IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v239y2025i2p389-396.html

Industry 5.0: Do risk assessment and risk management need to update? And if yes, how?

Author

Listed:
  • Enrico Zio
  • Franck Guarnieri

Abstract

In relation to the new vision of Industry 5.0 released in January 2022 by the European Commission for pushing the human centricity of any transformative effort in present and future industrial developments, we pose the daunting question of whether the existing and practiced approaches of risk assessment and risk management are fit to follow and contribute to such vision or require updating. Some reflections are provided and, even more, points of discussion are raised. We argue that the human-centric and environment-concerned vision of Industry 5.0 extends the boundaries of the risk landscape, with resilience standing out as a core value to drive industrial decisions on system reliability and operation safety. We argue that a change is, then, needed in the perspectives of risk assessment and risk management, that calls for the introduction of specific metrics to measure vulnerabilities and the performance of preventive, mitigative, and recovery solutions in relation to the objectives of human wellbeing and environment protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrico Zio & Franck Guarnieri, 2025. "Industry 5.0: Do risk assessment and risk management need to update? And if yes, how?," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 239(2), pages 389-396, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:239:y:2025:i:2:p:389-396
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X241229884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X241229884
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X241229884?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tom McLeod Logan & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema & Roger Flage, 2022. "Risk science offers an integrated approach to resilience," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 741-748, September.
    2. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    3. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    4. Yüksel, Hilmi, 2020. "An empirical evaluation of industry 4.0 applications of companies in Turkey: The case of a developing country," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    6. Mehmet Baran Ulak & Ayberk Kocatepe & Lalitha Madhavi Konila Sriram & Eren Erman Ozguven & Reza Arghandeh, 2018. "Assessment of the hurricane-induced power outages from a demographic, socioeconomic, and transportation perspective," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 92(3), pages 1489-1508, July.
    7. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 515-522, April.
    8. Sebastian Saniuk & Sandra Grabowska & Martin Straka, 2022. "Identification of Social and Economic Expectations: Contextual Reasons for the Transformation Process of Industry 4.0 into the Industry 5.0 Concept," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    2. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    3. Zhiguo Zeng & Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Roger Flage & Enrico Zio, 2021. "An integrated risk index accounting for epistemic uncertainty in probability risk assessment," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(4), pages 711-728, August.
    4. Guizhen Zhang & Vinh V. Thai & Adrian Wing‐Keung Law & Kum Fai Yuen & Hui Shan Loh & Qingji Zhou, 2020. "Quantitative Risk Assessment of Seafarers’ Nonfatal Injuries Due to Occupational Accidents Based on Bayesian Network Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 8-23, January.
    5. SHIBAYAMA, Sotaro & MATTSSON, Pauline & BROSTRÖM, Anders, 2026. "Risk in science: The socialization of risk-taking in early-career training," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1).
    6. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    8. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    9. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    10. Chao Fang & Piao Dong & Yi-Ping Fang & Enrico Zio, 2020. "Vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructure under disruptions: An application to China Railway High-speed," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 235-245, April.
    11. Zygimantas Meskauskas & Egidijus Kazanavicius, 2022. "About the New Methodology and XAI-Based Software Toolkit for Risk Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    13. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.
    14. Ludovic Gaudard & Franco Romerio, 2020. "A Conceptual Framework to Classify and Manage Risk, Uncertainty and Ambiguity: An Application to Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    15. Seth D. Baum, 2015. "Risk and resilience for unknown, unquantifiable, systemic, and unlikely/catastrophic threats," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 229-236, June.
    16. Gundula Glowka & Andreas Kallmünzer & Anita Zehrer, 2021. "Enterprise risk management in small and medium family enterprises: the role of family involvement and CEO tenure," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1213-1231, September.
    17. Benischke, Mirko H. & Guldiken, Orhun & Doh, Jonathan P. & Martin, Geoffrey & Zhang, Yanze, 2022. "Towards a behavioral theory of MNC response to political risk and uncertainty: The role of CEO wealth at risk," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(1).
    18. Toplu-Tutay, Gizem & Hasenbein, John J. & Kutanoglu, Erhan, 2024. "Impact of power outages depends on who loses it: Equity-informed grid resilience planning via stochastic optimization," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. Xiaobing Yu & Hong Chen & Chenliang Li, 2019. "Evaluate Typhoon Disasters in 21st Century Maritime Silk Road by Super-Efficiency DEA," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-10, May.
    20. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:239:y:2025:i:2:p:389-396. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.