The aim of this position paper is to identify a specific focus and the major challenges related to the human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI) approach in the field of Industry 5.0 and the circular economy. A first step towards the opening of a line of research is necessary to aggregate multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary skills to promote and take into consideration the different aspects related to this topic, from the more technical and engineering aspects to the social ones and the repercussions in terms of sustainability. The proposal and vision of this preliminary work is to identify and discuss a suitable field for such interaction. This field has been identified, specifically, within additive manufacturing (AM) in the context of Industry 5.0. Additive manufacturing (AM), is a disruptive opportunity for more sustainable production systems that can be better optimized with AI, becoming an ideal platform for interconnection between different levels of application and integration of HCAI concepts, and at the same time able to prove them. In this context, two prospective areas with a high application impact of HCAI are those of AM-oriented supply chain and product customization in the AM field, enabled by a plethora of recently emerging technologies such as the internet of things, cloud and edge computing, and next-generation networks (5G). The paper concludes with the challenges HCAI poses to public policymakers, who face significant policy challenges in regulating artificial intelligence, and addressing the socioeconomic and technological impacts. Decision-makers are required to address these challenges by adopting some tentative policy recommendations.

The debate around ‘digital sovereignty’ identifies tensions rooted in the disparity between the EU's considerable economic and regulatory power in digital matters and its limited mandate and capabilities in foreign policy. Artificial intelligence (AI) is considered a strategic industry in Europe and abroad. Whilst most studies have focused on the ‘tech war’ between China and the United States, the role of the EU in this context is often underappreciated in affecting the outcome of this global competition. Nevertheless, contrary to conventional wisdom, so far, the EU has been a key policy entrepreneur with respect to the development and promotion of norms that regulate the use of AI, highlighting in particular a human‐centric and trustworthy vision of AI. Focusing on the EU is important because of its relevance in setting norms in this area. In the context of the US–China ‘tech war’, the article thus looks into the EU's position in the global race to technology and, in particular, how it makes sense of the competition in the field of AI. The research aims to shed light on how the EU constructs its identity in this competitive context vis‐à‐vis the United States and China by investigating the narratives on AI at the EU level. The article carries out an interpretivist narrative analysis of the major policies, regulations and official discussions by the EU, including the AI Act, the European Commission's White Paper and other European Commission's official communications on AI. The article aims to raise awareness of the EU's role in shaping norms and practices on AI and opens up the debate on European identity.

The nexus between policy change and learning has attracted an extensive theoretical debate, since the seminal Hall’s typology of orders of change. Defined as the capacity to act collectively for policy-making, policy knowledge is crucial because actors have to know how to cooperate sharing a common understanding of the policy issue at stake. This challenge is even more relevant in the case of decentralisation when policy competencies are transferred to local governments and new policymakers established. In this context, the paper argues that the co-production between newly established policymakers and experts is more likely to lead to policy change within the filter of the dominant policy paradigm. For this purpose, two cases from Brussels are presented and compared about the local water management system and a new rail junction. This approach opens the theoretical issue of the knowledge-democracy nexus about the involvement of non-expert stakeholders.