Industry 4.0: The Future of Indo-German Industrial Collaboration

Industry 4.0 can be described as the fourth industrial revolution, a mega- trend that affects every company around the world. It envisions interconnections and collaboration between people, products and machines within and across enterprises. Why does Industry 4.0 make for an excellent platform for industrial collaboration between India and Germany? The answers lie in economic as well as social factors. Both countries have strengths and weakness and strategic collaboration using the principles of Industry 4.0 can help both increase their industrial output, GDP and make optimal use of human resources. As a global heavy weight in manufacturing and machine export, Germany has a leading position in the development and deployment of Industry 4.0 concepts and technology. However, its IT sector, formed by a labor force of 800,000 employees, is not enough. It needs more professionals to reach its full potential. India, on the other hand, is a global leader in IT and business process outsourcing. But its manufacturing industry needs to grow significantly and compete globally. These realities clearly show the need for Industry 4.0-based collaboration between Germany and India. So how does Industry 4.0 work? In a first step, we look at the technical pers- pective – the vertical and horizontal integration of Industry 4.0 principles in enterprises. Vertical integration refers to operations within Smart Factories and horizontal integration to Smart Supply Chains across businesses. In the second step, we look at manufacturing, chemical industry and the IT sector as potential targets for collaboration between the two countries. We use case studies to illustrate the benefits of the deployment of Industry 4.0. Potential collaboration patterns are discussed along different forms of value chains and along companies’ ability to achieve Industry 4.0 status. We analyse the social impact of Industry 4.0 on India and Germany and find that it works very well in the coming years. Germany with its dwindling labor force might be compensated through the automation. This will ensure continued high productivity levels and rise in GDP. India, on the other hand has a burgeoning labor market, with 10 million workers annually entering the job market. Given that the manufacturing sector will be at par with Europe in efficiency and costs by 2023, pressure on India’s labor force will increase even more. Even its robust IT sector will suffer fewer hires because of increased automation. Rapid development of technologies – for the Internet of Things (IoT) or for connectivity like Low-Power WAN – makes skilling and reskilling of the labor force critical for augmenting smart manufacturing. India and Germany have been collaborating at three levels relevant to Industry 4.0 – industry, government and academics. How can these be taken forward? The two countries have a long history of trade. The Indo-German Chamber of Commerce (IGCC) is the largest such chamber in India and the largest German chamber worldwide. VDMA (Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau, Mechanical Engineering Industry Association), the largest industry association in Europe, maintains offices in India. Indian key players in IT, in turn, have subsidia- ries in Germany and cooperate with German companies in the area of Industry 4.0. Collaboration is also supported on governmental level. As government initiatives go, India has launched the “Make in India” initiative and the “Make in India Mittelstand! (MIIM)” programme as a part of it. The Indian Government is also supporting “smart manufacturing” initiatives in a major way. Centers of Excellence driven by the industry and academic bodies are being set up. Germany and India have a long tradition of research collaboration as well. Germany is the second scientific collaborator of India and Indian students form the third largest group of foreign students in Germany. German institutions like the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) or the German House for Research and Innovation (DWIH) are working to strengthen ties between the scientific communities of the two countries, and between their academia and industry. What prevents Industry 4.0 from becoming a more widely used technology? Recent surveys in Germany and India show that awareness about Industry 4.0 is still low, especially among small and medium manufacturing enterprises. IT companies, on the other hand, are better prepared. There is a broad demand for support, regarding customtailored solutions, information on case studies and the willingness to participate in Industry 4.0 pilot projects and to engage in its platform and networking activities. We also found similar responses at workshops conducted with Industry 4.0 stakehold- ers in June 2017 in Bangalore and Pune and in an online survey. What can be done to change this? Both countries should strengthen their efforts to create awareness for Industry 4.0, especially among small and medium enterprises. Germany should also put more emphasis on making their Industry 4.0 technology known to the Indian market. India’s IT giants, on the other hand, should make their Industry 4.0 offers more visible to the German market. The governments should support the establishing of joint Industry 4.0 collaboration platforms, centers of excellence and incubators to ease the dissemination of knowledge and technology. On academic level, joint research programs and exchange programs should be set up to foster the skilling of labor force in the deployment of Industry 4.0 methods and technologies

German and Israeli Innovation: The Best of Two Worlds

This study reviews – through desk research and expert interviews with Mittelstand companies, startups and ecosystem experts – the current status of the Israeli startup ecosystem and the Mittelstand region of North Rhine- Westphalia (NRW), Germany. As a case study, it highlights potential opportunities for collaboration and analyzes different engagement modes that might serve to connect the two regions. The potential synergies between the two economies are based on a high degree of complementarity. A comparison of NRW’s key verticals and Israel’s primary areas of innovation indicates that there is significant overlap in verticals, such as artificial intelligence (AI), the internet of things (IoT), sensors and cybersecurity. Israeli startups can offer speed, agility and new ideas, while German Mittelstand companies can contribute expertise in production and scaling, access to markets, capital and support. The differences between Mittelstand companies and startups are less pronounced than those between startups and big corporations. However, three current barriers to fruitful collaboration have been identified: 1) a lack of access, 2) a lack of transparency regarding relevant players in the market, and 3) a lack of the internal resources needed to select the right partners, often due to time constraints or a lack of internal expertise on this issue. To ensure that positive business opportunities ensue, Mittelstand companies and startups alike have to be proactive in their search for cooperation partners and draw on a range of existing engagement modes (e.g., events, communities, accelerators). The interviews and the research conducted for this study made clear that no single mode of engagement can address all the needs and challenges associated with German-Israeli collaboration

Is China Systematically Buying Up Key Technologies? Chinese M & A transactions in Germany in the context of “Made in China 2025”. Bertelsmann Stiftung GED Study 2018

“Made in China 2025” (MIC 2025) is the Chinese central government’s main industrial policy strategy aimed at turning China into the global leader of the fourth industrial revolution. Chinese M & A transactions abroad explicitly belong to the instruments for implementing MIC 2025. Germany is an attractive location for Chinese M & A transactions and offers tailor-made know-how for MIC 2025 due to its large number of “hidden champions”, i. e. technological world market leaders in highly specialized niches. 64 percent or 112 of the 175 analyzed Chinese M & A transactions with a share of at least ten percent in German companies between 2014 and 2017 percent can be assigned to one of the ten key sectors in which China aims to assume global technology leadership with the help of MIC 2025. On the one hand, there is a clear focus on the MIC 2025 sectors of “energy-saving and new-energy vehicles”, “electrical equipment” and “high-end numerical control machinery and robotics” – i. e. sectors in which Germany can in part demonstrate significant competitive technological advantages. Even before the introduction of MIC 2025 in 2015, however, these sectors were already a focus of interest for Chinese investors in Germany. On the other hand, key sectors that played little or no role for Chinese M & A transactions in Germany have also become increasingly important since the introduction of MIC 2025. This is particularly evident in the MIC 2025 sector of “biomedicine and high-performance medical devices”. The majority of the 112 Chinese M & A transactions (just under 60 percent) that are relevant for MIC 2025 are distributed across only three German states: Baden-Württemberg (26), North Rhine-Westphalia (22) and Bavaria (18) – the very regions in which the majority of the German “hidden champions” are located. State-owned investors make up 18 percent of the Chinese M & A transactions examined, and are therefore a minority. However, taking into account only the M & A transactions that can be assigned to the MIC 2025 sectors, their share rises to around 22 percent – a possible indication of state stakeholders’ greater interest in acquiring know-how abroad for the implementation of MIC 2025. However, the formal type of ownership of Chinese companies does not show the full picture of potential state influence due to the complex interplay between the state and companies in China. Therefore, the great challenge for Germany consists in the forms of state influence that are not or only insufficiently reflected in the majority ownership type of Chinese investors

Perspectives of Integrated “Next Industrial Revolution” Clusters in Poland and Siberia

Rozdział z: Functioning of the Local Production Systems in Central and Eastern European Countries and Siberia. Case Studies and Comparative Studies, ed. Mariusz E. Sokołowicz.The paper presents the mapping of potential next industrial revolution clusters in Poland and Siberia. Deindustrialization of the cities and struggles with its consequences are one of the fundamental economic problems in current global economy. Some hope to find an answer to that problem is associated with the idea of next industrial revolution and reindustrialization initiatives. In the paper, projects aimed at developing next industrial revolution clusters are analyzed. The objective of the research was to examine new industrial revolution paradigm as a platform for establishing university-based trans-border industry clusters in Poland and Siberia47 and to raise awareness of next industry revolution initiatives.Monograph financed under a contract of execution of the international scientific project within 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, co-financed by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (title: “Functioning of the Local Production Systems in the Conditions of Economic Crisis (Comparative Analysis and Benchmarking for the EU and Beyond”)). Monografia sfinansowana w oparciu o umowę o wykonanie projektu między narodowego w ramach 7. Programu Ramowego UE, współfinansowanego ze środków Ministerstwa Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego (tytuł projektu: „Funkcjonowanie lokalnych systemów produkcyjnych w warunkach kryzysu gospodarczego (analiza porównawcza i benchmarking w wybranych krajach UE oraz krajach trzecich”))

Contextual impacts on industrial processes brought by the digital transformation of manufacturing: a systematic review

The digital transformation of manufacturing (a phenomenon also known as "Industry 4.0" or "Smart Manufacturing") is finding a growing interest both at practitioner and academic levels, but is still in its infancy and needs deeper investigation. Even though current and potential advantages of digital manufacturing are remarkable, in terms of improved efficiency, sustainability, customization, and flexibility, only a limited number of companies has already developed ad hoc strategies necessary to achieve a superior performance. Through a systematic review, this study aims at assessing the current state of the art of the academic literature regarding the paradigm shift occurring in the manufacturing settings, in order to provide definitions as well as point out recurring patterns and gaps to be addressed by future research. For the literature search, the most representative keywords, strict criteria, and classification schemes based on authoritative reference studies were used. The final sample of 156 primary publications was analyzed through a systematic coding process to identify theoretical and methodological approaches, together with other significant elements. This analysis allowed a mapping of the literature based on clusters of critical themes to synthesize the developments of different research streams and provide the most representative picture of its current state. Research areas, insights, and gaps resulting from this analysis contributed to create a schematic research agenda, which clearly indicates the space for future evolutions of the state of knowledge in this field

German insurance industry: market overview and trends

This article presents an overview of the contemporary German insurance market, its structure, players, and development trends. First, brief information about the history of the insurance industry in Germany is provided. Second, the contemporary market is analyzed in terms of its legal and economic structure, with statistics on the number of companies, insurance density and penetration, the role of insurers in the capital markets, premiums split, and main market players and their market shares. Furthermore, the three biggest insurance lines—life, health, and property and casualty—are considered in more detail, such as product range, country specifics, and insurance and investment results. A section on regulation outlines its implementation in the insurance sector, offering information on the underlying legislative basis, supervisory body, technical procedures, expected developments, and sources of more detailed information

Governance of Digitalization in Europe A contribution to the Exploration Shaping Digital Policy - Towards a Fair Digital Society? BertelsmannStiftung Study

Digital policy is a unique policy area. As a cross-cutting policy issue, it has an impact not only on individual areas of regulation but on almost all other policy areas as well. Aspects of digital policy such as data regimes, cybersecurity and standardization issues are relevant not only to the the future of the internet or 5G mobile communications infrastructure, but to other areas of our lives to which they are closely linked, which range from automated driving to digital assistance systems in education and healthcare to the digitalization of sectors such as agriculture and construction. Nevertheless, regulation efforts have thus far been primarily sector-specific and national in their scope. With a few exceptions, such as the EU’s controversial General Data Protection Regulation, there are few digital policy frameworks in place for Europe that defines and integrates basic principles for broad application. Instead, we face a situation in which a variety of approaches stand side by side, at times complementing each other but also – all too often – competing with each other in ways that foster inconsistencies. The development of Europe’s 5G infrastructure is illustrative of this state of affairs. Despite the presence of what were originally uniform objectives across Europe, 28 nationally distinct tendering procedures with different requirements have since emerged. As a result, we must now find ways to manage the problems associated with having three or more networks per country, high costs, a difficult debate over security and the threat of dependency on non-EU providers

Technological Innovation and Inclusive Growth in Germany. Bertelsmann Stiftung Inclusive Growth for Germany|18

Economic growth in Germany is no longer as inclusive as it used to be. Between 1990 and 2010 all measures of income and wealth inequality rose considerably,1 which even led the media to portray Germany as a ‘divided nation’.2 Income inequality was relatively low before 1990, and even declined over much of the 20th century, but changed direction after German unification. The rise in income inequality from 1990 onwards is depicted in Figure 1 through various inequality indicators and the ‘at-risk-of-poverty rate’. It can be seen that all measures of income inequality (before and after tax) increased markedly after 1990 along with the ‘at-risk-ofpoverty rate’.3 Felbermayr et al. (2014) furthermore document that the rise in wage inequality was faster in Germany than in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada between the mid-1990s and 2010. This rise in income and wage inequality has been accompanied, and to a certain extent occasioned, by a simultaneous increase in wealth inequality. Using data from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), Frick and Grabka (2009) show, that the Gini coefficient for wealth increased from 0.77 to 0.80 during this period, and wealth grew particularly strongly at the top 1 percent of the wealth distribution

German economic performance: disentangling the role of supply-side reforms, macroeconomic policy and coordinated economy institutions

Since unification, the debate about Germany's poor economic performance has focused on supply-side weaknesses, and the associated reform agenda sought to make low-skill labour markets more flexible. We question this diagnosis using three lines of argument. First, effective restructuring of the supply side in the core advanced industries was carried out by the private sector using institutions of the coordinated economy, including unions, works councils and blockholder owners. Second, the implementation of orthodox labour market and welfare state reforms created a flexible labour market at the lower end. Third, low growth and high unemployment are largely accounted for by the persistent weakness of domestic aggregate demand, rather than by the failure to reform the supply side. Strong growth in recent years reflects the successful restructuring of the core economy. To explain these developments, we identify the external pressures on companies in the context of increased global competition, the continuing value of the institutions of the coordinated market economy to the private sector and the constraints imposed on the use of stabilizing macroeconomic policy by these institutions. We also suggest how changes in political coalitions allowed orthodox labour market reforms to be implemented in a consensus political system

Linear and Nonlinear Foreign Exchange Rate Exposures of German Nonfinancial Corporations

It has been viewed as an unsolved puzzle that only for a small number of firms a significant impact of foreign exchange rate risk on firm value could be detected empirically. This paper investigates whether the results of previous studies can be explained by the fact that only the linear exposure component has been estimated or that exchange rate indices were used. For a comprehensive sample of German firms, empirical evidence is presented for the existence of significant linear and nonlinear exposures, which can be identified for bilateral as well as multilateral foreign exchange rates. The percentage of foreign sales, measures of firm liquidity and industry sectors are significant determinants of the exposure.foreign exchange rates, exposure, corporate finance, risk management, derivatives