Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Torn between digitized future and context dependent past – How

implementing ‘Industry 4.0’ production technologies could transform the
German textile industry
Martina Fromhold-Eisebith a, *, Philip Marschall a, Robert Peters b, Paul Thomes b
a
Department of Economic Geography, RWTH Aachen University; Templergraben 55, D-52056 Aachen, Germany
b
Department of Economic, Social and Technology History, RWTH Aachen University, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Digitized production technologies in terms of ‘Industry 4.0’ appear to herald the future of industrial development
Digitization especially in mature economies, such as Germany. It is expected that this new paradigm, which employs digital
Production technologies tools for coordinating all value chain interactions, will significantly improve product quality, process efficiency
Industry 4.0
and international competitiveness. While Industry 4.0 options raise high hopes among policymakers, it is often
Textile industry
Context dependency
overlooked how ambivalently upcoming changes are viewed by industry actors themselves. This paper shows
Future scenarios how the historical roots and context conditions of an industry shape and at times significantly hamper future
prospects of technology driven progress. In our case, context refers to industry specific development trajectories,
market challenges, actor constellations, and value chain characteristics, as well as local conditions prevailing in
industry clusters. We explore the case of technical textile production in Germany, where Industry 4.0 elements
are just starting to transform the industry’s internal and external operations. Based on empirical mixed methods
research in three textile clusters including a stakeholder workshop, we identify major factors that shape the
implementation of novel digital production technologies and draft three narrative future scenarios. Finally, some
policy recommendations are derived.

1. Introduction
Industry 4.0, conceived as the technical integration of Cyber-
Physical Systems (CPS) in production and logistics as well as the
application of the Internet of Things (IoT) in industrial processes,
including consequences for value addition and business models (Müller
et al., 2018), might soon change industries in revolutionary ways.
Moving on from the Industry 3.0 era of flexible automation through
Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) machines, Industry 4.0 includes
Big Data analytics and smart algorithms, Cloud computing, new network
technologies (5G), wireless sensor networks and Additive
Manufacturing (Chen et al., 2017, Piccarozzi et al., 2018). It can sub­
stantially transform the organization of industries, increase product
quality and process efficiency. Routines within firms (e.g. automation,
work organization, labor) and between partners in value chains or
academia-industry collaborations are affected, entailing paradigmatic
changes of entire landscapes of production. Scholars still ambiguously
debate, though, whether many companies even in highly developed
countries will be capable to fully digitize all their business routines, and
whether Industry 4.0 is ‘hit or hype’ (Drath and Horch, 2014). Re­
quirements for introducing Industry 4.0, such as Industry 3.0 expertise
in operating CNC machines in line with qualified human capital, may
often be missing (Piccarozzi et al., 2018). Especially Small and Medium
Sized Enterprises (SMEs) face difficulties to implement the required
digitized routines, Industry 4.0 roadmaps and maturity models, as
shown for German and other examples (Müller et al., 2018; Rafael et al.,
2020). Labor issues raise the opposition of employees against intro­
ducing Industry 4.0 to their firm, as human labor could be substituted
with robots or cobots, i.e. collaborative robots that demand augmented
skills of man-machine cooperation (Tamas and Murar, 2019).
This paper proposes that the future implementation of Industry 4.0
technologies and impacts on firms’ production systems are significantly
shaped by industry and place specific, historically rooted context con­
ditions and previous developments in terms of path dependency (Hen­
ning et al., 2013; Brekke, 2015). Conceptually, we draw on foundations
of economic geography (Malecki, 1991; Bathelt and Glückler, 2003;

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.fromhold-eisebith@geo.rwth-aachen.de (M. Fromhold-Eisebith).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120620
Received 9 January 2020; Received in revised form 28 December 2020; Accepted 17 January 2021
Available online 3 February 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
Boschma and Martin, 2010), enriched by perspectives of other scientific
disciplines. The notion of context refers to industry specific actor con­
stellations, value chain characteristics and evolutionary trajectories, as
well as to national and regional institutional settings embedded in global
competition. We explore through empirical research how the context
dependent past of technical textile production probably influences the
future of Industry 4.0 implementation in Germany, looking at selected
textile clusters. Implications of technological progress for global textile
production have been studied for a long time, in line with the industry’s
internationalization (Pack, 1987). Recently, however, academic in­
terests mainly focus on internationally integrated textile production and
clusters in newly emerging economies (Yang, 2010; Dicken, 2015; Zhu
and Pickles, 2016; Ikram et al., 2018; Jeong et al., 2019; Wang et al.,
2019). Scholars rarely revisit mature industry locations in European
countries (Froud et al., 2018; Giannini et al., 2019). While there is ample
research on engineering and other technical issues of modern textile
production (published, for instance, in the Textile Research Journal,
Textile Science Engineering Journal, Journal of Textile Science, Cotton
Textile Technology), regional socio-economic corollaries of technolog­
ical progress are much less considered. Especially international publi­
cations on current development trends of the German textile economy
are missing (overviews in German by Krippendorf et al., 2009; Hassler,
2010; Weidenhausen, 2010; Schneider, 2003).
The German textile industry suffered from substantial ration­
alization, deindustrialization and global relocation for decades (Schar­
rer, 1972; Steinau, 1981; Neudörfer, 1998; Hassink, 2007; Schneider,
2003). And now digital Industry 4.0 tools start transforming the indus­
try’s operations (Giebeler et al., 2016; Löhrer et al., 2018). While Ger­
many is still a major textile producing nation in the EU, the surviving
actors continue to be challenged by heavy global competition, which
forces them to keep innovating and introducing new technologies (Ernst
& Young, 2016). The insights presented in this paper were gained in an
interdisciplinary research project running from 2017 to 2019 (see Ac­
knowledgements). A mixed methods approach that focuses on qualita­
tive empirical research (in sum 63 interviews with industry
stakeholders; interactive scenario workshop) has been employed to
learn about past and potential future developments in the three tradi­
tional German textile clusters of Aachen/Lower Rhine, Münsterland and
Southwest Saxony. Guiding questions are:
• In which respects do economic history and related context conditions
shape future perspectives of an industry sector in the course of
technology transformation?
• How can empirical methods help exploring past development fea­
tures that matter for forecasting future technology adoption trends?
• Looking at the case of the German textile sector and regional clusters,
how will their specific development histories and other context
conditions probably influence the future application of novel In­
dustry 4.0 production technologies?
We first sketch our conceptual view on the importance of historical
trajectories and path dependent context conditions for forecasting
industry-specific technology application (Section 2), before explaining
our empirical methods (Section 3). Then we depict overarching qualities
and challenges that mark historical developments and value chain
constellations of the textile industry in Germany (Section 4). Subse­
quently, we present our research findings on how industry actors
perceive the relevance of context conditions for applying new digital
technologies in the future (Section 5). Describing the results of our
interactive ‘Textiles 2030’ stakeholder workshop (Section 6), we sum­
marize actors’ opinions on major drivers (6.1) and draft three future
scenarios for the industry’s development in the digital age (6.2). The
conclusions discuss policy implications of our forecasts.
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
2. Conceptual frame: History, contexts and future technology
application
Technological change is conceived as a cumulative and evolutionary
process based on past experiences and continuous learning (Nelson and
Winter, 1982; Rosenberg, 1982). Especially the techno-economic para­
digms approach puts into terms how innovation trajectories are shaped
by forces that have been driving progress in regarded technical fields for
a long time (Cimoli and Dosi, 1995). How these forces influence ongoing
dynamics in industry and place specific ways nurtures debates on path
dependency (Henning et al., 2013). In particular incumbent knowledge
repositories, economic requirements, actor and power constellations, as
well as social conditions continuously mark technological trajectories
(Noteboom, 2000). From an evolutionary perspective, path dependency
denotes the persistence of long established practices over time
(Boschma and Martin, 2010; Brekke, 2015). Bolstering the importance
of a historical view, research has especially highlighted the preserving
forces of traditional routines in innovation processes (Petruzzelli and
Albino, 2012). In some respects, path dependency seems to characterize
especially textile regions, even in newly emerging economies (Zhu and
Pickles, 2016; Vyskocil, 2017; Froud et al., 2018).
While the evolutionary emergence of present innovation and tech­
nology developments from past settings is widely acknowledged, in­
sights to be gained for forecasting future technology implementation
have rarely been addressed (Coates, 1997; Breukers et al., 2014). We
advocate that not only technology generation follows historically routed
trajectories (which reflects the supply side bias of research hitherto), but
also the application of technology innovations in industrial firms,
focusing on demand and user perspectives. Furthermore, constellations
and patterns of past developments are not only regarded as factors
shaping recent technology adoption, but also as starting points for
forecasting how the future implementation of upcoming innovations
may look like, remodeling entire production systems.
Connected to our conceptual focus, also the systemic nature of
technology development is taken up for shedding light on potential fu­
tures. This proposition acknowledges that various actor types, such as
firms, their value chain partners, R&D organizations and industrial
support agencies, need to productively interact in the course of inno­
vation processes (Malecki, 1991; Cooke et al., 2011). Interfering with
these systems of relationships, place-specific context conditions play a
role with respect to national or subnational regional labor markets,
infrastructure, public support and other institutional qualities. Espe­
cially regional settings matter, as industries have often formed local
clusters of interacting value chain, innovation system and other
collaboration partners that profit from spatial proximity and emergent
place identities (Cooke, 2001; Cooke et al., 2011). Various works
already confirm the importance of cluster settings especially for the
competitiveness of textile firms (Sohn et al., 2016; Zhu and Pickles,
2016; Ikram et al., 2018; Zizka et al., 2018). Altogether, context con­
ditions shape path dependent or evolutionary development trajectories
in ways that vary both for different spatial settings and actor constel­
lations (Boschma and Martin, 2010; Brekke, 2015).
Our study draws on this conceptual base in various respects. We
propose, first, that the future implementation of novel digital production
technologies can only adequately be assessed when taking historically
rooted context factors into account. Second, we assume that these fac­
tors shape future technology implementation in industry- and place-
specific ways, which can be illustrated by studying developments of a
specific industry sector at various cluster locations. Third, influential
national and regional institutional context conditions need to be iden­
tified, in line with features of global competition, in order to predict how
they potentially shape future trends. Fourth, the systemic nature of
technology adoption requires also focusing on pre-existing systems of
actor interaction of the regarded industry for forecasting upcoming
changes. And fifth, the nexus of various interacting factors that shape
past and future developments calls for mixed methods research.
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
3. Empirical mixed methods approach
To explore how historical and other context conditions shape future
trends of industrial technology application, evidence based develop­
ment analysis and forecasting approaches need to be combined. We use
a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, emphasizing the latter
due to their advantages for tracing systemic, multifaceted, and
economically, socially and politically embedded developments (Teddlie
and Tashakkori, 2009). On the one hand, our topic requires some
quantitative statistical analyses (e.g. data on turnover and employment
in the studied industry). On the other hand, the qualitative methods of
literature and document interpretation, personal interviews, factory
visits and a participative workshop linked to scenario building allow for
learning about interacting development factors, place-specific chal­
lenges and actors’ experiences, as elaborated below. Altogether, our
research has covered over 70 years of German textile industry devel­
opment. At the heart were in sum 63 personal interviews and five
in-depths company case studies (conducted in 2017–18). We concen­
trate on three study regions, all of them marked by a rich textile industry
heritage: Aachen/Lower Rhine and Münsterland in the German state of
North Rhine-Westphalia, and the Eastern German Southwest Sax­
ony/Upper Franconia cluster.
Our study includes exploring some historical roots of the German
textile industry, using reports on industry development since 1950.
Personal guided interviews served to capture place-specific conditions,
actor settings and trends, involving senior, often R&D related executives
of companies that belong to the textile production system and locate in
the study regions. Altogether 38 company interviews were conducted
(11 in Aachen/Lower Rhine, 13 in the Münsterland region and 14 in
Southwest Saxony/Upper Franconia), mostly on site at the firm location.
According to sample selection rules, we included various companies that
represent the diversity of textile value chain elements, supporting rigor
and broader validity of our study. Besides manufacturers of technical
textiles also engineering firms producing machinery were involved,
which strongly influence digital technology application in textile pro­
duction. Our compiled database of over 500 relevant firms operating in
Germany – about half of them locating in one of the study regions -
provided a solid base for sample selection. The company interviews
addressed various development and context parameters, including the
role of corporate history and traditions for adapting to upcoming tech­
nology changes. The interview guideline also covered corporate inno­
vation routines with a focus on Industry 4.0 applications, earlier
technology shifts, business model changes, labor qualification, and dy­
namic collaboration requirements with respect to value chain, innova­
tion system and industrial (cluster) support partners. Further, we
conducted 25 interviews with regional actors from development
agencies, chambers or textile industry associations, and with experts of
digitization and textile technologies at academic R&D institutes,
employing adapted guidelines. The transcripts of all interviews were
analyzed using MaxQDA, detecting major issues and insights by aggre­
gation (following Gioia et al., 2013).
The five in-depth company case studies (two in the Aachen/Lower
Rhine region, two in Western Saxony/Upper Franconia and one in
Münsterland) allowed for directly observing technology change pro­
cesses and related bottlenecks in the course of whole-day factory visits.
In each of the firms several functions were covered, including staff in­
terviews (R&D, technology development or quality management de­
partments, technical trainees, engineering personnel, distribution
experts).
Pulling all strings together, a participative workshop held in Aachen
(November 2018) assembled around 40 textile industry stakeholders.
The purpose was, first, to receive feedback on study results obtained
hitherto. Second, our ‘Textiles 2030’ workshop participants interac­
tively developed building blocks for future scenario building - a proven
method for drafting plausible visions of technology application (Karaca
and Öner, 2015). Our approach follows standard procedures of
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
qualitative social science scenario analysis, applying the explorative
forecasting scenario method (Kosow and Gaßner, 2008; Mietzner 2009).
According to the preset scenario field (textile production and innovation
system, time frame 2030), our workshop identified major system actors
and elements, development interdependencies and key factors that
currently drive industry-specific changes and probably determine future
trends. Based on this robust input, the project team then used the in­
sights to draft plausible narrative scenarios on how Industry 4.0 tech­
nologies might affect and transform textile industry production and
innovation systems in Germany over the next decade.
4. Overarching historical and other conditions for Germany’s
textile industry
The German textile sector has experienced substantial competition
and crisis induced restructuring since the 1970s (Neudörfer, 1998;
Hassink, 2007; Hassler, 2010), which keep influencing technology
application. The production of apparel and other ready made goods for
end customers has gradually been replaced by that of sophisticated
technical textiles for business customers, who demand advanced func­
tional product qualities (such as heat insulation, conductivity or sensor
integration). Recently, about 60 percent of the value added of the
German textile industry relates to technical textiles (Ernst & Young,
2016, p. 5). Production is firmly embedded in the value chains of other
sectors, supplying intermediate goods mostly to the automotive, medical
technology, and aircraft & aerospace industries (Czajka, 2005; Shishoo,
2008; Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft, 2019). This business model
shift, accompanied by automation and internationalization of labor
intensive tasks (Schneider, 2003), has helped the industry survive. With
an annual turnover of around 13 billion Euros, Germany’s textile sector
ranks second in the EU, only surpassed by the 21 billion turnover of
Italy’s firms (Eurostat data for 2017; Euratex, 2019). Yet, while textiles
once stood for 8.97% of all manufacturing employees in Germany and
7.32% of national GDP in 1957 (Statistisches Bundesamt, 1959), the
industry covers just 0.8% of employment and 0.38% of GDP in 2017
(Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft, 2019).
German textile firms continue operating under considerable cost and
innovation pressure to stay profitable and internationally competitive.
New high quality rivals come up elsewhere, and business customers
become more and more demanding. A closer look at the historic evo­
lution of this sector further clarifies its specific context of operation and
reveals path dependent trajectories that matter also for future trends.
The way how previous technology challenges had been mastered can to
some extent show how the industry will be able to cope with upcoming
shifts towards Industry 4.0. While, in principle, the qualities of digital
transformation differ from those of earlier disruptive changes in textile
technologies, we can still identify institutional factors that essentially
matter for handling change in the industry.
Once driving the industrial revolution in the 18th to 19th century,
the German textile industry lost pace already before its drastic downturn
since the mid-20th century: From 1850 to 1913 its average annual
growth rate of production scored below that of all industries (Scharrer,
1972), leading to shrinking shares of the textile sector in Germany’s
manufacturing activities. Even after World War II this sector missed the
recovery boom: its annual growth rate of 5.8% stayed way behind the
German industrial average of 8.7% (Neudörfer, 1998, p. 34). A main
reason for lagging behind was the decoupling of domestic textile de­
mand from surging private household incomes. While the average
family income doubled between 1950 and 1963, and almost tripled
1964 to 1977 (according to German Statistical Office data), private
demand for textiles and apparel did not grow so much. Textile producers
therefore profited less and less from rising living standards in the
country (Steinau, 1981).
Additional challenges came up in terms of growing market compe­
tition by producers locating in other countries, especially in Southern
Europe, Asia and North Africa, who managed to drain market shares
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
away from mature industrial countries (Weidenhausen, 2010; Dicken,
2015). Main drivers were not only labor cost differences, but also fairly
high environmental and emission standards applied in Germany, besides
a lack of domestically grown natural resources (such as cotton). This
competitive situation, which made firms in less developed countries
profit from lax regulation, low labor and social security costs, caused a
dilemma for German producers. On the one hand, they were disfavored
by high wages compared to global competitors and had to suppress wage
rises; on the other hand, they also suffered from paying relatively low
wages according to German standards. Textile firms could hardly offer
attractive, well-paid jobs to highly qualified people, which triggered
aggravating workforce shortages (Neudörfer, 1998) and hampered
productivity rises. During the 1960s, German textile producers virtually
suffocated from the combined pressure of foreign import competition
and low wage levels. The textile industry of Eastern Germany (former
GDR) had hard times, too. From 1955 to 1989 (when the communist
regime collapsed) the sector already lost over 180,000 jobs in the region
of Saxony alone; and full exposure to global competition then destroyed
over 90% of all remaining textile jobs within a few years (Karlsch and
Schäfer, 2006, p. 273–276).
The German textile industry was forced to react and invest into a
better future. While apparel producers could reduce their costs by
shifting labor intensive processes abroad (Hassler, 2010), fabric and
technical textile producers rationalized by substituting labor with cap­
ital (Schneider, 2003). Since the 1970s they concentrated on process
optimization for improving productivity (Weidenhausen, 2010). This
proved successful to some extent, reducing the demand for labor and
raising turnover (Neudörfer, 1998). Employment kept shrinking,
though: from the mid-1960s to the 1980s, the number of textile jobs in
Germany was cut by half to then 304,000 (Schneider, 2003, p. 114). The
strategic turn towards high quality technical textiles and product
diversification reaped some business consolidation in the 1980s (Krip­
pendorf et al., 2009), but could not prevent another domestic market
slump after 1990 (Neudörfer, 1998). This crisis triggered further mea­
sures, such as the expansion of technical textile development and ini­
tiatives to further raise productivity and gain international market
shares (Schneider, 2003). Volatility still characterizes the German
textile sector, but business has stabilized since 2005 (Krippendorf et al.,
2009), just as the industry’s turnover (Figure 1).
Some challenges for the German textile industry prevail, caused by
the earlier drastic job losses and the bias towards technical textiles.
Decades of public discourse on the dusk of German textiles have created
severe image problems. The wider public is neither aware of the suc­
cessful restructuring of the industry, nor rising innovative capacities
towards high quality products or the special role in value chains of
various other sectors (Krippendorf et al., 2009). Only insiders
acknowledge the good future prospects of this industry, which has
turned into an attractive business partner for different customers,
Fig. 1. Turnover of the German Textile Industry in billion Euros (Depiction by the authors, based on data by the German Statistical Office).
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
suppliers and investors, as well as for qualified people looking for a
rewarding job (Ernst & Young, 2016). The image problem entails de­
mographic problems of textile employment: 52 percent of the employees
in this sector are at least 50 years old, compared to only 37 percent in all
industries (data for 2017; Statistisches Bundesamt, 2019). Hence, all
firms risk losing lots of people-bound know how in the next decade. This
will significantly hurt an industry where around 70 percent of the
workforce are technical specialists, who form the base of internationally
competitive technical textiles production in Germany (Ernst & Young,
2016, p. 8–10).
General characteristics of textile value chains and production sys­
tems underscore described trends towards multi-layered system inte­
gration and complex power constellations. Textile firms are not only
integrated in material value chain linkages (Fig. 2, central part), but also
connected to various technology providers (right part) and business
customer industries (left part). Concerning power relations, the provi­
sion of polymer fibres, which dominates technical textile production in
Germany, is highly concentrated in just a few large global players of the
chemical industry (e.g. Du Pont, BASF, Akzo). In turn, also powerful
customers rule demand – large automotive, aerospace, health or con­
struction corporations. This setting creates a two-sided ‘value chain
squeeze‘, which puts especially smaller textile firms under hard pressure
and adds to their cost-conservative business behaviour. Producers
attempt at circumventing expensive technology investments and keep
sensitive information widely for themselves, for instance relating to firm
specific engineering routines.
Altogether, recent trends towards high process and system efficiency,
high product quality, rationalization and sophisticated jobs could sup­
port a ‘digital turn’ of German technical textile producers towards In­
dustry 4.0 technologies in coming years. Labor saving innovations, such
as robotics, may also help the industry respond to problematic de­
mographic trends of an ageing workforce. Assumingly, institutional
context qualities that support this kind of technical progress, like input
from R&D and higher education organizations, are gaining importance
in this situation. Conversely, the increased embedding of textile firms in
the production systems of other sectors and the urge to stay cost
competitive could obstruct costly technology shifts and innovation ori­
ented collaboration with partners in the future.
5. Perspectives of textile companies on regional context
conditions for Industry 4.0 implementation
After depicting broader contexts that shape the evolution of the
German textile industry, we now explore how the 38 studied firms
perceive their conditions for implementing Industry 4.0. Our research
interviews reveal that most textile executives still hardly notice or
foresee the potential, yet also the challenges associated with upcoming
technology shifts. While a majority uses selected Industry 3.0 tools, such
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
Fig. 2. The Value Chain, Production System and Value Network of Technical Textiles (Depiction by the authors).
as CNC machines for flexibly automated production, just a few firms
operate at a maturity level that fulfils major Industry 4.0 preconditions,
including the system integration skills to install, run and maintain a CPS
and IoT coordination of value chain processes (Piccarozzi et al., 2018).
Executives lack capacities to even define the next steps and resources
required for Industry 4.0, and they can hardly assess the possible im­
pacts of in-house technical changes on modified product and process
qualities or external business connections. The introduction of innova­
tive digital systems is also obstructed by insufficient information ex­
change and knowledge sharing along value chains. Executives rarely
acknowledge the relevance of comprehensive digitization for their op­
erations (an attitude that has generally hampered willingness to
participate in our study), but rely mainly on the know-how traditionally
embodied in their long-term experienced employees.
Knowledge is lacking, for instance, on the key issue to create a Digital
Twin (DT) of production procedures, defined as “a virtual representation
of a physical asset enabled through data and simulators for real-time
prediction, optimization, monitoring, controlling, and improved deci­
sion making” (Rasheed et al., 2020, p. 21980). DT technology forms an
important component of smart manufacturing, as it shows the physical
status of a production system in virtual form, based on sensors and data
networks interrelated with CPS and IoT. This way the DT of a
manufacturing process allows to simulate real-time working conditions,
to perform intelligent decision-making on cost-effective solutions, to
integrate design and production, to monitor, technically optimize or
digitalize production processes, and to individualize production (Lim
et al., 2020). As a virtual model of all machine and production line
processes, a DT can substantially reduce functional failures (Löhrer
et al., 2018).
Asked about expected benefits of Industry 4.0, the interviewees
mostly consider improved in-house processes, such as optimized work
organization, material flows or logistics. They also foresee efficiency
gains and cost reductions in internal production lines, for instance, by
saving energy or material inputs through intelligent process coordina­
tion. Not even a handful of the studied firms, however, have actually
started implementing advanced digital tools. Overall, company execu­
tives show by their selective and mainly inward looking view on In­
dustry 4.0 options that they just feebly recognize the potential of CPS to
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
also better coordinate inter-firm collaboration across the entire textile
production system.
Most textile firms neglect investing into the digital upgrading of their
operations or trying out new business models because they must
concentrate on high quality product deliveries to their demanding
business customers. Only exceptionally, firms pursue Industry 4.0
related strategies of mass customization and on-demand production
tailored to end customers’ needs. Our interviews confirm that the tight
integration of technical textile producers into value chain links with
other business partners restricts their scope to independently introduce
process innovations. Just in the rare cases where business customers
explicitly demand top quality procedures (e.g. technical textile supplies
to aircraft production), textile firms are obliged to install digitally
controlled systems.
Our study also identifies local cluster specific development and
context characteristics (Cooke et al., 2011). Both commonalities and
distinctions characterize the textile agglomerations of Aachen/Lower
Rhine, Münsterland and Southwest Saxony, including the influence of
historical trajectories on region-specific settings. All three study regions
boast a long tradition of textile industry development around an urban
core area (Aachen, Münster, Chemnitz), marked by higher education
and research capacities, industry associations and other institutions that
specifically cater to textile related needs. The industry clusters comprise
SMEs of different value chain stages and knowledge intensive service
providers (systemic cluster qualities characterize especially the region
Western Saxony/ Upper Franconia). Most of the central value chain
processes of the textile production system (as shown in Fig. 2) are rep­
resented in these localities, except for the provision of chemical fibres,
which are mainly sourced from global players locating elsewhere, and
spinning activities, which are outsourced to low-wage countries.
Interesting distinctions between the studied textile clusters, which
also matter for forecasting future developments, concern their differing
focus on technology fields and business customer sectors. These differ­
ences probably also influence opportunities to implement Industry 4.0,
since some clients are more demanding than others with regard to the
digitally controlled production of input materials (e.g. aircraft, auto­
motive or medical industries juxtaposed to construction). The compre­
hensive textile company database compiled for our study has helped
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
derive insights into locally characteristic cross-sector business ties of
firms. While automotive production stands out as a crucial customer
sector for technical textile producers in all three study regions, the
Münsterland cluster shows relative strengths in textiles for construction
and architecture purposes, and Western Saxony/Upper Franconia in
textiles for medical technologies. The textile region Aachen/Lower
Rhine displays no significant customer focus, but concentrates textile
machinery and engineering firms with high competences especially in
weaving technologies. In each study region, the technology focus of
local textile R&D and higher education institutes reflects, hence further
promotes the place-specific strengths of the textile economy.
The interviews with company executives also captured their regional
institutional support requirements for implementing new digital tech­
nologies (32 respondents rated the relevance of different partners on a
scale from 1 to 4; see Fig. 3).
Local providers of software and other IT services are, unsurprisingly,
considered most important by the textile firms for introducing Industry
4.0 technologies, and interviewees emphasize the importance of spatial
proximity to these partners. Also universities, technical schools and
R&D institutes are highly rated, but require much less proximity, as the
right technical expertise matters more than the location. Dedicated
funding programs (like the ‘futuretex’ scheme jointly launched by the
German federal government and the East German state of Saxony)
specifically support the participation of SMEs in academia-industry
collaborations, and R&D centres are mandatory testing and certifica­
tion bodies for textile firms. The importance of some value chain part­
ners (related industries, machinery & tools) shows from our data, too.
Other institutions, even textile related industry associations or chambers
of commerce, are much less relevant. This finding is surprising, as
several interviewed experts from these institutions tell about launching
initiatives to regionally tackle image and qualification issues of the in­
dustry. The importance of local industry associations significantly dif­
fers between the three study regions, though, and probably strongly
depends on past collaboration experiences and personal links.
Getting to the role of (regional) history, our study explicitly ad­
dresses the influence of tradition on the digital innovation behaviour of
textile firms, referring to (Petruzzelli and Alino, 2012, p. 20): „tradition
may be described as the handing down of statement, beliefs, legends,
customs and information, from generation to generation, especially by
Fig. 3. Relevance of Regional Partners for Implementing Industry 4.0 in the Textile Industry (depiction by the authors based on company interviews in 2017-18).
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
word of mouth or by practice.“ Also other works suggest that industrial
heritage strongly shapes textile regions (Vyskocil, 2017). Our interviews
tell that company traditions especially matter for marketing, technology
management, qualified workforce, and corporate culture. Accordingly,
traditions considerably support marketing activities and trustful re­
lationships in B2B settings. They also stand for accumulated, hence
reliable technology management expertise, which offers a good seedbed
for creating viable innovations for the future, based on tested and
approved customer relationships. Concerning labor issues, tradition
bears ambivalent effects. On the one hand, it keeps valuable employees
attached to the firm, supports their identification with corporate ob­
jectives, and signals long-lasting employer dependability. But on the
other hand, tradition also impedes the recruitment of new qualified staff
due to the problematic sector image, even stigma of detrimental
restructuring processes (which prevails especially in Western Saxony,
which underwent drastic transformation after German reunification).
Corporate culture and mentalities are per se strongly connected with
company traditions and history, although most interviewees perceive
them as barriers that hamper the firm’s effective adaptation to tech­
nology and economic context changes. Yet, several respondents inter­
pret tradition also as perseverance, survival experiences, business inertia
and resistance in the many historical crises of the textile industry. They
expect that tradition can help constructively manage also newly
emerging technology challenges, as usual.
The five in-depths textile company case studies conducted in our
project corroborate and refine the acquired picture on factors that shape
the sector’s digital transformation towards Industry 4.0. Observations
and staff interviews confirm that full order books and the urge to deliver
top quality products to business customers in time prevent the firms
from entering major technology shifts. The – rarely encountered – cur­
rent implementation of new digital systems (e.g. IT based warehouse
management system) already occupies so much time and human ca­
pacities that no other digitization endeavors can be taken up for some
time. Further, firms lack knowledge about production system in­
terdependencies beyond their own direct backward-forward in­
teractions in the value chain, both in-house and with external suppliers.
Major preconditions for effectively installing and running a compre­
hensive system of Industry 4.0 technologies are therefore missing.
According to our expert interviews, it needs technical consulting by
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
textile engineering R&D institutes to help firms build up a more systemic
understanding of efficient process organization towards high quality
textiles production and quality management. Digital solutions must
individually be tailored to each company’s production tasks, system
settings and looming technical failures to be operational (in line with
Giebeler et al., 2016). And the active inclusion of employees’ feedback
or suggestions in interaction with external consultants and IT suppliers
is key to creating viable, acceptable and practicable solutions for a
textile firm. Most of the visited companies also express their need for
more experiential knowledge or corporate knowledge management,
which calls for the implementation of corporate assistance systems
based on academic support.
Textile producers therefore require close links with qualified R&D
and consulting partners for moving towards the Industry 4.0 driven
‘Smart Textile Factory’, as explicitly addressed in the five in-depths
company studies. The ambitious Smart Factory concept comprises
intelligent production control, continuous self-optimization through
real-time production data processing (Big Data analytics, Artificial In­
telligence), the Industrial IoT, and interconnected machine-to-machine
communication within a CPS coordinated production space (Chen
et al., 2017: Osterrieder et al., 2020). Robotics play a role in terms of
modular, (self-)reconfigurable robotic islands and the integration of
cognitive robots (as outlined in Chen et al., 2017). Augmented reality
tools that assist workers on the shop floor pave the way towards cobots.
The Smart Factory thus allows for easy machine reprogramming and
realizing fully flexible production systems that drive economically
feasible mass customization. In the following we explore to which exent
this ideal type vision of the Industry 4.0 enhanced factory can be ach­
ieved by German textile firms and which sector-specific barriers hamper
progress.
6. ’Textiles 2030’: futures of digitally supported textile
production
We use the results of our workshop with around 40 stakeholders to
more thoroughly explore the future of Industry 4.0 application in the
German textile industry. The workshop has captured feedback by ex­
perts from industry, R&D institutes and development agencies on the
empirical findings of our study. And we conducted steps of a collective
scenario development process (methodology outlined in Section 3). The
objective was to identify drivers and development interdependencies
that will significantly shape the future of implementing Industry 4.0
technologies in Germany’s textile firms (Section 6.1). Drawing on these
insights into system elements and key factors, we then develop narra­
tives for three different future scenarios that tell how a digitalized,
institutionally supported technical textile production in Germany could
look around 2030 (Section 6.2).
6.1. Major drivers of future industry development and technology
application
The workshop approach took up major issues of concern already
idenfitied in the research interviews to structure activities along certain
key themes. The participants held group discussions on the four themes
(1) world of textile labor, (2) new business models, (3) Smart Factory,
and (4) standards and legislation. Each group had to identify major
drivers and developments, as well as opportunities and risks or chal­
lenges that will potentially shape the industry’s future. The following
presentation concentrates on workshop results that are most relevant
and stimulating for future scenario development.
(1) Concerning labor issues, the local labor market implications of
digitized textile production dominate the debate. It is still unclear
whether Industry 4.0 makes tasks and qualification requirements
in textile firms more complex or simpel, and if repetitious oper­
ational jobs will mainly be replaced by machines (as suggested by
7
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
Löhrer et al., 2018). Major opportunities refer to reshoring once
internationalized textile production back to German locations
based on flexible automation, to solving qualified labor shortage
problems through continued rationalization, and to better
combining the interests of employers and employees. Modern
trends could substantially improve the working conditions in
modern textile factories. The digitized textile firm offers more
sophisticated tasks to its workforce, creative interaction with
other value chain partners, options to contribute to technological
advancements, and permeable career paths for many employees.
Jobs in the industry could generally become more attractive, and
the physical support by digital assistance systems enables older,
knowledgeable staff to stay longer in the firm.
Conversely, major risks relate to the ongoing loss of jobs and
aggravating work pressure due to intensified national and international
competition. The know-how for operating a modern Industry 4.0 textile
firm is increasingly available globally, often at lower costs than in
Germany, which could propel the industry’s internationalization.
Rationalization through smart systems or robots may eradicate espe­
cially sophisticated jobs, leaving behind less attractive ones. A deterio­
rating image then drives qualified people away from the textile sector,
which negatively affects labor shortages and technology progress.
Growing challenges of personal data protection are discussed in
connection with digitally enhanced production, too.
(2) The discussion on new business models focuses on the issue
which novel manufacturing and service opportunities emerge
from digitalization, adding to incumbent technical textile pro­
duction. Driven by rising environmental concerns, companies
could venture towards ecologically more sustainable formats,
such as regionalized systems producing ‘Made locally’ products,
resource saving processes, or optimized product tracking. The
fields of Additive Manufacturing (3-D printing), Big Data analysis
and predictive maintenance offer further business options in the
digital textile economy. Overall, manufacturing may increasingly
be replaced by sophisticated services (e.g. not the textile machine
is sold, but the service of efficient production). Another issue is
the expanding range of products catering to specific demands
(Customer Centricity), in line with novel trends towards Smart
Textiles, Smart Wearables, and mass customized, intelligent
apparel for private consumers.
Problems of data security are critically discussed also with respect to
business models in the digital age. Novel firms depend on extensive data
sharing and exchanges, but need to be protected from fraud and theft of
sensitive information (e.g. by Chinese competitors). The large in­
vestments required to realize innovative business opportunities raise
concern, too; they can hardly be borne by small companies. The suffo­
cating ‘value chain squeeze’ described above (Section 4) does not only
limit the internal capacities of textile firms to install new digital infra­
structure for production, but also restricts their financial scope to source
needed external technical expertise and consulting services. Overall,
there are doubts whether more sustainably produced, smart, but
expensive new textile products are broadly accepted on mass markets
that prefer cheap prices to good ecological footprints.
(3) The Smart Factory topic is debated mainly with respect to firm-
internal coordination and networking requirements. Chances
are seen to improve process efficiency and reduce failure rates in
textile firms through digitally enhanced machine communica­
tion, remote services and predictive maintenance. Artificial In­
telligence can contribute to processes optimization by regulating
the quality levels of products and coordinating interaction with
suppliers and clients. Further, interesting social advantages of
smart production systems are raised: they may improve
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
collaboration of younger and older employees, people and tools
(alluding to cobots), and promote deeper understanding of
interdependent process and product qualities. Textile jobs could
become more attractive for qualified people, and especially more
data science expertise needs to be acquired. Established company
networks, engineering competences and smart machinery appear
to provide a good base for a digital future already today.
Smart Factory risks concern, above all, dangers that human compe­
tences gradually disappear when decisions are increasingly left to digital
systems. Textile employees may ‘unlearn’ how to operate or regulate
machine processes themselves. And they start feeling unnecessary,
develop reluctant attitudes towards their workplace. These fears
obstruct the effective implementation of digital process elements on the
shop floor. Another challenge is the lack of multidisciplinary expertise in
firms, required to link competences of digitalization and textile pro­
duction. Problems of firms to bear the high necessary investments and to
cut out time for realizing major digital transformation are mentioned
here, too. Additionally, crucial context conditions (digital infrastruc­
ture, data protection) for implementing Smart Factory concepts are not
yet sufficiently provided at some German locations.
(4) The workshop group on standards and legislation considers
technical requirements for establishing effective vertical and
horizontal linkages in smart textile production. Normed inter­
section and communication standards are particularly important
for warranting process security, efficiency, reliability and trans­
parency in complex, multi-layered textile systems that incorpo­
rate various industries (as shown in Fig. 2). Shared standards
must be agreed for all parameters of digitally coordinated pro­
duction, whose identification requires profound research. And to
implement functional Industry 4.0 systems, standardized data
need to be collected over the entire value chain. When data as­
sembly, integration and assessment are provided, this supports
not only process and product qualities in firms, but also
constructive collaboration with specialized R&D institutes. Con­
cerning the issue of adequate legal frameworks, protective
Blockchain and encryption technologies as well as digital certif­
icates must guarantee secure data exchange. Higher data security
enables more integration and data sharing between different
players of textile and other industries, as deemed necessary for
bolstering the international competitiveness of German firms.
The main reason why standards and legislation are highly relevant
for textile firms lies in multiple fears of corporate actors to lose jobs,
know-how, data sovereignty, and international competitiveness.
Without more legal security, firms will continue evading data sharing
with others and preferring island solutions. The necessary foundations
for standardized data exchanges and related production collaborations
are still not sufficiently provided, though. Furthermore, caveats against
potentially unprofitable or soon outdated investments in IT hardware or
software add to fairly slow dynamics of implementing digital systems.
Another impediment are the long training times needed to enable
company staff to professionally handle standardized production pa­
rameters and real data processing.
6.2. Three ’Textiles 2030’ scenarios
The insights into system elements and key factors, historical trajec­
tories and context conditions gained through our empirical research and
in particular the final workshop are now used to draft future visions on
how the application of Industry 4.0 technologies might change the
development of German textile firms over the next decade. As standard
scenario methodology suggests (Kosow and Gaßner, 2008; Mietzner,
2009), we compile (1) a trend scenario, (2) a particularly optimistic and
(3) a pessimistic one. We sketch plausible narratives of how Industry 4.0
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
could transform textile production in Germany until around 2030. While
our scenario storylines, especially the best versus worst case juxtaposi­
tion, may appear a bit constructed to some readers, we still forecast
credible futures that possibly emerge from actually captured develop­
ment contexts and trends of the industry. The scenarios indicate major
needs for action in order to promote positive and prevent negative
tendencies.
(1) Starting with the trend or baseline scenario for 2030, the
following ambivalent developments will carry on. Employment in
the German textile industry is slightly declining. Since companies
are still facing difficulties to make young people interested in
starting a career in this industry, they can only manage to over­
come the demographic shortage of skilled workers by selectively
investing in further automation. But these investments put a
heavy burden on corporate performance, because sales have just
moderately grown in the sector recently. And the reshoring of
textile production (especially clothing) back to Germany is only
successful in the small market segments of top quality and sus­
tainable products. Overall, the market demand for Smart Textiles
has not grown as strongly as expected and stagnates in a narrow,
albeit important niche. Although some German companies, as
innovation leaders, continue developing Smart Textile novelties,
market success lags behind. A main reason is that in many client
sectors which use technical textiles (construction, automotive,
aerospace), competitive cost pressure is still so high that textile
suppliers cannot gain larger market shares by offering function­
ally advanced and superior, yet fairly expensive products.
Ambivalent developments also mark the area of open innovation
and collective Industry 4.0 trends. Some highly innovative hubs
stand out, where textile companies and R&D institutes have early
opted for close collaboration towards realizing Smart Factory
ideals. But in regions where companies operate in a less cooper­
ative context, no open innovation or systemic Industry 4.0 po­
tential can be tapped. As a result, the German textile industry
does not fully exploit its innovation capacities and is further
pushed into highly specialised niches by international competi­
tion. Suppliers from China and other (former) emerging econo­
mies increasingly dominate the market, also occupying the field
of digitized high-quality production.
(2) The optimistic scenario predicts that the digital transformation of
the textile industry has proliferated globally until 2030. Many
German players are well established in the international arena,
and deviating from earlier doomsday prophecies, the industry has
greatly recovered in terms of employment and turnover. A major
reason for the positive turnaround is that companies have early
entered comprehensive digitalization. They emphasize devel­
oping both innovative products and services and continuously
improve production processes through Industry 4.0. Firms keep
on reshoring textile production back to Germany from foreign
locations. This is supported by increasingly individualized con­
sumer demand and a focus on Smart Textiles, based on highly
efficient, flexibly specialized local production systems. People
buy customized apparel online, prefer ‘Made in Germany’ fashion
and do not mind paying a bit more for sustainably manufactured
goods. The German apparel sector has managed to reinvent itself,
using the market craze for textiles that integrate sensors and
other gadgets as new recipe of business success. Illuminated
clothes for bicycle riders or sports shirts that constantly measure
body functions are high in demand, and producers apply all IT
options possible. German companies have become world market
leaders in the fields of Smart Wearables and fashion for urban
professionals. Thanks to data based business models that cater to
the needs of both business and private customers, profit options
have greatly amplified due to fair high prices and economies of
scope rather than scale.
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
Internationally, Germany has successfully expanded its market
share for the design and manufacture of innovative technical
textiles. Competing global players from China or India are left
behind because effective rationalization, process optimization
and consistent quality management have upgraded the entire
German textile production system. Digital solutions play key roles
everywhere, coordinating information and material flows be­
tween all firms and their machinery. This includes the harmoni­
zation of quality and testing standards in line with standardized
machine-to-machine communication and data transmission pro­
tocols. Consequently, transaction and administration costs have
dropped drastically, and product tracking systems permit to
reduce production failure rates towards the targeted ‘Vision 0’
objective of failure-free production by 2030. The industry has
accomplished to revalue the ‘Made in Germany’ label, strength­
ening its status as internationally esteemed, innovative and top
performing supplier to other German key sectors, such as auto­
motives and medical technologies.
(2) Cultures of open information exchange and trustful innovation
collaboration, integrating regional textile R&D institutes and IT
providers, have largely contributed to Germany’s textile success
up to 2030. The real time collection and transfer of big anony­
mized data packages supports smooth production flows. It also
enables the R&D partners to jointly advance Big Data analysis,
machine learning and Artificial Intelligence tools that help build
large numbers of Smart Factories. Leapfrogging progress in
textile production has also solved image problems and de­
mographic challenges. Supported by image campaigns launched
by national and regional industry associations and by the public
propagation of more participative and transparent labor re­
lations, the textile sector has substantially improved its reputa­
tion. Now young, qualified textile engineers and technical staff
revere being hired by a textile firm, because here they can
directly contribute to product and process optimization. Modern
workplaces that integrate digital assistance systems offer attrac­
tive, versatile and physically less demanding tasks and make it
easy to positively combine personal with corporate objectives.
Everyone engages in systematically enriching company internal
databases, compiling a sophisticated information storage and
management system as far as the employees’ knowledge can
actually be codified. This way the dangers of losing know-how in
the course of retirements can to some extent be remedied.
(3) Finally a pessimistic vision of the German textile industry of 2030
is drafted. While the transformation of textile production towards
Industry 4.0 has rapidly progressed on the international scale,
most German players neglect to follow suit. This bears devas­
tating consequences for their business prospects and localities.
While restructuring away from household textiles and towards
sophisticated technical items was mastered before, global tech­
nology shifts now depreciate this former competitive edge. Hopes
to reap new business benefits from pursuing sustainability or
Smart Textile trends have been crushed, as most customers stick
to cheap traditional goods. Very few German firms have imple­
mented IT systems that capture and store the sector relevant
know-how of the ageing workforce on how to handle machinery,
materials and products, mainly for coping with severe labor
shortages. Digital knowledge management to some extent facili­
tates the integration of new technical employees into corporate
activities, and the use of digital assistance systems, cobots and
automated material flows gives some companies a modern face­
lift. However, costly rationalization further drives the
outsourcing of technical textile production to cheaper foreign
locations, instead of nurturing the reshoring of tasks back to
Germany. Global systemic digitalization has just made too easy to
9
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
transfer textile know-how, process technologies and IT coordi­
nated production stages to other countries. And automation
makes the local recruitment of highly qualified staff widely
redundant.
(3) Many German textile companies still hesitate to implement In­
dustry 4.0 systems. Financial restrictions prevent especially SMEs
from investing into digital infrastructure. And deeply rooted
distrust between textile firms, also including machinery pro­
ducers, obstructs constructive inter-firm collaboration. More­
over, the build-up of crucial digital know-how in the textile
industry is hampered by losing IT experts and qualified staff to
other more attractive German key industries, such as the e-
mobility sectors. Labor conditions in textile companies have not
improved over time, as digitally controlled, automated assistance
systems have taken over the more demanding tasks and leave
rather simple, boring jobs to the remaining employees. No
wonder that the in-house working climate suffers and staff hardly
welcomes the introduction of new digital tools. The industry’s
digital transformation is hampered by insufficient political sup­
port, too, which affects especially rural textile locations that keep
on waiting for broadband or 5G internet connectivity. Problems
of inadequate legal protection and insecure data transmission
environments have not been solved either, which inhibits pro­
duction related data exchanges especially between SMEs. Alto­
gether, the German technical textile industry continues losing
track of foreign competitors and has fallen back several years of
technology development by 2030.
7. Conclusions
Exploring the case of the German textile industry, this study advo­
cates that industry and place specific historical trajectories in terms of
path dependent context conditions significantly influence the future of
Industry 4.0 technology implementation, corroborating other research
on the importance of pre-existing regional settings for industrial renewal
in this sector (Froud et al., 2018). Our mixed methods research reveals
that Germany’s textile economy, despite of a shift towards efficient
technical textile production, shows limited capacities towards investing
into new digital technologies in the near future. Just as other scholars
have shown for German SMEs in other industry sectors (Müller et al.,
2018), the shift towards high-grade process digitization, smart
manufacturing and inter-company connectivity required for entering the
age of Industry 4.0 can hardly be achieved. As typical for textile firms
also in other EU countries (Giannini et al., 2019), there is low corporate
investment in R&D, little autonomous innovation, and strong depen­
dence on impulses by value chain partners that belong to other industry
sectors. This study adds that persistent image problems of the once
economically deteriorating textile sector inhibits firms’ recruitment of
young qualified staff. This asset, however, would be strongly needed to
promote the implementation of modern Industry 4.0 or even foregoing
Industry 3.0 technologies in textile production, in line with related
roadmaps and maturity models (Rafael et al., 2020), to sustain inter­
national competitiveness.
Our empirical approach, which combines document and statistical
analyses, research interviews with company executives and other ex­
perts, factory visits, a participative stakeholder workshop and scenario
techniques, has proven useful for exploring past development features
that matter for forecasting trends of technology application in the
German textile industry. Direct interaction with industry actors has
significantly deepened our understanding of important system dynamics
and context requirements. Findings confirm, above all, the need for local
textile cluster support (Sohn et al., 2016; Zhu and Pickles, 2016; Zizka
et al., 2018). Just as generally proposed by Götz and Jankowska (2017),
the institutional settings of clusters can specifically encourage the future
introduction of Industry 4.0 technologies also in German textile firms.
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
The optimistic scenario outlined in this paper shows how the fostered
systematic introduction of digital tools will be able to upgrade interac­
tion in the entire textile production system, raise the attractiveness of
employers for young IT experts, and keep German producers ahead of
competitors over the next decade.
Positive visions of smart textile production can only be realized when
certain conditions are provided. In Germany, however, political actors
seem too optimistic with respect to the proliferation of new Industry 4.0
systems (Bauer et al., 2014). It should be acknowledged that some sec­
tors, also beyond the textile industry, face specific, historically rooted
barriers that obstruct comprehensive digitization even in hitherto suc­
cessful businesses. Policies tailored to those requirements must not only
establish the adequate IT infrastructure as well as legal frameworks for
data handling that are essential for any industry to introduce Industry
4.0, but also cater to the textile sector’s specific needs.
To build a viable future for technical textile production in Germany,
especially labor issues should be tackled. Our study suggests that labor
relations between employers and employees need to be strengthened
and turned into more collaborative partnerships, to cope with the drastic
changes that digitalization imposes on workforce and work environ­
ments. More transparent communication flows and improved access to
all relevant information seem due, in line with less hierarchical and
more open, participative routines. Concerning staff acquisition and
qualification, the attractiveness of textile jobs especially for IT personnel
needs to be raised. Digital production tools may be conducive for that,
but should be accompanied by image campaigns, better payment
packages or profit sharing arrangements. Formal education programs for
textile professions should integrate textile and IT related contents right
from the start, also introducing newly emerging textile market and
business options. This combination of skills improves both the job op­
portunities of graduates and their flexible expertise as employees, as
well as inter-sector knowledge transfer and innovation.
Further, more involvement of regional partners is recommended,
such as labor unions, industry associations and chambers of commerce,
provided they develop tailored consulting packages for the tasks ahead.
Together they should installl living lab and experimentation arenas
where several value chain partners have some freedom to collectively
test novel digital textile production technologies for future imple­
mentation. To fulfill the challenging qualification requirements induced
by systemic Industry 4.0 trends, increased collaboration between co-
locating textile firms may also include temporary staff exchange pro­
grams along the value chain. Regional development agencies and in­
dustry associations are well positioned to initiate and organize these
kinds of interaction between firms and other partners. They can join
forces with R&D centers and educational institutions to launch new
qualification schemes for the Industry 4.0 enhanced textile production
system of the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Martina Fromhold-Eisebith: Funding acquisition, Conceptualiza­
tion, Methodology, Supervision, Project administration, Writing - orig­
inal draft, Writing - review & editing. Philip Marschall:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation, Meth­
odology, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Robert Peters:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation, Meth­
odology, Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Paul Thomes:
Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision,
Project administration.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge some technical and content
related support by Yves Gloy, Jan Jordan and Maximilian Kemper,
Institute of Textile Research at RWTH Aachen University, who provided
insights into Industry 4.0 trends in technical textile production, industry
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
contacts and information on Smart Factory business consulting, as well
as workshop assistance. We also thank for public project funding by the
German Research Foundation DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)
[grant nos. FR 1287/ 10-1, TH 742/8-1]
References
Bathelt, H., Glückler, J., 2003. Toward a relational economic geography. J. Econ. Geogr.
3 (2), 117–144.
Bauer, W., Schlund, S., Marrenbach, D., 2014. Industrie 4.0. Volkswirtschaftliches
Potenzial für Deutschland. BITKOM, Berlin.
Boschma, R.A., Martin, R., 2010. The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. E.
Elgar, Cheltenham.
Brekke, T., 2015. Entrepreneurship and path dependency in regional development.
Entrepreneurship Region. Dev. 27 (3-4), 202–218.
Breukers, S., Hisschemöller, M., Cuppen, E., Suurs, R., 2014. Analysing the past and
exploring the future of sustainable biomass. Participatory stakeholder dialogue and
technological innovation systems research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81,
227–235.
Chen, B., Wan, J., Shu, L., Li, P., Mukherjee, M., Yin, B., 2017. Smart factory of industry
4.0: Key technologies, application case, and challenges. IEEE Access 6, 6505–6519.
Coates, J.F., 1997. Historical lessons from technological disruptions: Will the storm
always pass? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 54, 111–117.
Czajka, R., 2005. Development of medical textile market. Fibres Text. East. Eur 13 (1),
13–15.
Cooke, P., 2001. Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy.
Ind. Corporate Change 10 (4), 945–974.
Cooke, P., Asheim, B., Boschma, R., Martin, R., Schwartz, D., Tödtling, F., 2011.
Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth. E. Elgar, Cheltenham.
Dicken, P., 2015. Global shift. Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 7
ed. Guilford, New York.
Cimoli, M., Dosi, G., 1995. Technological paradigms, patterns of learning and
development: an introductory roadmap. J. Evol. Econ. 5 (3), 243–268.
Drath, R., Horch, A., 2014. Industrie 4.0: Hit or Hype? IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 8 (2),
56–58.
Ernst & Young, 2016. TechTex. Deutsche Textilien sind mehr als Kleidung von der
Stange. EY, Chemnitz.
Euratex – The European Apparel and Textile Confederation (2019): Annual Report 2018.
Euratex, Brussels.
Froud, J., Hayes, S., Wei, H., Williams, K., 2018. Capabilities and habitat in industrial
renewal: the case of UK textiles. Cambridge J. Econ. 42 (6), 1643–1669.
Giannini, V., Iacobucci, D., Perugini, F., 2019. Local variety and innovation performance
in the EU textile and clothing industry. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 28 (8), 841–857.
Giebeler, M., Jansen, K., Spiesecke, H. (2016): Industrie 4.0 in der Textil- und
Modeproduktion. Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie, Berlin.
Gioia, D., Corley, K., Hamilton, A., 2013. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive
Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organ.Res. Methods 16 (1), 15–31.
Götz, M., Jankowska, B., 2017. Clusters and Industry 4.0 – do they fit together? Eur.
Plan. Stud. 25 (9), 1633–1653.
Hassink, R., 2007. The strength of weak lock-ins: the renewal of the Westmünsterland
textile industry. Environ. Plan. A. 39 (5), 1147–1165.
Hassler, M., 2010. Die deutsche Bekleidungsindustrie. In: Kulke, E. (Ed.), Die deutsche
Bekleidungsindustrie. Wirtschaftsgeographie Deutschlands 157–168.
Henning, M., Stam, E., Wenting, R., 2013. Path dependence research in regional
economic development: cacophony or knowledge accumulation? Region. Stud. 47
(8), 1348–1362.
Ikram, A., Su, Q., Fiaz, M., Rehman, R.U., 2018. Cluster strategy and supply chain
management: the road to competitiveness for emerging economies. Benchmarking –
An Int. J. 25 (5), 1302–1318.
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft, 2019. Hightech statt Polyester-Pulli. Textil- und
Modeindustrie. IWD 4, 14 10–11. Feb. 2019.
Jeong, S.W., Chung, J.E., Roh, J.S., 2019. Impact of external knowledge inflow on
product and process innovation of Korean SMEs: absorptive capacity as a mediator.
Cloth. Text. Res. J. 37 (4), 219–234.
Karaca, F., Öner, M.A., 2015. Scenarios of nanotechnology development and usage in
Turkey. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 91, 327–340.
Karlsch, R., Schäfer, M. (2006): Wirtschaftsgeschichte Sachsens im Industriezeitalter.
Edition Leipzig.
Kosow, H., Gaßner, R., 2008. Methods of future and scenario analysis: overview,
assessment, and selection criteria. In: DIE Studies, 39. German Institute of
Development Policy, Bonn.
Krippendorf, W., Holst, G., Richter, U., 2009. Branchenanalyse Textilindustrie.
Untersuchungen zur Situation und Entwicklung der Branchen „Textilgewerbe“ (WZ
17). IMU-Institut, Berlin.
Lim, K.Y.H., Zheng, P., Chen, C.H, 2020. A state-of-the-art survey of Digital Twin:
techniques, engineering product lifecycle management and business innovation
perspectives. J. Intell. Manuf. 31, 1313–1337.
Löhrer, M., Lemme, J., Kerpen, D., Saggiomo, M., Gloy, Y., 2018. Soziotechnische
Assistenzsysteme für die Produktionsarbeit in der Textilbranche, Auswirkungen von
Industrie 4.0 und die Arbeit in einer Weberei. In: Wischmann, S., Hartmann, E.A.
(Eds.), Zukunft der Arbeit – Eine praxisnahe Betrachtung. Springer Nature, Berlin,
pp. 73–86.
Malecki, E.J., 1991. Technology and Economic Development: The Dynamics of Local,
Regional, and National Change. Wiley, New York.
M. Fromhold-Eisebith et al.
Mietzner, D., 2009. Strategische Vorausschau und Szenarioanalysen,
Methodenevaluation und neue Ansätze. Springer, Wiesbaden.
Müller, J.M., Buliga, O., Voigt, K.-I., 2018. Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs
approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
132, 2–17.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge MA.
Neudörfer, K., 1998. Krisen in der Textilindustrie der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In:
Henning, F.-W. (Ed.), Krisen und Krisenbewältigung vom 19. Jahrhundert bis heute.
Frankfurt/Main, pp. 29–48.
Noteboom, B., 2000. Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Osterrieder, P., Budde, L., Friedli, T., 2020. The smart factory as a key construct of
industry 4.0: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 221, 107476.
Pack, H., 1987. Productivity, Technology and Industrial Development: A Case Study in
Textiles. Oxford University Press, New York.
Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B., Gatti, C., 2018. Industry 4.0 in management studies: a
systematic literature review. Sustainability 10 (10), 3821.
Petruzzelli, A.M., Albino, V., 2012. When Tradition Turns into Innovation. How Firms
Can Create Appropriate Value Through Tradition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Rafael, L.D., Jaione, G.E., Cristina, L., Ibon, S.L., 2020. An Industry 4.0 maturity model
for machine tool companies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 159 (120203).
Rasheed, A., San, O., Kvamsdal, T., 2020. Digital Twin: values, challenges and enablers
from a modeling perspective. IEEE Access 8, 21980–22012.
Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Scharrer, E., 1972. Die Chancen der Textil- und Bekleidungsindustrie in
hochentwickelten Ländern: Ein empirischer Beitrag zu kontroverseren Fragen der
Standortwahl beider Industriezweige. University of Kiel, Kiel.
Schneider, A., 2003. Internationalisierungsstrategien in der deutschen Textil- und
Bekleidungsindustrie – eine empirische Untersuchung. RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen.
Shishoo, R., 2008. Textile Advances in the Automotive Industry. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Sohn, A.P.L., Vieira, F.D., Casarotto, N., Cunha, I.J., Zarelli, P.R, 2016. Knowlege
transmission in industrial clusters: evidence from EuroClusTex. Eur. Plan. Stud. 24
(3), 511–529.
Statistisches Bundesamt (German Statistical Office), 1959, Statistisches Jahrbuch der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1959. Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt, 2019. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
2019. Wiesbaden.
Steinau, G., 1981. Strukturwandel und Konjunktur in der Textilindustrie 1960-1978.
Springer VS, Heidelberg.
Tamas, L., Murar, M., 2019. Smart CPS: vertical integration overview and user story with
a cobot. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 32 (4-5), 504–521.
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120620
Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A. (2009): Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Sage, London.
Vyskocil, A., 2017. Textile industry in Brno: A case study of cultural heritage and the
memory of an industrial center. Museol. Cultural Heritage 5 (1), 83–98.
Wang, P., Kinnucan, H.W., Duffy, P.A., 2019. The effects of rising labour costs on global
supply chains: the case of China’s cotton yarn industry. Appl. Econ. 51 (33),
3608–3623.
Weidenhausen, E.M. (2010): Globalisierungsprozesse in der Textilwirtschaft,
insbesondere in der ökologisch ausgerichteten Branche. Stuttgart.
Yang, J., 2010. Textile industry development and science & technology innovation in
China. Cotton Textile Technol. 91–102.
Zhu, S.J., Pickles, J., 2016. Institutional embeddedness and regional adaptability and
rigidity in a Chinese apparel cluster. Geografiska Annaler B – Hum. Geogr. 98 (2),
127–143.
Zizka, M., Valentova, V.H., Pelloneova, N., Stichhauerova, E., 2018. The effect of clusters
on the innovation performance of enterprises: traditional vs. New Industries.
Entrepreneurship Sustain. Issues 5 (4), 780–794.
Martina Fromhold-Eisebith holds the Chair of Economic Geography at RWTH Aachen
University, Germany. Her research interests cover various issues of technology-oriented
regional development, environmental economic geography, the role of social relation­
ships in economic development, global-local perspectives on industrial dynamics, as well
as the evaluation of regional restructuring and related policies.
Philip Marschall holds a Master’s degree (M.Sc.) in Economic Geography and was
employed as a research assistant in the project ‘Regional Economic Implications of In­
dustry 4.0 in relational perspective: innovation, evolution, organisation and interaction,
analysed for the German Textile industry’, funded by the German Research Foundation
DFG.
Robert Peters holds a Master’s degree (M.A.) in Economics, Linguistics and Literature
Science and was employed as a research assistant in the project ‘Regional Economic Im­
plications of Industry 4.0 in relational perspective: innovation, evolution, organisation and
interaction, analysed for the German Textile industry’, funded by the German Research
Foundation DFG.
Paul Thomes is professor of Economic, Social and Technology History at RWTH Aachen
University, Germany (now retired). His research focuses on contemporary and forward-
looking concepts that combine historical and interdisciplinary views on economic and
technology research.