2022,2)
Publisher:Technische Hochschule Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm
Place of publication:Nürnberg
Document Type:Report
Language:German
Publishing Institution:Technische Hochschule Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm
Release Date:2022/02/02
Tag:Innovation‐Policy ; Innovation‐Sovereignty ; Technological‐Sovereignty ; Digitalization ; Sustainability ; SDG ; Industry50; Industry40 ; Society50
GND Keyword:Technologiepolitik; Digitalisierung; Industrie 4.0; Nachhaltigkeit
Volume:2022
Issue:2
Pagenumber:47
First Page:2
Last Page:47
Dewey Decimal Classification:0 Informatik, Informationswissenschaft, allgemeine Werke
3 Sozialwissenschaften
Licence (German):Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International
Verstanden ✔
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.