Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric Technology Paradigm and the Role of Education

Author: Harri Heikkilä

The material for this article consists of three main elements. Since this concerns an emerging way of thinking, its philosophical examination is essential – without a conceptual foundation, its discourse remains inaccessible, as the strategic shift in focus is not merely technical. Therefore, a literature review was conducted, including philosophical, technological, and socio-theoretical sources. Key sources included postphenomenology (Ihde 2009), technological humanism (Doueihi 2011; Fuchs 2022), and posthumanist discourse on technology (Braidotti 2024; Hayles 2017).

Secondly, European Commission documents were examined, including Industry 5.0 – Towards a Sustainable, Human-centric and Resilient European Industry (European Commission 2021) and the Community of Practice on Industry 5.0: Final Report 2024 (European Commission 2024).

Thirdly, empirical examples were sought from European projects and educational initiatives implementing Industry 5.0 principles. These serve to illustrate the practical significance of the strategy for pedagogy and technological development.

Let us first clarify the concepts. “Industry 4.0” is the current industrial era. It has replaced “Industry 3.0”, the era of computing and automation that began in the 1970s. Industry 4.0 is the era of digitalisation, built on smart devices, artificial intelligence, and machine optimisation, toaiming of maximise production efficiency (Longo et al. 2020). This technology- and process-centred approach has produced significant benefits, but its limitations have become increasingly clear: societal, ecological, and human perspectives have been marginalised. The discourse of Industry 4.0 has mainly been technology-focused and, at times, even dehumanising (Grabowska et al. 2022; Ghobakhloo et al. 2024).

Industry 5.0 offers a fundamentally different vision for the future, where technology is seen as a partner in promoting human and planetary well-being (European Commission 2021). It extends the concept of sustainability to be comprehensive, combining human creativity, social responsibility, and ecological balance as part of industry’s value system – aiming for an economically, socially, and environmentally responsible future where social participation and meaningful work are valued (Rame et al. 2024). This is achieved by taking technical, social, and ethical considerations into account from the very beginning of the design process (Longo et al. 2020).

Based on the cited sources, I clarify the difference from current thinking in Table 1.

ASPECT	INDUSTRY 4.0	INDUSTRY 5.0
Focus	Automation, data-driven efficiency	Human-centricity, social and ecological sustainability, resilience
Technologies	IoT, AI, robotics, big data	Same technologies + ethics-driven design, human-machine collaboration
Human role	Minimised through automation	Central: creative agent, decision-maker, responsibility bearer
Goal	Productivity, cost reduction	Value-based meaningful innovation for people and planet
Values	Scalability, efficiency	Inclusion, well-being, social responsibility
Systems	Machine-optimised workflows	Co-designed, adaptive and participatory systems

Table 1. Differences between Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0

In summary, Industry 5.0 is built on three fundamental principles: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. Human-centricity means that technological development must be subordinate to human values and well-being. The sustainability requirement integrates environmental perspectives into business strategies. Resilience, in turn, enables adaptation and recovery from sudden disruptions, such as pandemics, geopolitical crises, and technological changes.

Since Industry 5.0 emphasises human-centricity, the term warrants more extensive consideration, which also justifies the educational proposal.

Philosophical Foundation

Industry 5.0 does not reject the digitalisation or automation of previous industrial development stages but rather extends their purpose so that technology supports humans and society. Humans are seen as partners, not competitors, alongside intelligent machines (Grabowska et al. 2022). At the core of this idea is the notion that, in a ubiquitous society, technology affects everything. Therefore, humans must be at the centre of technological development. Technology can no longer be treated as an entity separate from humans and society. Fundamentally, this is about bringing the humanist tradition more strongly into technology.

This tradition of technological humanism is old, but at least in Finnish discourse, it has remained quite marginal until now. Finland is traditionally an engineering-oriented country where such thinking may have seemed foreign. Hautamäki (2010) sees our country as such a strong heir to technology-focused and engineering-driven thinking that this has even limited the development of social and user-centred innovation. Engineering orientation may have suited the third and, perhaps, the fourth industrial waves. But now we need a change.

In the philosophy of technology, there has long been debate over whether technology develops autonomously or can be guided by society. Ellul (1954) warned already in the 1950s that technology tends to develop according to its own laws as an independent force that always compels society to adapt to it. Winner (1980) saw this as dangerous because technologies have broad political consequences and shape power structures. He concluded that it must be possible to influence technological development – society can and should be a guiding partner in that development.

Winner’s thinking has parallels with the theory of social constructionism (Bijker & Law 1997), which holds that technological development is shaped by the interaction of people, markets, and society. It is not a predetermined process, as technological determinism views it. This social shaping of technology emphasises that technological solutions are the result of continuous negotiation between people, not an inevitable developmental path. From the perspective of Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), consumers ultimately accept or reject technology in the market, thereby shaping it. Feenberg (1991) has developed critical constructionism from this, according to which technologies can – and should – be consciously directed democratically and ethically, and their development should not be accepted as given. Ellul’s legacy has also been developed in postphenomenology (Ihde 2009), where technology is seen as a mediator that shapes all experience, modifying human relations to the world, and imperceptibly also practices and power relations.

The unifying factor is the view that technology is not neutral but value-laden, and therefore must be subject to ethical and democratic guidance. Although technological humanism views technology critically, it does not reject technology but instead seeks to direct its development in accordance with human values.

Current researchers who identify as technological humanists are often Central European. The Austrian Fuchs (2022) criticises the structures of the platform economy and sees technological humanism as a political-philosophical project that demands ethical and democratic guidance of digitalisation. The French scholar Doueihi (2011) goes further and defines technological humanism as the fourth stage in humanity’s long development, following the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Modernity.

Doueihi speaks in French terms of “numeric humanism” to distinguish it from the “digital humanities” tradition, which humanistic research has adopted for its own use. In that context, the term refers to the digital methods and tools that the human sciences can use in their own field of research: this is represented, for example, by the University of Helsinki’s digital humanities. Technological humanism is thus quite different – it is interested in shaping technology and in technology’s effects on society and humans. Can technology be a partner and an enabler for humans? Some researchers who have studied the Industry 5.0 concept even speak of a symbiosis between humans and machines (Longo et al. 2020), but they do not mean the fusion of humans and machines, as transhumanists do.

Transhumanism sees technology as a means to transcend human biological and physical limitations. Technological humanism, on the other hand, seeks to shape technology to empower humans while preserving the distinction between humans and machines.

In Industry 5.0, human-centricity is a central starting point. In the trendily emerging posthumanist discourse, human-centricity is instead often interpreted critically: the legacy of the Enlightenment and humanism is seen as a Western cultural project based on the domination of nature (Herbrechter 2013).

Soper (2012) critically examines posthumanist thinking, particularly its tendency to treat humanism one-sidedly. She notes that many posthumanists construct a caricature of humanism – a Western, rationalist, and anthropocentric image of humanity – and use it as a starting point for their own “post-humanity.” Thus, they overlook the internal diversity of the humanist tradition: its critical, eco-humanist, and non-Western forms. Cadman et al. (2025) complement Soper’s observation by stating that posthumanism’s eagerness to challenge the boundaries of humanism can become an effect in which responsibility and self-understanding are forgotten. The discussion is also complicated by the fact that human-centricity means quite different things in different contexts. In Industry 5.0, human-centricity means continuous negotiation between humans and technology over practices and values. It should not be confused with anthropocentrism, which places humans above nature.

In design, one can think at a general level that human-centricity extends user-centricity from the individual level to the community and to all of society. It emphasises human dignity, social responsibility, ethics, and sustainability in the operation of technology and organisations. This is also the interpretation that appears in the European Commission’s Industry 5.0 vision. In this sense, the tension created by many posthumanist interpretations between human-centricity and sustainability seems unnecessary.

Posthumanists have important observations but no monopoly on interpreting humanism and human-centricity. The relationship between these different concepts and their potential interpretive tensions requires deeper analysis – which, for example, includes discussion of relativism. This article can only introduce the topic. Rosendahl Thomsen (2019) recommends avoiding confrontation in this discussion and grand paradigmatic proclamations, keeping the aporia open.

Technological humanism thus sees that human-centricity does not exclude consideration of other living and non-living actors but rather places human agency and responsibility for them at the centre. From Industry 5.0’s perspective, humanism should not be rejected but updated: human-centricity means responsible agency, where human values such as human dignity, equality, and sustainability remain starting points, while the ecological perspective is taken seriously (European Commission 2021). Cadman et al. (2025) suggest that modern humanism must evolve into planetary humanism that accounts for the interdependence of humans, society, and ecosystems.

An interesting and somewhat surprising addition to this discussion is the Vatican research institute’s publication Antiqua et nova (Dicasterium pro Doctrina Fidei & Dicasterium pro Cultura et Educatione 2024), which warns against post- and transhumanism and emphasises the uniqueness of human intelligence in relation to artificial intelligence. The text is long and reflective, and its central claim is that as a consequence of AI, the connection between humans is at risk of thinning and becoming subordinate to new models mediated by machines. Technology and science are seen as part of humanity’s calling to cultivate and protect creation, but their use requires responsibility and consideration of the common good. The Vatican emphasises that AI is limited because it lacks consciousness and moral responsibility. Technology is a partner that must remain an aid, not a replacement for humans. In this regard, the Vatican comes interestingly close to technological humanism.

A central tenet of technological humanism is that humanity cannot be reduced to algorithms. Such a danger is evident in a situation where technology is understood only as a technical matter, without regard for its effects on humans and society. Consider, for example, the impact of social media algorithms on human interaction and even on politics.

In summary, while posthumanism deconstructs and transhumanism transcends human-centricity, technological humanism preserves the human as a responsible guide. This does not mean ignoring ecology – sustainability is built in as responsibility, not as a separate addition. This distinctiveness and the EU’s investment legitimise Industry 5.0’s own educational programme – it is no longer enough to add ecological sustainability; social sustainability must also be considered.

European Practical Examples

The European Commission report Industry 5.0 – Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry (European Commission 2021) aims to shift the focus from Industry 4.0’s efficiency and economic growth to an ethos that considers how technology can better serve humanity.

The 2024 Community of Practice (CoP 5.0) pilot added more concreteness to this: over one hundred innovation ecosystem actors, together with EU experts, built a transformative policy programme, developed an assessment tool (Learning and Assessment Tool), and created a platform for piloting and examples of good practices. CoP 5.0 highlights, among other things, interesting biomimetic design practices that imitate nature’s functional principles and resource wisdom. Additionally, it proposes the Hubs 5.0 concept as system-level experimentation platforms for implementing industrial transformation locally under conditions of resilience and sustainability. (European Commission 2024)

New educational initiatives have been established on this basis. The joint Digital Humanism doctoral programme of Vienna’s universities (University of Vienna, TU Wien, and WU Wien) began in 2024 and is the world’s first doctoral programme in the field. The University of Pisa’s Human-Centric ICT for Industry 5.0 summer course combines theoretical teaching with practical development work in artificial intelligence and human-centric systems.

Barcelona concretises technological humanism in city policy and has declared itself the capital of technological humanism. The Hac Te centre unites nine university and cultural institutions, and the city’s digital policy prioritises usability, transparency, and citizens’ rights over technological efficiency (Díaz 2022). The European Commission’s Industry 5.0 Award recognises projects that implement the strategy’s principles, and the final report (European Commission 2024) concretises policy-level recommendations.

In Finland, pioneering work on human-centric technology research is being done at Aalto University’s Department of Design and at the University of Tampere’s Human-Centered Technology (IHTE) research group, which studies human-technology interaction, usability, and user experience. VTT is developing industrial digitalisation and the sustainability transition increasingly from a human perspective as well. However, we need bolder experiments – ones where the humanities are genuinely brought into technology development, not just afterwards to assess its ethical consequences.

How Will the Fifth Industrial Wave Be Implemented in Education in the Late 2020s?

Rame et al. (2024) emphasise the importance of education: in future working life, technological competence must be complemented with cognitive and ethical skills so that technology can be applied humanely, responsibly, and creatively. Industry 5.0 requires comprehensive competence that combines technological literacy, empathy, and critical thinking. Other international research (Adel 2022; Broo et al. 2022) supports the idea that, at the core of Industry 5.0, education develops technological expertise alongside ethical and systemic understanding.

The ethos of Industry 5.0 also challenges universities of applied sciences to reconsider their own role. If technology is seen not only as the most significant economic force but also as a cultural and societal factor whose direction can be guided, new education is needed. Unprejudiced multidisciplinarity is required, bringing together technology, design, ethics, business, and the social sciences in new kinds of learning environments. International examples show that Industry 5.0-spirited educational programmes are interdisciplinary and practical, which means that universities of applied sciences could also make a significant contribution here.

I outline here, in the spirit of experimental culture, a new international educational model.

An English-language BA programme could attract students from across Europe and position Finnish higher education institutions as pioneers of Industry 5.0 thinking. The programme would combine philosophical, technical, and societal competence, responding to the skills needs of the Industry 5.0 era.

The philosophical emphasis would bring perspectives on technological humanism and the ethics of technology into the classroom, helping students understand the historical arcs of technological development and assess its effects on human values and society.

Technological expertise would provide a solid foundation for mastering AI, IoT, robotics, and data analytics – but always from a human-centric and ethically sustainable perspective. Students would learn to develop transparent, explainable, and responsible AI solutions and to examine technology, humanity, and society as intertwined systems.

Practical implementation would be built on project- and experiment-based learning, where students would design and implement prototypes with companies and communities while developing change management and systemic thinking skills.

A postphenomenological approach would help perceive how technologies shape perception, interaction, and societal structures. The programme would be anchored in the Finnish innovation ecosystem, utilising the values of the welfare society and regional cooperation networks.

From the field of design, Calm Technology also links to Industry 5.0 thinking – the design of technology that emphasises unobtrusiveness, seamlessness, and the user’s focus on their own activity (Case 2015).

The classic Nordic design heritage – simplicity, functionality, and humanity – still offers a strong philosophical foundation for Industry 5.0, and biomimetic approaches open new design possibilities.

The basic idea remains: technology must serve humans, not the other way around – designing technology in this way is ethics in practice.

The programme could be built from five complementary components that combine technical competence, philosophical understanding, and ethical judgment. The first component would introduce students to the fundamental questions of technological humanism: how technology shapes humans and society, and why its development must be understood as value-laden rather than neutral. This would include introductory courses in the philosophy of technology, the ethics of digitalisation, and the history of human-machine interaction.

The second component would deepen competence in Industry 5.0’s key technologies – AI, robotics, the data economy, and IoT – while emphasising their ethical and human-centric applications. Technology would be seen as a means to strengthen human agency, not to replace it.

The third component would emphasise the relationship between technology and society. Courses such as Value Sensitive Design would examine value-based design and ethical decision-making within industrial processes.

The fourth component would build multidisciplinary problem-solving capacity and collaboration. In project-based courses, students would solve real challenges from the world of work and society, together with experts from different fields.

The fifth component would focus on ethical technology development: how values and responsibility are incorporated into business models and the everyday practice of technology design – in other words, ensuring that the ethics of technology happens at the practical level, as part of everyday design processes.

Such a programme would create a unique bridge between theoretical and applied competence, combining postphenomenological philosophy of technology with practical industrial applications. Graduates would be experts with deep technical competence, humanistic understanding, and the ability to act as bridge-builders between technology and human sciences. The educational programme’s task would be to develop technological competence that recognises ecological and societal connections while preserving human moral responsibility and agency at the core of development.

Sustainability and human-centricity are not opposites but complementary ethical requirements – the fundamental principles of Industry 5.0.

Future Opportunities and Criticism

We live in a time when Industry 4.0 has not yet reached its peak, and most industrial companies are still in transition to smart manufacturing. Still, pioneers are already looking ahead and asking what values the next industrial phase will embody (Longo et al. 2020). Industry 5.0 is a future concept whose definitions are still open and evolving, more than practical concepts (Madsen & Berg 2023). The future will show in which direction Industry 5.0 develops; it may also remain merely a critique of Industry 4.0, as Longo et al. (2020) ponder. But development will, in any case, require new skills from workers in human-machine collaboration, making education and competence development a central challenge (Adel 2022).

Higher education institutions are best positioned to develop a new generation of professionals to participate in this change. By designing new kinds of educational programmes, we can ensure the direction Industry 5.0 takes and that European industry remains both competitive and human-faced. Humanity could be a competitive advantage. The question is not just about teaching technical skills but about adopting a new way of thinking – a way of thinking where technology is seen as a means to build a better society. Industry 5.0’s human-centric approach is timely, for example, in the development of Finnish care technology, where efficiency thinking has often displaced quality perspectives (Heikkilä 2024).

However, several questions remain to be resolved that should be considered in education and research: is human-centricity truly achievable under market economy conditions, and how can “humanwashing” – the transformation of human-centricity into mere brand rhetoric – be avoided? And what are the biggest obstacles to realising the vision? One of them is the lack of educational programmes – if higher education institutions do not make human-centricity a structural part of teaching, it easily remains a rhetorical goal.

The real test of Industry 5.0 is not how much new technology it produces but what kinds of people and communities it cultivates. If we succeed in creating an education that combines technical competence with humanistic understanding, and a design that places human experience above efficiency, Industry 5.0 can be more than just an industrial strategy – it can be a cultural turn towards technology that serves humanity.

References

Adel, A. 2022. Future of industry 5.0 in society: human-centric solutions, challenges and prospective research areas. Journal of Cloud Computing. Vol. 11, 40. Cited 30 Aug 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-022-00314-5

Bijker, W. E. & Law, J. (Eds.) 1997. Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Braidotti, R. 2024. Tieto ihmisen jälkeen. Eurooppalaisen filosofian seura.

Broo, D.G., Kaynak, O. & Sait, S.M. 2022. Rethinking engineering education at the age of Industry 5.0. Journal of Industrial Information Integration. Vol. 25, 100311. Cited 17 Oct 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100311

Cadman, S., Tanner, C. & Pang, P. C.-I. 2025. Humanism strikes back? A posthumanist reckoning with the nonhuman turn. AI & Society. Cited 17 Oct 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02339-1

Case, A. 2015. Calm Technology: Principles and Patterns for Non-Intrusive Design. O’Reilly Media.

Díaz, M. 2022. Barcelona’s commitment to technological humanism: Building human-centric digital cities. Journal of Digital Governance. Vol. 3, 45–62.

Dicasterium pro Doctrina Fidei & Dicasterium pro Cultura et Educatione. 2024. Antiqua et nova: On the relationship between human and artificial intelligence. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Doueihi, M. 2011. Pour un humanisme numérique. Editions du Seuil.

Ellul, J. 1954. The Technological Society. Random House.

European Commission. 2021. Industry 5.0 – Towards a Sustainable, Human-Centric and Resilient European Industry. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Cited 16 Oct 2025. Available at https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-publications-tools-and-data/publications/all-publications/industry-50-towards-sustainable-human-centric-and-resilient-european-industry_en

European Commission. 2024. Community of Practice on Industry 5.0: Final Report 2024. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cited 16 Oct 2025. Available at https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/industrial-research-and-innovation/industry-50_en

Feenberg, A. 1991. Critical Theory of Technology. Oxford University Press Inc.

Fuchs, C. 2022. Digital Humanism: A Philosophy for 21st Century Digital Society. Bristol University Press.

Ghobakhloo, M., Mahdiraji, H.A., Iranmanesh, M. & Jafari-Sadeghi, V. 2024. From Industry 4.0 Digital Manufacturing to Industry 5.0 Digital Society: A Roadmap Toward Human-Centric, Sustainable, and Resilient Production. Information Systems Frontiers. Cited 17 Oct 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10476-z

Grabowska, S., Saniuk, S. & Gajdzik, B. 2022. Industry 5.0: Improving humanization and sustainability of Industry 4.0. Scientometrics. Vol. 127 (2), 897–919. Cited 16 Oct 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04370-1

Hautamäki, A. 2010. Kestävä innovointi: Innovaatiopolitiikka uusien haasteiden edessä. Helsinki: Sitra. Sitran raportteja 76. Cited 17 Oct 2025. Available at https://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/kestava-innovointi/

Hayles, N.K. 2017. Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heikkilä, H. 2024. Hoivapalveluihin pitää luoda teknologiaa, jota tavallinen ihminen osaa käyttää. Helsingin Sanomat. Cited 30 Aug 2025. Available at https://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000011371043.html

Herbrechter, S. 2013. Posthumanism: A Critical Analysis. London: Bloomsbury.

Ihde, D. 2009. Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University Lectures. SUNY Press.

Longo, F., Padovano, A. & Umbrella, S. 2020. Value-oriented and ethical technology engineering in industry 5.0. Applied Sciences. Vol. 10 (12), 4182. Cited 24 Aug 2025. Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/12/4182

Madsen, D. Ø. & Berg, T. 2023. Is Industry 5.0 a Human-Centred Approach? A Systematic Review. Processes. Vol. 11 (1), 193. Retrieved on 31 August 2025. Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/11/1/193

Rame, R., Purwanto, P. & Sudarno, S. 2024. Industry 5.0 and sustainability: An overview of emerging trends for a green future. Innovation and Green Development. Vol. 3 (4), 100173. Cited 17 Oct 2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2024.100173

Rosendahl Thomsen, M. 2019. Monkey Wrench? Virtues of a Weak Posthumanism. Criticism. Vol. 61 (2), 271–273. Cited 16 Oct 2025. Available at https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/criticism/vol61/iss2/7

Soper, K. 2012. Humanism and Posthumanism. In Davies, T. (Ed.). The Routledge Companion to Humanism. London: Routledge. 376–386.

Winner, L. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus. Vol. 109 (1), 121–136. Cited 22 Aug 2025. Available at https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/Winner.pdf

Author

Harri Heikkilä holds a doctoral degree in the digitalisation of media from Aalto University and a Master’s degree in Social Sciences from the University of Helsinki with a thesis on the development of information technology. He works as a Principal Lecturer at the Institute of Design at LAB University of Applied Sciences.

Illustration: Harri Heikkilä/Midjourney

Reference to this article

Heikkilä, H. 2026. Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric Technology Paradigm and the Role of Education. LAB RDI Journal. Cited and date of citation. Available at https://www.labopen.fi/en/lab-rdi-journal/industry-5-0-a-human-centric-technology-paradigm-and-the-role-of-education/