Content uploaded by Peter Oeij
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Oeij on Aug 14, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
JIM
ISSN: 2183-0606
(CC BY 4.0)
Vol. 12, 1 (2024)
p. 205-233
AM: May/2024
SM: Feb/2024
Article
A Conceptual Framework for Workforce Skills for
Industry 5.0: Implications for Research, Policy and
Practice
Peter R.A. Oeij1, Karolien Lenaerts2, Steven Dhondt3, Wietse Van Dijk4, Doris
Schartinger5, Sabrina R. Sorko6, and Chris Warhurst7
1
TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Anna van Buerenplein 1, 2595 DA Den
Haag, Netherlands | peter.oeij@tno.nl
2HIVA / KU Leuven, Belgium | karolien.lenaerts@kuleuven.be
3
TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific R e search, N e therlands; a n d K U L e uven, Belgium
| steven.dhondt@tno.nl
4TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific R e search, N e therlands | wietse.vandijk@tno.nl
5AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria | Doris.Schartinger@ait.ac.at
6FH JOANNEUM University of Applied Sciences, Austria | SabrinaRomina.Sorko@fh-joanneum.at
7Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, United Kingdom |
C.Warhurst@warwick.ac.uk
Abstract
Industry 5.0 is a relatively new topic and not yet well-defined. This article’s purpose is to develop
understanding of Industry 5.0 by offering a new socio-centric conceptual framework. It extends prevailing
perception of Industry 5.0 by integrating workforce skills, labour shortages, and eco-digital shifts. The study
explores workforce skill measurement and its implementation. Three methods were combined to develop
the conceptual framework: (i) review of academic and policy literature; (ii) scholarly and expert discussions;
(iii) consultations with practitioners, companies and networks on Industry 5.0’s relevance. Industry 5.0
expands Industry 4.0's technology-focused approach. This new paradigm emphasises human-centricity,
sustainability and resilience, infusing societal values into organisational management. Our findings suggest
that, while firmly rooted i n E U policy, Industry 5 .0 must find integration at national levels an d within
pertinent ecosystems. This article introduces innovative perspectives on conceptualising and evaluating
workforce skills for Industry 5.0. Mitigating skills gaps is crucial in enabling companies and employees to
leverage the eco-digital shift, fostering sustainability, resilience and equity across Europe. A limitation
to understanding Industry 5.0 is that policy discussions run ahead of collecting empirical data. As a
consequence, one must be careful in drawing firm conclusions. While prior research underscores the need
for skilled workforces in Industry 5.0, it falls short of elucidating evolving job dynamics in the Industry 5.0
transition. This article addresses this gap by examining the evolving job landscape, skills, and learning
trajectories.
Keywords: Industry 5.0; Sustainability; Resilience; Human-centric; Socio-centric, Workforce skills.
Cite paper as: Oeij, P.R.A., Lenaerts, K., Dhondt, S., Van Dijk, W., Schartinger, D., Sorko, S.R., Warhurst,
C.,
(2024). A Conceptual Framework for Workforce Skills for Industry 5.0: Implications for Research, Policy and
Practice,
Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 205-233; DOI: https://
doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_012.001_0010
1 Introduction
Against the background of the twin digital and green transitions and the Covid-19 crisis, the EU
Industrial Policy (launched in March 2020 and updated in May 2021 in response to the pandemic)
Journal of Innovation Management
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_012.001_0010
205
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
renews its focus on enhancing the competitiveness and autonomy of EU industry and emphasises
that EU industry will lead and accelerate the transition to a sustainable and resilient economy
that achieves the highest social, labour and environmental standards (European Commission,
2020). The underlying fundamentals of this new industrial strategy, “Industry 5.0”, are rooted in
the European values and traditions, which includes setting up a common regulatory framework,
fostering research and innovation, supporting efforts towards climate neutrality, a mong others.
Importantly, (re)skilling has been flagged as a p riority in the industrial policy as well.
Industry 5.0 has emerged as a key paradigm within EU industrial policy, launched by the
European Commission (Breque et al., 2021). It states (digital) innovation and its application
in the form of services, products, and processes need to ensure the threefold goals of being
sustainable, human-centric and resilient toward industry, the economy and society, and its citizens
and members. A key issue, and elaborated below, are the workforce skills to ensure the successful
implementation and adoption of Industry 5.0. Furthermore, as part of the shift to Industry 5.0
paradigm, it is recognised that industry is not influenced by global megatrends, it is itself also
a major shaper of economic and societal transitions. By advancing Industry 5.0, the European
Commission sets out to align its economic and social goals, firmly putting good jobs and worker
well-being at the top of the policy agenda (European Commission, 2023b).
Although Industry 5.0 is gaining ground in academic and policy debates, it remains unclear
how it is interpreted and applied by different s takeholders a t d ifferent le vels, le t al one ho w it
is implemented. A problem is that the drivers and dimensions of Industry 5.0 require further
conceptualisation and measurement. These needs are the starting point for this article.
Labour and skills shortages are another factor to reckon with. Although labour shortages
existed before the Covid pandemic, they have become exacerbated since reaching record highs
in several EU Member States (European Commission, 2023a; Zwysen, 2023). These shortages
have been attributed to several underlying drivers, such as a declining labour supply (e.g., due to
population ageing, a growing economic inactivity amongst the workforce due to illness or chronic
conditions). Poor working conditions and wages in some sectors also make it difficult to attract
and retain workers and there are also skills mismatches (Zwysen, 2023). Digitalisation, especially,
appears as a major driver of skills shortages, fuelling a demand for digital skills at all proficiency
levels and which is currently not being met by education and training (European Commission,
2023a). In this context, there is an increasing focus on the role of education and training as a
lever for a competitive, innovative, sustainable and inclusive labour market and economy. In fact,
up- and reskilling is seen as a critical strategy, not only to absorb the effects of these global trends
but also to seize their opportunities (OECD, 2023).
Our overall goal in this article is to advance the Industry 5.0 concept from a sensitising concept
(closer) to an operational concept thereby grounding the debate on the workforce skills necessary
for Industry 5.0. This article hence centres around three main challenges with respect to workforce
skills for Industry 5.0. Firstly, we develop a conceptual framework that recognises the societal
implications of Industry 5.0. To date, Industry 4.0, as the expression of the fourth Industrial
Revolution, has mainly been driven by technological considerations (Müller, 2021). Industry
5.0 extends Industry 4.0 by emphasising technological, social, and environmental dimensions
(Breque et al., 2021). This article argues that a sustainable, resilient Industry 5.0 will need to
be human-centric as well as socio-centric: complementing the needs of individuals with those
of society. A socio-centric approach recognises that technologies are part of systems that are
organised to further societal and ecological values. Looking at Industry 5.0 through this lens makes
clear the need for a holistic approach that puts technology at the service of citizens and workers,
now and in the future. The conceptualisation of Industry 5.0 needs to be developed in such a
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
206
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
way that its importance and achievability is apparent to all stakeholders, including companies in
Europe and that Industry 5.0 becomes the new ‘mindset’ for European industry. As such, this
industrial transition resonates with the framework of socio-technical system transitions and their
multi-level perspective proposed by Geels (2019).
The second goal of this article relates to specifying the skills for a digital and green Industry
5.0. As with any new technology, skills emerge through technological demands and organisational
choices (Levy & Murnane, 2004). These skills need to be supported by training, education and
other forms of learning that: (i) recognise that skills development is the responsibility of a broad
set of stakeholders in society and industry; (ii) are integrated with digital technology to avoid skills
gaps and ensure better skill matches between supply and demand; and (iii) tackle the polarisation
between high-skill and low-skill jobs and foster job upgrading, reskilling and upskilling strategies
over a lifetime. This skilling strategy must be premised on companies (large companies as well as
small- and medium-sized enterprises) better empowering their workforces because workers: have
the expertise, knowledge and the most direct link to technology; and are best placed to identify
what skills are needed to be developed, which in turn requires companies to offer participative
training opportunities. Companies should use workers’ talents and innovative capacity and create
environments that support workers’ innovative work behaviours and reward workers’ skills and
knowledge (Dosi, 1988). The second challenge is thus to find out the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of this
new skilling for a green and digital Industry 5.0.
We consider this article as a contribution to the necessary policy support for a green and
digital Industry 5.0. Industry 5.0 foresees an alternative future in which industries focus more on
the interests of a wider set of stakeholders, within and outside the organisation. A productive,
sustainable and resilient future is possible if companies adopt a human- and socio-centric approach.
This article will look at different stakeholders across different levels and discuss how to best
connect them around Industry 5.0. This includes companies, industrial networks, social partners
and policymakers among others. In this way, the article signals how Industry 5.0 policy can be
transferred from the EU level to Member States and, vice versa, how current national Industry
4.0 platforms can be integrated into an overarching Industry 5.0 platform. The effectiveness of
Industry 4.0 in terms of innovation and inclusiveness is not yet clear-cut (Grond et al., 2021). As
a result, for many policymakers, thinking about Industry 4.0 is still largely experimental. Industry
5.0 is an attempt at policy correction for these Industry 4.0 policies, but the question remains
what policies are effective.
Given these three considerations, the research question is: What can be a conceptual framework
of Industry 5.0 that is useful for stakeholders from business and policy and that can be applied as
a building block for skilling for companies that require greening and digital transformation and
provides enough practical direction for policymakers?
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. In the following section, the transition
from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 is described and positioned in current academic and policy
debates. The next section then outlines the research design. The following section then proposes
a new conceptual framework for Industry 5.0, which is further elaborated in the subsequent
section focused on workforce skills. The following section then focuses on the measurement and
implementation of Industry 5.0, followed by conclusions and a discussion of possible avenues for
further research. In the final section we draw conclusions, offer recommendations and discuss
possible avenues for further research.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
207
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
2 The transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 and its implications
Industry 4.0 was developed in Germany as a new way of doing industrialisation in the context
of wider technological transformation (Kagermann, 2013). It was a national industrial strategy
(Kagermann, 2011) to ensure that German high-tech manufacturing was ‘fit f or the f uture’. It
rested on the combined use of new digital technology such as artificial i ntelligence ( AI), advanced
automation and robotics, and big data (Davies, 2015). The outcome is the creation of what is
sometimes called ‘smart factories’ that use the new digital technologies to integrate the whole
production system (European Commission, 2017). Moreover, the same digital technology enables
the linking of this production to upstream, how goods are conceived, and downstream, how goods
are consumed (Davies, 2015). The Journal of Innovation Management was one of the first journals
publishing a Letter about Industry 4.0 in its early days. Centralized and monolithic production
monitoring and control applications will eventually cease to exist, giving way to solutions capable
of supporting this radically different vision of connected yet decentralized production and supply
chain processes (Almada-Lobo, 2015).
Industry 4.0 is seen as a technological leap forward, with a whole new context for manufacturing
companies. Perez and Murray-Leach (2021) show that how we look at the past determines our
policy responses. Technological advance is not continuous but happens in major transitions and
periods of economic decline and growth. Academic literature identifies different numbers of
“industrial” or “technological” revolutions and provides diverging interpretations of their nature and
consequences. In the digital age, some authors see a role for the state to intervene and manage
the financial situation, prevent monopolies from arising, and guide innovation and investment
through mission-driven policies. Considering social and environmental goals, they argue that there
is certainly a role for policymakers to ‘tilt’ the market forces in a “positive-sum game between
business, society and the planet” (Perez and Murray-Leach, 2021; Mazzucato et al., 2020).
There are two main views on how to see Industry 5.0 in relation with Industry 4.0. On the one
hand, it is suggested that it is a deepening of Industry 4.0 (European Commission, 2021b). The
objective is to continue with the digital transformation of industry. This redefinition i s a lso meant
to bring Industry 4.0 within the broad European strategy of greening and sustainability, adding
human- and socio-centeredness (Müller, 2021). The European Commission proposes Industry
5.0 as a solution to make Industry 4.0 more successful. On the other hand, its treatment of the
technology within the digital transformation is different. As a response to accusations that Industry
4.0 was technologically deterministic, technology is now recognised to be socially constructed
and must serve, not substitute or subordinate human labour. As Acemoglu and Johnson (2023)
ascertain, most digital technologies can be qualified as ‘so-so’ t echnologies. They automate jobs,
but do not lead to higher productivity. Industry 5.0 also adds two new elements of the industrial
strategy – sustainability and resilience as responses to the climate crisis and recent economic
shocks, respectively. Therefore, Industry 5.0 offers a twist to and an extension of Industry 4.0.
Whilst the conceptualisation of Industry 5.0 addresses the techno-centrism of Industry 4.0,
three other problems with Industry 4.0 have carried over to Industry 5.0, which must be addressed
(Warhurst & Dhondt, 2023). The first issue is that, unlike there is a broad d efinition of Industry
5.0 (Breque et al., 2021), it operates at a high level – the industry level, in a way even societal
level – and is abstract, thus lacking operationalisable detail. The practices of Industry 5.0 now
need to be developed and agreed upon, and set at the organisational level so that companies,
employees and policymakers know what it looks like within workplaces. The second issue is that,
once knowing what Industry 5.0 ought to look like within workplaces, there need to be actionable
policy and practice for organisations to encourage and support them in its adoption. The third
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
208
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
issue is to develop the means by which to measure the progress of organisations in adopting
Industry 5.0. This requires the development of an appropriate dataset that captures organisational
adoption within the European Union.
Importantly, the realisation of Industry 5.0 has far reaching implications for workforce compe-
tencies and skills. This is already subject to communications and activities on various EU and
international levels:
First, in its Communication on the new EU industrial strategy, the European Commission
underlines that “A competitive industry depends on recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce.
As the twin transitions gathers speed, Europe will need to ensure that education and training keep
pace. Making lifelong learning a reality for all will become all the more important: in the next five
years alone, 120 million Europeans will have to upskill or reskill.” (European Commission, 2020,
p. 11). To bring the topic of up- and reskilling to the foreground, 2023 marked the European
Year of Skills. This was announced in the 2022 State of the Union address and echoed the 2019
Political Guidelines of Commission President von der Leyen. Key building blocks to make progress
in up- and reskilling are found in the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), of which the first
principle is that ‘everyone has the right to quality and inclusive education, training and life-long
learning in order to maintain and acquire skills that enable them to participate fully in society and
manage the transitions in the labour market’.
Second, the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) Action Plan translates this principle
into concrete actions in the form of the European Skills Agenda. The European Skills Agenda
serves as a guide to develop more and better skills and includes 12 actions organised into four
blocks: (i) a call to join forces in a collective action (Pact for Skills); (ii) actions to ensure that
people have the right skills for jobs (strengthening skills intelligence, support for strategic national
upskilling action, a proposed Council recommendation on vocational education and training, rolling
out the European Universities initiative and the upskilling of scientists, skills to support the twin
transitions, raising STEM graduates and fostering entrepreneurial and transversal skills, skills for
life); (iii) tools and initiatives to support people in their lifelong learning pathways (initiative on
individual learning accounts, approach to micro-credentials and a new Europass platform); (iv) a
framework to unlock investments in skills. Especially this call for collective action – from the EU
Member States, social partners, industry, the education system and training providers, (. . . ) runs
through most of these programmes and initiatives.
Nevertheless, when it comes to up- and re-skilling, there is still a long way to go. A recent
OECD report on up- and reskilling in the context of the green and digital transition, for example,
shows that only a minority of adults in OECD countries participated in training, and there are
major differences between sociodemographic groups – especially those groups who would benefit
most, appear to participate least (OECD, 2023). This points to significant barriers to up- and
re-skilling, for both companies and individuals, which must be addressed (Baiocco et al., 2020).
Similarly, in the context of Industry 4.0 (which was increasingly put forward as a vision of industrial
transformation aimed at achieving the twin transition, see European Commission, 2023b), the
impact of new technologies, digitalisation, computerisation and robotisation on jobs and skill needs
has been discussed extensively, while skills development has been identified as a main determinant
of the successful adoption and implementation of specific technologies and of Industry 4.0 overall
(Pereira & Romero, 2017; Fareri et al., 2020; Saniuk et al., 2023). Although the literature seems
to have reached a consensus on the importance of skills development for Industry 4.0, there is
still a long road ahead in practice, with challenges such as a mismatch between formal education
and companies’ skills needs, a lack of lifelong learning, etc. (Maresova et al., 2018; Saniuk et al.,
2023).
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
209
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
3 Research design
3.1 The BRIDGES 5.0 project
This article draws on work from the BRIDGES 5.0 project, which focuses on workforce skills
for Industry 5.0 (Oeij et al., 2023). More specifically, the BRIDGES 5.0 project pursues four
main objectives. A first objective is to map how jobs are transforming and what new green and
digital jobs are emerging in the fourth Industrial Revolution, and to understand the Industry 5.0
requirements for these jobs and company practices. A second objective is to map Industry 5.0
skills and skill gaps at the EU-level and across various national contexts for emerging green and
digital jobs and enable monitoring of skill gaps using skills taxonomies/standards. A third objective
is to set up learning trajectories and training pathways, using the enriched Teaching and Learning
Factories concepts (see below), and experiment with these interventions to reduce skill gaps for
four target groups, i.e. managers, employees, job seekers and students. Finally, BRIDGES 5.0 aims
to engage with a range of industry and related stakeholders (policymakers, large companies, SMEs,
social partners, vocational education and training providers at the regional, national and EU levels.
With their support, a collaborative (web) platform ‘Bridges 5.0’ will be established to facilitate
social innovation in the learning field. The platform will also provide these stakeholders and the
target groups with recommendations and instruments for new learning and training systems. In
this article we only report on the conceptualisation of Industry 5.0.
3.2 Methodology and data
In this study, we use a mixed-method approach to develop the conceptual framework on (workforce
skills for) Industry 5.0. Three methodological approaches were combined and carried out in the
period November 2022 – November 2023. We started with an extensive review of the available
academic and grey literature and a review of the available data sources at EU level and in the
EU Member States. However, as the literature on Industry 5.0 was still scarce in the period
and scattered across scientific disciplines. Insights from this review were further enriched and
triangulated through consultations with academics and experts and with practitioners, companies
and networks.
First, a literature search and review were performed that focused on scientific a nd policy
literature. Some 500 publications were found in SCOPUS that discuss Industry 5.0 as a concept
(up to 2022). We used search terms like “Industry 5.0”, and the search terms reflecting the
three pillars of Industry 5.0 (human-centricity, sustainability and resilience). We included overview
articles on the topics. An exclusion criterion was however if articles only offered opinions
and concepts of desired states, and not empirical evidence for Industry 4.0 and 5.0 practices.
We
preferred review articles over single case studies or small-scale empirical research. For the
concept
of Industry 5.0 itself, our starting point are the main documents developed by the
European
Commission (European Commission, 2021b; Müller, 2021). Core results of our analysis
are included in sections 4 and 5. The main function of this literature review was however, to serve
as inputs to
and to trigger discussions and debates with stakeholders.
Second, building on the literature review, a conceptual discussion on Industry 5.0 was managed
within the multidisciplinary project team of academics and experts. The expertise present in
this team helped to develop a plausible understanding of Industry 5.0, its elements and their
relationships. More specifically, over the course of twelve months, there has been regular exchange
(in person and online).
Third, practitioners, companies and networks were engaged to discuss how they perceive the
relevance of Industry 5.0 and its key elements, human-centricity, resilience and sustainability.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
210
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Several of the companies and networks that were part of the project team. Companies we
consulted
are involved in digital interventions and could thus inform us on how they enhanced the
feasibility
to implement Industry 5.0’s key elements. In total, nine major companies from various
European
countries were consulted over the period of several months. Additionally, a large
number of social
partner organisations, networks of companies and practitioners working around
Industry 4.0 and
Industry 5.0, and similar organisations were engaged in the debates in parallel
over the same time
period. The following table summarises the mixed method approach.
Table 1. Research information)
Sources Type of data Method of analysis
Literature search Scopus database
followed by Internet
search and snowballing
on keywords ‘Industry
4.0’, ‘Industry 5.0’,
‘human-centric*’,
‘resilien*’,
‘sustainability’, ‘skill*’,
‘explainable
technology’.
Circa 500 publications
of scientific and policy
literature (mainly
articles and book
chapters) reviewed. 50
selected after checking
titles on face value.
Further selection on the
basis of abstract.
Publications that were
not based on research
were excluded (i.e., if
they were position
papers, they were
excluded).
Analysis of abstracts
and selective reading of
circa 50 publications
Expert discussions Team members of the
Bridges 5.0 consortium
with academic expertise
in workforce skills,
technology, education
& training; members of
the scientific advisory
board
Expert views, expert
opinions provided by
circa 30 experts
Exploring discussions /
search conferences
based on short notes
and written documents
Practitioner discussions Representatives of
companies, networks,
social partners
comprised in the
Company Board and
Stakeholder Boards of
the BRIDGES 5.0
project
Practitioner views,
practitioner opinions
provided by circa 20
practitioners,
information about
planned digital
inventions in
participating
companies*
Discussions and
qualitative (group)
interviews about the
practicalities of
Industry 4.0 and 5.0
Overall, we chose a discursive approach, where literature served as entry point for expert
discussions and industry experts recommended reports and articles that reflected important lines
of arguments. Hence, the mixed methods were used in an iterative manner, snowballing between
experts and scientific and grey literature, and subsequently sense-making within the project team,
complemented by discussions around topical events with high-profile participants. This empirical
approach seems appropriate if the topic is as recent as the present one around Industry 5.0 and
hence insufficiently covered by academic literature alone.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
211
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
4 A conceptual framework of Industry 5.0
4.1 Three goals of Industry 5.0: human-centrism, resilience and sustainability
One of the key distinguishing features of Industry 5.0 compared to Industry 4.0 is the inclusion of
societal, not just technological or economic, goals and which put people central, enable businesses
to anticipate and respond to disruptions, and ensure a society’s durable well-being and welfare.
These three pillars are the core values of Industry 5.0 (Xu et al., 2021). By contrast, Industry 4.0
was techno-centric and primarily focused on organisational efficiency and pr oductivity. Industry 5.0,
instead, clearly rests on a ‘humanised philosophy’ (Oeij et al., 2019), adopting inclusive growth
(Warhurst & Dhondt, 2023) and has a normative guiding principle.
Human-centricity covers two core ideas in our view: technology itself can be 1) human-centred
or introduced in a human-centred way. Unlike Industry 4.0 in which machines were anticipated to
substitute many tasks, Industry 5.0 wants to see technology as complementary to humans; besides
that, technology users have to 2) be socio-centric, i.e., consider the social context. This last
addition is needed because many technical specialists interpret human-centric in an individualist
way. The work environment goes beyond an individualistic approach. Not just individuals need to
adapt to new surroundings, as the decision makers in organisations make organisational choices
(e.g., Resende et al., 2021). A human-centred approach to technology requires (a) technology to
be developed in such a way that it helps humans. For example, Welfare et al. (2019) identified
several ways in which robots could help reduce negative work attributes and enhance positive
ones, such as reducing work interruptions and cultivating physical and psychological well-being. In
this respect, engineering sciences are tasked with adapting technology. To do so, Welfare et al.
see the solution as being a re-orientation of Industry 4.0 in terms of investments and technology
development. Other researchers discuss the conditions under which Industry 5.0 can succeed,
namely that the modern customisation and technological upgrading challenges can only be met
through human involvement and empowerment (Kumar et al., 2021).
Nonaka and Takeuchi (2021) further stress the need for a “humanising” company strategy.
Humans should be at the centre of company strategies, driving future-making with the help of
digital-led automation. The reward to the company is resilience, longevity, and sustainability, in line
with all three Industry 5.0 goals. Human-centricity requires not only the technology perspective, but
also the organisation of work as to make Industry 5.0 successful. Because organisations are social
entities, comprising different types of actors with different interests, experiences and expectations,
there is a socio-centric approach needed, one that goes beyond human-centric workplaces, as it
stresses the social function of cooperation, collaboration, and as it links workplace, organisational,
industry and societal levels. Industry 5.0 therefore requires new organisational policies that connect
the human-centric and socio-centric viewpoint. Approaches such as workplace innovation (Oeij,
Dhondt & McMurray, 2023) and high-performance work systems (Eurofound & Cedefop, 2020)
pay attention to these aspects.
Resilience is needed to be better prepared to withstand major disruptions, such as the global
financial crashes, energy crises, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Ukraine-Russia war. Disruptions
can reveal vulnerabilities on the organisational level, the industry level, and the value chain and
supply chain level. Businesses need to handle these disruptions. And as some industries more
than others play a key role in providing critical infrastructure, such as for healthcare and security,
business failure in these industries has repercussions on the societal level. Increasing resilience in
instances of crises may call for different strategies than while operating under stable circumstances.
Breque et al. (2021) point out that under stable circumstances the focus on efficiency often leads
to outsourcing, or geo-political shifting of business activities and hence to cost reductions. These
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
212
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
business-level strategic decisions happen often at the expense of creating vulnerabilities in the
supply network and production thus compromising industrial supply and leading to shortages of
products.
Acknowledging that industrial resilience is key, Breque et al. (2021) stress the “robustness
of industrial production” anchoring resilience in resilient value chains and resilient production
capacity. This implies that the concept of resilience is seen from a systemic perspective – beyond
the business boundaries - on the level of industries and global value chains. The target is then the
resilient (sub-) system (firm, sector, industry), which has repercussions on resilience skills of the
workforce. Resilience as a strategy requires better anticipation of what will happen, quick response
after a disruption has occurred, and strategic intervention to support the changes. As in the case
of ‘high reliability organisations’ (like nuclear power plants, aircraft carrier vessels, first responder
organisations), resilient organisations and industries must internalise the capability to anticipate,
respond and recover in the case of disruptive events (Dwyer et al., 2023). Relevant actors must
successfully deal with weak signals, future risks, possible futures, and actual mishaps in a complex
world to address rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997, p. 516). Apart from skills
that have a definitorial closeness to specific tasks, resilience needs capabilities that are increasingly
dynamic, and co-evolve with organisational phenomena like firm governance structures, open
innovation, ecosystems and a view on the central role of stakeholders (Vogel & Güttel, 2012).
The sustainability notion rests on the idea that the EU aims for competitiveness that is not
only oriented at economic criteria but also reflecting how the output is generated, taking in account
life-cycle perspectives that means doing better with less by optimising the relationship between
product output and resource input. In the context of the climate crisis, the European Commission
initiated the green deal with the goal to be the first climate neutral continent. To achieve
this goal, a massive reduction in energy consumption and use of natural resources is required,
which requires heavy involvement of the European industry. Additionally, the EU encourages a
circular economy where industry re-uses, re-purposes and recycles products and resources. The
importance of this topic has increased steadily in the manufacturing sector for many different
reasons (environmental concerns, diminishing non-renewable resources, stricter legislation and
inflated energy costs, consumer preferences). Sustainability has strong ties with Industry 4.0
technologies, such as AI and additive manufacturing. There are also intrinsic benefits for the
industry as moving to more sustainable production might save resources, reduce costs, and help
build a better corporate image (Breque et al., 2021, p14 & 27). The sustainability efforts from
EU regarding to manufacturing are strongly connected with the approach of Industry 5.0 that also
should be embedded in activities like smart specialisation (European Commission, 2020c).
4.2 Target groups: Building the workforce for Industry 5.0
The specific features of Industry 5.0 require new skill sets of people. These new skill sets will not
be evenly distributed across the population and they cannot be uniformly rolled in the education
system. Instead, the types of skills and the channels to implement them in the businesses and
industries will have to be carefully devised. Building on the literature review and the expert and
stakeholder consultations, four target groups have been identified as key for an investigation into
workforce skills required for Industry 5.0. These groups form the future workforce (students and
job seekers), current workforce (workers) as well as those playing an important role in creating and
managing Industry 5.0 (managers and engineers). Each group can be linked to different workforce
skills and to different skilling approaches. In our research, we will be exploring the presented
conceptual framework with respect to these four groups.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
213
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Students are those following vocational training and those in less specific education such as
scientific training at u niversities. Industrial firms in the stakeholder consultations for this study
voiced considerable concern that students as the future workforce with high potential for creativity
and innovation may reject jobs in industry because they find w orking in a highly automated
and artificial intelligence populated environment unattractive. Here, industries themselves are
responsible for creating attractive jobs that leave room for manoeuvre. But also educational
institutes play a large role in preparing potentials who can fulfil an ambassador’s role on themes
such as sustainability and inclusiveness. As Industry 5.0 is a new vision, educational and vocational
institutions and agents must consider what the three goals mean for the curricula of their studies.
A second target group for (re-) skilling efforts are clearly
workers
. Technologies like cyber-
physical systems that take over tasks with high levels of repetition and biomechanical overload
transform labour to activities with high demand for cognitive and manual skills. Skills can be
complements or substitutes of digitalisation, with e.g., social coordination and negotiation skills
as complements versus physically intense labour as substitutes (Worldbank, 2024) The major
reskilling effort for workers will b e at the company with on-the-job training and other forms of
non-formal training. Individual workers may further invest themselves in training. Additionally, the
workers might have unique knowledge that needs to be transferred to a new generation of workers.
Job seekers include short- and long-term unemployed, and lateral entrants. In discussions with
stakeholders for this study the effects of new t echnological opportunities like increasing digital
remote worker exoskeletons allow inclusion of people previously excluded from large parts of the
job market and alleviate skill gaps and pressing labour demand. However, views are contested
and certainly, skilling efforts require mobility measures on the labour m arket. It will also require
understanding from labour market institutions of what companies will be needing in the future.
Managers and engineers are responsible for the decisions that lead to Industry 5.0. Traditionally,
managers at different levels were responsible for the decisions that were made in an organisation.
To make Industry 5.0 happen, managers have to be entrepreneurial, as well as cognitively and
socially highly skilled (Heubeck, 2023). Design decisions need new skills from engineers (de
Souza and Debs, 2024) and have to be moderated and complemented by other stakeholders
and managers. Managers and engineers are both key decision-makers and differently impacted
by industrial transformation than other employees (Cirillo et al., 2023). Both groups play a
leading role in the adoption of Industry 5.0. The key challenge for these groups is to adopt a
wider perspective that comprises not only the economic factors but also human, resilience, and
sustainability factors. Engineers need to adopt new criteria in their design process. Aiming for
human- and socio-centrism will also require a more direct input from different s takeholders by
using design methods such as co-creation and ethics for innovation.
4.3 Ecosystem levels
Industry 5.0 implementation has consequences for several levels. Industry 5.0 differs from Industry
4.0 in its explicit attention to the worker and the workplace, the workplace level. Human-centricity
is about improving labour market access, employment security within the labour market and
the quality of jobs in that labour market. It is also about creating opportunities for job seekers
and students. As a result of the improved conditions, workers can do their jobs better, which
benefits the organisation and the industry. Additionally, those without work could benefit from
easier access to work. Resilience and sustainability are about behavioural change and the need to
understand how workers can make their organisation more sustainable, the company practices
more circular, and help companies become more robust and resilient. Concepts at the individual
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
214
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
level and the job level, such as the resilient worker, sustainable employability and job quality, are
included in the concept of human-centricity.
The organisational level reflects the responsibilities of management and the collective of
workers. Organisations should incorporate human-centricity, resilience, and sustainability into
their values and business models and expand their conventional economic indexes (such as
capitalisation, market penetration, revenue, and profit) with additional Industry 5.0 indicators
(European Commission, 2021b). As a result, new business models might be adopted that, for
example, aim for circularity in goods and services. Human-centricity is a concept that should
be adopted across the whole organisation. It requires acknowledging the socio-centric role a
company (i.e., its organisational members) has in its surroundings – human society, instead of
viewing society as a resource for workers to achieve isolated company goals. A human-centric
approach views workers as assets in which the company should invest, for example, training and
education. Workers, in return, share larger responsibility with respect to participating in the
company’s Industry 5.0 objectives. It is important to mention that ‘organisations’ are not a fixed
concept. With hybrid work, platformisation, networks, projectification, and self-steering teams,
organisational boundaries are evolving.
At industry level, agents must make agreements about sustainability and resilience. With
regard to sustainability, it is imperative to establish a level playing field between competitors
within sectors and industries. As regards resilience, agents must ensure that organisations in their
industry are supported and facilitated in how to deal with disruptions. Agents must support the
transition to green and digital technologies. Resilience and sustainability primarily benefit the
society in the long term by decoupling economic prosperity from the use of energy and resources.
Companies cannot do this own their own. Instead, industrial standards are needed. This will
further strengthen companies in their endeavours to implement human centricity for its employees.
At society level a ‘5.0 Society’ should be established, with human-centricity, resilience and
sustainability as core values, and which would build institutions to support this. Democratic
institutions, broad education, inclusive growth and access to social security would be among the
most salient ones. These institutions and their values and norms would nurture a culture of welfare
combined with well-being for all life on the planet now and in the future.
4.4 Industry 5.0 as a multidimensional concept
All the above considerations and inputs from various empirical methods applied lead us to an
Industry 5.0 conceptual frameworks as depicted in Figure 1.
Importantly, we see Industry 5.0 is an open and evolving concept, and as a ‘sensitizing
concept’, (. . . ) “it gives the user a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching
empirical instances” (Blumer, 1954, p. 7). Industry 5.0 to date is a sociotechnical imaginary.
As a sensitizing concept outlining a desired state, that has not yet been attained, a possible
future pathway to provide orientation, Industry 5.0 is different from an analytical concept framing
technological and sustainability transitions in a multi-level perspective, as for example in Geels
(2019).
Both, the analytical as well as the guiding lens are complementary to achieve transitions.
Industry 5.0, as a sensitizing concept, helps to identify the main features of what companies
and other actors should do in practice. Although this article limits the scope of Industry 5.0
to the development of workforce skills, Industry 5.0 remains a multidimensional concept with
different pillars that touches the very different realities of the individual worker and workplace,
organisational policies and actions, and the societal level. Therefore, Industry 5.0 is regarded
as a multidimensional concept, as is shown in Figure 1, with three dimensions and three main
connections.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
215
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Figure 1. Framework model for workforce skills in Industry 5.0 Source: Authors’ own elaboration, based
on literature search and review and consultations.
The three dimensions are, first of all the Industry 5.0’s pillars or societal goals : human-centrism,
sustainability, and resilience. It should be mentioned that these dimensions are not just social
goals. Rather, Industry 5.0 is primarily focused on having a system or organisation of production
that is intended to have socio-economic outcomes. In the second place, the model distinguishes
an ecosystem with four different levels: workplace, organisation, industry, society. As a third
dimension, four different target groups are identified: students, job seekers, workers, managers /
engineers. If Industry 5.0 is about ‘behavioural change’ at the company level, this touches on
decisions and behaviours made by workers, managers, job seekers and students.
Then, there are important connections between the dimensions. First, solutions form the
connection between Industry 5.0’s pillars and the different ecosystem levels. To give an example:
the connection between organisational level and sustainability is the solution for how an organisation
does adopt a circular production process. Second, workforce skills i.e., the skills that are needed
for Industry 5.0, form the connection between the Industry 5.0 pillars and the target groups: e.g.
the workforce skills that managers need for improving the sustainability of an organisation and
society. Skilling (the process of acquiring skills) forms the third and last connection: between the
target groups and the ecosystem levels.
The skilling of the different target groups will not occur in one place, instead, each level of
the ecosystem and its agents will have its own responsibility of skilling the (future) workforce for
Industry 5.0. At societal level, e.g., one could place educational and vocational systems, and at
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
216
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
organisational level the company’s own training activities. Figure 1 further displays that certain
‘solutions’ to achieve Industry 5.0 require certain ‘workforce skills’ (for the different t arget groups)
and that the task of ‘skilling’ is shared among the target groups to acquire them and the ecosystem
level agents to deliver the appropriate training and work experience. In what follows, these three
dimensions are further elaborated on.1
5 Workforce skills for Industry 5.0
5.1 Knowledge, skills and attitudes required for Industry 5.0
“An essential step in the definition of the future systemic transformation pathways that are aligned
with an Industry 5.0 paradigm is the mainstreaming of jobs quantity and quality, as well as
related skills. This requires an analysis of the job-creating potential of different industry pathways,
including existing jobs that will remain relevant in most or all future scenarios; jobs that could be
created by securing adequate skills through ad hoc up- or re-skilling policies; jobs that may emerge
in the future as a result of technology developments and/or megatrends.” (European Commission,
2023b, p 15.). Whereas the earlier research on Industry 4.0 focused largely on STEM skills, the
most recent research is highlighting a much wider skills set that is a mix of hard, soft and IT skills
(European Commission, 2023b).
Building on the methodology of the European Qualifications F ramework ( EQF) a nd e-
Competence Framework (eCF) which highlights both individual and organisational competences
(i.e. supply and demand) and the literature on Industry 4.0, it is clear that Industry 5.0 requires
not only changes in knowledge and skills but also in the attitudes of the workforce (CEN et al.,
2013). Knowledge is defined a s the “set of know-what”, skill refers to the “ability to carry out
managerial or technical tasks” (know how), and attitude is the “cognitive and relational capacity”
(CEN et al., 2013, p. 13). In terms of skills, in the context of Industry 5.0, a further distinction can
be made between foundational skills (e.g., literacy), job-specific skills (e.g., social skills required to
deal with clients), and Industry 5.0 skills related to acting human-centric, resilient and sustainable.
The advantage of using the EQF is that within the same occupation, different skills profiles are
possible. There is a need to understand which organisational approaches are used.
The human-centric aspect of Industry 5.0 places workers’ well-being at the core of the
production process and uses new technologies to provide prosperity beyond jobs (Breque et al.,
2021). The basis of this concept is thus a change in the strategic orientation of manufacturing
companies and the mindset of industrial companies, mainly from profit m aximisation towards
increased responsibility for society and the people within the organisation (Breque et al., 2021).
In this context, the following demands are put on the workforce: (i) dealing with human-centred
technologies, and (ii) dealing with empowerment and participation.
Technology that is human-centric needs to factor in that human-centredness in its design,
introduction, use and outcomes (Warhurst et al., 2020). Technology, if it does not replace or
controls humans, can also augment their capabilities. Such augmenting technologies are also
known as assistance technologies. Their purpose is to support people in their work and to make
work easier. Assistance technologies enable individual need-based support directly at the workplace
(Sorko & Brunnhofer, 2019), whether due to physical limitations, different levels of education,
or other language skills. Such technologies offer a means to address shortages of skilled workers
1.
Figures 1 suggests that there are many relationships, but these are not all part of the project. Since
the BRIDGES 5.0 project is focused on workforce skills, this contribution stresses the three main dimensions
(human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience) and the second (workforce skills) and third connection (skilling).
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
217
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
by an increasing number of potential workers (Sorko, 2022). Especially in industry, collaborative
robots (Wallhoff e t a l., 2 019) or a ugmented a nd m ixed r eality ( A R/MR) s o lutions (McKinsey,
2022) are increasingly implemented. The latter especially in the context of individual information
provision and on-demand training. It requires that the workforce can work with these technologies
and support the development technologies in the workplace. Adding the socio-centric perspective,
even these augmenting technologies require a perspective in which the perspective of the user is
included in designing, developing and implementing these technologies (Acemoglu & Johnson,
2023; Belloc et al., 2020; Bal et al., 2021).
Instead of technology merely to replace the human being in manufacturing areas, today’s trend
is tending towards a collaboration between people and technology. The influence of technology on
the work design depends, for example, on the technology itself, the organisational framework in
the company, and the intended areas of application of the technology. In addition, the adoption of
technology by the worker further depends on the usage of the technology and the quality of work
results. Optimal use of technology requires the decentralisation of decision-making and empowers
workers to have more autonomy in decision-making (Parker & Grote, 2020). The workforce not
only needs to understand technology in all its forms, it also needs to understand how to co-decide
in the shaping of the Industry 5.0 workplace. Participation is core to human-centric technology
and work. These workforce skills require management to understand what helps organisations to
become more human-centric. Thus, Industry 5.0 indirectly supports the autonomy and needs of
workers.
Resilience points to anticipation skills and how to manage resilience. Resilience is, partly, the
capability to anticipate to (external) shocks and/or crises (Fougère & Meriläinen, 2021). Resilience
seems to have an invariably positive connotation (Patel et al., 2017), seen as a collective resource
and capacity, social support in a system, a coping mechanism, a collective systemic reduction
of vulnerability. However, there is an inherent trade-off in the strive towards resilience between
efficiency an d redundancy. Efficiency in the form outsourcing, down grading, saving resources,
saving costs, streamlining structures etc., may lead to lock-ins and rigidities, and in the face of
a shock, lead to vulnerability and disruption. On the contrary, redundancies are perceived as
inefficient in periods of non-crisis an d in a sh ort-term perspective. In the long run, acceptance
of redundancies may be an enabler of long-term flexibility and long-term effciency. Resilience is
the skill to deal with disruption, manage disruption, and bounce back to stable functioning, and
on top of that bounce forward, i.e. learn from the past, conceptualise shocks as opportunity to
evaluate options, and embrace (radical) change (creative destruction) (Hynes et al., 2020; Roth
et al., 2021). Workforce skills are how to understand and anticipate shocks, and how to develop
strategies to deal with these shocks, in the longer term, understanding the need for redundancy.
Sustainability skills of the workforce are perhaps the less concrete and tangible of the three
workforce skills. To develop sustainable manufacturing systems, it needs coordinated efforts in
many areas (product, process, technology, organisation, skills, mindset, leadership approach etc.)
and along the whole value chain (Giret, Trentesaux & Prabhu, 2015). To reach the sustainability
goals there are green tasks, jobs and skills demands for the European workforce. In addition, the
workforce must adopt sustainable behaviours that allows them to make the right judgements in
their work. Green jobs are two of a kind: (1) jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide
services that benefit the environment or conserve resources; ( 2) jobs in which w orkers’ tasks
involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use
fewer natural resources. The green transition requires major changes in (general) behaviours of
the workforce. Reaching net-zero emission targets, requires a fundamental change in attitudes
and behaviours at the workplace, and in companies, industry and society. The input of everyone is
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
218
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
needed to avoid unnecessary emission and support to change personal behaviours (also outside the
workplace, for example, travel behaviour, consumption patterns) and deal with the complicated
trade-offs that will arise.
5.2 Developing Industry 5.0 workforce skills
Following this logic of knowledge, skills, attitudes, it is clear that current understanding is limited
of what is necessary to develop the competences that workers need to work in an Industry 5.0 work
environment. At present, it is generally understood that what is needed in terms of knowledge,
that is, the “know-what”. Similarly, there is a general understanding about what kind of behaviour
is needed and expected in this environment. What is not yet understood are the workforce skills
needed to carry out managerial or technical tasks (know how), and the appropriate attitude,
namely the “cognitive and relational capacity”. Table 2 provides an overview of directions
for skill development with regard to general, human-centric, resilient and sustainable abilities,
divided into what is needed to create an Industry 5.0 work environment and what is the knowledge
needed to work in this environment. We stress that the abilities in Table 2 are general, and
that specific skills still need to be identified for employees and managers, and for technical and
non-technical tasks. This is part of the upcoming research in the BRIDGES 5.0 project.
Table 2. An overview of directions in which to develop Industry 5.0 workforce skills)
Ability Create Industry 5.0 Work in Industry 5.0
General •
Design and use digital technologies
and AI systems in a way that meets
industry 5.0’s three objectives
•
Include human-centric, resilient and
sustainable values in business models
and KPI’s.
•
Learn to, and work with existing, new
and complex digital technologies and
AI systems.
Human-centric •Understand human centricity
•
Include basic humanised values, e.g.,
freedom, autonomy, self-steering, self-
fulfilment (based on evidence-based
criteria of job / work design)
•
Support and implement worker partic-
ipation in decision making processes
aimed at change and daily operations
•
Support and implement worker partic-
ipation in decision making processes
aimed at change and daily operations
•
Apply a human in command-principle
with respect to human-technology in-
teraction (where machines remain ma-
chines and people retain control over
these machines at all times).
•Use human centred design methods
•
Use assistive / supporting / augment-
ing technologies
•
Show responsibility, intrapeneurship
and make use of being empowered
•
Make use of offered learning opportu-
nities (see also Resilience)
•
Participate in processes related to
(re)design / change
•
Participate in processes related to
(re)design / change
•
Be able to communicate in participa-
tion processes (Internal & external in-
teraction)
•Working with assistive technologies
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
219
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Ability Create Industry 5.0 Work in Industry 5.0
Resilient •
Assess the company’s dependencies
through planning for different scenar-
ios and risk assessments
•
Develop a resilient production process
•
Develop a resilient network of suppli-
ers, partners, and customers (systemic
thinking) / supply chain / value chain
•
Encourage self-organisation, creativity,
innovation, and flexibility, e.g. by pro-
viding learning opportunities for them
•
Implement training and education sys-
tems that guarantee the availability of
knowledge and skills
•
Develop strong risk management poli-
cies and financial resilience
•
Understand/integrate resilience in
company policies
•
Engage in lifelong learning and develop
ability to adapt and to creativity
•
Reflect on and respond to the re-
silience of the work process, and anal-
yse and solve problems at systems level
•
Be self-organising (e.g. as a team),
manage yourself
Sustainable •Care for the environment
•
Provide the knowledge for workers to
do so
•
Carry out environmental impact and
lifecycle assessments
•
Make and promote ‘green choices,
use green technologies, develop green
tasks and design and implement circu-
lar processes
•
Care for the environment and act sus-
tainably
•
Understand circularity and carry out
lifecycle and environmental impact as-
sessments
•Evaluate green technologies
•Elaborate resources efficiency
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
To guide the further discussion on working definitions around workforce skills in Industry 5.0,
Annexe 1 contains narratives that were developed at three levels: the company level, the employee
level and the industry level. These narratives logically overlap. Their aim is to provide a general
storyline, without too many details. Each narrative can be tailor-made for a specific situation or
case, and can thus guide future working definitions of the central constructs and concepts.
6
Measurement and implementation of Industry 5.0: What will make Industry 5.0
work?
6.1 Measurement of (workforce skills for) Industry 5.0
The basis for shaping policy and strategies on Industry 5.0 is sufficient high-quality data that allows
both looking back and look forward. On the one hand, traditional statistical surveys do not always
provide the required information; on the other hand, there is a surge in data possibilities from web
scraping and unstructured data sources. To assess what the current situation with technology
and skills is for the four target groups (managers, employed, students, job seekers) defined above,
information from several data sources that cover the topics of emerging technologies, forms of work
organisation, workplace and social innovation, skill utilisation and development, labour market
outcomes, etc., need to be used. As no single data source provides all the needed information
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
220
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
to approach Industry 5.0 challenges, several surveys and administrative data would need to be
combined. Examples include employer and employee level data at the sector level within countries,
or regional data sources at the detailed NUTS-2 level. Eurostat provides relevant EU-wide data on
digital technologies and the labour market. Yet, information about the dynamics of organisations
and work is limited in most EU-wide data sources, and data sources on adult learning and training
cannot be easily linked with other sources. Because the linkage of data sources at the company
level is easier in their national context, it is worthwhile to look for high-quality data at the country
level (e.g. surveys, register data). Another interesting source is web-scraped data, which provide
‘real-time’ information of emerging work profiles, tasks, skills, and occupations within sectors, that
is typically unavailable from traditional statistical sources (Cardenas Rubio & Warhurst, 2022).
One downside, however, is that representativeness is not built into the raw data and further
elaboration must be undertaken to establish it. More information than what is usually processed
could be extracted from such unstructured web-based data sources. In particular, company policies
and practices, organisational context and technology uses that are key aspects of Industry 5.0
could be analysed. To dig deeper into vacancy analysis, web-scraped data can be further enriched
with other data sources such as company data from websites, public reports, official registers, and
company information databases and collective agreements. Finally, using different types of data
to develop future scenarios can also be helpful to anticipate changing skill needs.
6.2 Implementation of Industry 5.0: Teaching and learning factories
The changing demands for knowledge, skills and attitudes in the context of Industry 5.0 also
come with new requirements in terms of education and lifelong learning (EASME, 2020; European
Commission, 2023b). Already in the context of Industry 4.0, several efforts have been made
to better connect teaching and learning with industry, experimenting with new approaches and
initiatives such as living labs, field labs and other combined public-private learning ecosystems.
Importantly, these approaches and initiatives not only innovate the learning environment and
format and the institutional context, but also pilot novel pedagogical approaches in companies and
at the regional and national levels. Educational specialists contend that new competencies only
succeed if action-based learning and comprehension-based learning are combined (Pittich et al.,
2013). Therefore, attention has focused on creating more practice-based learning environments.
Against this background, especially the teaching factories and learning factories are often
considered as very promising, in particular in manufacturing settings (EASME, 2020). Educational
interventions with practice-based learning at the company level are classified as teaching factories.
The teaching factory approach is seen as an alternative in which education, research and innovation
activities are integrated (Chryssolouris et al., 2016), and learning takes place in a real-life
environment. The interventions that require broader public-private engagement in learning
ecosystems are classified as learning factories (EASME, 2020). Examples include the academic
education of students in a physical or virtual ‘factory’ environment. However, the assessment of
outcomes and evidence of teaching factories and learning factories remains limited (Nick et al.,
2019; Pittich et al., 2020), mainly because of the inaccessibility of these interventions (Lensing,
2016). A key area for future progress is, therefore, the redevelopment and enhancement of teaching
and learning factories in the framework of Industry 5.0 and the twin transition, and to support their
implementation in different institutional contexts. Further evaluations of their impact would also
be valuable. To do so, the next steps in the BRIDGES 5.0 project involve the updating of these
concepts and their testing and development with the companies participating in the Company
Board. In particular, Industry 5.0 requirements are discussed with companies and translated into a
training system that will be managed over two years. The companies will select settings in which
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
221
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
technologies will be introduced according to the training concept with the project team. The
interventions allow comparing different training methodologies between technologies and between
target groups.
To upgrade the governance of skills systems from the current Industry 4.0-approach to Industry
5.0, an evaluation of the current performance of the skills systems in industry is also required.
This calls for an assessment of the current state of these skills systems in terms of strengthening
governance, developing relevant (green and digital) skills and effectively using the skills. In
addition, the interaction with the institutional context in which these systems are embedded and
the impact on related policies should be examined.
6.3 A conducive policy framework and ecosystem around Industry 5.0
To make progress towards Industry 5.0, a conducive policy framework must be created, in which
both the government as well as the wider ecosystem of actors play an important role (European
Commission, 2021b; 2023b). The logic of Industry 5.0 should be mainstreamed across all policy
areas, policy processes, funding sources, etc. to ensure all are aligned towards meeting the same
goal. With its focus on Industry 5.0, the Commission touches on several of its key priorities and
initiatives, including the Pact for Skills, the European Green Deal, the Proposal for AI Regulation,
and others. To enhance human-centeredness, key points of attention for policymakers are making
technologies trustworthy and aligned with human rights, enhancing the understanding of the
determinants of wellbeing at work and investing in the development of those skills that meet
the
demand by companies and allow workers to grow professionally and personally (European
Commission, 2023b). With regard to resilience, policymakers should empower companies and
workers to better manage unexpected shocks, in different areas (European Commission, 2023b),
for example by investing in foresight and anticipation tools, improving the human capital stock, etc.
Concerning sustainability, the focus should be on ensuring that economic, social and environmental
goals are aligned (European Commission, 2023b), e.g., by promoting green jobs providing good
working and employment conditions.
As part of the EU industrial strategy, the need for a well-established industrial ecosystem
and alliances is highlighted (European Commission, 2020). In order to accelerate the
transition to Industry 5.0, policy
support and the take-up of the concepts and its core principles
by key stakeholders, networks and
companies (e.g., the social partners, training providers, labour
market actors, industrial networks)
at the EU, national and regional levels is required. Within the
BRIDGES 5.0 project, these actors
will be brought together in the framework of a collaborative
(web) platform: the Industry 5.0
Platform. This platform facilitates social innovation in the
learning field. It also provides these
stakeholders and the four target groups with
recommendations and instruments for new learning
and training systems. The main functions
of the Industry 5.0 Platform are to (1) inform the
debate and the main stakeholders, (2)
capturing and analysing outputs throughout the life of the
project, and creating related
opportunities for stakeholders to discuss and develop consensus on a
wide set of digital skilling
issues, (3) innovate through exchanges at a European scale, and (4) influence skills policies at
the EU-level by helping to generate a Strategic Research Innovation
Agenda for Europe, for
transition to Industry 5.0 skilling policies.
7 Conclusion, discussion and recommendations
European industries must undergo a transformative shift, prioritising sustainability, human-centred
approaches, and resilience, as outlined by the EU. The Industry 5.0 policy by the European
Commission is not merely another phase of industrial development but a strategic initiative
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
222
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
encouraging companies to alter their business practices. This transformation requires collaboration
among managers, employees, and customers to promote environmentally friendly production
processes, services, and products. Companies should adopt material reuse strategies to reduce
their reliance on scarce resources and minimise waste and pollution. Central to making this shift
successful is the acknowledgement that the most precious and limited resource is the human
worker. By harnessing the intellect and skills of the human workforce, Industry 5.0 can effectively
leverage the latest technologies to address not only the pressing technological challenges of our
time, but also contribute to social challenges like the energy transition, environmental pollution
and climate related issues Europe’s Industry 4.0 and 5.0 initiatives are not created in a void but in
competition with what happens elsewhere on the globe. Japan started developing ‘Society 5.0’,
which resembles Industry 5.0, in the sense that it also aims at human-centric goals. Its route is
different, namely by creating a new science, technology and innovation ecosystem that addresses
both economic and social issues (Fukuda, 2022; Huang et al., 2022). The United States developed
a somewhat different strategy to improve the national innovation capacity through initiatives
such as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation program. Its goal was to reinvigorate
‘advanced manufacturing’, which should bring greater income, higher quality jobs, and improved
health and quality of life to all nation’s citizens (Fukuda, 2022). What these EU, Japanese and US
initiatives share is their strive to make use of digital technologies that both benefit economic and
social goals. Perhaps the main difference is that the EU wants to put humans in the production
process more central instead of technology, while Japan wishes to stress customer-centricity instead
of a production-focus; and the US emphasises the role of skilling the workforce. Apart from that,
the EU approach strongly weighs sustainability, whereas Japan and the US underline the resilience
of their ecosystems. But overall, the tendencies are in a similar direction (Adel, 2022; Fukuda,
2022; Huang et al., 2022).
Contrary to profit-centric approaches, Industry 5.0 places priority on the essential social change
achievable through optimal resource utilisation encompassing technology, circularity, and skills
within companies. Realising the goals of Industry 5.0 necessitates a redevelopment of employee
skills.
The article’s main contribution to the literature on Industry 4.0 and 5.0 is to offer a conceptual
framework that intends to link the three pillars of human-centricity, resilience and sustainability to
relevant ecosystem levels (workplace, organisation, industry, and society). Its guiding principle is
that choices about Industry 5.0 are most often made at the company level, which means that the
future of workforce skills is mainly an organisational-level issue and not, for instance, a matter
of training for which individual workers and educational institutes are mainly responsible. This
enables a more open discussion about the roles of the target groups (students, job seekers, workers,
managers and engineers) and the responsibilities of target groups and management in shaping
Industry 5.0 conditions within companies. The contribution should be understood as firmly shifting
away from technological determinism in developing and implementing digital technologies.
This article offers a comprehensive theoretical and conceptual framework to devise solutions for
workforce skills in Industry 5.0. It operationalises the required research to shape various workforce
skills essential for Industry 5.0. The project emphasises a participatory approach, engaging a
diverse set of stakeholders in decision-making at every research stage.
Regarding the methodology, the aim was to ensure a holistic approach to the topic. This
included the integration of polyvalent experts from different disciplines such as psychology, history,
human resources, technology, etc. as well as from different countries. This holistic,
iterative
approach also represents a degree of novelty compared to existing Industry 5.0
approaches.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
223
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
At this stage, we are about to start collecting data and creating research outputs. The project
BRIDGES 5.0 has considered several avenues for delivering scientific r esults to answer the main
research questions. A first p ossibility was to create a survey to map practices in c ompanies. Our
assessment was that such a survey would surely be needed, but first an assessment was needed of
existing databases. The work by Greenan and Napolitano (2024) has shown that the
combination
of datasources offers an important understanding of Industry 5.0 and that this
venue needed to
be inspected first. We combine EU and national level data with the
European Manufacturing
Survey. Many datasources are therefore inspected. In the future,
specific surveys can be designed
to investigate residual questions. Also, specific case studies
could be designed to find out what
the Industry 5.0 requirements mean in practice. This
approach can be endeavoured in the future.
In the project, we have a set of intervention studies
linked to the Teaching and Learning Factory.
Other machine learning approaches could also be
considered. For the moment, we are trying to
understand what the innovative approach delivers.
More research is needed, but first, several steps
are taken in this project
The research explores the latest technologies and endeavours to identify optimal implementation
strategies. It is important to note a limitation in the focus on specific learning interventions like
training and learning factories, not fully encompass lifelong learning. The study's strength lies in
examining skill requirements both in educational settings and workplaces, drawing insights from
managers, employees, and educators across different European c ountries. While these insights are
intended feeding back into company policies on workforce skills, the project as a whole will also
inform practice on the consequences for business models, responsible innovation and contributing
to human-centric, resilient and sustainable business ecosystems in general. Additionally, the
project kick-starts a policy development process from scratch, involving social partners, education
institutions, and industry authorities to formulate strategies conducive to a more inclusive and
sustainable future. Collaborations with other European and national research projects enrich the
study, potentially yielding a more supported future perspective through shared data and insights.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded as part of the BRIDGES5.0 – Bridging risks to an inclusive digital
and green future by enhancing workforce skills for industry 5.0 – project, under the European
Union’s Horizon Europe Cl.4-01.26 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
No 101069651.
We thank our co-authors of the report on which this article is based: Gu van Rhijn, Frank
Krause, Peter Dickinson, Hans Chr. Garmann Johnsen, John P. Knudsen, Antonius Schröder,
Ralf Kopp, Alex Papacharalampopoulos, Panos Stavropoulos, Wolfram Rhomberg, Christine
Lichem-Herzog, Klaus Seybold, Lena Leitenbauer, Jean-Claude Ruano-Borbalan, Unai Ziarsolo
and Iñigo Araiztegui.
The constructive comments of the reviewers and editors significantly improved the article.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
224
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
8 References
Acemoglu, D. & S. Johnson (2023) Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over
Technology and Prosperity. New York: PublicAffair.
Adel, A., (2022). Future of industry 5.0 in society: human-centric solutions, challenges and
prospective research areas. Journal of Cloud Computing, 11(1), p.40.
Almada-Lobo, F. (2015). The Industry 4.0 revolution and the future of Manufacturing Execution
Systems (MES). Journal of Innovation Management, 3, 4, 16-21. Accessed May 1, 2024:
https://journalsojs3.fe.up.pt/index.php/jim/article/view/2183-0606_003.004_0003/206
Baiocco, S., Simonelli, F. & Westhoff, L. ( 2020). S tudy on mapping opportunities a nd challenges
for micro and small enterprises in offering t heir employees u p- o r re-skilling o pportunities. Final
Report, vol. 1. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/study-on-up-and-re-skilling-in-micro-and
-small-enterprises/.
Bal, M., J. Benders, S. Dhondt and L. Vermeerbergen (2021), ‘Head-worn displays and job
content: A systematic literature review’, Applied Ergonomics 91, 103285, February, https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103285
Belloc, F., Burdin, G., Cattani, L., Ellis, W. & F. Landini (2021). Coevolution of Job Automation
Risk and Workplace Governance. IZA Discussion Paper (14788):60.
Blumer, H. (1954). What Is Wrong with Social Theory. American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10.
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Blumer/Blumer_1954.html
Breque, M., De Nul, L., Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: towards a sustainable, human-centric
and resilient European industry. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union, https:
//data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/308407
Cardenas Rubio, J., & Warhurst, C. (2022). Big data and the shift towards real time labour
market information. New Direction, May, 48-52.
CEDEFOP. (2018). Insights into skill shortages and skill mismatch: learning from Cedefop’s
European skills and jobs survey. Berlin: CEDEFOP.
CEN, European Commission, & EFTA. (2013).
Building
the
e-CF.
A
combination
of
sound
methodology
and
expert
contribution.
Methodology documentation of the European e-Competence
Framework. http://profiletool.ecompetences.eu/
Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., & Rentzos, L. (2016). The Teaching Factory: A Manufacturing
Education Paradigm. Procedia CIRP, 57, 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.009
Cirillo, V., Fanti, L., Mina, A., & Ricci, A. (2023). The adoption of digital technologies: Investment,
skills, work organisation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 66, 89-105.
Davies, R. (2015).
Industry
4.0
Digitalisation
for
productivity
and
growth.
Briefing, European
Parliamentary Research Service. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank
De Sitter, L. U., Den Hertog, J. F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organisations with
simple jobs to simple organisations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50(5), 497–534.
De Souza, A. S. C., & Debs, L. (2024). Concepts, innovative technologies, learning approaches
and trend topics in education 4.0: A scoping literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities
Open, 9, 100902.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
225
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Dosi, G. (1988). The nature of the innovative process. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G.
Silverberg & L. Soete (Eds). Technical Change and Economic Theory (pp. 221-238). London:
Pinter.
Dwyer, J., Karanikas, N., & Sav, A. (2023). Scoping review of peer-reviewed empirical studies
on implementing high reliability organisation theory. Safety Science,164, 106178. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106178
EASME (2020). Skills for industry curriculum guidelines 4.0 – Future-proof education and
training for manufacturing in Europe – Final report. Luxemburg: Publications Office, 2020,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/097323
Eurofound, & Cedefop. (2020). European Company Survey 2019: Workplace practices unlocking
employee potential. Luxemburg: Publications office.
European Commission. (2017). Germany: Industrie 4.0. Digital Transformation Monitor. (DG
GROW).https://ati.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2020-06/DTM_Industrie 4.0_DE.pdf
European Commission (2020). A New Industrial Strategy for Europe, Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM/2020/102, https://eu
r-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593086905382&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0102.
European Commission. (2021a). Annual Report on European SMEs Digitalisation of SMEs.
https://www.ggb.gr/sites/default/files/basic-page-files/SME Annual Report – 2021.pdf
European Commission, D.-G. for R. and I. (2021b). Industry 5.0 – Towards a sustainable, human-
centric and resilient European industry.https://doi.org/https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/073
781
European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Duell,
N., Guzi, M., Kahancová, M. et al., (2023a) Skills shortages and structural changes in the labour
market during COVID 19 and in the context of the digital and green transitions – Thematic review
2023 – Synthesis report. Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.
eu/doi/10.2767/807269.
European Commission (2023b). Industry 5.0 and the Future of Work: making Europe the centre
of gravity for future good-quality Jobs. ESIR Focus Paper.
Fareri, S.; Fantoni, G.; Chiarello, F.; Coli, E; & Binda, A. (2020). Estimating Industry 4.0 impact
on job profiles and skills using text mining, Computers in Industry, 118, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compind.2020.103222.
Fougère, M., & Meriläinen, E. (2021). Exposing three dark sides of social innovation through
critical perspectives on resilience. Industry and Innovation, 28(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13662716.2019.1709420
Fukuda, K., (2020). Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward society
5.0. International journal of production economics, 220, p.107460.
German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2017). Work 4.0: Re-Imagining Work.
White Paper. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Directorate-General for Basic
Issues of the Social State, the Working World and the Social Market Economy.
Giret, A., Trentesaux, D., & Prabhu, V. (2015). Sustainability in manufacturing operations
scheduling: A state of the art review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems,37, 126-140.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
226
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Greenan N. & Napolitano, S., (2024). “Does the technological transformation of firms go along
with more employee control over working time? Empirical findings from an EU-wide combined
dataset”, Working Document, CNAM, Centre d’études de l’emploi et du travail, n°216, March.
Deliverable related to BEYOND4.0. Firms employee working time.pdf (beyond4-0.eu) (accessed
15 April 2024).
Grond, A., den Hertog, P., Janssen, M., Nieuwenhuis, F., Vankan, A. & R. te Velde (2021).
Evaluatie Smart Industry programma. (Publicatienummer: 2020.127-2102) Utrecht: Dialogic.
Guest, D. (2022). Quality of working life. In: C. Warhurst, C. Mathieu and R. Dwyer (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Job Quality (pp. 23-40). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guest, D., Knox, A., & Warhurst, C. (2022). Humanizing work in the digital age: Lessons from
socio-technical systems and quality of working life initiatives. Human Relations, 75(8), 1461–1482.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221092674
Heubeck, T. (2023). Managerial capabilities as facilitators of digital transformation? Dynamic man-
agerial capabilities as antecedents to digital business model transformation and firm performance.
Digital Business,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2023.100053
Huang, S., Wang, B., Li, X., Zheng, P., Mourtzis, D. and Wang, L., 2022. Industry 5.0 and
Society 5.0—Comparison, complementation and co-evolution. Journal of manufacturing systems,
64, 424-428.
Hynes, W., Trump, B., Love, P., & Linkov, I. (2020). Bouncing forward: A resilience approach to
dealing with COVID-19 and future systemic shocks. Environment Systems and Decisions,40 (2),
174–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09776-x
Johannessen, J.-A., Olsen B., and Lumpkin, G.T. (2001. Innovation as Newness: What Is New,
How New, and New to Whom? European Journal of Innovation Management 4(1): 20–31.
Kagermann, H., Lukas,W.-D., Wahlster,W. (2011). Industrie 4.0: Mit dem Internet der Dinge auf
dem Weg zur 4. Industriellen Revolution. VDI Nachrichten. 3 May 2011, p. 2. Available online:
https://www.dfki.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DFKI/Medien/News_Media/Presse/Presse-Highl
ights/vdinach2011a13-ind4.0-Internet-Dinge.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2022).
Kagermann, H., Wahlster,W., Helbig, J. (2012). Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic
Initiative Industrie 4.0: Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Berlin (Germany):
Research Union of the German Government.
Karanika-Murray, M., & Oeij, P.R.A. (2017). The role of work and organisational psychology
for workplace innovation practice: From short-sightedness to eagle view? European Work and
Organisational Psychology in Practice. Special Issue on Workplace Innovation, 1, 19-30.
Karasek, R (1979). Job demands,j ob decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
Karasek, R A & Theorell, T G. T. (199O). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the
Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books
Kuipers, H., Van Amelsvoort, P., & Kramer, E.-H. (2020). New ways of organizing: Alternatives
to bureaucracy. Leuven, Den Haag: Acco.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
227
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Kumar, R., Gupta, P., Singh, S., & Jain, D. (2021). Human Empowerment by Industry 5.0 in
Digital Era: Analysis of Enablers. In: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering (pp. 401–410).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4320-7_36
Lensing, K. (2016).
Entwicklung
eines
kompetenzorientierten
Lehr-Lernszenarios
zur
Digitalen
Fabrik.
Master’s thesis. Dortmund. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30187.49446
Levy, F. & R.J. Murnane (2004). The New Division of Labour. New York: Russell Sage.
Maresova, P., Soukal, I., Svobodova, L., Hedvicakova, M., Javanmardi, E., Selamat, A., &
Krejcar, O. (2018). Consequences of Industry 4.0 in Business and Economics. Economies 6 (46).
https://doi.org/10.3390/economies6030046.
Mazzucato, M., Kattel, R. & J. Ryan-Collins (2020), Challenge-Driven Innovation Policy: Towards
a New Policy Toolkit, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 20, 421–437.
McKinsey (2022). Technology Trends Outlook 2022. Immersive-reality technologies. https:
//www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-top-trends-in-tech
Müller, J. (2021). Enabling Technologies for Industry 5.0. Results of a workshop with Europe’s
technology leaders. Brussels: European Commission, DG R&I.
Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric Solution. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164371
Nick, G., Gallina, V., Szaller, Á., Várgedő, T., & Schumacher, A. (2019). Industry 4.0 in
Germany, Austria and Hungary: Interpretation, strategies and readiness models. 16th IMEKO
TC10 Conference 2019; “Testing, Diagnostics and Inspection as a Comprehensive Value Chain for
Quality and Safety,” 71–76.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2021). Humanizing strategy. Long Range Planning, 54(4), 102070.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102070
OECD. (2020a). Increasing Adult Learning Participation: Learning from Successful Reforms,
Getting Skills Right. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2020b). Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD
Countries, OECD Skills Studies. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2023). Upskilling and reskilling for the twin transition: The role of social dialogue.
Thematic brief. https://www.theglobaldeal.com/resources/Upskilling-and-reskilling-for-the-twin-
transition.pdf
Oeij, P.R.A., Dhondt, S. & McMurray, A.J. (Eds) (2023). A Research Agenda for Workplace
Innovation: The Challenge of Disruptive Transitions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Oeij, P. R. A., Preenen, P. Y. T., Van der Torre, W., Van der Meer, L., & Van den Eerenbeemt,
J. (2019). Technological choice and workplace innovation: Towards efficient and humanised
work.
European Public & Social Innovation Review, 4(1), 15–26.
Oeij, P.R.A., Van Rhijn, G., Van Dijk, W., Krause, F. et al. (2023). Conceptual framework of
Industry 5.0 to study workforce skills (BRIDGES 5.0 deliverable D1.1/ version 2 – January 2024).
Leiden: BRIDGES 5.0. (Retrieved from: https://bridges5-0.eu/publications/).
Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2020). Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design
Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1–45.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
228
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Patel, S. S., Rogers, B. M., & Rubin, J. G. (2017). What do we mean by 'community resilience'?
A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pmc/articles/pmc5693357/
Pereira, A. C., and Fernando Romero. (2017). A review of the meanings and the implications of
the Industry 4.0 concept. Procedia Manufacturing, 13: 1206–14.
Perez, C. & T. Murray Leach (2021). Technological revolutions: which ones, how many and why
it matters: a neo-Schumpeterian view. Beyond 4.0 D7.1 Report: https://beyond4-0.eu/storage/
publications/D7.1%20Technological%20Revolutions:%20Which%20Ones,%20How%20Many%
20%20And%20Why%20It%20Matters:%20A%20Neo-Schumpeterian%20View/BEY4.0-WP7-D
7.1_Revised%20historical%20paper%20v3-PC-18429.pdf
Pittich, D., & Tenberg, R. (2013). Development of competences as an integration process that is
alternating in the learning venue - current considerations. Journal of Technical Education,1(1),
98–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48513/joted.v1i1.16
Pittich, D., Tenberg, R., & Lensing, K. (2020). Learning factories for complex competence
acquisition. European Journal of Engineering Education,45 (2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.108
0/03043797.2019.1567691
Reiman, A., Kaivo-oja, J., Parviainen, E., Takala, E.-P., & Lauraeus, T. (2021). Human factors
and ergonomics in manufacturing in the industry 4.0 context – A scoping review. Technology in
Society,65, 101572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101572.
Resende, A., Cerqueira, S., Barbosa, J., Damasio, E., Pombeiro, A., Silva, A., & Santos, C. (2021).
Ergowear: An ambulatory, non-intrusive, and interoperable system towards a Human-Aware
Human-robot Collaborative framework. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous
Robot Systems and Competitions, ICARSC 2021, art. no. 9429796, pp. 56-61. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ICARSC52212.2021.9429796.
Rodrik, D. & Sabel, C. (2019). ‘Building a Good Jobs Economy’. Working Paper, https:
//tinyurl.com/ybgpblpp (accessed 5 July 2023).
Roth, F., Warnke, P., Niessen, P., & Edler, J. (2021). Systemische Resilienz: Einsichten aus der
Innovationsforschung (Perspektiven - Policy Brief 03 / 2021 (DE)). Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-Institut
für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/248428
Saniuk, S., Caganova, D. & Saniuk, A. (2023) Knowledge and Skills of Industrial Employees and
Managerial Staff for the Industry 4.0 Implementation. Mobile Networks and Applications, 28,
220–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-021-01788-4.
Sorko, S. R. (2022). Industrie 5.0—Menschzentriertes Arbeiten in der Industrie der Zukunft. In:
M. Gössl & C. Reischl (Hrsg.), Digitalisierung und Inklusion. Eine Chance für mehr Diversität in
neuen Arbeitswelten (pp. 119–142). Baden-Baden: Tectum.
Sorko, S. R., & Brunnhofer, M. (2019). Potentials of Augmented Reality in Training. Procedia
Manufacturing, 31, 85–90.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(1997
08)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Verhaest, D., Sellami, S., & Van der Velden, R. (2017). Differences in horizontal and vertical
mismatches across countries and fields of study. International Labour Review,156 (1), 1–23.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
229
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2012). The Dynamic Capability View in Strategic Management: A
Bibliometric Review. International Journal of Management Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/ij
mr.12000
Wallhoff, F., Vox, J. P., & Theuerkauff, T. (2 019). Assistenz- und Servicerobotik—Die Gestaltung
der Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle als Grundlage des Anwendungserfolgs. In: R. Haring (Hrsg.),
Gesundheit digital (pp. 99–122). Rostock: Springer.
Warhurst, C., Mathieu, C. and Dhondt, S. (2020) Industrie 4.0: What Are The Opportunities and
Challenges?,
Policy
Brief
#2,
BEYOND 4.0. Publications (beyond4-0.eu)
Warhurst, C., & Dhondt, S. (2023). Making Industry 5.0 Happen: Concept, Policy and Practice.
In Beyond 4.0 - Policy Briefs (Issue March, #8). BEYOND4.0 website: https://beyond4-0.eu/st
orage/publications/D2.2%20EU%20Policy%20Brief%20No.%208:%20Making%20Industry%205
.0%20Happen/D2.2%20EU%20Policy%20Brief%20No.%208%20Making%20Industry%205.0%2
0Happen%2015.03.2023%20F.pdf
Welfare, K. S., Hallowell, M. R., Shah, J. A., & Riek, L. D. (2019). Consider the Human Work
Experience When Integrating Robotics in the Workplace. ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction, 2019 -March, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673139
Worldbank (2024).The Future of Work: Implications for Equity and Growth in Europe (worldbank.
org). Accessed 15 Appril 2024.
Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception,
conception and perception, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Volume 61, 530-535, https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.006.
Zwysen, W. (2023). Labour shortages – turning away from bad jobs. ETUI Policy Brief 2023.03.
https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/Labour%20shortages-turning%20away%20fr
om%20bad%20jobs_2023.pdf
Annexe 1: Narratives of Industry 5.0 as a guide for future working definitions
“
Industry 5.0 companies
are in terms of technology and digitalisation up-to-date and future-proof.
The deployment of new technology and digitalisation is to support the work of employees, not to
control them. The management philosophy and strategy of the company is to align economic
goals, sustainability goals and social goals simultaneously. Management behaviours combine the
strive for successful business performance with ways to support employees. Their workforce has
the necessary skills and the opportunity to continuously upskills their competencies. Their jobs are
characterised by a balance of job demands and job control opportunities. Their labour contract
and renumerations are aligned with fundamental rights and a fair day’s pay. The relationship
between workers and management is constructive and cooperative due to these human-centric
factors. Employees have decision power with regard to changes in the organisation that affect
them directly. In this safe, healthy and productive environment, employees are motivated to do
their best, contribute to the innovativeness of the company, and adopt renewal. Such companies,
with the appropriate style of management, level of digitalisation, human centred / supporting
technology and quality of the skilled workforce, are resilient to adopt changes in the environment
and to adapt to changing circumstances in their business and entrepreneurial networks. Companies
in Industry 5.0-proof environments benefit from the relative strengths of technologies and workers,
because they invest in both.”
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
230
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
“
Industry 5.0 employees
are persons with the right level of skills to function in the current digital
working environment. They function well because their jobs are characterised by a balance of job
demands and job control opportunities. Their labour contract and renumerations are aligned with
fundamental rights and a fair day’s pay. The relationship with other workers, other disciplines
(e.g. engineering and technology design) and management is constructive and cooperative due
to these human-centric factors. Employees have decision power with regard to changes in the
organisation that affect them directly. In this safe, healthy and productive environment, employees
are motivated to do their best, contribute to the innovativeness of the company, and adopt renewal.
These employees are motivated to upskill their competencies continuously. As a consequence they
are resilient and able to deal adequately with changes and setbacks within their company or on
the labour market. Due to their employability employees can develop sustainable careers for their
life course.”
“An
industry, sector or branch is ‘Industry 5.0’-proof
when it is, apart from being profitable and
competitive, respecting workers’ needs and interests as well as ensuring environmental sustain-
ability. Such sustainability refers to resource efficiency, which is about doing “better with less”,
about optimising the relationship between product output and resource input. This means taking
into account a life-cycle perspective and end-of-life considerations. Companies have incorporated
sustainability into their circular business models. Such industries apply technologies like AI and
additive manufacturing to optimise their resource-efficiency and minimising waste. Innovation
reversed the trend of more energy and increases carbon emissions by smarter production planning
and the use of more energy-efficient technologies. These industries are resilient because they
have the ability to cope flexibly with (disruptive) change in their markets, (global) value chains,
and (geo-)political environments. They are equipped to adapt quickly to changing circumstances
for key value chains, and to secure its role as a sustainable engine for prosperity. These industries
can deal with vulnerabilities that can occur on many levels, including the factory floor, supply
network and industrial system levels. Such industrial contexts are applying a human-centric
approach when they ensure that both companies and workers benefit from the digital transition,
adapt business models accordingly, and involve employees in every step of this transition process.
Companies in Industry 5.0-proof environments benefit from the relative strengths of technologies
and workers, because they invest in both. There is a strong cooperation between enterprises on
the one hand, and education and training institutions on the other, as companies are well placed
to determine the skills gaps and forecast the skills needs for the near future. Education, training,
re-skilling and up-skilling are successfully addressed in accommodating the digital transition in
their industries, because qualified human capital is seen as basic to realise the digital and green
transition. Successful reforms and investing in the green, digital and social resilience priorities
enable these industries to create jobs and sustainable growth, and allow resilient recovery in a
balanced, forward-looking and sustained manner. Such Industry 5.0-proof performance secured
the transition to a more resilient, sustainable and human-centric society.”
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
231
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Biographies
Peter R.A. Oeij. Senior researcher at TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific
Research. He holds masters in sociology, history and psychology and a Ph.D. in Organisation
Science. Peter carries out research and consultancy in the field of innovation management,
workplace innovation and team dynamics in national and European projects. Preceding his
affiliation to TNO, Peter worked for a social science research institute on labour issues, established
at Tilburg University in The Netherlands.
ORCID: http s:// or cid.or g/ 00 00 -0 00 2-5 74 6- 0 986
CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft.
Karolien Lenaerts. Research manager and Head of the Research Group Work, Organisation
& Social Dialogue at HIVA-KU Leuven. She holds a PhD in Economics from Ghent University.
At HIVA, Karolien is mainly involved in the coordination and ongoing research of the Horizon
Europe projects WeLaR and BRIDGES 5.0 and other EU-funded projects on the impact of global
megatrends on labour markets and job quality, occupational safety and health, non-standard
forms of work and the platform economy and workers’ participation and social dialogue.
ORCID: http s:// or cid.or g/ 00 00 -0 00 2-3 29 9- 4 690
CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft.
Steven Dhondt. Senior researcher at TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific
Research, and Visiting Professor at the KU Leuven. He holds masters in political science,
sociology, information management and a Ph.D. in Organisation Science. Steven Dhondt’
research is focused on the impacts of the newest technologies on organisational and work
practices. He is advisory member for several European and national committees, among which
DG MOVE, Eurofound, EUWIN and the Dutch Social Economic Council (SER). He coordinates
a major research programme at TNO on Smart Working, developing insights on the impacts
of robotics and digitisation on organisational practices, and several major EU-granted research
programmes
ORCID: http s:// or cid.or g/ 00 00 -0 00 2-8 88 8- 5 231
CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft.
Wietse Van Dijk. Senior scientist at the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research
(TNO). Wietse has master’s degrees in both Mechanical Engineering with a specialization in
Biomechanical Engineering and Industrial Design Engineering with a specialization in Emerging
Technology Design from the University of Twente. In 2015 he finished his graduate research
at the Delft University of Technology on walking support with exoskeletons. At TNO Wietse
works on Industry 5.0 projects concerning physical and cognitive support at the workplace. He
works on robotics, exoskeletons and (cognitive) operator support systems.
ORCID: http s:// or cid.or g/ 00 00 -0 00 2-5 73 5- 4 446
CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Writing - review & Editing.
Doris Schartinger. Works as an economist in the Center for Innovation Systems and Policy
at the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology. Her primary research focus is on the economics
of innovation and technological change. She has been involved in a number of research projects
ranging from theoretical and empirical studies of innovation, and on questions of technology
management and technology strategy at the firm level, to managerial and policy dimensions
of these issues.
ORCID: http s:// or cid.or g/ 00 00 -0 00 2-3 46 0- 0 704
CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Writing - review & Editing.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
232
Oeij, Lenaerts, Dhondt, Van Dijk, Schartinger, Sorko, Warhurst
Sabrina R. Sorko. Senior lecturer at JOANNEUM University of Applied Sciences, Institute
Industrial Management, Austria and is leading the research field ‘future of work’. She holds
masters in business education and law and a Ph.D in law and is certified social competence
coach. Sabrina gives classes and carries out research in national and European projects in
the field of personal and organizational development, industry 5.0, generational management
and new work. In addition, she is working as consultant in her fields of expertise supporting
companies on their way to new work.
ORCID: http s:// or cid.or g/ 00 00 -0 00 3-4 02 9- 7 059
CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Writing - review & Editing.
Chris Warhurst. Professor and Director of the Warwick Institute for Employment Research
at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom. Chris is also an Associate Research Fellow
of SKOPE at the University of Oxford and was Co-Chair of ReWAGE, an independent advisory
group for government on building back better jobs post Covid. His research focuses on job
quality and skills. He has published 18 books and 60 journal articles, including The Oxford
Handbook of Job Quality (Oxford University Press, 2022), and The Oxford Handbook of Skills
& Training (Oxford University Press, 2017). He has been an expert advisor to the UK, Scottish
and Australian Governments and the OECD. He is part of the research team of the Horizon
Europe-funded Bridges 5.0 project examining skills for Industry 5.0 and has just completed
another research project developing the business case for good jobs for the Northern Ireland Labour Relations
Agency.
ORCID: http s:// or cid.or g/ 00 00 -0 00 3-1 43 2- 1 262
CRediT Statement: Conceptualization, Writing - review & Editing.
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
233
