Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework

Date : 24.12.2024 Deliverable No : D1.3 Responsible Partner : UNIMORE Dissemination Level : PU D1.3 Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework Ref. Ares(2024)9242234 - 24/12/2024 Deliverable 1.3 2 Short Description This deliverable outlines the development and initial structure of the Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework, providing main study questions, assessment criteria and KPIs for each Industry 5.0 impact area (human centricity, environmental sustainability and industrial resilience). The Assessment Framework aims to assist companies across various sizes and industrial sectors in evaluating their current maturity level and identifying actionable steps to enhance their adoption of Industry 5.0 practices. For each KPI, the framework defines the necessary data, linked data collection tools, and KPI measurement approach. Additionally, it provides a description of the main variables to be considered for the definition of specific application scenarios, as well as a preliminary analysis of the feasibility risks of the framework itself. Project Information Project Acronym: PROSPECTS 5.0 Project Title: PROGRESS TOWARDS INDUSTRY 5.0: A SMART STUDY ON ANALYSIS AND IDENTIFICATION OF PRACTICES, DRIVERS, SUCCESS FACTORS AND OBSTACLES OF TRANSITIONS TOWARDS INDUSTRY 5.0 Project Coordinator: Ziga Valic (FM) Duration: 36 months Document Information & Version Management Document Title: D1.3 Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework Related WP/Task: WP1 – T1.3 Document Type: Report Main Author(s): Giacomo Cantini (UNIMORE) Contributor(s): Anna Rita Graziani (UNIMORE), Virginia Castaños Madariaga (TECNALIA), Paula Morella Avinzano (TECNALIA), Zeta Spyropoulou (AETHON), Ana Guerra (INEGI) Reviewed by: Zeta Spyropoulous (AETHON), Ints Viksna (LTC) Approved by: Ziga Valic (FM) Version Date Modified by Comments V0.1 03.10.2024 Giacomo Cantini ToC draft Deliverable 1.3 3 V0.2 26.10.2024 Giacomo Cantini, Anna Rita Graziani Definitive ToC and first draft of contents V0.3 22.11.2024 Giacomo Cantini First draft of the deliverable presented for internal review (UNIMORE) V0.4 29.11.2024 Giacomo Cantini Draft of the deliverable including detailed description of the framework in Chapter 4, presented for review of relevant partners V0.5 5.12.2024 Virginia Castaños Madariaga, Paula Morella Avinzano, Zeta Spyropoulou, Ana Guerra Inputs integration on KPIs measurement approaches and Chapter 5 structure and contents V0.6 9.12.2024 Giacomo Cantini Integration of scoring mechanism sub-chapter and preparation of annexes. Final version for peer review V0.7 16.12.2024 Ints Viksna, Zeta Spyropoulou Peer review’s observations V0.8 20.12.2024 Giacomo Cantini Integration of peer review’s comments and final version for submission V0.8 22.12.2024 Kubra Yurduseven (INTRACT) Review and redaction V0.8 24.12.2024 Kubra Yurduseven (INTRACT) Review and redaction Disclaimer Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Deliverable 1.3 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Scope of the Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework ............................................................. 9 2.2. Relations to Others Work Packages and Deliverables of the Project ...................... 9 2.3. Structure of the Document................................................................................................................. 9 3. FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 11 3.1. Literature Review and Delphi Survey ............................................................................................ 11 3.2. Overview of Existing Evaluation Frameworks ......................................................................... 12 3.2.1. ESG Evaluation Frameworks ........................................................................................................ 13 3.2.2. SDG Evaluation Frameworks .................................................................................................. 13 3.2.3. Sector-specific and EU Projects’ Existing Evaluation Frameworks ................. 14 3.3. I5.0 AF Design Process .......................................................................................................................... 14 3.3.1. Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................................. 14 3.3.2. Co-creation and Validation Workshops ........................................................................ 15 4. I5.0 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................... 19 4.1. Impact Areas ............................................................................................................................................. 19 4.1.1. Human-centricity .............................................................................................................................. 19 4.1.2. Environmental Sustainability ..................................................................................................... 20 4.1.3. Industrial Resilience ......................................................................................................................... 20 4.2. Assessment Criteria and Study Questions .............................................................................. 21 4.2.1. Human-centricity .............................................................................................................................. 21 4.2.2. Environmental Sustainability ................................................................................................ 22 4.2.3. Industrial Resilience ................................................................................................................... 23 4.3. Key Performance Indicators ............................................................................................................ 24 4.3.1. KPI Categorization ............................................................................................................................ 24 4.3.2. Human Centricity: Key Performance Indicators ....................................................... 30 4.3.3. Sustainability: Key Performance Indicators ................................................................55 4.3.4. Resilience: Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................ 74 4.4. Summary of the Structure of the Framework .......................................................................88 5. APPLICATION SCENARIOS AND SCORING MECHANISM ..................................................................90 5.1. Variables for the Definition of Application Scenarios ......................................................90 Deliverable 1.3 5 5.2. Scoring Mechanism for the I5.AF ................................................................................................... 91 5.2.1. Alignment with I5.0 (Core KPI scoring) ................................................................................. 91 5.2.2. Level of Implementation with Respect to I5.0 (Scenario-Related KPI Scoring) 92 5.3. Preliminary Analysis of the Feasibility of I5.AF ...................................................................... 93 5.3.1. List of Potential Barriers to Implementation of I5.AF .................................................... 93 5.3.2. Potential Success Factors for the Adoption of I5.AF ...............................................94 6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 96 7. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 102 8. ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................................ 105 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Validation workshops’ participants’ composition, in percentage .............................. 17 Figure 2 Assessment criteria and related KPIs for HC .......................................................................... 28 Figure 3 Assessment criteria and related KPIs for Environmental Sustainability ................ 29 Figure 4 Assessment criteria and related KPIs for Industrial Resilience ................................... 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Implemented Workshops with UCs .................................................................................................. 15 Table 2 HC KPIs categorization ........................................................................................................................... 30 Table 3 Sustainability KPIs Categorization ..................................................................................................55 Table 4 Industrial resilience KPIs categorization ..................................................................................... 75 Table 5 Summary of the structure of the framework ...........................................................................88 Deliverable 1.3 6 LIST OF ACRONYMS AB Advisory Board AF Assessment Framework AI Artificial Intelligence AR / VR Augmented Reality / Virtual Reality CAPEX Capital Expenditure CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive DE&I Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion EFFRA European Factories of the Future Research Association EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management eNPS Employee Net Promoter Score EPI Ergonomic Performance Index ERP Enterprise Resource Planning ESG Environmental, Social and Governance GHG Greenhouse Gas GRI Global Reporting Initiative HC Human Centricity HR Human Resources HRIS Human Resources Information System I5.0 Industry 5.0 I5.AF Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework IIoT Industrial IoT IIP Investors in People IoT Internet of Things ISO International Standards’ Organization KPI Key Performance Indicator kWh Kilowatt-hours LCA Life Cycle Assessment LMS Learning Management Systems LTIFR Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate Deliverable 1.3 7 LTIs Lost Time Injuries MFA Material Flow Analysis MJ Megajoules ML Megalitres NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology OPEX Operational Expenditure PAF Preliminary Assessment Framework PLM Product Lifecycle Management R&D Research and Development RE Resilience SASB Sustainability Accounting Standards Board SCM Supply Chain Management SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SIEM Security Information and Event Management SME Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise TCIR Total Case of Incidence Rate of Injuries and Illnesses TRIR Total Recordable Incident Rate UC Use Case WP Work Package XR Extended Reality Deliverable 1.3 8 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This deliverable presents the preliminary version of the Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework (I5.AF), a tool designed to facilitate the measurement and promotion of strategic alignment and operational implementation of Industry 5.0 (I5.0) principles. Developed under the PROSPECTS 5.0 project, the I5.AF focuses on three impact pillars: Human-Centricity, Environmental Sustainability, and Industrial Resilience, providing companies with a structured approach to assess their progress towards I5.0 goals. The framework is a key milestone of the project and will undergo further refinement through testing and validation with use cases (UCs) during its implementation phase. The I5.AF adopts a modular approach, enabling organizations to tailor the framework to their specific contexts while maintaining standardized elements that ensure comparability across applications. The framework integrates two dimensions of assessment: Alignment with I5.0 principles, measured through a set of Core Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and Level of Implementation of I5.0 practices, evaluated using Scenario-Related KPIs. This dual-layered system provides companies with actionable insights into their strategic priorities and operational maturity. Core KPIs have been carefully selected for their universal relevance across industries and sizes, serving as benchmarks for strategic alignment with I5.0 principles. These KPIs include measures such as technology adoption for worker support, employee well-being and satisfaction, investment in sustainability-focused technologies, regulatory compliance and initiatives beyond, and risk assessment effectiveness. The Scenario-Related KPIs, in contrast, address specific operational and contextual variables, such as company size and sector-specific requirements, offering flexibility and soundness to the assessment process. The methodology underlying the framework has been informed by an extensive literature review conducted in previous Task 1.2, analysis of existing frameworks, and a series of co-creation workshops with project UCs, Advisory Board (AB) members, and representatives from I5.0-related EU projects. These engagements have shaped both the selection of KPIs and the development of corresponding measurement tools and data requirements, ensuring relevance and practicality. The modularity and adaptability of the I5.AF make it a valuable tool for companies of varying sizes and sectors, whether at the early stages of I5.0 adoption or already implementing advanced strategies. By focusing on both alignment and implementation, the I5.AF provides organizations with a roadmap for continuous improvement, supporting their transition towards more resilient, sustainable, and human-centric industrial systems. As this is the preliminary version of the framework, it is intended as a foundation for further refinement. The next phase of the project will focus on its testing and validation with UCs, providing critical insights to enhance its applicability and effectiveness. Deliverable 1.3 9 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. Scope of the Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework The preliminary Assessment Framework (PAF) for I5.0 provides a structured approach to evaluate and advance the adoption of I5.0 principles across diverse organizations. Its scope encompasses the key dimensions of human-centricity, environmental sustainability, and industrial resilience, aligning technological innovation with societal and ecological objectives. The framework is composed of a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for each of these three pillars, which are supported by related research questions to guide the evaluation process. These criteria and questions serve as the foundation for the development of a detailed list of KPIs, which form the core of the Assessment Framework (AF). Designed to be modular and adaptable, the framework can be tailored to varying company sizes, and industrial sectors, according to core and scenario-related KPIs. By offering standardized criteria alongside customizable KPIs, the framework will enable organizations to assess their current practices, identify gaps, and establish actionable goals to drive progress toward a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient industrial future. This preliminary version lays the groundwork for further refinement through practical application and stakeholder input. 2.2. Relations to Others Work Packages and Deliverables of the Project The deliverable received inputs from task 1.1 and task 1.2, as defined in Deliverable 1.1: The Industry 5.0 Community of Interest and Deliverable 1.2: Industry 5.0 Community Trends and Status and as it will be described in detail in the following chapter of the present document. In a similar way, it will provide inputs for all the next work packages (WPs) of the project, constituting the foundation of the project. More specifically, the PAF for I5.0 will provide the necessary information to structure the implementation phase (WP2) and to design the specific implementation plans for the T2.2 activities of data collection in the UCs of the project. 2.3. Structure of the Document The deliverable is structured to provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the development, characteristics, and application potential of the PAF for I5.0. It begins with an Executive Summary, which offers a concise overview of the document, highlighting the main objectives, methodologies, and outcomes of the framework’s development. This summary serves as a quick reference for understanding the essence of the work presented in the deliverable. The Introduction follows, defining the scope and purpose of the framework and explaining its alignment with the broader objectives of I5.0. This chapter also outlines the relationships between this deliverable and other WPs and deliverables within the Deliverable 1.3 16 COUNTRY UC FACILITATOR UC PROVIDER WORKSHOP DATE Italy UNIMORE BBRAUN 17th July 2024 Portugal INEGI AMF 24th July 2024 Belgium Flanders Make OCTAVE 13th August 2024 Germany FIR S-GARD 14th August 2024 Romania Flanders Make SMARALD 21st August 2024 Czech Republic UWB GTW 21st August 2024 Greece AETHON TRYGONS 4th September 2024 Austria I2M STIRTEC 4th September 2024 Türkiye INTRACT TEKNOROT 5th September 2024 Spain TECNALIA ZEUKO 9th September 2024 France EURECAT EFESTO 12th September 2024 Norway SINTEF KNOWIT 12th September 2024 Latvia LTC ELMI 20th September 2024 Poland TPF CAMELEO 1st October 2024 The workshops with UCs brought together a diverse group of 77 participants, comprising 29 women (38%) and 48 men (62%). As these industries are traditionally male dominated, it is worth highlighting that the Consortium successfully achieved significant involvement of women, reflecting a strong commitment to promoting gender diversity and inclusivity throughout the workshops. The participants represented a wide range of roles within their respective organizations. The detailed composition of the participants is presented in the following figure. Deliverable 1.3 17 Figure 1 Validation workshops’ participants’ composition, in percentage As it can be appreciated, the most represented roles among the participants have been CEOs, project managers, and human resources (HR) managers, reflecting the strategic and operational focus of the discussions. This composition ensured a comprehensive perspective on the implementation and feasibility of the framework, incorporating both leadership insights and practical expertise. Workshops with AB members and representatives from other I5.0-related EU projects: Between October and November 2024, three workshops were organized to present, discuss, and validate the preliminary structure of the I5.AF with key stakeholders and experts, fostering collaborative refinement of the framework. These workshops, conducted in collaboration with the leader of Task 1.1, brought together representatives from the AB, relevant EU projects, and other I5.0 experts to ensure comprehensive insights and perspectives. 30 October 2024. Workshop with representatives of AIREDGIO 5.0 project Guest participants: ▪ Sergio Gusmeroli, Marta Pinzone, Francesco Marzollo (POLIMI) The first workshop, held on 30 October 2024, focused on collaboration with the AIREDGIO 5.0 project. Esteemed participants included Sergio Gusmeroli, Marta Pinzone, and Francesco Marzollo from Politecnico of Milan (POLIMI), who contributed with their expertise on transitioning from Industry 4.0 to 5.0 to the definition of the scope and the advancing of the preliminary framework. 7 November 2024: Workshop with Advisory Board members. Guest participants: 15% 5% 5% 2% 2% 15% 5% 7% 17% 5% 2% 20% Participants’ composition CEO COO CTO CMO CFO HR MANAGER INNOVATION MANAGER R6D PROJECT MANAGER PRODUCT MANAGER STAKEHOLDER OTHER Deliverable 1.3 18 ▪ Matthias Duerr – SIEMENS ▪ Annamaria Cucinotta – UNIPR / SMILE EDIH ▪ Wolfgang Zorn – FRAUNHOFER ▪ Sahar Tahvili - ERICSSON ▪ Xavier Baillard – EIT Manufacturing ▪ Pieter Huyskens – DAMEN ▪ Eleonora Di Maria - UNIPD The second workshop took place on 7 November 2024 and was dedicated to engaging with AB members. This session featured prominent industry and academic representatives, including Matthias Duerr (SIEMENS), Annamaria Cucinotta (UNIPR / SMILE EDIH), Wolfgang Zorn (FRAUNHOFER), Sahar Tahvili (ERICSSON), Xavier Baillard (EIT Manufacturing), Pieter Huyskens (DAMEN), and Eleonora Di Maria (UNIPD). Their input was invaluable in shaping the framework with insights from diverse industrial contexts, providing valuable insights also on possible barriers to implementation scalability and the I5.AF necessary value proposition. 19 November 2024: Workshop with other EU projects on I5.0 Guest participants: ▪ Jason Pridmore (SEISMEC project) ▪ Steven Dhondt (BRIDGES 5.0 project) ▪ Peter Totterdill (BRIDGES 5.0 project) ▪ Marta Pinzone (AIREDGIO 5.0 project) ▪ Francesco Marzollo (AIREDGIO 5.0 project) The third workshop, organized on 19 November 2024, convened representatives from multiple EU projects focused on I5.0, including the SEISMEC project (Jason Pridmore), the BRIDGES 5.0 project (Steven Dhondt and Peter Totterdill), and the AIREDGIO 5.0 project (Marta Pinzone and Francesco Marzollo). This gathering emphasized cross-project collaboration and the exchange of best practices, further enhancing the framework’s relevance and applicability. These workshops underscored the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in refining the I5.AF and aligned it with broader EU objectives, ensuring it addresses practical and strategic needs across various industries and research contexts. Deliverable 1.3 19 4. I5.0 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 4.1. Impact Areas The I5.AF is designed to guide the adoption of principles that balance technological advancement with human well-being, environmental responsibility, and system resilience. I5.0 builds upon the foundations of Industry 4.0 by integrating humancantered values, sustainable practices, and resilient systems, marking a shift toward a paradigm that aligns industrial progress with broader societal and environmental goals. The framework identifies three core impact areas: Human-Centricity, Environmental Sustainability, and Industrial Resilience, which are essential for assessing and advancing I5.0 maturity across diverse sectors and organizational scales. These three impact areas form the foundation of the I5.0 paradigm, allowing organizations to assess and enhance their human-centric, sustainable, and resilient practices. Through the AF, companies can track progress across these dimensions, setting measurable goals for advancing their I5.0 maturity level while aligning technological innovation with the overarching goals of societal and environmental sustainability. 4.1.1. Human-centricity Human-centricity places the well-being, development, and creativity of employees at the core of industrial systems. Unlike earlier models that prioritized technological efficiency, this approach emphasizes the importance of designing production environments that enhance job satisfaction, foster autonomy, and support personal growth. A human-centric approach promotes the integration of advanced technologies—such as collaborative robots, extended reality (XR), and AI—that amplify human capabilities rather than replacing them (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2021; Kumar et al., 2021). Policymakers and researchers have increasingly recognized the risks of neglecting the human dimension in industrial progress, including the displacement of jobs and erosion of workplace satisfaction (Frey & Osborne, 2017). The European Commission has called for I5.0 to address these concerns by ensuring that technology serves people, placing employee well-being at the center of production processes (Breque et al., 2021). This involves creating safe and empowering work environments that respect human rights and prioritize skill development (Doyle Kent & Kopacek, 2021). In addition to individual empowerment, human-centricity also acknowledges the social dynamics of the workplace. Organizations are social entities, and their success depends on the interactions among employees, managers, and stakeholders. This socio-centric perspective encourages collaboration, inclusivity, and a shared sense of purpose, which are essential for thriving in an era of rapid technological change (Guest et al., 2022). By fostering inclusive and employee-focused workplaces, I5.0 aims to enhance work-life balance, encourage adaptable job roles, and establish a culture of respect for privacy and dignity (Howaldt et al., 2017). These efforts contribute to longterm workforce engagement, satisfaction, and sustainability (Reiman et al., 2021). Deliverable 1.3 20 4.1.2. Environmental Sustainability Environmental sustainability is one of the cornerstones of I5.0, reflecting the urgent need to address the global climate crisis and operate within ecological limits. I5.0 emphasizes the importance of minimizing environmental impact, conserving resources, and adopting circular economy principles that promote recycling, reuse, and waste minimization (European Commission, 2019). The European Green Deal underscores the role of industry in achieving carbon neutrality, advocating for substantial reductions in energy consumption and resource use (Breque et al., 2021). I5.0 aligns with these goals by leveraging advanced digital technologies—such as IoT, AI, and big data analytics—to optimize resource efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and drive environmentally friendly practices (Kumar et al., 2021). These innovations enable industries to produce more sustainably, integrating life-cycle perspectives that prioritize doing more with less (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2021). As highlighted in PROSPECTS Deliverable 1.2, I5.0 supports long-term environmental stewardship by encouraging practices that extend product lifecycles, reduce reliance on non-renewable resources, and enhance energy efficiency (Totterdill et al., 2023). This alignment with global sustainability targets ensures that industrial practices contribute to a healthier planet while maintaining economic viability. Through sustainable innovation, I5.0 enables industries to meet societal expectations for environmental responsibility, ensuring their operations align with the broader goals of resource conservation and ecological balance (European Commission, 2019). 4.1.3. Industrial Resilience Industrial resilience is critical in a world increasingly shaped by unpredictable disruptions, such as economic crises, pandemics, and geopolitical conflicts. I5.0 emphasizes the development of flexible, adaptive systems that can withstand and recover from these challenges while maintaining operational stability (Teece et al., 1997). The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent global supply chain disruptions revealed the vulnerabilities of traditional industrial systems (Dwyer et al., 2023). In response, I5.0 promotes decentralized production models, diversified supply chains, and robust cybersecurity measures to ensure continuity under varying conditions (Breque et al., 2021). These strategies are supported by dynamic capabilities, such as strategic management and anticipatory risk analysis, which enable organizations to navigate uncertainty effectively (Vogel & Güttel, 2012). Resilience in I5.0 is not solely about surviving disruptions; it also involves thriving in a rapidly changing world. By fostering innovation and adaptability, resilient systems can respond to evolving market demands and technological advancements (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2021). The results of the literature analysis and the Delphi survey with industrial partners of the project, as well as other project deliverables such as D1.1 of the Bridges 5.0 project, highlight the importance of high-reliability organizations that anticipate, respond to, and recover from disruptive events, ensuring long-term industrial health (Dwyer et al., 2023). Through the implementation of resilient frameworks, organizations can safeguard their Deliverable 1.3 21 operations, enhance value chain stability, and contribute to societal resilience (Breque et al., 2021). This focus on adaptability ensures that industries remain robust and reliable, even in the face of significant challenges (Teece et al., 1997). 4.2. Assessment Criteria and Study Questions 4.2.1. Human-centricity As described in the methodology section, the results of the literature and existing framework overview, together with the findings from the Delphi survey and the three streams of co-creation workshops implemented within Task 1.3, supported the identification of the following assessment criteria for the Human-centric approach. In the following boxes, these criteria are presented alongside their related study questions, providing a comprehensive perspective to guide their assessment and practical application. HUMAN EMPOWERMENT Evaluates the organization’s efforts to empower employees through skill development, decision-making participation, and opportunities for role customization. STUDY QUESTIONS - To what extent are employees involved in formulating improvement initiatives? - How accessible and effective are training and re-skilling programs? SAFETY AND WELL-BEING Assesses workplace conditions and programs that prioritize employee health, safety, and overall well-being. STUDY QUESTIONS - How comprehensive and effective are health and wellness programs? - What is the frequency of workplace accidents and incidents? TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION FOR WORKER SUPPORT Evaluates the adoption of advanced technologies to enhance worker productivity, safety, and engagement. STUDY QUESTIONS - How extensively are smart technologies, such as XR or collaborative robots, used to assist workers? Deliverable 1.3 22 - Do these technologies have a positive impact on workers' productivity, safety and engagement? - How integrated are employee-centered initiatives within the digital transformation strategies? - To what extent does the company provide training and resources for employee adaptation to new technologies? INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY Measures the effectiveness of initiatives promoting workforce DE&I. STUDY QUESTIONS - How diverse is the workforce across key demographics? - What is the effectiveness of inclusivity programs in fostering a supportive workplace? 4.2.2. Environmental Sustainability As for the previous impact area, the identification of assessment criteria for the Environmental Sustainability pillar has been informed by a comprehensive review of literature and existing frameworks, the insights gathered from the Delphi survey, and the outcomes of co-creation workshops conducted as part of Task 1.3. These combined efforts have provided a robust foundation for defining the key dimensions of environmental sustainability within the I5.0 paradigm. The following boxes present these criteria along with their associated study questions, offering a detailed view to guide their assessment and implementation. INNOVATION IN SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES Evaluates the level of investment and development in technologies aimed at improving sustainability. - What proportion of the organization’s Research and Development (R&D) investment focuses on sustainable technologies? - How frequently are new sustainability-focused technologies or initiatives developed or adopted? REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Measures compliance with environmental regulations and the implementation of initiatives that exceed compliance standards. - How effectively does the organization comply with environmental regulations? Deliverable 1.3 23 - How many voluntary sustainability initiatives are implemented annually? CARBON FOOTPRINT AND GHG EMISSIONS INTENSITY Assesses the organization’s efforts to measure and reduce GHG emissions across operations. - What are the organization’s total GHG emissions, and how are they normalized to production or revenue? - How effectively does the organization implement carbon reduction initiatives? ENERGY AND WATER USAGE EFFICIENCY Measures the efficiency of energy and water consumption in relation to production or operational output. - How efficiently is energy consumed per unit of production output? - How effectively is water usage optimized in production processes? CIRCULARITY AND PRODUCT TRACEABILITY Tracks the organization’s progress in implementing circular economy practices and product traceability features. - What percentage of products are designed for modularity, repair, or repurposing? - How effectively are traceability features implemented in the product lifecycle? 4.2.3. Industrial Resilience As detailed in the methodology section, the assessment criteria for the Industrial Resilience impact area have been developed leveraging the systematic analysis of literature and existing frameworks, together with insights from the Delphi survey, and the collaborative outcomes of co-creation workshops conducted in Task 1.3. This multifaceted approach has enabled the identification of critical dimensions that define resilience within the I5.0 paradigm. The following boxes present these criteria along with their associated study questions, ensuring relevance across diverse industrial contexts and challenges while providing clear guidance for assessment and implementation. RISK MANAGEMENT Assesses the organization’s ability to identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks to maintain stability and resilience. - How thorough and accurate are the risk assessment processes? Deliverable 1.3 24 - How frequently and effectively are risk mitigation strategies implemented? SUPPLY CHAIN ALTERNATIVES Measures the flexibility and resilience of the supply chain through the availability of alternative sourcing options. - How diverse is the supplier base for critical components? - What percentage of sourcing is local or regionally diversified? BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLANNING EFFECTIVENESS Evaluates the organization’s ability to plan for and recover from operational disruptions. - How quickly can the organization recover from disruptions? - How effective are the business continuity plans in mitigating downtime? INNOVATION AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Tracks the organization’s ability to introduce new products, services, or patents, demonstrating adaptability and innovation - How effectively does the organization innovate in response to market demands or disruptions? - How frequently are new products, services, or patents introduced? CYBERSECURITY Measures the organization’s efforts to safeguard operations against cyber threats and ensure digital resilience. - How robust are the cybersecurity measures in protecting against threats? - How frequently are cybersecurity audits or risk assessments conducted? 4.3. Key Performance Indicators 4.3.1. KPI Categorization The categorization of KPIs in the PAF emerged from a comprehensive, multi-step process involving the integration of literature insights, analysis of existing frameworks, and collaborative stakeholder engagement, as described in the methodology chapter. The categorization process relied on the following steps: Deliverable 1.3 25 • Literature review and framework analysis: The initial categorization of KPIs leveraged insights from existing frameworks and academic literature to identify metrics relevant to I5.0’s core pillars. • Practical validation: Feedback from workshops and stakeholders helped validate the relevance of the KPIs to specific UCs, ensuring alignment with organizational priorities and operational realities. • Structured differentiation: By assessing each KPI’s focus—whether on strategic alignment or operational outcomes—the division into policy and outcome levels emerged, with further categorization into specific and generic KPIs based on scope and universality. The resulting classification separates KPIs into Company Policy Level KPIs and Company Outcome Level KPIs, reflecting both strategic intent and tangible results. The Company Policy Level KPIs evaluate the alignment of organizational strategies with I5.0 principles and are divided into specific and generic categories: • Specific Policy KPIs were derived by identifying metrics tied directly to the three core pillars of I5.0: human-centricity, environmental sustainability, and industrial resilience. These KPIs were selected based on their capacity to measure company policies that drive outcomes in specific impact areas. • Generic Policy KPIs were identified as metrics that, while relevant to I5.0, are also widely present in other established frameworks, such as ESG or other non-I5.0specific methodologies. These KPIs provide a universal baseline for assessment and allow comparability across organizations, even beyond the specific scope of I5.0. The Outcome Level KPIs were designed to measure the effectiveness and real-world impact of company policies and actions. This categorization reflects outcomes such as operational performance, employee engagement, or environmental impact. These KPIs were identified by analysing operational data and measurable results directly linked to I5.0 objectives. This categorization provides a clear and structured approach to assess both strategic alignment and operational performance, enabling organizations to identify gaps and prioritize improvements effectively. By distinguishing between policy-level and outcome-level KPIs, companies can first evaluate their alignment with I5.0 principles through Core KPIs. These core metrics serve as a foundation, ensuring consistency in assessing strategic alignment across diverse organizations. To enhance depth and specificity, the inclusion of Scenario-Related KPIs provides organizations with the flexibility to expand their assessment scope based on contextual variables, such as company size, sector, or operational focus. This dual-level categorization—Core KPIs for universal application and Scenario-Related KPIs for tailored assessment—ensures that the framework is robust yet adaptable, meeting the needs of varied organizational profiles and operational realities. Deliverable 1.3 32 technologies are integrated. Equal weights will ensure that no aspect is undervalued, providing a comprehensive assessment. Number of Technologies Implemented / Total Identified Collaboration Tools (33%) Percentage of Employees Trained (33%) Employee Usability and Benefit Score (33%) Target and values Target: it should align with organizational goals Values: High Performance (Optimal): 70–100% - Extensive deployment of technologies, >70% of employees trained, and employee perception scores consistently above 4 (out of 5). Moderate Performance: 40–69% - Partial deployment of technologies, 40–70% of employees trained, and employee perception scores in the range of 3–4. Low Performance (Concerning): <40% - Limited deployment of technologies, <40% of employees trained, and employee perception scores below 3. Benefits / Value proposition Increases operational efficiency by optimizing human-machine collaboration, improving the satisfaction and engagement of the workers. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI reflects the integration of advanced technologies to support human roles, aligning with workplace innovation principles. Data sources include technology utilization reports, employee feedback surveys, and adoption rates of tools such as XR, collaborative robots, and IoT systems. Organizations use technology adoption frameworks like the Digital Maturity Index to evaluate progress. Smaller firms may focus on qualitative feedback, while larger enterprises track real-time usage analytics through digital transformation platforms. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Technology Deployment Surveys Employee and manager responses regarding adoption rates, usability, and perceived benefits of new technologies. Technology Usage Logs Records tracking frequency, duration, and extent of technology use across operations, such as machine interaction and collaborative tool engagement. Deliverable 1.3 33 Budget Allocation Reports Financial data on investments made toward purchasing, maintaining, and integrating Industry 4.0 tools, normalized against total operational budget. Employee Training and Technology Integration Reports Documentation of training sessions, number of employees trained, training hours completed, and feedback on training effectiveness. Impact Assessments Data reflecting productivity improvements, error reductions, and enhanced safety metrics attributed to technology adoption, including preand post-implementation comparisons. KPI_HC2. Training and re-skilling opportunities This KPI is critical to the successful adoption of I5.0 principles, particularly within the human-centricity pillar. It evaluates the organization’s ability to equip its workforce with the skills needed for current and future roles. By measuring participation rates, diversity of training offerings, and alignment with industry trends, organizations can identify gaps and opportunities to strengthen their workforce capabilities, fostering resilience and innovation. During the workshops with the UCs providers, KPI_HC4 consistently demonstrated its significance, achieving an average relevance score of 3.83 on a 1-to5 Likert scale. Furthermore, 42.8% of the participating companies ranked this KPI among their top three priorities, underscoring its critical role in preparing the workforce for current and future demands. Additionally, KPI_HC4 aligns with existing frameworks like ESG and workforce sustainability metrics, reinforcing its broad applicability across sectors and company sizes. The KPI has been identified as a Core KPI due to its universal relevance in assessing and improving workforce capabilities, making it a fundamental element for organizations striving to adopt I5.0 principles. KPI_HC2 Training and re-skilling opportunities Description Evaluates the availability and effectiveness of training and career development programs offered to employees. Study questions o What percentage of employees have access to training and career development programs tailored to their roles and future needs? o How effectively do these programs bridge skill gaps and prepare employees for technological advancements? o To what extent do employees perceive these opportunities as supporting their career growth and job satisfaction? o How does the availability of training programs contribute to fostering innovation and improving organizational efficiency? Deliverable 1.3 34 Objective The objectives of training and re-skilling opportunities in companies are essential for fostering employee growth, adapting to technological advancements, and enhancing organizational efficiency. Scope This KPI applies across all organizational levels and departments, focusing on the availability, accessibility, and effectiveness of training and re-skilling programs. It is particularly relevant in industries undergoing rapid technological transformation or workforce restructuring. Suitable for organizations of all sizes aiming to align employee skills with emerging industry demands. Formula Training Accessibility Score = (Employees with access to relevant training programs / Total Employees) × 100 Relevant training programs are structured educational or developmental initiatives specifically designed to meet the needs of employees and align with organizational goals. These programs focus on equipping employees with skills, knowledge, and competencies that are directly applicable to their current roles, future career growth, or organizational objectives such as technological advancements, innovation, and operational efficiency. Target and values - Low Performance: <50% of employees participate in training or reskilling programs annually, indicating significant gaps in workforce development. - Moderate Performance: 50-75% of employees participate in relevant programs annually, reflecting progress but room for improvement. - High Performance: >75% of employees participate in training or reskilling programs annually, demonstrating a strong commitment to workforce development and adaptability. Targets can be tailored to align with the company’s strategic goals and sector-specific requirements. Benefits – value proposition Address skill gaps and prepare employees for technological and operational advancements. Enhance workforce satisfaction and retention through professional growth opportunities. Drive innovation by fostering a well-trained, adaptive, and resilient workforce. Align workforce capabilities with industry trends, regulatory requirements, and strategic objectives. Deliverable 1.3 35 Data collection and Analysis Approaches and Methodologies Aligned with Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 404: Training and Education, this KPI evaluates participation in employee development programs. Data is gathered from HR systems, training attendance logs, and budgets allocated for skill development. Metrics include training hours per employee, participation rates, and post-training performance improvements. Smaller firms may rely on qualitative methods, while larger organizations employ learning management systems (LMS) to monitor training effectiveness and align with organizational goals. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Survey on Training Opportunities Responses from employees about access to and satisfaction with training programs. Average Hours of Training per Employee Total training hours delivered during a specific period, divided by the total number of employees. Budget Allocation Report Percentage of the annual budget allocated to training and development activities. HR Reports Number of employees trained, types of training programs attended, and participation rates. Programs for Upgrading Employee Skills Details of skill development programs implemented, including transition assistance initiatives. Performance and Career Reviews Percentage of employees receiving regular performance evaluations and career development discussions. Training Impact Assessments Data on the effectiveness of training programs, such as increased productivity, employee satisfaction, or skill enhancements. KPI_HC3. Comprehensive employee well-being and satisfaction index This KPI was identified as a Core KPI due to its centrality in assessing human-centricity, a foundational pillar of I5.0. The Comprehensive Employee Well-Being and Satisfaction Index captures a holistic view of employee experiences, integrating metrics on workplace satisfaction, work-life balance, social connection, and overall well-being. By consolidating originally separate KPIs into this aggregated measure, the framework ensures a streamlined yet comprehensive approach to evaluating workforce satisfaction and engagement. The importance of this KPI was strongly validated during the workshops with UCs. It achieved an average relevance score exceeding 4 on a 1-to5 Likert scale, underscoring its universal applicability and significance across different company sizes and sectors. Furthermore, 71.5% of the participating companies ranked this KPI among their top three priorities, reflecting the critical role of employee wellbeing in fostering innovation, retention, and productivity. This KPI's designation as a Core KPI reflects its universal relevance and the actionable insights it offers. By monitoring Deliverable 1.3 36 employee satisfaction and well-being, organizations can identify gaps, address challenges proactively, and align their workforce strategies with I5.0’s human-centric principles. Moreover, its adoption supports companies in creating inclusive and empowering work environments, which are essential for achieving long-term industrial success and societal impact. KPI_HC3 Comprehensive employee well-being and satisfaction index Description Assesses overall employee satisfaction through surveys, reflecting morale and engagement within the workplace. Measures employee satisfaction with their ability to balance work responsibilities and personal life, including flexibility, work time reduction, and family conciliation options Study questions How do employees rate their overall well-being, work-life balance, and job satisfaction? What specific areas of workplace satisfaction need the most improvement? Objective The key objectives of creating and tracking this index include: i) enhancing employee engagement and retention; ii) improving productivity and performance; iii) reducing absenteeism and burnout; iv) identifying areas for development; v) strengthening organizational culture; vi) enhancing reputation and attracting talent. Overall, this index provides actionable insights that help create a workplace where employees can thrive, contributing to both organizational success and individual fulfillment in a social perspective. Scope Applicable to all levels of the organization and across departments. Relevant for companies of all sizes seeking to prioritize human-centric values in the workplace. Deliverable 1.3 37 Formula Employee well-being and satisfaction index = (physical well-being + mental well-being + work environment + job satisfaction + worklife balance + career growth opportunities) /N Explanation of terms: Physical Well-Being: Refers to the physical health and safety of employees in the workplace. This includes access to ergonomically designed workspaces, wellness programs, and preventive health measures to reduce risks of injury or illness. Mental Well-Being: Encompasses emotional and psychological health, including stress management, mental health support programs, and creating an inclusive culture that fosters a sense of belonging and purpose. Work Environment: Pertains to the overall conditions under which employees work, such as physical settings, resources available, organizational culture, and management practices that contribute to a productive and supportive atmosphere. Job Satisfaction: Measures how content employees are with their roles, responsibilities, compensation, and opportunities for recognition. High job satisfaction indicates alignment between employee expectations and organizational delivery. Work-Life Balance: Assesses the equilibrium between work responsibilities and personal life, including flexible work arrangements, reasonable work hours, and support for family or personal commitments. Career Growth Opportunities: Refers to the availability of training, upskilling, promotions, and mentorship programs that enable employees to advance their careers and achieve long-term professional goals. N is the number of factors that are calculated (from 1 to 6) Target and values - Low satisfaction: <60% index score indicates significant areas for improvement. - Moderate satisfaction: 60-80% indicates acceptable levels with room for growth. - High satisfaction: >80% reflects a highly engaged and satisfied workforce. Deliverable 1.3 38 Benefits / value proposition Enhances productivity by fostering a motivated, satisfied workforce. Builds a strong employer brand, aiding talent acquisition and retention Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI aligns with frameworks like ISO 45003: Psychological Health and Safety at Work and GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety. Data collection combines survey responses on employee satisfaction, work-life balance, and wellness program participation with absenteeism rates and productivity metrics. Smaller companies may use simple employee surveys, while larger organizations employ employee experience platforms for comprehensive tracking. Metrics such as the Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS) and work-life balance indices provide actionable insights into workforce well-being. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Employee Satisfaction & Engagement Survey Annual survey incorporating key elements such as job satisfaction, work-life balance, and social connection. eNPS Quarterly tracking of employee sentiment, with a focus on likelihood to recommend the workplace. Work-Life Balance Program Utilization Reports Data on participation in flexible work options, family support programs, and reduced working hours. Health and Wellness Program Effectiveness Reports Metrics on participation in health programs, satisfaction with wellness initiatives, and reductions in absenteeism. Exit Interviews or Surveys Feedback from departing employees on job satisfaction, work-life balance, and engagement. Focus Groups or 360Degree Feedback Qualitative data on team dynamics, workplace wellness, and perceptions of support for well-being. Wearable Devices & IoT Sensors Physical health data (e.g., activity levels, heart rate) for organizations using advanced health monitoring tools. HR Records Data on absenteeism, participation in training programs, demographic information, and use of well-being initiatives. KPI_HC4. Representation in decision-making roles. This KPI assesses the participation and representation of employees in decisionmaking roles and improvement initiatives, reflecting the inclusivity and democratization of decision-making processes within the organization. The inclusion of this KPI as a Core Deliverable 1.3 39 KPI reflects its alignment with I5.0's commitment to fostering inclusive and humancentric workplaces. While the relevance score of 3.18 on a 1-to-5 Likert scale during UC validation workshops was moderate, the pivotal feedback from AB members and other EU stakeholders emphasized its strategic importance. Their input highlighted the critical role of participatory decision-making in promoting innovation, enhancing organizational culture, and ensuring diverse perspectives in leadership roles. This KPI’s relevance extends beyond operational metrics, addressing broader societal and ethical imperatives such as equity and inclusivity in the workplace. Its status as a Core KPI underscores the framework's commitment to integrating these principles, helping organizations align their policies with I5.0 objectives. By measuring employee involvement in decision-making, this KPI provides actionable insights to enhance leadership inclusivity and improve organizational performance through collective and diverse input. KPI_HC4 Representation in decision-making roles Description Assesses the participation and representation of employees in decision-making roles and/or improvement initiatives. Study questions What proportion of employees from underrepresented groups hold decision-making roles? How effectively do employees contribute to improvement initiatives? Objective To evaluate and promote inclusivity, diversity, and equitable participation in leadership and decision-making processes. It aims to ensure that employees from various backgrounds and levels have a voice in organizational strategy and improvement initiatives, fostering innovation, engagement, and a balanced organizational culture. Scope Applies across all organizational levels and is relevant for companies of any size or sector aiming to promote inclusive decision-making and diverse representation in leadership. It is particularly applicable in industries prioritizing equity, innovation, and employee engagement as part of their organizational culture and strategic objectives Formula Representation Rate (%) = (Number of Employees Actively Participating in DecisionMaking Roles or Activities /Total Number of Employees) ×100 Target and values Baseline: Assess current participation levels in decision-making activities using initial data from HR records, decision-making reports, and employee surveys. Deliverable 1.3 40 Short-term Target: Increase the representation rate of employees involved in decision-making roles or improvement initiatives by 1015% within 2 years, focusing on underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, age, or other demographics). Long-term Target: Aim for representation rates that reflect organizational diversity benchmarks or exceed 50% participation across all demographic groups within 5-7 years. Values: High (>70%): Excellent representation with widespread employee involvement in decision-making. Medium (40-69%): Moderate representation with opportunities for improvement in inclusivity. Low (<40%): Limited representation requiring focused efforts to improve participation and inclusivity. Benefits / Value proposition Actively engaging employees in decision-making encourages creativity and the implementation of new ideas, driving continuous improvement. Involving employees in decision-making fosters a sense of ownership, motivation, and commitment to organizational goals. Enhances strategic decision-making with diverse input and perspectives. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI assesses employee participation in strategic decisions, drawing from workplace innovation frameworks. Data sources include meeting attendance records, leadership demographics, and idea submission platforms. Organizations use decisionmaking analytics tools to track representation metrics. Smaller firms may focus on qualitative insights, while larger organizations implement tools for real-time monitoring of leadership diversity and involvement rates. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Decision-Making Activities Reports Records of employee participation in decision-making and improvement initiatives. Surveys Responses evaluating leadership support, culture of innovation, and employee involvement in innovation activities. HR Data Data on employees in decision-making roles, including demographics and role descriptions. Suggestion Programs and Implementation Rates Metrics on employee-generated ideas and their implementation in organizational practices. Deliverable 1.3 41 Scenario related KPIs The Scenario-Related KPIs for Human-Centricity have been designated as such due to their variable applicability, which depends on factors like company size and industrial sector. Unlike Core KPIs, these indicators offer deeper insights into specific operational impacts or broader metrics that vary in relevance and feasibility across diverse organizational contexts. The feedback from UC workshops reinforced this categorization, as participants highlighted the practical challenges of implementing these KPIs universally. For example, smaller companies may lack the resources or structural requirements to adopt certain indicators, such as Ergonomic design and tools or Job crafting. Conversely, larger organizations can benefit from these KPIs, which provide actionable insights into specific areas critical for refining their human-centric policies and outcomes. These KPIs complement the Core KPIs by allowing organizations to expand their assessment scope once policy alignment has been established. Their designation as Scenario-Related reflects their adaptability to specific organizational contexts, ensuring the framework's applicability across diverse UCs. Each of these ScenarioRelated KPIs serves as a flexible tool for organizations to customize their assessment based on their unique context, such as size, sector, or other specific characteristics. While the policy level KPIs focus on organizational alignment with broader humancentric goals, the outcome level KPIs capture tangible impacts of these policies, enabling deeper insights into operational effectiveness. This dual categorization ensures that the PAF remains adaptable, offering companies the flexibility to assess areas most relevant to their strategic priorities. This categorization, grounded in feedback from workshops and refined through the dual structure of the PAF, ensures that the framework remains both comprehensive and adaptable, aligning with the specific needs and goals of diverse industrial landscapes. KPI_HC5: Employee turnover rates This KPI monitors employee turnover rates, measuring the percentage of employees leaving the organization within a specified period. It provides insights into workforce stability, employee satisfaction, and organizational health. Turnover rates are especially relevant for sectors with high competition for talent or significant workforce mobility, such as technology, healthcare, or retail. Smaller organizations may rely on manual tracking or simple HR analytics, while larger companies often use advanced HR management systems for more precise data collection and analysis. Its designation as a Scenario-Related KPI reflects its applicability based on sectoral dynamics, company size, and the criticality of workforce retention to organizational success KPI_HC5 Employee turnover rates Deliverable 1.3 48 Physical Health and Absenteeism Records Instances of musculoskeletal complaints, injuries related to poor ergonomics, and general absenteeism rates linked to workplace discomfort or health issues. Ergonomic Evaluation and Reporting Detailed inventory of ergonomic tools, their locations, and specific utilization rates. Reports on ergonomic assessments and their outcomes across workplace setups. KPI_HC8. Diversity ratio This KPI measures the representation of diverse demographic groups within the workforce, such as gender, ethnicity, age, and disability. It is generic and broadly relevant across all sectors, aligning with universal inclusivity goals. However, its impact and feasibility can vary significantly based on sectoral context (e.g., historically less diverse sectors like aerospace) and the organization’s size. Smaller firms may face challenges in systematically tracking diversity metrics compared to larger companies with established HR infrastructures. KPI_HC8 Diversity ratio Description Measures the representation of different demographic groups within the workforce, according to variables such as gender, ethnicity, age, and disability. Study questions How does the diversity ratio compare across different organizational levels? What progress has been made toward improving representation over time? Objective The objectives of a diversity ratio (or diversity metrics) are to measure and improve the representation of different groups within an organization, institution, or community, aiming to foster a more inclusive, equitable, and productive environment. Scope This KPI applies to all levels of the organization, tracking the representation of diverse groups, such as gender, ethnicity, age, and disability, within the workforce and decision-making roles. It is relevant across industries and company sizes, particularly for organizations aiming to foster an inclusive culture and align with DE&I goals. Formula Employee Diversity Ratio = (Number of Employees in a Specific Group / Total Number of Employees) x 100 Explanation of terms: Deliverable 1.3 49 o Specific Group: Refers to a demographic category of employees based on shared characteristics. Gender: Male, female, or non-binary employees. Age: Specific age ranges (e.g., 18–24, 25–34, 35-50, 50-65). Ethnicity: Employees selfidentifying as part of specific racial or ethnic groups. Disability: Employees disclosing physical or cognitive disabilities. o Number of Employees in a Specific Group: The total count of employees within the organization belonging to the selected group. o Total Number of Employees: The total workforce across all groups within the organization. The diversity ratio is calculated separately for each demographic group, providing distinct metrics for gender diversity, age diversity, and so on. This allows for targeted analysis and action plans. Diversity Ratio = Percentage of Group in Organization / Percentage of Group in Benchmark Population Explanation of terms: o Percentage of Group in Organization: This is the percentage of a particular demographic group (e.g., women, a specific ethnic group) within the organization. o Percentage of Group in Benchmark Population: This is the percentage of the same demographic group in the larger population that serves as a benchmark (e.g., the industry average or national population statistics). Diversity Ratio in Decision-Making Roles (%) = (Number of Employees in a Specific Group in DecisionMaking Roles / Total Number of Employees in DecisionMaking Roles) ×100 Target and values - Low Performance (Concerning): <20% representation of diverse groups in the workforce or decision-making roles, indicating significant gaps in diversity and inclusivity. - Moderate Performance: 20-40% representation, reflecting progress but with room for improvement. - High Performance (Optimal): >40% representation, demonstrating strong commitment to DE&I and a balanced, inclusive workforce. Targets may vary depending on industry benchmarks and regional demographics. Deliverable 1.3 50 Benefits / Value proposition Drives innovation through diverse perspectives and inclusivity. Enhances company reputation and aligns with societal expectations. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI aligns with GRI 405: Diversity and Equal Opportunity and focuses on measuring workforce diversity across gender, age, ethnicity, and other demographics. Data is collected from HR databases, employee surveys, and recruitment records. Metrics include diversity percentages by department and leadership roles. Smaller firms may conduct annual diversity audits, while larger organizations integrate diversity analytics into their HR information systems (HRIS) to track and report progress. Measurement tools Data Requirements HRIS Total number of employees; workforce demographic information (age, gender, ethnicity, disability, job level). Employee Surveys Self-reported demographic data to validate and enhance HRIS records. Recruitment Records Demographic breakdown of new hires and promotions. Diversity Audits Periodic reviews of overall workforce and departmental diversity metrics. KPI_HC9. Inclusivity programs effectiveness This KPI tracks the availability and impact of programs aimed at fostering inclusivity and equity. Its application as a Scenario-Related KPI reflects its varied relevance based on organizational maturity and industry. For example, larger organizations may run formalized inclusivity initiatives, while smaller firms might focus on informal or grassroots efforts to create inclusive environments. KPI_HC9 Inclusivity programs effectiveness Description Tracks the number and effectiveness of programs aimed at promoting DE&I within the organization. Study questions What is the participation rate in inclusivity programs across the organization? Deliverable 1.3 51 How do employees perceive the impact of these programs on workplace culture? Objective The objective of this KPI is to evaluate the implementation, participation, and impact of inclusivity programs on fostering a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace. It aims to measure how well these programs address workforce diversity gaps, improve employee perceptions of inclusivity, and enhance organizational culture. Scope This KPI applies to all organizational levels and departments, measuring the reach, impact, and effectiveness of programs aimed at promoting DE&I. It is relevant for organizations of all sizes and sectors striving to foster an inclusive and equitable workplace. Formula Inclusivity Program Effectiveness (%) = (Number of Participants in Inclusivity Programs / Total Number of Employees) ×100 Program Impact Score = Total Survey Scores from Participants / Number of Survey Responses Target and values - Low Performance (Concerning): <50% of inclusivity program goals achieved or <50% employee participation, indicating significant gaps in program reach or impact. - Moderate Performance: 50-75% of program goals achieved or participation rates, reflecting progress with room for improvement. - High Performance (Optimal): >75% of program goals achieved or participation, demonstrating strong engagement and effective program implementation. Targets should align with the organization’s strategic DE&I goals. Benefits / Value proposition Builds an equitable workplace that attracts and retains top talent. Fosters collaboration and innovation through inclusivity. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI evaluates the reach and impact of inclusivity initiatives, using frameworks like ISO 30415: Diversity and Inclusion. Data is collected from program participation rates, employee feedback, and performance reviews. Organizations may use engagement surveys and qualitative focus groups to assess effectiveness. Smaller firms rely on direct feedback, while larger enterprises integrate inclusivity metrics into organizational culture assessments using digital engagement tools. Deliverable 1.3 52 Measurement Tools Data Requirements HRIS Workforce demographic information (age, gender, ethnicity, disability, job level); total number of employees Inclusivity Program Tracking Reports Number of inclusivity programs implemented; participation rates in diversity training, mentorships, or affinity groups Employee Surveys Feedback on perceived fairness, program effectiveness, and inclusivity of the work environment Program Records and Suggestion Boxes Detailed records of program activities, participation, and employee suggestions for improvement KPI_HC10. Job crafting This KPI assesses the organization’s ability to offer flexibility in job roles to align with employees’ skills and aspirations. It has generic applicability but is especially impactful in sectors requiring creative problem-solving or cross-disciplinary collaboration, like energy and utilities. Smaller organizations may implement this KPI informally, while larger ones might adopt structured systems to support job crafting. KPI_HC10 Job crafting Description Measures the extent to which employees actively shape and customize their job roles to better align with their skills, interests, and strengths. Study questions What percentage of employees have customized their roles to better suit their skills and interests? How do employees perceive the flexibility to craft their job roles? Objective Enhance employees’ engagement, satisfaction, and performance. Scope This KPI applies to all industries and organizations that aim to enhance employee engagement and productivity by empowering workers to tailor their roles. It is particularly relevant in knowledge-intensive sectors and creative industries, where job flexibility and innovation are critical. For smaller firms, this KPI may focus on informal role modifications, while larger organizations can track structured jobcrafting initiatives. Formula Job Crafting Participation Rate (%) = (Number of Employees Engaged in Job Crafting Behaviors / Total Number of Employees) ×100 Deliverable 1.3 53 Explanation of terms: Job Crafting behaviours: the term includes three components: Task Crafting: Changing the scope, nature, or type of tasks performed.: Employees may add, remove, or adjust certain tasks to better match their skills, interests, or goals. For example, a project manager might take on additional tasks related to team building to enhance group cohesion Relational Crafting: Modifying the quality or quantity of interactions with others at work. Employees might choose to build stronger connections with certain colleagues, clients, or supervisors to enhance collaboration, gain support, or foster a positive work environment. Cognitive Crafting: Changing one’s perspective on the role or the tasks involved. This might mean reinterpreting tasks to find more meaning, purpose, or connection to personal values. For instance, a teacher may view grading not as a chore but as an opportunity to provide valuable feedback and mentorship. Target and values High Performance (Optimal): >70% of employees actively participate in job crafting behaviors, indicating a strong culture of engagement and role ownership. Moderate Performance: 40–69% of employees engage in job crafting activities, reflecting growing but uneven adoption across the organization. Low Performance (Concerning): <40% of employees participate in job crafting, signaling limited opportunities or support for employeedriven role shaping. Benefits / Value proposition Increases engagement by allowing employees to align roles with personal strengths. Encourages innovation and adaptability in the workforce. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI evaluates employees' ability to shape their roles for greater satisfaction and productivity, linked to human-cantered job design frameworks. Data is collected from feedback surveys, job description audits, and performance reviews. Organizations use employee engagement platforms and real-time feedback tools to measure jobcrafting efforts. Smaller firms may conduct annual assessments, while larger companies employ continuous feedback mechanisms integrated into HR systems. Deliverable 1.3 54 Measurement Tools Data Requirements Surveys on Job Crafting Behaviors Percentage of employees engaging in job crafting behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and type (task, relational, or cognitive crafting). Surveys on Job Crafting Activities Information on specific activities undertaken by employees to modify tasks, relationships, or perceptions. Performance Reviews Data on employee performance improvements linked to job crafting efforts, including task outcomes and goal achievement Personnel Interviews Qualitative insights into employees' motivations, challenges, and perceptions of job crafting practices. Job Description Audits Comparison of formal job descriptions with actual roles and responsibilities post-crafting Employee Engagement Platforms Real-time tracking of job crafting activities and their alignment with organizational goals. Summary of data collection tools for human-centricity KPIs To ensure accurate and consistent measurement of Human-Centricity KPIs, organizations leverage various tools designed to capture employee-focused data: • Employee surveys and feedback platforms: comprehensive surveys and pulse feedback tools gather data on job satisfaction, well-being, and engagement, while specific modules assess areas like work-life balance and inclusivity. • HRIS: centralized HR platforms track training hours, participation in upskilling programs, diversity metrics, and representation in decision-making roles. • Performance management systems: these systems provide insights into employee development, career progression, and participation in organizational initiatives. • Wellness program tracking tools: platforms that monitor employee usage of wellness programs, participation rates, and their impact on absenteeism and overall health. • Focus groups and 360-degree feedback tools: qualitative methods for capturing in-depth insights into workplace dynamics, team interactions, and employee perceptions. • Wearable and IoT devices: For organizations that adopt advanced tools, wearable devices and IoT sensors collect data on physical activity, stress levels, and ergonomics to assess workplace health and safety. Other resources and tools Deliverable 1.3 55 - ISO 45001:2018 - Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems – Requirements https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html - ISO 45003:2021 - Occupational Health and Safety Management – Psychological Health and Safety at Work – Guidelines for Managing Psychosocial Risks https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html - ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems – Requirements https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html - GRI 401: Employment 2016 https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1031/gri-401-employment2016.pdf - GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018 https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1033/gri-403occupational-health-and-safety-2018.pdf - GRI 404: Training and Education 2016 https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1034/gri-404-training-andeducation-2016.pdf - GRI 405: Diversity and Equal Opportunity 2016 https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1035/gri-405-diversityand-equal-opportunity-2016.pdf - Great Place to Work®: is a global authority on workplace culture, offering certification programs and producing annual lists of the best workplaces. https://www.greatplacetowork.com/ - Investors in People (IIP): is a standard for people management, offering accreditation to organizations that adhere to high standards in leading, supporting, and managing people. https://www.investorsinpeople.com/ - European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model: is a framework to help organizations drive improvement and achieve sustainable excellence. https://www.efqm.org/efqm-model/ - Aon Best Employers: is a program that measures and recognizes employer excellence worldwide. https://aon.mediaroom.com/Aon-Hewitt-Launches-Global-Best-EmployersProgram-to-Measure-and-Recognize-Employer-Excellence 4.3.3. Sustainability: Key Performance Indicators Table 3 presents the KPIs for the Environmental Sustainability pillar, focusing on how organizations align their policies and outcomes with sustainability objectives. The categorization follows the same structure as in Table 2, differentiating between policyspecific, generic, and outcome-level KPIs. Table 3 Sustainability KPIs Categorization Deliverable 1.3 56 POLICY LEVEL SUSTAINABILITY SPECIFIC: KPI_SU1. Investment in and development of new technologies for sustainability GENERIC: KPI_SU2. Regulatory compliance rate and number of initiatives beyond compliance OUTCOME LEVEL KPI_SU3. Energy consumed KPI_SU4. Waste diverted from disposal KPI_SU5. Use of renewable energy sources KPI_SU6. Waste generated and its composition KPI_SU7. Products designed for Modularity, Repair, and Repurposing KPI_SU8. Products with traceability features implemented KPI_SU9. Water use KPI_SU10. GHG emissions KPI_SU11. Reduction of raw material consumption The sustainability KPIs reflect I5.0's emphasis on minimizing environmental impact and promoting resource efficiency. Policy-specific KPIs, such as investments in sustainable technologies, measure strategic alignment with sustainability goals. Generic KPIs, like regulatory compliance rates, ensure organizations meet both legal requirements and exceed them through voluntary initiatives. Outcome-level KPIs, such as waste diversion rates and GHG emissions, quantify environmental impacts, providing clear benchmarks for improvement. This structure underscores the framework’s ability to balance global standards with organization-specific needs, ensuring comprehensive sustainability assessments. Core KPIs KPI_SU1. Investment in and development of new technologies or initiatives for sustainability. This KPI evaluates the allocation of financial and HR to sustainability-driven technological advancements, such as energy-efficient machinery, renewable energy technologies, and circular economy solutions. The high average relevance score of 4.27 from workshops highlights its priority status among stakeholders across diverse sectors. The KPI reflects a universal need for innovation, as technological investments form the backbone of sustainable transformation in both small and large organizations. Its designation as a Core KPI stems from its strategic importance in driving Deliverable 1.3 57 organizational alignment with I5.0 principles and fostering competitive advantage through environmental stewardship. In ANNEX 10 a list of possible sustainability-focused technologies or initiatives that organizations could invest in or develop to calculate the KPI is provided. KPI_SU1. Investment in and development of new technologies or initiatives for sustainability Description Measures the organization’s investment in developing or adopting technologies aimed at enhancing environmental sustainability, including training activities for employees on sustainable practices. Study questions What percentage of R&D budget is allocated to sustainability-focused technologies or initiative (e.g. training)? How effective are these investments in achieving sustainability goals? Objective To track and promote strategic investments that foster innovation and support the transition to sustainable practices across operations. Scope Applicable across all industries where innovation and technology play a role in sustainability efforts. Particularly relevant for larger organizations with dedicated R&D budgets. Smaller companies may adapt this KPI to smaller-scale initiatives. Formula Sustainability Technology Investment Rate = (Investment in Sustainable Technologies or Initiatives / Total R&D Investment) x 100 Target and Values - Low: <20% of R&D investments in sustainable technologies. - Moderate: 20-40% - High: >40%. Benefits / Value proposition Drives long-term cost savings through energy-efficient and sustainable practices. Enhances competitiveness by aligning with regulatory and market trends. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI aligns with the GRI Standards (GRI 201: Economic Performance) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which emphasize transparency in investments that promote sustainability and innovation. Data is collected from R&D budgets, financial statements, and project management tools to track investments in sustainability-focused technologies, such as energy-efficient equipment and circular economy initiatives. Metrics include the percentage of total investment directed toward sustainable technologies and initiatives for training on sustainability practices, normalized against company revenue or total Capital Expenditure (CAPEX). Smaller Deliverable 1.3 64 industries like automotive and energy, where sustainability practices are scrutinized. Smaller firms may adopt renewable energy incrementally, while larger organizations implement comprehensive strategies. Its sectoral relevance and scalability challenges justify its categorization as a Scenario-Related KPI. KPI_SU5. Use of renewable energy sources Description Tracks the share of total energy consumption sourced from renewable energy, reflecting the organization’s commitment to reducing reliance on non-renewable energy. Study questions What proportion of total energy consumption is sourced from renewable technologies? What steps are being taken to increase the share of renewable energy in operations? Objective To support the transition to renewable energy, reduce carbon emissions, and align with global sustainability targets. Scope Relevant for energy-intensive industries. Smaller companies in rented facilities may adapt this KPI to track influence over landlords or the use of renewable credits. Formula Renewable Energy Usage = (Energy from Renewable Sources / Total Energy Consumption) x 100 Target and Values - Low: <20%. - Moderate: 20-50%. - High: >50%. Benefits / Value proposition Reduces dependency on fossil fuels, decreasing GHG emissions. Enhances resilience to energy market volatility and price fluctuations. Aligns with global sustainability goals and improves investor attractiveness. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI follows GRI 302-1: Renewable Energy Consumption and incorporates guidelines from the SASB Renewable Energy Standards. Data sources include utility bills, renewable energy certificates (RECs), and on-site renewable energy production data. Metrics include the share of energy derived from renewables, such as solar or wind, compared to total consumption. Smaller organizations often rely on supplier disclosures, while larger firms integrate IoT-enabled energy tracking tools aligned with frameworks like ISO 14064 for emissions reduction. Deliverable 1.3 65 Measurement Tool Data Requirements Energy Consumption Records Total energy consumption over a specific period, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megajoules (MJ). Energy Management Systems Data on energy usage broken down by source, specifying the amount derived from renewables like solar, wind, or hydro. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) Documentation of renewable energy purchases to validate the share of energy from renewable sources. Utility Bills Breakdown of energy consumption by type (renewable vs. non-renewable), provided by energy suppliers. On-Site Renewable Energy Logs Data from on-site renewable energy production (e.g., solar panels, wind turbines), tracking generated and consumed energy. KPI_SU6. Waste generated and its composition This KPI tracks waste generation metrics relative to production or workforce size, providing insights into operational efficiency. It is particularly significant for industries producing substantial byproducts, such as logistics and manufacturing. Smaller companies may focus on basic waste tracking, while larger firms employ detailed compositional analysis. Its inclusion as a Scenario-Related KPI reflects its varying relevance and resource demands. KPI_SU6. Waste generated and its composition Description Measures waste generated relative to production output or workforce size, providing insights into waste management efficiency and environmental performance. Study questions How is waste generation monitored and tracked across different operations? What strategies are in place to reduce waste generation at its source? Objective To reduce waste generation, optimize resource usage, and enhance waste management practices. Scope Relevant for industries with significant waste streams. Smaller businesses with negligible waste may adjust this KPI to specific operational activities, such as office waste or packaging. Formula Waste Rate = Total Waste Generated /(Production Output or Number of Employees) Deliverable 1.3 66 Target and values - Low: >0.5 kg/unit or employee. - Moderate: 0.2-0.5 kg/unit or employee. - High: <0.2 kg/unit or employee. Benefits / Value proposition Reduces material wastage, driving cost savings. Encourages adoption of lean manufacturing principles for operational efficiency. Enhances compliance with environmental standards and builds sustainable practices. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies Aligned with GRI 306: Waste, this KPI tracks waste generation through audits, waste management logs, and production data. The waste composition is analyzed using metrics such as hazardous vs. non-hazardous waste, normalized against production levels or employee counts. Tools like material flow analysis (MFA) and waste management systems help capture detailed insights. Larger companies can use blockchain-enabled traceability systems to ensure precise tracking, while smaller firms typically conduct semi-annual waste audits. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Waste Audits Total weight of waste generated in metric tons, categorized into hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Production Data Data on production output (e.g., units produced or service levels), used to normalize waste metrics. Waste Management Records Comprehensive logs detailing waste handling, including recycling, disposal, and recovery processes. KPI_SU7. Products designed for Modularity, Repair, and Repurposing This KPI measures the adoption of circular economy principles in product design, focusing on modularity and repairability. It is highly relevant for industries like automotive, aerospace, energy and manufacturing, where design plays a crucial role in lifecycle sustainability. Smaller organizations may struggle with design constraints, while larger companies leverage advanced tools to embed circularity. Its applicability to specific industries and company sizes defines its designation as a Scenario-Related KPI. Deliverable 1.3 67 KPI_SU7. Products Designed for Modularity, Repair, and Repurposing Description Measures the proportion of products designed for modularity, repairability, or repurposing, reflecting alignment with circular economy principles. Study questions Reduces material wastage, driving cost savings. Encourages adoption of lean manufacturing principles for operational efficiency. Enhances compliance with environmental standards and builds sustainable practices. Objective To extend product lifecycles, reduce waste, and promote resource efficiency by integrating sustainable design practices. Scope Relevant for product-based industries such as manufacturing, automotive, and electronics. Service-oriented sectors may adapt this KPI to measure modularity in service delivery models. Formula Modularity Rate = (Number of Products with Modularity, Repair, and Repurposing characteristics / Total Products Designed) x 100 Target and Values - Low: <30%. - Moderate: 30-60%. - High: >60%. Benefits / Value proposition Prolongs product lifespans, reducing waste and resource consumption. Enhances customer satisfaction through repair-friendly designs. Positions the company as an innovator in sustainable product development. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI corresponds to GRI 301: Materials and circular economy principles. Data collection involves product design logs, R&D records, and lifecycle assessment (LCA) tools. Metrics include the proportion of products meeting modularity and repairability standards. ESG frameworks like SASB for Consumer Goods and Automotive provide sector-specific benchmarks. Smaller firms may conduct qualitative assessments, while larger companies leverage product lifecycle management (PLM) software to quantify circular design metrics. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Product Design Records Total number of new products designed or existing products redesigned during the specified reporting period. Deliverable 1.3 68 Product Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) Data on product features, including modularity, ease of repair, and potential for repurposing. PLM Software Quantitative tracking of circular design elements throughout product development stages. KPI_SU8. Products with traceability features implemented This KPI monitors the integration of traceability mechanisms for enhancing supply chain transparency and accountability. It is particularly relevant for sectors like energy and logistics, where traceability supports compliance and operational integrity. Smaller firms may have limited data collection capabilities, whereas larger organizations implement IoT-based tracking systems. Its sector-specific relevance and technological demands justify its Scenario-Related KPI status. KPI_SU8. Products with traceability features implemented Description Measures the share of products equipped with traceability features, ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the supply chain. Study questions What proportion of products has traceability features for sourcing and lifecycle monitoring? How effectively are traceability systems being utilized to ensure supply chain transparency? Objective To enhance supply chain visibility, ethical compliance, and stakeholder trust by implementing traceability systems. Scope Applicable to industries with complex supply chains such as food production, manufacturing, and textiles. Companies with localized supply chains may adapt this KPI to focus on regional sourcing or certifications. Formula Traceability Rate = (Number of products with traceability features / Total products) x 100 Target and Values - Low: <30%. - Moderate: 30-60%. - High: >60%. Benefits / Value proposition Improves supply chain accountability and stakeholder trust. Enables compliance with regulatory requirements related to traceability. Reduces risks associated with unethical practices in the supply chain. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies Deliverable 1.3 69 Rooted in GRI 102: Supply Chain and the traceability focus of SASB Standards, this KPI measures the adoption of end-to-end product traceability systems. Data is sourced from supply chain management (SCM) platforms, blockchain technology, and IoT sensors. Metrics include the percentage of products with traceable components or origins. Smaller companies may implement basic QR code systems, while larger organizations use blockchain-enabled SCM solutions to achieve real-time traceability. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems Total production data, capturing the overall number of products manufactured during the reporting period. Inventory Management Systems Records of products tagged with traceability features such as RFID tags, barcodes, or serial numbers. SCM Systems Data on product origins, component traceability, and movement throughout the supply chain. Quality Assurance and Control Systems Verification data on traceability feature implementation and compliance with traceability standards. KPI_SU9. Water use This KPI tracks water efficiency metrics to identify resource optimization opportunities, calculating the water use per unit of production output / or per square meter of facility. Particularly critical for water-intensive industries like energy and manufacturing, it helps monitor sustainability efforts. Smaller firms may rely on manual tracking, while larger organizations use automated monitoring systems. Its designation as a ScenarioRelated KPI reflects its variable relevance and resource requirements for companies of different sizes or industrial sectors. KPI_SU9. Water use Description Tracks water consumption relative to production output or square meter of facility, offering insights into operational water efficiency and conservation efforts. Study questions How is water consumption tracked and monitored across facilities? What strategies are in place to improve water efficiency in operations? Objective To optimize water use, reduce operational costs, and minimize the environmental impact of water-intensive processes. Scope Relevant for water-intensive industries such as agriculture, food production, and manufacturing. Non-water-intensive sectors may Deliverable 1.3 70 exclude this KPI or focus on specific water-saving initiatives in office operations. Formula Water Efficiency = Total Water Consumed / Total Production Output or total floor area of facility. Target and Values - Low Efficiency: >5 L/unit. - Moderate Efficiency: 3-5 L/unit. - High Efficiency: <3 L/unit. Benefits / Value proposition Reduces water consumption, lowering operational costs. Mitigates risks related to water scarcity in regions of operation. Demonstrates leadership in sustainable resource management. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI follows GRI 303: Water and uses data from water meters, utility bills, and IoT water management tools. Metrics are normalized against production or facility size, tracking water efficiency improvements over time. Tools like digital water meters or AIenabled water management platforms help monitor trends and benchmark against industry averages. Smaller firms rely on utility data for basic analysis, while larger companies use ISO 14046 frameworks for water footprinting. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Water Usage Reports Total water consumption over a specific period, measured in megalitres (ML). Production Data Total number of production units manufactured during the same reporting period (if applicable). Sector-Specific Water Use Benchmarks Industry-standard water usage rates to compare performance and efficiency. Facility Management Records Total floor area of the facility where water is used, measured in square meters (if applicable). IoT Water Management Tools Real-time monitoring of water usage trends and identification of areas for improvement. KPI_SU10. GHG emissions This KPI calculates GHG emissions relative to production, workforce, or revenue, aligning with carbon reduction goals. It is essential for industries with significant emissions, such as energy and automotive, where sustainability practices are under public scrutiny. Smaller organizations may use simplified estimation methods, while larger firms adopt Deliverable 1.3 71 advanced carbon accounting frameworks. Its wide applicability but resource-intensive nature makes it a Scenario-Related KPI. KPI_SU10. GHG emissions Description Measures GHG emissions normalized to production output, workforce size, or revenue, reflecting the organization’s carbon intensity. Study questions How effectively are emissions monitored across different production activities? What strategies are being implemented to reduce GHG emissions? Objective To track and reduce carbon emissions, align with climate goals, and demonstrate commitment to environmental sustainability. Scope Applicable across all industries, particularly those with significant carbon footprints such as manufacturing, energy, and transportation. Smaller companies may adapt this KPI to simpler proxies, such as energy usage. Formula GHG Intensity = Total GHG Emissions (Scope 1 and 2) / unit of production, or employee, or unit of revenue. Target and Values - Low Performance: >20 kg CO2/unit. - Moderate Performance: 10-20 kg CO2/unit. - High Performance: <10 kg CO2/unit. Benefits / Value proposition Reduces carbon footprint, improving compliance with climate goals. Positions the company as a leader in low-carbon technologies. Attracts investors and customers seeking environmentally responsible partners. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies Aligned with the GHG Protocol and GRI 305: Emissions, this KPI tracks Scope 1 (direct emissions) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions from energy use) emissions using data from energy consumption logs, transportation records, and supplier disclosures. Metrics are calculated per unit of production, employee, or revenue. Carbon accounting software like SBTi (Science-Based Targets initiative) tools or ISO 14064-compliant platforms enables precise tracking. Smaller firms may use simplified calculators, while larger organizations employ comprehensive carbon accounting systems. Deliverable 1.3 72 Measurement Tool Data Requirements Carbon Accounting Software (e.g., SBTi tools, ISO 14064compliant platforms) Total GHG emissions produced by the organization over a specific period, measured in metric tons CO2 equivalent. Energy Consumption Logs Data on energy usage from electricity, heating, cooling, and transportation activities contributing to emissions. Production Records Total production output over the reporting period to normalize emissions against production. HR Systems Total number of employees during the reporting period for emissions per employee calculation. Financial Reports Total revenue generated by the organization over the reporting period for emissions per revenue calculation. KPI_SU11. Reduction of raw material consumption This KPI evaluates efficiency in raw material use, emphasizing reductions relative to production output. It is particularly relevant for sectors like manufacturing, where resource consumption impacts both cost and sustainability. Smaller firms may face challenges in tracking and normalizing data, while larger organizations implement MFA systems. Its sectoral focus and complexity support its inclusion as a Scenario-Related KPI. KPI_SU11. Reduction of raw material consumption Description Measures the reduction in raw material consumption normalized against production levels, reflecting efforts to optimize resource use and reduce environmental impact. Study questions What steps are being taken to optimize raw material usage in production? How does raw material reduction align with operational efficiency goals? Objective To promote resource efficiency, reduce waste, and align with sustainability goals. Scope Relevant for material-intensive industries such as manufacturing, construction, and electronics. Service-based industries may focus on reducing consumables like paper or office supplies. Deliverable 1.3 73 Formula Raw Material Reduction Rate = (Baseline Raw Material Usage - Current Usage) / Baseline Usage Target and Values - Low Reduction: <10%. - Moderate Reduction: 10-25%. - High Reduction: >25%. Benefits / Value proposition Reduces dependency on non-renewable resources, mitigating supply chain risks. Lowers production costs by optimizing resource usage. Supports circular economy initiatives and enhances environmental sustainability. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies This KPI reflects GRI 301: Materials and emphasizes resource efficiency. Data is collected from procurement logs, production records, and material tracking systems. Metrics track material use reductions relative to production levels. Tools like material resource planning (MRP) and LCA software help identify opportunities for efficiency. Smaller firms may focus on manual tracking, while larger companies employ advanced MRP systems integrated with ESG platforms. Measurement Tool Data Requirements MFA Systems Total raw materials consumed by the organization during the current reporting period, measured in metric tons. ERP Systems or Inventory Management Total raw materials consumed during the baseline period, measured in metric tons. Production Records Production data for both the current and baseline periods to normalize material usage. Sustainability Reporting Tools Benchmarked data for resource consumption trends and sector-specific efficiency metrics. Summary of data collection tools Key tools to ensure organizations can effectively monitor and improve their environmental performance, aligning with I5.0’s sustainability objectives include: • Energy Management Systems (EMS): Monitor energy consumption, renewable energy usage, and efficiency improvements across operations. • PLM Systems: Capture data on modularity, repairability, and traceability features of products, aligning with circular economy goals. Deliverable 1.3 80 where structured risk mitigation strategies can be effectively implemented. Formula Risk Mitigation Implementation Rate = (Number of Risk Mitigation Strategies Implemented / Total Number of Identified Risks) x 100 Target and Values - Low: <50% of identified risks have mitigation strategies implemented - Moderate: 50-75% of identified risks have mitigation strategies - High: >75% of identified risks have mitigation strategies. Targets should align with organizational goals and risk tolerance. Benefits / Value proposition Ensures operational continuity by addressing critical risks effectively. Builds organizational resilience against unforeseen disruptions. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies Aligned with ISO 31000 on risk management, this KPI evaluates the implementation of mitigation actions to address identified risks. Data is collected from risk assessment reports, mitigation strategy logs, and incident response records. Organizations use risk management software and periodic audits to track the status and effectiveness of mitigation plans. Smaller firms might rely on manual documentation, while larger companies deploy advanced analytics platforms to evaluate the cost-benefit and success rate of implemented strategies. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Risk Management Software Logs of identified risks, mitigation strategies implemented, and ongoing status tracking. Internal Audits Documentation of periodic reviews to verify the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Risk Mitigation Tracking Systems Detailed reports on mitigation efforts, including timelines, responsible teams, and completion status. KPI_RE4. New products/services/ patents introduced This KPI measures innovation output by tracking the development and introduction of new products, services, or intellectual property. It holds universal relevance across sectors but varies in scope depending on organizational size and maturity. Larger firms often have dedicated R&D resources, while smaller companies may innovate at a slower pace. Categorized as a Generic Policy KPI, it highlights an organization’s strategic Deliverable 1.3 81 emphasis on innovation, making it essential for assessing resilience through adaptability and market responsiveness. KPI_RE4. New products/services/ patents introduced Description Tracks the number of new products, services, or patents introduced by the organization, indicating its innovation capacity and commitment to adapting to market demands and technological advancements. Study questions How many new innovations have been successfully launched in the past year? How do these innovations align with market demands and company goals? Objective To measure and encourage the organization’s efforts in innovation, ensuring it maintains a competitive edge and meets evolving industry standards through the continuous development of new offerings. Scope Applicable across all departments involved in product development, R&D, and intellectual property management, particularly in sectors with high innovation demands, such as technology, manufacturing, energy, healthcare, and automotive industries. Suitable for organizations of all sizes committed to fostering innovation. Formula Innovation Introduction Rate = (Number of new products, services, or patents introduced during the period / Total new product/service/patent goals) x 100 Target and values - Low: <50% of the target number of new products/services/patents introduced - Moderate: 50-80% of the target achieved - High: >80% of the target achieved. Targets are typically set annually, aligned with organizational R&D and market growth objectives. Benefits / Value proposition Drives revenue growth through innovation and market expansion. Strengthens competitive positioning with cutting-edge offerings. Data collection and analysis approaches and methodologies Data for this KPI are derived from product development records, R&D project databases, patent filings, and innovation tracking systems. The aim is to quantify the output of new products, services, or patents as a measure of the organization’s adaptability and commitment to continuous innovation. Metrics focus on the volume of new patents, products, or services introduced within a defined period. Smaller organizations often Deliverable 1.3 82 document innovation manually, while larger firms use tools like innovation management software to track and benchmark progress against industry norms. Integrating innovation KPIs with corporate strategy ensures that they align with broader organizational objectives. Measurement Tool Data Requirements PLM Systems Records of product development timelines, features, and lifecycle stages. Patent Databases Number of patents filed during the specified period. Innovation Management Software Progress and completion rates of innovation projects. R&D Records Documentation of research outcomes, development milestones, and resources allocated. Marketing and Sales Records Data on product launches, revenue generated from new products, and market performance. Press Releases and Announcements Official public communications of new product introductions. Profit Analysis Tools Profitability analysis of new products and services introduced during the period. KPI_RE5. Local sourcing ratio This KPI evaluates the proportion of procurement sourced locally, reflecting supply chain flexibility and resilience. It is especially significant in industries like manufacturing and energy, where supply chain disruptions can have a significant impact. Smaller companies often have localized sourcing by necessity, while larger firms may pursue it strategically to mitigate global supply risks. Its categorization as a SustainabilitySpecific Policy KPI highlights its role in promoting both resilience and sustainability through regional sourcing strategies. KPI_RE5. Local sourcing ratio Description Measures the proportion of the organization’s total sourcing that comes from local suppliers, reflecting its commitment to supporting the local economy, reducing supply chain complexity, and lowering environmental impact through shorter transport distances. Study questions What proportion of sourcing is from local suppliers within the region? How has the local sourcing ratio changed over time? Deliverable 1.3 83 Objective To increase the use of local suppliers where feasible, enhancing supply chain resilience, supporting the local economy, and reducing the environmental footprint associated with long-distance transportation. Scope Relevant for procurement and supply chain departments, especially in sectors like manufacturing, food production, and energy where local sourcing can contribute to sustainability and resilience. Applicable across all company sizes seeking to balance cost efficiency with regional supplier engagement. Formula Local Sourcing Ratio = (Total Spend on Local Suppliers / Total Sourcing Spend) x 100 Target and values - Low Local Sourcing: <30% of total sourcing from local suppliers - Moderate Local Sourcing: 30-60% from local suppliers - High Local Sourcing: >60% from local suppliers. Targets should be set based on industry standards and strategic goals for local supply chain support. Benefits / Value proposition Reduces supply chain risks and supports local economies. Enhances sustainability by minimizing transportation emissions. Data Collection and Analysis Approaches and Methodologies Drawing on SASB Supply Chain Standards and GRI 204: Procurement Practices, this KPI measures the proportion of sourcing from local suppliers. Data is collected from procurement records, supplier databases, and ERP systems. Metrics assess the percentage of total sourcing expenditure directed locally, which supports regional economic development and reduces supply chain vulnerabilities. Smaller firms may conduct supplier reviews annually, while larger companies leverage SCM tools for realtime monitoring. Measurement Tool Data Requirements ERP Systems Records of procurement activities and supplier locations. Procurement Software Data on spending allocated to local suppliers. SCM Platforms Geographic distribution of suppliers and supply chain length analysis. Supplier Database Details on supplier locations, classifications, and contributions to overall procurement. Deliverable 1.3 84 Financial Records Expenditure breakdown, highlighting costs incurred with local vs. non-local suppliers. KPI_RE6. Cybersecurity actions implemented This KPI assesses the breadth and effectiveness of cybersecurity measures adopted to protect against digital threats. With the increasing reliance on connected systems, it is crucial across all sectors but varies in complexity and scope. Smaller firms may implement basic measures, while larger organizations often deploy comprehensive cybersecurity frameworks. Categorized as a Generic Policy KPI, it underscores the universal importance of cybersecurity in maintaining resilience against digital vulnerabilities. In ANNEX 12 a list of cybersecurity actions is presented. KPI_RE6 Cybersecurity actions implemented Description Measures the effectiveness and frequency of actions taken to improve and maintain cybersecurity within the organization. It tracks the number and type of proactive and reactive cybersecurity measures, reflecting the organization’s commitment to protecting its digital assets, data, and operational systems from cyber threats. Study questions How many cybersecurity measures have been deployed in the past year? How effective are these measures in mitigating cyber threats? Objective To monitor and enhance the organization’s cybersecurity posture by assessing the implementation of security actions, such as regular updates, vulnerability assessments, and incident response measures. Scope Applicable to all areas of the organization that handle digital information or have connected systems, including IT infrastructure, data storage, production systems, and supply chain networks. Relevant across all industries, especially critical for sectors with sensitive data or high connectivity (e.g., finance, healthcare, manufacturing). Applicable to small, medium, and large enterprises, with the flexibility to adjust action frequency and depth based on organizational complexity. Formula Cybersecurity actions compliance rate= Number of completed cybersecurity actions / total number of recommended cybersecurity actions ×100 Target and values - Low Compliance: Less than 60% of recommended cybersecurity actions completed*. Deliverable 1.3 85 - Moderate Compliance: 60-80% of recommended cybersecurity actions completed. - High Compliance: Over 80% of recommended cybersecurity actions completed. Targets can be customized based on organizational goals, with yearly milestones to ensure continuous improvement in cybersecurity measures. Benefits / value proposition Protect sensitive data and maintains business continuity. Build trust with clients and partners by demonstrating robust cybersecurity. Data Collection and Analysis Approaches and Methodologies Aligned with ISO 27001 and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework, this KPI tracks the adoption of cybersecurity measures, including incident prevention, detection, and response capabilities. Data sources include cybersecurity incident logs, vulnerability assessments, and IT policy records. Organizations use cybersecurity management platforms to document actions like employee training, software updates, and penetration tests. Smaller firms often rely on external audits, while larger enterprises use advanced tools like security information and event management (SIEM) systems for continuous monitoring. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Cybersecurity Action Log Record of all actions taken, including updates, patches, vulnerability assessments, and employee training sessions. Documentation of completed actions with dates and responsible personnel. IT Management System or Cybersecurity Platform List of recommended cybersecurity actions (e.g., software updates, firewall configurations, access control checks). Alerts for overdue or pending actions. Incident Records Detailed reports on cybersecurity incidents, responses, and remediation steps taken (e.g., log of breach responses). KPI_RE7. Operational downtime and recovery time This KPI measures the average duration of downtime and the time required to recover from disruptions, providing insights into operational stability and resilience. It is particularly critical in sectors like logistics and manufacturing, where downtime directly affects productivity. Smaller firms may track this KPI manually, while larger organizations typically rely on automated systems. As an outcome-level KPI, it reflects Deliverable 1.3 86 the real-world impact of resilience strategies and is categorized as Scenario-Related due to its sectoral and organizational variability. KPI_RE7. Operational downtime and recovery time Description Measures the average amount of time the organization’s operations are disrupted and the time taken to resume normal functioning after an interruption. This KPI reflects the organization’s operational resilience and its ability to manage and recover from unexpected downtime effectively. Study questions What is the average downtime during operational disruptions? How quickly can the organization recover and resume operations? Objective To minimize operational downtime and improve recovery time, ensuring that disruptions have minimal impact on productivity and overall business continuity. Scope Applicable to all critical operations and departments where downtime could significantly impact productivity, customer satisfaction, and revenue. Relevant across various industries, including manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, and IT services. Suitable for companies of all sizes aiming to enhance resilience. Formula Average Downtime= (Total Downtime Hours in a Period / Number of Downtime Events) Average Recovery Time = (Total Recovery Time in a Period / Number of Recovery Events) Target and values - Low Resilience: Average downtime >10 hours per event and recovery time >5 hours. - Moderate Resilience: Average downtime 3-10 hours per event and recovery time 2-5 hours. - High Resilience: Average downtime <3 hours per event and recovery time <2 hours. Targets depend on industry standards and operational criticality. Benefits / Value proposition Reduces revenue losses and maintains customer satisfaction during disruptions. Enhances operational efficiency and resilience. Data Collection and Analysis Approaches and Methodologies This KPI measures resilience by assessing the average downtime and time to recovery after disruptions. Data collection aligns with ISO 22301: Business Continuity Management, using incident logs, maintenance records, and operational dashboards. Metrics include mean downtime duration and recovery rates, which are normalized against production schedules or critical operation benchmarks. Smaller organizations Deliverable 1.3 87 may track manually, while larger firms integrate real-time monitoring through industrial IoT (IIoT) and predictive maintenance platforms. Measurement Tool Data Requirements Incident Management Systems Detailed incident logs, including cause, duration, and resolution of downtime events. ERP Software Operational records and downtime reports integrated with production schedules and system availability data. Maintenance Management Systems Maintenance logs, including planned maintenance schedules and records of corrective actions. Business Continuity and Recovery Software Recovery activities and time tracking for each incident, including response initiation and resolution timestamps. Risk Management System Risk assessment data linking potential threats to actual downtime and recovery scenarios. Summary of Data Collection Tools To ensure accuracy and consistency, organizations typically use several core tools across these methodologies: - Risk Management Software: Centralized platforms for documenting and tracking risk assessments, mitigation actions, and incidents. - ERP and SCM Systems: ERP and SCM systems support data collection on suppliers, downtime, and recovery metrics. - Innovation and IP Management Tools: R&D tracking software, patent databases, and PLM systems are key for capturing data on new products, services, and intellectual property. - Incident and Maintenance Management Systems: Tools that document operational downtime, maintenance schedules, and incident reports are essential for calculating average recovery times and identifying areas for improvement. - IoT-Enabled Tools and AI-Driven Analytics for Real-Time Monitoring and Predictive Insights. Other resources and tools - ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems – Requirements https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html - ISO 22300:2021 – Security and Resilience – Vocabulary https://www.iso.org/standard/50066.html - ISO 28000:2022 - Security and Resilience – Security Management Systems – Requirements Deliverable 1.3 88 https://www.iso.org/standard/79612.html - ISO 31000:2018 - Risk Management – Guidelines https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html - ISO 22301:2019 - Security and Resilience – Business Continuity Management Systems – Requirements https://www.iso.org/standard/75106.html - NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (2024) https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework - SASB Standards for Supply Chain Flexibility and Innovation Metrics (2018) https://www.sasb.org/standards/download/ 4.4. Summary of the Structure of the Framework To conclude the chapter, Table 5 summarizes the modular structure of the I5.AF, consolidating the categorization of KPIs across the three pillars. It outlines the duallayered approach of Core and Scenario-Related KPIs, emphasizing the framework’s adaptability to diverse organizational contexts. Table 5 Summary of the structure of the framework Impact areas Core KPIs Scenario-related KPIs HC KPI_HC1. Technology adoption for human-machine collaboration KPI_HC2. Training and re-skilling opportunities KPI_HC3. Comprehensive employee well-being and satisfaction index KPI_HC4. Representation in decision-making roles KPI_HC5. Employee turnover rates KPI_HC6. Workplace accidents / incidents KPI_HC7. Ergonomic design and tools KPI_HC8. Diversity ratio KPI_HC9. Inclusivity programs effectiveness KPI_HC10. Job crafting Deliverable 1.3 89 SU KPI_SU1. Investment in and development of new technologies for sustainability KPI_SU2. Regulatory compliance rate and number of initiatives beyond compliance KPI_SU3. Energy consumed KPI_SU4. Waste diverted from disposal KPI_SU5. Use of renewable energy sources KPI_SU6. Waste generated and its composition KPI_SU7. Products designed for Modularity, Repair, and Repurposing KPI_SU8. Products with traceability features implemented KPI_SU9. Water use KPI_SU10. GHG emissions KPI_SU11. Reduction of raw material consumption RE KPI_RE1. Risk assessment effectiveness KPI_RE2. Alternative sourcing options KPI_RE3. Risk mitigation strategies implemented KPI_RE4. New products/services/ patents introduced KPI_RE5. Local sourcing ratio KPI_RE6. Cybersecurity actions implemented KPI_RE7. Operational downtime and recovery time The summary table captures the essence of the framework’s design: a balance between standardization and flexibility. Core KPIs provide a universal foundation, ensuring consistency in assessing alignment with I5.0 principles. Scenario-Related KPIs introduce customization based on factors like company size and sectoral requirements, enabling tailored assessments. This structure ensures that the framework remains robust yet adaptable, addressing both strategic and operational dimensions. It serves as a guide for organizations to navigate their I5.0 journey effectively, catering to unique contexts while maintaining alignment with overarching principles. Deliverable 1.3 96 6. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary I5.AF, developed within the PROSPECTS 5.0 project, represents a foundational tool for aligning industrial practices with the principles of I5.0. By integrating human-centricity, environmental sustainability, and industrial resilience into its structure, the framework underscores the need for a balanced approach to technological advancement, emphasizing ethical, social, and environmental considerations. Its modular design provides scalability and adaptability, catering to organizations of varying sizes and sectors. The framework introduces a dual-layered scoring mechanism to assess both strategic alignment and operational maturity. Strategic alignment is measured through Core KPIs, which are universally applicable and reflect an organization’s commitment to I5.0 principles. Operational implementation is assessed through Scenario-Related KPIs, which adapts to company-specific variables such as size and, in some cases, sectoral context. The Core KPIs have been carefully selected to represent the most critical dimensions of I5.0 principles, ensuring their relevance across all application scenarios. These KPIs include: 1. Technology adoption for human-machine collaboration (KPI_HC1): Captures the organization’s integration of collaborative technologies and their usability for workers. This KPI demonstrates a commitment to leveraging technology to enhance worker capabilities while prioritizing usability and training. 2. Training and re-skilling opportunities (KPI_HC2): Reflects the organization's investment in workforce adaptability through training, a cornerstone of resilience and innovation. 3. Comprehensive employee well-being and satisfaction index (KPI_HC3): Measures employee satisfaction and engagement, underscoring the importance of humancentricity in industrial contexts. 4. Representation in decision-making roles (KPI_HC4): Highlights inclusivity and empowerment by evaluating employee participation in organizational decisionmaking. 5. Investment in and development of new technologies or initiatives for sustainability (KPI_SU1): Tracks organizational commitment to sustainability through targeted investments in green technologies and practices. 6. Regulatory compliance and initiatives beyond compliance (KPI_SU2): Reflects adherence to environmental standards and voluntary efforts to exceed compliance, emphasizing sustainability leadership. 7. Risk assessment effectiveness (KPI_RE1): Evaluates the organization's ability to identify and address potential risks, a fundamental aspect of industrial resilience. 8. Alternative sourcing options (KPI_RE2): Measures the availability of alternative suppliers to ensure supply chain flexibility and continuity. Deliverable 1.3 97 These Core KPIs provide organizations with a benchmark for assessing their alignment with I5.0 principles, offering a standardized approach to strategic evaluation. Their inclusion reflects feedback from workshops with UCs, which highlighted their universal relevance and feasibility for implementation across diverse organizational contexts. In contrast, the Scenario-Related KPIs address specific operational aspects that vary based on organizational size and sector. These KPIs allow for deeper insights into areas critical to certain companies, providing a more nuanced assessment. For instance: • Human-centricity scenario-related KPIs: These include metrics like job crafting, ergonomic design, and inclusivity program effectiveness, which vary in relevance based on organizational focus and workforce characteristics. • Environmental sustainability scenario-related KPIs: These encompass measures such as energy efficiency, waste management, and water use, which are highly dependent on the industrial sector and the organization’s operational scale. • Industrial resilience scenario-related KPIs: These include cybersecurity measures, local sourcing ratio, operational downtime and recovery times, which vary in importance based on the company’s reliance on digital infrastructure and the complexity of its supply chain. The decision to categorize these KPIs as scenario-related stems from their variability in applicability. Larger organizations with specialized operations may find these KPIs critical, while smaller firms might prioritize simpler metrics. Additionally, sectoral dynamics, such as regulatory requirements and industry-specific risks, further influence the relevance of these KPIs. The dual approach of Core and Scenario-Related KPIs ensures the framework’s flexibility while maintaining its rigor. Companies can start with the Core KPIs to establish their strategic alignment with I5.0 principles and then expand their assessment scope to Scenario-Related KPIs for a detailed evaluation of operational maturity. This modularity allows for incremental implementation, accommodating the unique challenges and opportunities of each organization. As the framework enters its testing and validation phase within the PROSPECTS 5.0 project, it will be refined based on real-world applications in diverse UCs. This iterative process will play a critical role in enhancing its usability and adaptability, ensuring it remains a practical tool for organizations of various sizes and sectors. The insights gathered during this phase will not only strengthen the framework itself but also directly inform the project's key outputs, such as the policy recommendations, guidelines for I5.0 implementation and the digital platform that aims to digitize the I5.AF. By aligning the framework's structure and KPIs with tangible operational realities, these outputs will be better equipped to support companies in adopting ethical, sustainable, and resilient practices that reflect the evolving demands of I5.0. Ultimately, the framework serves as a cornerstone of the project, facilitating a holistic transition to I5.0 principles while ensuring measurable progress and actionable outcomes for stakeholders. Deliverable 1.3 98 EU Projects’ deliverables: Factory2Fit (2017) D1.5 – Design and Evaluation Framework and Measuring Tools. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723277/results Factory2Fit (2019) D5.3 – Evaluation and Assessment of the Pilots. Retrieved from https://portal.effra.eu/project/1627 BRIDGES 5.0 (2023) D1.1 Conceptual Framework of Industry 5.0 to Study Workforce Skills. Retrieved from https://bridges5-0.eu/bridges-5-0-deliverables-defining-industry-50/ BRIDGES 5.0 (2023) D1.1c Industry 5.0 and Existing EU Directives, Workplace Standards, and Certifications (Phase 1). Retrieved from https://bridges5-0.eu/publications/ HUMAN – Human Manufacturing (2017) D7.1 Evaluation Methodology. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723737/results HUMAN – Human Manufacturing (2018) D7.2 Evaluation Analysis. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723737/results PROREGIO (2017) D3.2: Operational KPI Evaluation Framework. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/636966/results FENIX (2020) D5.4 Impact Assessment Report. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/760792/results FESTA Consortium (2021) Field Operational Test Support Action (FESTA) Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.connectedautomateddriving.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/FESTA-Handbook-Version-8.pdf 5G-LOGINNOV (2022) D3.4 Evaluation of Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957400/results AUTOPILOT (2018) D4.1 Methodology for Evaluation. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731993/results CARTRE (2018) D5.3 Societal Impacts of Automated Driving. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/724086/results C-ROADS PLATFORM (2019) Evaluation and Assessment Plan. Retrieved from https://www.c-roads.eu/platform.html LEVITATE (2021) Societal Level Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicles Final Technical Report. Retrieved from https://levitate-project.eu/deliverables/ Deliverable 1.3 99 SPARCS (2021) "A Comprehensive Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Smart City Interventions." Retrieved from https://www.sparcs.info/publications eCharge4Drivers (2020) D1.1 Study Questions, Impact Areas, and KPIs. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/875131/results Standards and Framework Reports: Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. (2022). CSRD - Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2464 Global Reporting Initiative (2021) GRI Standards. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ Global Reporting Initiative. (2016). GRI 401: Employment 2016. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1030/gri-401-employment2016.pdf Global Reporting Initiative (2018). GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1033/gri-403occupational-health-and-safety-2018.pdf Global Reporting Initiative (2016). GRI 404: Training and Education 2016. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1034/gri-404-training-andeducation-2016.pdf Global Reporting Initiative (2016). GRI 405: Diversity and Equal Opportunity 2016. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1035/gri-405diversity-and-equal-opportunity-2016.pdf International Organization for Standardization (2015). ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems – Requirements. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html International Organization for Standardization (2020). ISO 22300:2020 - Security and Resilience – Vocabulary. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/50066.html International Organization for Standardization (2016). ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Devices – Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Regulatory Purposes. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/59752.html Deliverable 1.3 100 International Organization for Standardization (2022). ISO 28000:2022 - Security and Resilience – Security Management Systems – Requirements. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/79612.html International Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 31000:2018 - Risk Management – Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html International Organization for Standardization (2019). ISO 22301:2019 - Security and Resilience – Business Continuity Management Systems – Requirements. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/75106.html International Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 45001:2018 - Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems – Requirements. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html International Organization for Standardization (2021). ISO 45003:2021 - Occupational Health and Safety Management – Psychological Health and Safety at Work – Guidelines for Managing Psychosocial Risks. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html International Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 50001:2018 - Energy Management Systems – Requirements with Guidance for Use. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/69426.html National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2021). NIOSH Worker WellBeing Questionnaire (WellBQ). By Chari, R., Chang, C.-C., Sauter, S.L., Petrun Sayers, E.L., Huang, W., & Fisher, G.G. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2021-110 (Revised 05/2024). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2021110revised052024 National Institute of Standards and Technology (2018). Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Version 1.1. Retrieved from https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.04162018.pdf National Institute of Standards and Technology (2021). NIST Cybersecurity for IoT Program. Retrieved from https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nistcybersecurity-iot-program Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2018) Automobiles Sustainability Accounting Standard. Retrieved from https://sasb.ifrs.org/standards/download/ Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2018) Auto Parts Sustainability Accounting Standard. Retrieved from https://sasb.ifrs.org/standards/download/ Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2018) Biofuels Sustainability Accounting Standard. Retrieved from https://sasb.ifrs.org/standards/download/ Deliverable 1.3 101 Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2018) Fuel Cells and Industrial Batteries Sustainability Accounting Standard. Retrieved from https://sasb.ifrs.org/standards/download/ Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2018) Solar Technology Sustainability Accounting Standard. Retrieved from https://sasb.ifrs.org/standards/download/ Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2018) Wind Technology Sustainability Accounting Standard. Retrieved from https://sasb.ifrs.org/standards/download/ Deliverable 1.3 102 7. REFERENCES - Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. PublicAffairs. - Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Do Industry 5.0 advantages address the sustainable development challenges of the renewable energy supply chain? Journal of Industrial Sustainability Research, 15(3), 245-265. - Aerospace Manufacturing Consortium. (2022). A holistic digitalization KPI framework for the aerospace industry. Aerospace Technology Management Review, 10(2), 120-140. - Breque, M., De Nul, L., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a Sustainable, Human-Centric, and Resilient European Industry. European Commission. - Brough, P. Timms, C. O'Driscoll, M.P. Kalliath, T. Siu, O. Sit, C. & Lo, D. (2014) Work– life balance: a longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25:19, 2724-2744. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.899262 - Doyle Kent, M., & Kopacek, P. (2021). Industry 5.0: Automation with a Human Touch. IFAC PapersOnLine, 54(13), 218-223. - Doyle Kent, M., & Kopacek, P. (2021). Humanizing industry: The role of Industry 5.0 in fostering human-centric innovation. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 119(1), 11-24. - Dwyer, J., et al. (2023). Resilient organizations: Strategies for navigating disruptions in Industry 5.0. Journal of Organizational Resilience, 32(2), 145-160. - Eurofound & Cedefop (2020). European Company Survey 2019: Workplace Practices – Patterns, Performance, and Well-Being. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. - European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal. European Union Publications Office. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/green-deal - Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254280. - Ghobakhloo, M. (2022). Industry 5.0: The revolution beyond Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 33(4), 849-866. - Ghobakhloo, M. (2022). The impact of Industry 4.0 technologies on key performance indicators for a resilient supply chain 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology, 29(4), 325-340. - Ghobakhloo, M., et al. (2023). Digital transformation success in manufacturing: The role of Industry 5.0 principles. Sustainability, 15(2), 1138. - Guest, D. E., et al. (2022). Organizational dynamics in the era of Industry 5.0: A sociocentric perspective. Journal of Workplace Innovation, 9(3), 212-229. Deliverable 1.3 103 - Iqbal, N., & Khan, S. (2022). Sustainability and Innovation in Industry 5.0: Achieving Circular Economy Goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(1), 45-58. - Howaldt, J., Dhondt, S., & Oeij, P. (2017). Workplace innovation as a driver for Industry 5.0: Exploring human-centric strategies. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 5(1), 44-62. - Kim, B., Rhee, E., Ha, G., Jung, S. H., Cho, D., Lee, H. K., & Lee, S. M. (2016). Cross-cultural validation of the career growth scale for Korean employees. Journal of career development, 43(1), 26-36. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314568310 - Knowit (2023). Companies Understand Their Sustainability Reporting Obligations— Implementation Varies Widely. Retrieved from https://www.knowit.eu/newspress/2023/companies-understand-their-sustainability-reporting-obligations--- implementation-varies-widely/ - Kumar, P., et al. (2021). Key performance indicators and Industry 4.0 – A socially responsible perspective. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(7), 850-870. - Kumar, R. (2023). Logistics 5.0 implementation model based on decision support systems. International Journal of Logistics Research, 18(1), 45-60. - Kumar, V. (2021). A study on the development of key performance indicators (KPIs) at an aerospace manufacturing company. Journal of Aerospace Manufacturing Management, 24(3), 145-165. - Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0—A human-centric solution. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371. - Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2021). The Wise Company: How Companies Create Continuous Innovation. Oxford University Press. - Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2021). Humanizing technological innovation: Redefining Industry 5.0 principles. Journal of Industrial Transformation, 28(4), 398-420. - Peças, P., Ribeiro, I., & John, L. (2022). An index-based sustainability assessment framework for manufacturing organizations. Sustainability Journal, 14(9), 25602575. - Reiman, T., et al. (2021). Human factors and ergonomics in the Industry 4.0 context: A review and perspectives. Applied Ergonomics, 92, 103352. - Reiman, T., et al. (2021). Organizational-level maturity models for Industry 4.0 and beyond. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 8(2), 200-225. - Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. - Totterdill, P., Krause, M., & Dhondt, S. (2023). The Industry 5.0 framework: Viabilitybased integration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity perspectives. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 8(1), 56-79. - Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2012). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 426-446. Deliverable 1.3 104 - Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Strategic learning and adaptability in Industry 5.0. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 701-719. - Welfare, T., et al. (2019). Designing collaborative robots for safe and productive human-robot interaction in Industry 5.0. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 59, 101825. Deliverable 1.3 105 8. ANNEXES • ANNEX 1: ESG and SDG frameworks KPIs relevant for Industry 5.0 • ANNEX 2: Other existing frameworks (industrial sectors and EU projects) analysed • ANNEX 3: Agenda workshop Bruxelles • ANNEX 4: Agenda UC workshops • ANNEX 5: Workshops’ guidelines • ANNEX 6: Consent form for data processing • ANNEX 7: Reporting tool • ANNEX 8: Agenda workshops with Advisory Board members and EU projects’ stakeholders • ANNEX 9: Survey on employee satisfaction (KPI_HC3) • ANNEX 10: List of possible technologies or initiatives for sustainability (KPI_SU1) • ANNEX 11: List of possible initiatives beyond compliance with sustainability regulations (KPI_SU2) • ANNEX 12: List of possible actions on cybersecurity (KPI_RE6) Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 2 2 RELEVANT EXISTING FRAMEWORKS OVERVIEW As part of the existing framework review conducted within the project, a diverse range of documents, including public deliverables from EU-funded projects, industry reports, and academic studies, were analysed. These documents provided valuable insights into the principles, methodologies, and indicators already in use across various industrial sectors and impact areas. The analysis aimed to identify frameworks and approaches relevant to the Industry 5.0 paradigm, focusing on the three core pillars: human-centricity, sustainability, and resilience. The table presented below summarizes the analysed documents, providing a brief description of each, along with the industrial sectors and impact areas for which they are most applicable. Table 2 Relevant existing frameworks overview PAPER / PUBLICATION SHORT DESCRIPTION INDUSTRIAL SECTOR IMPACT AREA Sustainability and Industry 4.0: Definition of a Set of Key Performance Indicators for Manufacturing Companies Identifies KPIs across environmental, economic, and social areas. Current literature offers a flat set of KPIs lacking sector-specific implementation guidance. Manufacturing Sustainability (economic, environmental, social) SHOP4CF Enhancing workercentred digitalisation in industrial environments: A KPI evaluation methodology – The document outlines a KPI evaluation methodology for assessing digitalization processes in industrial environments, incorporating human-centric principles and addressing the transition from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0. The Human Centric Digital Industry (HCDI) KPI methodology is a KPI-based framework assessing human-centric digitalization in factories, balancing automation with human involvement. Manufacturing/ Smart Factory Humancentricity An index-based sustainability assessment framework for manufacturing organizations Proposes a composite sustainability index using the triple bottom line, life-cycle stages, and 6R principles. Manufacturing Sustainability, humancentricity FACTORIES OF THE FUTURE Multi‑annual roadmap for the contractual PPP under Horizon 2020 Outlines technologies for sustainable, highperforming EU factories, developed through stakeholder consultations. Manufacturing environmental, human, business Key Performance Indicators and Industry 4.0 – A Socially Responsible Perspective Highlights the role of KPIs in Industry 4.0, linking them to corporate social responsibility and offering implementation recommendations. Manufacturing ALL FACTORY2FIT D1.5 describes the initial work well-being framework that integrates user experience, usability, safety, and ethics into Factory2Fit solutions for new work practices. Manufacturing Human Centricity Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 2 3 D1.5 – Design and evaluation framework and measuring tools. D5.3 – Evaluation and assessment of the pilots D5.3 describes the user evaluation results from Factory2Fit pilots carried out with the industrial pilot partners Continental, UTC and Prima Power. The Impact of Industry 4.0 Technologies on Key Performance Indicators for a Resilient Supply Chain 4.0 Industry 4.0 technologies improve KPIs for supply chain resilience. Manufacturing / Logistics Resilience BRIDGES 5.0 D1.1 Conceptual framework of Industry 5.0 to study workforce skills (DRAFT) Explores workforce skills for Industry 5.0 and impacts on employees, with a conceptual framework for future testing. Manufacturing / All Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience HUMAN – Human Manufacturing D7.1 Evaluation Methodology D7.2 Evaluation Analysis Defines performance indicators for industrial trials using the Simplified ECOGRAI methodology. D7.2 presents the evaluation process templates. Manufacturing /Aerospace / Furniture Humancentricity PROREGIO D3.2: Operational KPI evaluation framework Introduces five steps for KPI framework development: definition, classification, selection, interaction, and monitoring. Manufacturing/ Aerospace Sustainability / Humancentricity Logistics 5.0 Implementation Model Based on Decision Support Systems Develops a decision-support model prioritizing green logistics elements based on investment and ROI goals. Logistics Sustainability / Humancentricity FENIX D5.4 Impact Assessment Report Assesses eleven pilot sites using a "learning by doing" approach to prepare logistics and transport corridor services. Logistics Sustainability / Resilience 5G-LOGINNOV D3.4 Evaluation of social, economic, and environmental impacts Evaluates economic, social, and environmental KPIs to measure project effectiveness. Logistics Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience FESTA (Field opErational teSt supporT Action) handbook Guides field operational test planning, execution, and analysis, emphasizing standardization for cross-comparison. Transport and Mobility Sustainability / Humancentricity SASB Standards – Automobiles Sustainability Accounting Standard It provides guidance for reporting sustainability factors critical to the automobile industry, including fuel efficiency, emissions, product safety, and supply chain management. It offers metrics to disclose material impacts, aligning sustainability performance with financial Automotive Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 2 4 outcomes to support informed decision-making by investors and stakeholders. SASB Standards – Auto Parts Sustainability Accounting Standard Focuses on auto parts industry metrics like product safety, materials efficiency, and supply chain sustainability. Automotive Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience Trilateral Impact Assessment Framework For Automation in Road Transportation -VTT Report Investigates automation KPIs in road transportation through stakeholder surveys. CCAM (automotive) Sustainability / Humancentricity AUTOPILOT - D.4.1 Methodology for Evaluation Evaluates IoT's value for cooperative driving using FESTA-based KPIs and research questions. CCAM (automotive) CARTRE - D5.3 Societal impacts of automated driving Built on the work of the Trilteral ART Working Group: Defines KPIs for societal impact through a collaborative process. CCAM (automotive) Sustainability / Humancentricity C-ROADS PLATFORM Evaluation and assessment plan Assesses Day 1 C-ITS Services' impacts on user acceptance, safety, traffic efficiency, and socioeconomics. CCAM (automotive) Sustainability / Humancentricity LEVITATE - Societal Level Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicles Final Technical Report This report explores the societal impacts of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), emphasizing safety, environmental sustainability, and social equity. Relevant to Industry 5.0, it provides insights into integrating automation with human-centric and sustainable transportation systems. The framework highlights the importance of adaptive policy measures, ethical considerations, and the potential for CAVs to enhance resilience within transportation networks. CCAM (automotive) Sustainability / Humancentricity SASB Standards – Biofuels Sustainability Accounting Standard This standard outlines key sustainability metrics for biofuel production, focusing on energy efficiency, emissions, and land use. It aligns with Industry 5.0 principles by addressing environmental sustainability through circular resource management and optimizing renewable energy use. The metrics support companies in benchmarking their sustainability performance and integrating biofuels into green industrial practices. Energy & utilities Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience SASB Standards – Fulcells and industrial batteries Sustainability Accounting Standard This document provides guidance on evaluating the environmental and social impacts of fuel cells and industrial battery production. Relevant for Industry 5.0, it emphasizes waste reduction, lifecycle management, and the circular economy, fostering sustainable manufacturing practices and innovation in energy storage technologies. Energy & utilities Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 2 5 SASB Standards – Solar Technology Sustainability Accounting Standard Focused on the production and deployment of solar technologies, this standard promotes the adoption of renewable energy sources. Key areas include material efficiency, emissions reduction, and the social impact of solar installations. It aligns with Industry 5.0 by integrating sustainable and human-centric energy solutions into industrial operations. Energy & utilities Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience SASB Standards – Wind Technology Sustainability Accounting Standard This standard addresses the sustainability impacts of wind energy technology manufacturing and deployment. It includes metrics for resource use, emissions, and lifecycle management, promoting environmentally friendly practices in the energy sector. The relevance to Industry 5.0 lies in its alignment with sustainable energy goals and fostering resilience in renewable energy supply chains. Energy & utilities Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience SPARCS A Comprehensive Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Smart City Interventions: Evidence from Espoo Transformation Process Proposes a seven-step process to assess smart city interventions with a combined top-down and bottom-up approach. Energy, Urban mobility, Smart City Sustainability / Humancentricity eCharge4Drivers D1.1 Study questions, impact areas, and KPIs Explains relations between study questions, tasks, and data collection methodologies for project KPIs. Electric Mobility, Energy Sustainability / Humancentricity Do industry 5.0 advantages address the sustainable development challenges of the renewable energy supply chain? Highlights modularity, human-centered innovation, and hyper-connected networks addressing sustainability challenges. Renewable energy Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience A Holistic Digitalization KPI Framework for the Aerospace Industry Proposes a digitalization KPI framework tailored to resource-constrained aerospace suppliers. Aerospace Digitalization / Humancentricity A Study on The Development Of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) at an Aerospace Manufacturing Company Develops KPIs for an aerospace company’s lean manufacturing journey using benchmarks and communication improvements. Aerospace Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience The Industry 5.0 framework: viabilitybased integration of the resilience, sustainability, and human-centricity perspectives Defines I5.0 as a framework for resilient value creation, human well-being, and sustainability, spanning society, networks, and plants ALL Sustainability / Humancentricity / Resilience Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 2 6 TOWARDS THE INDUSTRY 5.0(I5.0) A NEED FOR CHANGE: Theory vs. Practice 29 May 2024-09:15-16:00 BluePoint Brussels (Bd A. Reyers 80 – 1030 Brussel) The times in the calendar are set in Central European Time (CET), ie in the (GMT+2) time zone. The “Industry 5.0” paradigm seems to complement the "Industry 4.0" approach by specifically putting research and innovation at the service of the transition to a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry: Environmental dimension is aiming at eliminating fossil fuels, promoting energy efficiency, use of nature-based solutions, regeneration of carbon sinks and restoration of biodiversity. Regenerative features of industrial transformation are embracing circular economy and facilitate restorative feedback loops as a key pillar of the design of entire value chains; Inherent social dimension is focusing on workers well-being, social inclusion and the introduction of technologies that complement human skills; Resiliency dimension, as a response to current disruptions (climate change, COVID-19, geopolitical conflicts), is being built through systemic transformation by improving infrastructure innovation alongside policy innovation and by bringing together the appropriate skills and collective intelligence. In the morning session, speakers will set the stage by presenting and discussing the current frameworks and methodologies linked to the Industry 5.0 paradigm. The afternoon session will be dedicated to industry testimonials discussing how the current Industry 4.0 approach is complemented with the three core competencies of the Industry 5.0 approach (sustainability, human-centricity, resilience) and adopted/implemented in practice in different industry sectors. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101135948 PROSPECTS5-0 PROSPECTS5-0 PROSPECTS5-0.EU PROSPECTS5_0 CONTACT TOWARDS THE INDUSTRY 5.0(I5.0) A NEED FOR CHANGE: Theory vs. Practice 29 May 2024-09:15-16:00 BluePoint Brussels (Bd A. Reyers 80 – 1030 Brussel) The times in the calendar are set in Central European Time (CET), ie in the (GMT+2) time zone. 09:15–10:00Registration and Welcome Coffee 10:00–10:15Welcome and Introduction Agenda introduction and presentation of the event objectives (5 minutes) Presentation of the PROSPECTS 5.0 project (10 minutes) 10:15–11:30Morning Plenary Session Presentations of existing frameworks and methodologies linked to the Industry 5.0 (15 minutes per presentation, including Q&A) Bridges 5.0 project - Workforce skills for Industry 5.0 conceptual framework (Steven Dhondt, TNO) SEISMEC project - Striking the right balance between disruptive technology and human-centricity: the CAPS framework (Jason Pridmore, Erasmus University Rotterdam) AI Redgio 5.0 - Experimenting Industry 5.0 in TEchnology and REgulatory SAndboxes (TERESA) and Didactic Factories (Sergio Gusmeroli, Politecnico di Milano) SURE 5.0 project (TBC) Community of Practice 5.0 - Findings from working groups on Thematic Analysis and Learning and Assessment Tool (DG RTD, Industry 5.0 and AI in Science Unit) AGENDA This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101135948 PROSPECTS5-0 PROSPECTS5-0 PROSPECTS5-0.EU PROSPECTS5_0 CONTACT TOWARDS THE INDUSTRY 5.0(I5.0) A NEED FOR CHANGE: Theory vs. Practice 29 May 2024-09:15-16:00 BluePoint Brussels (Bd A. Reyers 80 – 1030 Brussel) The times in the calendar are set in Central European Time (CET), ie in the (GMT+2) time zone. 11:30–12:30Panel Discussion How are Industry 4.0 & Industry 5.0 connected? 14:00–16:00Break-out Sessions (World Café Style) 3 meeting rooms, each focusing on of the I5.0 pillars: sustainability (SU), resilience (RE), and human-centricity (HC) 10’: Introduction and group division according to the interest of participants indicated during registration 70’: Each group discusses one of the pillars (HC/SU/RE); 10’x3: Summary of discussions from each group 10’: Final wrap-up 12:30–14:00Lunch 16:00–17:00Networking Cocktail AGENDA This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101135948 PROSPECTS5-0 PROSPECTS5-0 PROSPECTS5-0.EU PROSPECTS5_0 CONTACT Part 2: How to evaluate and measure HC/SU/RE in the industry Wrap-up Session introduction5’ TIME OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION 5’ 10’ 20’ 30’ Industry use-case (UC) presentation Part 1: Awareness level of the participants about I5.0 Introducing the World Café format & setting the context Hands-on testimony from a company Questions will be provided in advance Questions will be provided in advance Date : 03.07.2024 Topic : D1.3 – ANNEX 4 Responsible Partner : UNIMORE Authors : Giacomo Cantini (giacomo.c[email protected]), Anna Rita Graziani ([email protected]) D1.3 Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework ANNEX 4: I5.AF Validation Workshop AGENDA Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 4 AGENDA: # Contents Time 1 Welcome remarks Brief presentation of PROSPECTS 5.0 project and the objectives and scope of the workshop 5’ 2 Participants presentation Participants briefly introduce themselves, their role, and their interest in the workshop. 10’ 3 Overview of proposed KPIs Present an overview of the proposed KPIs and measurement tools for Industry 5.0 initiatives, categorised by Human-centricity, Environmental Sustainability, and Industrial Resilience. 10’ 4 Interactive session: KPIs and measurement tools discussion(s) Provide clear instructions on discussion points and expected outcomes of the session. Participants discuss the relevance, feasibility, and potential challenges of the proposed KPIs and measurement tools. Discussion Points: - Validation of proposed KPIs - Identification of additional KPIs - Feasibility and implementation challenges - Suggestions for improvement (There should be a short coffee break, or at least coffee and beverages available, according to participants’ needs) Only if there are more than one group: each group presents their discussion points, feedback, and suggestions. 105’/ 135’ 5 Wrap-up and conclusions Summarise the key points discussed, agreed-upon KPIs, and any action items identified. Thank participants, emphasise the importance of the discussed KPIs, and encourage ongoing collaboration and engagement. (Optional: conclusions by the company’s CEO or a Senior Executive) 20’ Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 5 6 ● To be creative and utilise humour in order to make your activities more entertaining. ● To be enthusiastic, motivating the participants for a more effective involvement. ● To appreciate participants’ contributions and statements. ● To encourage any input, feedback and proposals. ● To try not to judge or criticise. ● To respect the right of each member for participation and remember that every opinion counts. ● To keep track of time. Try to avoid unnecessary deviations from the timetable of the agenda. ● To allow adequate time for reflection and discussion. ● To be aware of similarities and differences among the ideas of the participants. Closure: it includes the summary, the evaluation and the ending. ● To summarise the main findings of the workshop. ● To give the opportunity to the participants to react to the obtained outcomes. This can be achieved either with a formal procedure or through some simple questions. ● To provide the opportunity to the participants to sum up. TIMESCALE: JulySeptember 2024. LANGUAGE and REPORTING: Workshop implementation: local language or English. UNIMORE team provides a full version of the agenda, KPIs and measurement tools’ list, questions for discussion and reporting tool in English. The translation of the questions for discussion is up to every single UC facilitator. The reporting tool will be filled in by the UC facilitator in English and sent to UNIMORE, including open observations on the session, to support qualitative analysis of the workshops. Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 5 7 AGENDA: # Contents Time 1 Welcome remarks Brief presentation of PROSPECTS 5.0 project and the objectives and scope of the workshop 5’ 2 Participants presentation Participants briefly introduce themselves, their role, and their interest in the workshop. 10’ 3 Overview of proposed KPIs Present an overview of the proposed KPIs and measurement tools for Industry 5.0 initiatives, categorised by Human-centricity, Environmental Sustainability, and Industrial Resilience. 10’ 4 Interactive session: KPIs and measurement tools discussion(s) Provide clear instructions on discussion points and expected outcomes of the session. Participants discuss the relevance, feasibility, and potential challenges of the proposed KPIs and measurement tools. Discussion Points: - Validation of proposed KPIs - Identification of additional KPIs - Feasibility and implementation challenges - Suggestions for improvement (There should be a short coffee break, or at least coffee and beverages available, according to participants’ needs) Only if there are more than one group: each group presents their discussion points, feedback, and suggestions. 105’/ 135’ 5 Wrap-up and conclusions Summarise the key points discussed, agreed-upon KPIs, and any action items identified. Thank participants, emphasise the importance of the discussed KPIs, and encourage ongoing collaboration and engagement. (Optional: conclusions by the company’s CEO or a Senior Executive) 20’ Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 5 8 INTERACTIVE SESSION: KPIs and measurement tools discussion Slides for each KPI and related measurement tools will be displayed. Make participants discuss and reach consensus on every proposed KPI and related measurement tool and data requirements, starting with Human Centricity, then following with Industrial Resilience and Environmental Sustainability. These are the discussion points: A) Validation of proposed KPIs B) Identification of additional KPIs C) Feasibility and implementation challenges D) Suggestions for improvement Questions for each presented KPI (to be reported in the reporting tool): ● Does your company calculate this KPI? ● How would you rate the relevance of this KPI for your company and/or the specific industrial sector? ● Which measurement tool are you using/will you be using for the identified KPI? ● Which data are required to calculate the KPI? Questions at the end of each pillar (HC, SU, RE) Once finalised the discussion on the KPIs of each pillar, make participants answer the following questions: ● Are there any additional KPIs or tools needed? ● What potential challenges or barriers exist in implementing these KPIs? ● Do you have any suggestions for improvement ● How would you rank the discussed KPIs according to their priority level for your company? Identify at least the first 6 KPIs Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 5 9 Date : 08.07.2024 Topic : D1.3 – ANNEX 6 Responsible Partner : AETHON Author : Giacomo Cantini, Anna Rita Graziani (UNIMORE), Rosanna Babagiannou (AETHON) D1.3 Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework ANNEX 6: I5.AF Validation Workshop Consent form for data processing Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 6 2 CONSENT FORM FOR DATA PROCESSING The present consent form is about the collection and processing of the data that will be shared in the workshops to be implemented either in presence or online between July and September 2024 with each of the use case providers of the PROSPECTS-5.0 project. The data will be collected by the respective use case facilitators in an open session where participants will discuss the relevance of the proposed KPIs for their companies and/or sectors, and the related measurement tools and data requirements. All collected data during the workshops will then be send to the related Work Package 1 and Task 1.3 Leader University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (UNIMORE) and processed within the framework of the PROSPECTS-5.0 project for scientific reasons, namely, to validate the preliminary Assessment Framework (AF) for Industry 5.0. The workshops are part of the validation process of the KPIs and measurement tools that will constitute the basis for the AF for Industry 5.0 that will be implemented during the project. The data collected may include: • Role of the participant within the company or within the local ecosystem. • Participant feedback on the assessment framework and specific KPIs and/or measurement tools. • Potential challenges or barriers to the implementation of the AF. • Suggestions for improvements. • Any other relevant information shared during the workshop sessions. The data collected will be used in anonymous and aggregate form, so as not to be able to trace the data of individual participants. The data collected will be used solely for the purpose of validating and improving the AF and for scientific publications. The information will help the project Consortium to better understand the needs and expectations of companies from different industrial sectors and enhance the effectiveness of the framework. All the data processing activities within the project will comply with the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR - EU 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016). The Consortium partners have jointly determined the purposes and means of processing personal data in accordance with Article 26 of the GDPR. All collected data will be securely stored in the project’s repository on Microsoft 365 SharePoint and shared between partners according to the stipulations outlined in the Data Management Plan (D6.13) signed by all PROSPECTS-5.0 partners, maintaining the highest degree of confidentiality. The Work package 1 Leader (UNIMORE), in collaboration with AETHON will ensure that: 1) We take the security of your personal data seriously and implement a variety of technical and organizational measures to protect it from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. These measures include: o Encryption: We use encryption to protect your data during transmission and storage. o Access controls: We limit access to your personal data to authorized personnel who need it to perform their job duties. Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 6 3 o Regular audits: We conduct regular security audits and assessments to identify and address potential vulnerabilities in our systems. o Secure data storage: We store your data in secure facilities with strict access controls and monitoring. 2) We will retain your personal data only for as long as necessary to fulfil the purposes for which it was collected, as outlined in this consent form, or as required by law. The criteria we use to determine the retention periods include: o Legal requirements: We retain personal data for the period required by applicable law. o Project needs: We retain personal data for as long as necessary to provide our services, maintain our project records, and manage our relationship with you. o Consent: We will retain your data until you withdraw your consent. Once the retention period of three years after the project’s lifespan expires, we will securely delete or anonymize your personal data to prevent unauthorized access or use. For any questions or to exercise the rights 1 that derive form the legislation in force about personal data protection, please contact the designated Data Controller: Rosanna Babagiannou (AETHON), via email at: [email protected] or telephone: +30 6982381165. Second contact person: 1 Rights of Data Subjects Under data protection law, GDPR, you have the following rights regarding your personal data: 1. Right to Access: You have the right to request access to the personal data we hold about you. This includes the right to obtain a copy of your data and information about how and why it is being processed. 2. Right to Rectification: If any of the personal data we hold about you is inaccurate or incomplete, you have the right to request that we correct or complete it. 3. Right to Erasure: You have the right to request that we delete your personal data under certain circumstances, such as when it is no longer needed for the purposes for which it was collected or if you withdraw your consent. 4. Right to Restrict Processing: In certain situations, you have the right to request that we restrict the processing of your personal data. This means we can store your data but not use it further. 5. Right to Data Portability: You have the right to request that we transfer your personal data to another organization, or directly to you, in a structured, commonly used, and machine-readable format. 6. Right to Object: You have the right to object to the processing of your personal data for specific purposes, such as direct marketing or processing based on our legitimate interests. 7. Right to Withdraw Consent: If we are processing your personal data based on your consent, you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. This will not affect the lawfulness of any processing carried out before you withdraw your consent. 8. Right to Lodge a Complaint: If you believe that we have not complied with your data protection rights, you have the right to lodge a complaint with the relevant supervisory authority. Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 6 4 Zeta Spyropoulou (AETHON), via email at: z.spyropou[email protected] or telephone: +30 6988069150. Participation in these workshops is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw your consent any time during the workshop or within a week after (without retroactive effect) by contacting the designated contact point. You may exercise the rights deriving from the GDPR anytime. Consent Statement  I hereby consent to the collection and processing of my data during the AF validation workshops and for three years after the end of the PROSPECTS-5.0 project for scientific analyses. I understand the purpose of the data collection and how it will be used. I acknowledge that my participation is voluntary and that I can withdraw my consent any time during the workshop or within a week after.  I consent to the audio recording of the workshop. Participant’s Name: Signature: Date: Deliverable 1.3 – ANNEX 6 5 Date(s) : --.--.---- Event title : I5.AF validation workshop with use case provider [---] Event Type : T1.3 - Co-creation & validation workshops Location, venue: : D1.3 Industry 5.0 Assessment Framework ANNEX 7: I5.AF Validation Workshop Reporting Tool 7 HUMAN CENTRICITY 1 ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT According to your impression, the discussion on the importance of this KPI was: 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely difficult Somewhat difficult Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat easy Extremely easy ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT Observations (relevant information emerged during the discussion) Page Break 8 HUMAN CENTRICITY 2 Does your company assess the EMPLOYEES' SATISFACTION RATES? HUMAN CENTRICITY 2 How would you rate the relevance of EMPLOYEES' SATISFACTION RATES for your company and/or the specific industrial sector? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important HUMAN CENTRICITY 2 Which measurement tool are you using/will you be using for the identified KPI? o annual employee satisfaction surveys o employee engagement or commitment surveys o employee net promoter score o pulse survey o exit survey o other (please specify) __________________________________________________ HUMAN CENTRICITY 2 Which data are required to calculate the EMPLOYEES' SATISFACTION RATES? o Survey reports o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ HUMAN CENTRICITY 2 Do you consider this KPI as a (allow multiple answers): o Strategic KPI o Tactical KPI o Operational KPI o Yes o No 9 HUMAN CENTRICITY 1 ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT According to your impression, the discussion on the importance of this KPI was: 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely difficult Somewhat difficult Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat easy Extremely easy ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT Observations (relevant information emerged during the discussion) Page Break 10 HUMAN CENTRICITY 3 Does your company offer TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES? HUMAN CENTRICITY 3 How would you rate the relevance of offering TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES for your company and/or the specific industrial sector? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important HUMAN CENTRICITY 3 Which measurement tool are you using/will you be using for the identified KPI? o Survey on training opportunities o Average hours of training per year per employee o Number of Programs for upgrading employee skills and transition assistance o Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews o Budget allocation report o HR reports o Training Impact Assessments o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ HUMAN CENTRICITY 3 Which data are required to calculate the efficacy of the TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES? o Survey reports o Data on the effectiveness of training programs o Number of training programs available for employees within a specific period o Number of trained employees in the last 12 months o Percentage of budget allocated for training and development o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ o Yes o No 11 HUMAN CENTRICITY 3 Do you consider this KPI as a (allow multiple answers): o Strategic KPI o Tactical KPI o Operational KPI HUMAN CENTRICITY 3 ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT According to your impression, the discussion on the importance of this KPI was: 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely difficult Somewhat difficult Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat easy Extremely easy ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT Observations (relevant information emerged during the discussion) Page Break 12 HUMAN CENTRICITY 4 Does your company assess the WORK-LIFE BALANCE SATISFACTION? HUMAN CENTRICITY 4 How would you rate the relevance of measuring WORK-LIFE BALANCE SATISFACTION for your company and/or the specific industrial sector? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important HUMAN CENTRICITY 4 Which measurement tool are you using/will you be using for the identified KPI? o Survey Work-Life Balance scale (WLB). o Life Satisfaction Survey. o Average number of hours worked per week. o Utilization rate/implementation records of work life balance programs (like flexible work options). o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ HUMAN CENTRICITY 4 Which data are required to calculate the efficacy of the WORK-LIFE BALANCE SATISFACTION? o Surveys’ responses and data analysis. o Number of participants. o Demographic information (age, gender, department, job level). o Data on the implementation and availability of flexibility options, work time reduction initiatives, and family conciliation programs. o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ HUMAN CENTRICITY 4 Do you consider this KPI as a (allow multiple answers): o Strategic KPI o Tactical KPI o Operational KPI o Yes o No 13 HUMAN CENTRICITY4 ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT According to your impression, the discussion on the importance of this KPI was: 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely difficult Somewhat difficult Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat easy Extremely easy ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT Observations (relevant information emerged during the discussion) Page Break 14 HUMAN CENTRICITY 5 Does your company assess the NUMBER OF WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS /INCIDENTS? HUMAN CENTRICITY 5 How would you rate the relevance of measuring the NUMBER OF WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS /INCIDENTS for your company and/or the specific industrial sector? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important HUMAN CENTRICITY 5 Which measurement tool are you using/will you be using for the identified KPI? o Incident reports: data from workplace incident reports. o Automated logs: Data from robots, IoT devices, and other automated systems. o Safety inspection reports: reports from regular safety inspections and audits. o Employee reports: incidents reported by employees, especially those involving human-robot interactions. o Other (please specify) HUMAN CENTRICITY 5 Which data are required to calculate the NUMBER OF WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS /INCIDENTS? o Number and type of accidents/incidents (resulted in injury) in a specific period of time. o Number and type of accidents/incidents (all reported incidents, near misses, incidents involving robots, cyber-physical systems, human errors) in a specific period of time. o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ HUMAN CENTRICITY 5 Do you consider this KPI as a (allow multiple answers): o Strategic KPI o Tactical KPI o Operational KPI o Yes o No 15 HUMAN CENTRICITY 5 ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT According to your impression, the discussion on the importance of this KPI was: 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely difficult Somewhat difficult Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat easy Extremely easy ONLY FOR MODERATOR/ASSISTANT Observations (relevant information emerged during the discussion) Page Break 16 HUMAN CENTRICITY 6 Does your company assess the EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELLNESS? HUMAN CENTRICITY 6 How would you rate the relevance of measuring the EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELLNESS for your company and/or the specific industrial sector? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important HUMAN CENTRICITY 6 Which measurement tool are you using/will you be using for the identified KPI? o Regular health screenings reports. o Wearables and IoT devices to monitoring physical activities. o Wearables and AI-based tools to monitor stress levels. o Mental health resources and counseling sessions reports. o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ HUMAN CENTRICITY 6 Which data are required to calculate the EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELLNESS? o Data from wearable devices and IoT sensors to gather data on physical activities, heart rate, sleep patterns, etc. o Data from regular surveys. o Feedback sessions to assess mental health. o Other (please specify) __________________________________________________ o Yes o No