Stop Saying ‘Industry 5.0’

ReadIndustry InsightsStats & Trends
Written By Jeff Winter

Original Publication September 11th, 2024. Updated March 17th, 2026

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

History of the Term and Concept of Industry 4.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of the Term and Concept of Industry 5.0

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

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

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

The Problem with the Term ‘Industry 5.0’

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

  • Not a New Revolution: The name ‘Industry 5.0’ suggests a fifth industrial revolution, implying a major shift similar to the previous four industrial revolutions. However, Industry 5.0 is more of an evolution of Industry 4.0, focusing on expanding existing technologies like IoT, AI, and cyber-physical systems by integrating human elements and societal goals. It's not introducing a fundamentally new paradigm to the industrial world.

    • Industry 1.0 = 1st Industrial Revolution

    • Industry 2.0 = 2nd Industrial Revolution

    • Industry 3.0 = 3rd Industrial Revolution

    • Industry 4.0 = 4th Industrial Revolution

    • Industry 5.0 = Evolution of 4th Industrial Revolution? (because that makes sense…🤣)

  • Already Part of Industry 4.0: The ideas promoted by Industry 5.0 are already inherent in the ongoing Industry 4.0 movement. Human-machine collaboration, sustainability, and resilience are natural extensions of the digital transformation that Industry 4.0 is driving. In this sense, Industry 5.0 is not separate from Industry 4.0 but a continuation and expansion of it.

  • Creates Confusion and Fragmentation: By introducing the term ‘Industry 5.0,’ there is a risk of overshadowing the ongoing efforts and innovations of Industry 4.0. The term can create a false impression that Industry 4.0 is complete or outdated, which is not the case. The ongoing digital transformation is still very much in progress.

    Undermines the Current Narrative: The term ‘Industry 5.0’ risks fragmenting the narrative of industrial progress by suggesting a false dichotomy between the two concepts. Industrial evolution is continuous, and introducing a new label can create the illusion of disjointed leaps rather than a natural progression. This could lead to misplaced focus, diverting attention from the essential work still being done under the Industry 4.0 banner.

Sentiment toward ‘Industry 5.0’

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

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

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

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

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

  • 15% liked the concept but felt that a new name is needed. These respondents recognize the value in the principles behind Industry 5.0 but agree that the term itself is not the right fit.

  • 13% of respondents supported both the concept and the name. This smaller group sees Industry 5.0 as a distinct and necessary step forward in industrial evolution.

  • 21% of respondents didn’t like either the concept or the name. However, I believe that this group’s dissatisfaction stems more from a rejection of the need for a separate term rather than opposition to the principles themselves. It’s unlikely that these respondents would argue against the importance of human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience; rather, they see these as inherent to what we should already be focusing on within Industry 4.0.

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

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

Industry 4.0: Destination or Description?

Since 2011, Industry 4.0 has been used to describe something important, but not always the same thing. Over time, two interpretations have emerged, often used interchangeably, and that is where much of the confusion begins. Some treat it as a destination, a defined end state companies should strive to achieve. Others treat it as a description of a broader industrial shift already underway. Figure 2 illustrates this divergence clearly, showing the difference between a fixed definition and one that expands and evolves over time. The distinction is subtle, but it fundamentally changes how we think about progress, maturity, and even what it means to participate in a revolution.

Figure 2

Industry 4.0 as a Destination

The destination view is the more structured and operational of the two. It frames Industry 4.0 as a target state, often grounded in specific technologies or capabilities, such as the original nine pillars introduced with “Industrie 4.0.” In this interpretation, companies move toward a defined set of characteristics, including connected systems, real-time visibility, advanced analytics, and increasing autonomy. It is a model that lends itself well to maturity assessments, roadmaps, and benchmarking.

Figure 2 captures this perspective on the left side, where Industry 4.0 is represented as a bounded construct with clearly defined components. The appeal of this approach is obvious. It provides clarity, direction, and a sense of measurable progress. Leaders can assess where they are, identify gaps, and invest accordingly. It turns a complex transformation into something that feels manageable.

However, this clarity comes at a cost. When Industry 4.0 is treated as a fixed destination, it becomes inherently unstable. As technologies advance and priorities shift, the definition must be updated or replaced. This is precisely what led to the emergence of Industry 5.0, which introduced new focal points such as human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. In Figure 2, this shows up as another bounded construct, this time with three pillars instead of nine.

The pattern is predictable. If the definition is rigid, then every meaningful shift in focus requires a new label. The goalpost moves, and the industry responds by renaming the destination rather than acknowledging that the destination itself was never fixed to begin with.

Industry 4.0 as a Description of an Era

The alternative is to treat Industry 4.0 not as a target, but as a description of what is happening across industry at a macro level. In this view, Industry 4.0 reflects the combined impact of technological advancement, changing consumer expectations, geopolitical investment, and new ways of working. It is not something a company achieves. It is something a company operates within.

Figure 2 illustrates this on the right side, where Industry 4.0 is shown as a dynamic and expanding construct rather than a fixed one. The boundaries are not rigid because the definition is still forming. This is consistent with how previous industrial revolutions unfolded. They were not precisely defined in real time. Their meaning emerged over decades, shaped by outcomes rather than intentions.

This perspective also changes how we interpret maturity. Statements like “our company is not even at Industry 3.0 yet” assume that industrial revolutions are levels to be achieved. They are not. If a company has operated through the last several decades and still exists today, it has already experienced and adapted to the third industrial revolution. It may not be leading, but it has survived, and survival is the baseline measure of participation in a revolution.

From this lens, Industry 4.0 is not about whether every company has reached a certain level of capability. It is about whether enough companies are adopting new ways of working to fundamentally change how the industry operates. Once that threshold is crossed, the revolution is underway. The distribution of maturity across companies does not determine whether the revolution exists. It only determines who is leading it.

My Viewpoint

I find myself coming back to the same conclusion. Industry 4.0 is far more useful as a description of the era than as a destination. Figure 2 makes that tension obvious. The fixed, pillar-based definitions feel clean, but they do not hold up in a world where technologies, priorities, and ways of working are constantly evolving. The more dynamic view is less tidy, but it reflects what is actually happening across the industry.

At the same time, I will admit I am guilty of using Industry 4.0 as a destination. It is practical. It helps frame progress, align teams, and communicate ambition. But I do not believe it is the right way to define the concept itself. It is a convenient shortcut, not an accurate description.

That is why I prefer to separate the two. Industry 4.0 describes the era. Smart Manufacturing is a better term for what companies actually do within it, even if it is somewhat limiting in scope and does not fully capture the breadth of change happening beyond manufacturing.

Industry 5.0, in my view, does not have a clear place in this structure. The ideas behind it matter, but the label creates more confusion than clarity. Rather than introducing a new “version” of industry, we would be better off calling it something entirely different, something that explicitly signals a shift in focus within Smart Manufacturing rather than implying a new industrial revolution.

We are not moving on from Industry 4.0.

References:

Jeff Winter
Previous

The Power of Integrated Transformations
Next

The Perks of Being a Digital Leader