HOLiFOOD Living Lab Guidelines (D4.1)

D4.1 HOLiFOOD Living Lab Guidelines Sara Gentilini (APRE), Giulia Pietrollini (APRE), Alessia Careccia (APRE), Margreet van der Burg (WU) 26/09/2024 (revised version) Ref. Ares(2024)6839675 - 27/09/2024 1 Deliverable 4.1 Deliverable 4.1 HOLiFOOD Living Lab Guidelines D4.1 31/03/2023 Public 4 2.3 Document ID Due date Submission date Dissemination level Work Package Document Version Author(s) 24/05/2023 26/09/2024 (revised version) Sara Gentilini (APRE) Giulia Pietrollini (APRE) Alessia Careccia (APRE) Margreet van der Burg (WU) 101059813 October 2022 48 months September 2026 Grant Agreement Start Date Duration End Date 2 Deliverable 4.1 Contributors Name Organisation Sara Gentilini APRE Claudia Iasillo APRE Maria Scherbov EUFIC Marie-Catherine Wagner UNIVIE Yamine Bouzembrak/Wenjuan Mu/Ine van der FelsKlerx WR Giulia Pietrollini APRE Alessia Careccia APRE Margreet van der Burg WU Revision history Version Date Author(s) Reviewer(s) Modifications 0.1 18/03/23 Sara Gentilini Claudia Iasillo First draft 0.2 28/03/23 Sara Gentilini EUFIC UNIVE Formatting issues and comments from the Project Legal Helpdesk regarding GDPR. 1.0 31/03/2023 Sara Gentilini Yamine Bouzembrak/Wenjuan Mi Final version submitted 2.0 16/05/2023 Sara Gentilini Claudia Iasillo, APRE UNIVIE Updated version after the LL training 2.1 24/05/2023 Sara Gentilini Ine van der Fels-Klerx, WR Updated version after the LL training, checked and corrected 2.2 04/09/2024 Giulia Pietrollini, Alessia Careccia Ine van der Fels-Klerx, WR Updated version after reporting period 1 2.3 26/09/2024 Margreet van der Burg, Alessia Careccia Cleaned version focused on inclusive cocreation approaches and tools, including gender+ dimension 3 Deliverable 4.1 Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained herein. 4 Deliverable 4.1 Contents Contributors ........................................................................................................................... 2 Revision history ...................................................................................................................... 2 Contents ................................................................................................................................. 4 Index of tables ........................................................................................................................ 5 Index of figures ...................................................................................................................... 5 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. HOLiFOOD ................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. Introduction to this document .................................................................................................................... 8 1.3. Purpose and set-up of the document ......................................................................................................... 9 2. Multi-actor approach through Living Labs ................................................................. 10 2.1. Multi-actor approach with all stakeholders .............................................................................................. 10 2.2. Living Labs: Overview and changing principles ......................................................................................... 10 2.3. Levels of participation in Living Labs ......................................................................................................... 13 2.4. Examples of LLs in the Food domain ......................................................................................................... 14 3. Living Labs in HOLiFOOD ............................................................................................. 17 3.1. Roles and responsibilities in HOLiFOOD LLs .............................................................................................. 17 3.2. Timing and activities ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.3. Legal Compliance ...................................................................................................................................... 20 4. Tools and methodologies in Living Labs .................................................................... 23 4.1. Stakeholder selection ............................................................................................................................... 23 4.2. Interactive learning and inclusive leadership styles ................................................................................. 23 4.3. Recommended tools ................................................................................................................................. 25 4.4. Reporting, analysis and feedback ............................................................................................................. 30 5. Learning Labs training for LL Managers and Facilitators ......................................... 31 5.1. Set-up of training ...................................................................................................................................... 31 5.2. Identification of LL topics and connections .............................................................................................. 31 5.3. Stakeholder identification ......................................................................................................................... 34 References ............................................................................................................................ 38 Annex A. Reporting Template .................................................................................................. 42 5 Deliverable 4.1 Index of tables Table 1 - HOLiFOOD virtual Living Labs roles .................................................................................... 18 Index of figures Figure 1 - A visual representation of the Living Lab process. Source: Vicini et al., 2012 ............. 12 Figure 2 - Connection between stakeholders’ groupsrisks and FSOLab ................................... 15 Figure 3 - Food Safety Operational Lab-Methodological Approach ............................................. 15 Figure 4 - Source: New Zealand Diversity Institute ....................................................................... 25 Figure 5 - Source: New Zealand Instutite for Diversity and Well-Being ........................................ 25 Figure 6 - LL1 - MIRO Board interaction .......................................................................................... 32 Figure 7 - LL2 - MIRO Board interaction .......................................................................................... 33 Figure 8 - LL3 - MIRO board interaction .......................................................................................... 34 Figure 9 - LL1 - Result of the stakeholders mapping ...................................................................... 35 Figure 10 - LL2 - Result of the stakeholders mapping.................................................................... 36 Figure 11 - LL3 - Result of the stakeholders mapping .................................................................... 37 6 Deliverable 4.1 Executive summary The current document, titled HOLiFOOD Living Labs Guidelines, has been developed within the framework of the HOLiFOOD project which is funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 101059813. The purpose of this document is to support the project team of HOLiFOOD in the setting up of three Living Labs (LLs) and related activities characterized by a participatory approach. The objective of the document is to support the implementation and development of participative and open research approaches, offering solid guidelines to a successful preparation, facilitation, analysis and evaluation of participative events. The intention is to allow partners to use the “Living Lab” approach as an opportunity for co-creation of new knowledge, considering the planning of these engagement opportunities in their full potential. The document presents the overall concept and approach of Living Labs (LLs) in chapter 2 and provides in chapter 3 a comprehensive overview of their application in HOLiFOOD, including the legal compliance to be reckoned with. Chapter 4 provides methodological guidelines and tools for their implementation within the HOLiFOOD project, the reporting, analysis and feedback afterwards. The last chapter 5 reports about the training for the LL Managers and Facilitators. More specifically, the document describes the Living Labs setting as a fruitful environment to address complex food safety-related topics on a systemic level, as it allows to fill data gaps and develop, demonstrate and test in co-creation forms new tools, models and approaches. It explains the rationale behind the use of multi-actor approach in HOLiFOOD and its potential to improve the dialogue between science and society. After identifying the key principles for delivering successful engagement of projects’ relevant actors, the document explores how the development of products and services can be guided by, for and/or with end-users and those who will be impacted by design. It then analyses the process of stakeholders mapping and stakeholders selection and the concept of engagement plan strategy. It underlines the importance of reaching inclusive participation to maximize gender representation per stakeholder group and highlights that LL Managers and Facilitators should act as inclusive leaders, ensuring that a diversity of employees/participants feel included and that their perspectives improve an organisation/project's strategy, work, and values for success. The document then recommends some tools that can be concretely used in the different Living Labs phases and explains how within HOLiFOOD, LL Managers and facilitators have been trained on the LL process, objectives and organizational aspects. 7 Deliverable 4.1 1. Introduction 1.1. HOLiFOOD The overall objective of HOLiFOOD is to improve the integrated food safety risk analysis (RA) framework in Europe to i) meet future challenges arising from Green Deal policy driven transitions, in particular in relation to climate driven changes, ii) contribute to the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, and iii) support the realization of a truly safe, secure and sustainable food production. HOLiFOOD will apply a system approach, considering the whole environment in which food is being produced, including economic, environmental, and social aspects. Its focus is on three supply chains (i.e., cereals [maize], legumes [lentils] and poultry [chicken]) as case studies. HOLiFOOD acknowledges that the complexity of the challenges requires common, shared and multiactor actions within Research and Innovation. To unlock the potential of R&I and to deal with the complex linkages within the food systems, the overall R&I landscape should be “inclusive, transparent, intersectoral, multi-stakeholder, multi-factorial, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary” (den Boer et al., 2022). However, at present, the R&I scenario is lacking comprehensive engagement with wide parts of the food system, while more often compartmentalized approaches have been adopted, contributing to solutions within specific food sectors. This can result in undesired and unintended consequences of the implementation of (socio-technical) innovations (Baungaard et al., 2021). HOLiFOOD is eager to use the multi-actor or stakeholder approach by working through Living Labs (LLs) to ensure the voices and ideas of end-users and who will be affected are included and to optimally prevent final products or services fail or create undesired and unintended impacts. In HOLiFOOD, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and big data technologies will be used in the development of early warning and emerging risks prediction systems for known and unknown food safety hazards. In addition, tools, methods and approaches will be developed for hazard detection, which will be targeted and nontargeted, as well as new holistic risk assessment methods which embed food safety risk in a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the food system while including positive and negative health, environment and economic dimensions. As result, an effective impact pathway will be developed to implement the HOLiFOOD outputs integratively into the legal framework associated with the food risk analysis process. The elaboration of the impact pathway will be supported by an electronic data and knowledge sharing platform aiming at the full digitalization of food (safety) systems and supporting an inclusive approach on transparency and impact for all stakeholders. To align with stakeholder priorities, preferences and user requirements, the HOLiFOOD innovations will be designed and tested following an inclusive multi-actor approach (i.e., Living Labs) which involves all relevant stakeholders (e.g. authorities, food producers and citizens) with specific attention for inclusion of historically not well represented groups, e.g. of women, esp. women farmers and consumers, and of relevant minorities. 8 Deliverable 4.1 1.2. Introduction to this document The presented Deliverable 4.1 “Living Labs Guidelines” relates to WP4: “Stakeholder engagement and codesign in living labs.”, led by APRE and running from M1-M48. This deliverable 4.1 is the specific outcome of Task 4.1.: “Setting up the HOLiFOOD Living Labs" which involves the following partners: WR, UNEW, AGROKNOW, DIA, UVMB and is running from M1 to M8. The Work Package 4 has the goal to bridge the gap between research and practice by facilitating discussions among the stakeholders, including researchers, while systemically integrating the Multi Actor Approach (MAA) into all HOLiFOOD activities. The HOLiFOOD innovations will be designed and tested by using a multi actor approach with all stakeholders and their representatives (e.g., authorities, food producers and citizens). Appropriate co-creation methodologies have been systematically integrated into all HOLiFOOD activities, for example through application of Living Labs (LL), citizen science and crowd sourcing. The involvement of stakeholders has great relevance to the overall project development: the project recognizes the multiple stakeholder and food system perspectives as the best approach to providing well-supported and feasible, thus well thought-through and effective solutions to the complexity of challenges connected with risks within the food sector. Integration of interdisciplinary expert knowledge into system design and impact pathways will ensure that activities align with societal needs, and will be rapidly adopted within end-user communities. Work Package 4 will establish three virtual HOLiFOOD Living Labs (LLs), with a focus on the following priorities within the HOLiFOOD project and corresponding with tasks under other Work Packages: 1) Identification and monitoring of food safety risks: to support the identification, development, testing and optimizing tools, models and approaches (WP1). 2) Holistic risk assessment and acceptance: eliciting priorities concerning identified and detected gaps in available data, and filling data gaps for risk assessment and acceptance (WP3-WP5). 3) Platform co-design: to support the interaction on WP6 platform in order to understand what the stakeholders need and the improvement of tools in real scenarios (WP6). The series of Workshops will follow the innovation development phases approach (see also 3.1) which are all led by the co-creation principle: ▪ The first round of Workshops, the “Exploration” phase (organized on site) focuses on the prioritysetting of each lab as a basis to the set-up of an action plan. ▪ The second round of Workshops, the “Experimentation” phase (organized online) comprises two workshops; one to discuss and verify the action plan, and one to evaluate mid-term results. ▪ The third round of Workshops, the “Evaluation” phase (organized on site) evaluates the output of the lab process and develop recommendations for further exploitation. For each of the three established LLs, the project partners appointed one Manager and one Facilitator. Each LL will run a series of 4 workshops (12 in total) involving 5/6 participants from the HOLiFOOD consortium + 9/10 external stakeholders. To ensure the successful implementation of the 12 workshops, 15 Deliverable 4.1 Figure 2 - Connection between stakeholders’ groupsrisks and FSOLab The methodological approach entailed three Learning cycles: • Learning cycle 1: Identifying, selecting pilot ideas and actions. Pilots have been identified. • Learning cycle 2: Discussing, improving, and adapting pilot actions and addressing global challenges. In between Cycle 2 and 3, the pilots have been performed. • Learning cycle 3: Evaluating pilot actions, options for development, exploitation, and recommendations. Figure 3 - Food Safety Operational Lab-Methodological Approach Cycle one was characterized by stakeholders co-creation (Figure 3): participants with different backgrounds were involved (1/3 science, 1/3 Ngo-Industries). This is a group that is expected to be extended along the time due to connections between personal networks and turnovers. Lots of different emerging risks were collaboratively collected, and participants were scoring the emerging risks depending on their personal experience. The FoodSafety4EU experience´s feedback suggested to start the training with a start-up workshop to introduce the methodology and the topics upfront plus support participants to get to know each other. This “workshop 0” lasted 4 hours, pre-defined data were collected to start the discussion and saving time. Questions and answers were also collected among the participants. Data were aggregated in a table while taking into consideration the feedback in data that were gathered and displayed in the MIRO boards through co-creation activities. The resulting table appeared useful as a checking point for 16 Deliverable 4.1 participants and as a starting point for the following workshop. The multi-stakeholders approach gave different answers for solving issue dependent on the stakeholder group: scientist, policy makers, citizens. The participants were asked about their experience and the majority agreed that the Living Lab was a good experience for exchanging ideas among different actors. The Living Lab was considered as a “feasibility” check for scientists through which they got the opportunity to interact with politicians, and have quick access to networks. Very important feedback came from the final round table, which underlined the existence of already defined answers from the scientist community, which are not always translated into concrete applied policies and often known by citizens. 17 Deliverable 4.1 3. Living Labs in HOLiFOOD The emerging food safety issues require a wide diversity of food system actors working together, avoiding the traditional top-down approach (from the researcher to the users) (EIP-AGRI, 2017). To achieve this, a structured co-design model, defined as a "transparent process of value creation in ongoing, productive collaboration with, and supported by all relevant parties, with end-users playing a central role and covering all stages of a development process”, is needed (Jansen &Pieters, 2017). Starting from these specific needs and challenges, the Living Labs setting offers a fruitful environment to address complex food safety-related topics on a systemic level: innovative solutions, new technologies and experiences. The establishment of LLs where data gaps can be filled and new tools, models and approaches can be developed, demonstrated and tested in co-creation forms the starting point and foundation of the HOLiFOOD partnership. The multi-actor approach allows in fact to focus on real problems or opportunities and to engage endusers, in this case within the food sector, whose active participation can be a strong contribution for researchers. It follows the definition of Living Labs (LLs) as user-centered, open innovation ecosystems based on systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in arenas where both open innovation and user innovation processes can be studied. In line with the European Network for Living Labs, HOLiFOOD takes LLs as intermediaries among the so-called quadruple Helix (Civil society, Public Administration, Business and Research & Education) for joint value co-creation and validation. LLs are seen as acting as ‘brokers’ between citizens and organizations (academia, local government, private companies etc.), ensuring that each participant is able to contribute its knowledge and experience. 3.1. Roles and responsibilities in HOLiFOOD LLs The HOLiFOOD project, within WP4, will set up 3 virtual Living Labs, for addressing the following priorities addressed within HOLiFOOD project and corresponding Work Packages: • HOLiFOOD LL1: Identification and monitoring of food safety risks: to test and optimize tools, models and approaches developed (WP1); • HOLiFOOD LL2: Holistic risk assessment and acceptance: eliciting priorities and filling data gaps for risk assessment (WP3); • HOLiFOOD LL3: Platform co-design: to support the interaction on WP6 platform in order to understand what the stakeholders need and the improvement of tools in real scenarios (WP6). In Task 4.1 (M1-M8), the project consortium will set up the Living Labs. Each Lab will appoint at least one Lab Manager and one Lab Facilitator, sharing the responsibilities related to the coordination of the activities and ensuring the effective exchange of knowledge among LLs participants. 18 Deliverable 4.1 Living Lab Managers Each LL is managed by at least one LL Manager who will be responsible for putting together the LL team and stakeholder group under the guidance of the APRE and the LLs guidelines, and for running the workshops. The LL Managers will be responsible for the alignment of workshops outcomes to the project (and Work Packages) objectives and will provide information for dissemination of results. The LL Managers will also connect with the other LLs to align the activities in the overall context of the HOLiFOOD project. The LL managers organize the workshops (online and in presence), set up the dates, and inform and invite the participants. In close collaboration with the LL Facilitator, each LL Manager prepares the (virtual) rooms and all materials or additional tools as required. LL Managers are responsible for documenting the workshops and lab activities, including ensuring that reporting templates are filled in and sent in due time. Living Lab Facilitator The Lab Facilitators are responsible for facilitating the exchange within the Lab and the workshops. During the workshops they communicate the rules and foster team building, they are neutral to the discussion, and they do not contribute to the technical/scientific content of the discussion. Their responsibility is to steer the discussion among participants and make sure that all voices are heard, and no one is left behind. They support the Lab Managers in the preparation of the workshops and they contribute to the documentation and reporting of workshop results, according to the current guidelines. The facilitator should act as an active listener, checking the message is conveyed to the whole group by summarizing the discussion or clarifying details. At the same time, in the group management, the facilitator should support the group to not lose track of the topic discussed, to steer the process as planned (keeping the schedule is important) and to make sure that all participants are actively involved. Table 1 summarizes roles in the three virtual HOLiFOOD Living Labs. Living Lab Lab Manager Lab Facilitator HOLiFOOD LL1: Identification and monitoring of food safety risks: to test and optimize tools, models and approaches developed (WP1) WR UNEW HOLiFOOD LL2: Holistic risk assessment and acceptance: eliciting priorities and filling data gaps for risk assessment (WP3) INRAE UNEW HOLiFOOD LL3: Platform co-design: to support the interaction on WP6 platform to understand what the stakeholders need and the improvement of tools in real scenarios (WP6). AGROKNOW EUFIC Table 1 - HOLiFOOD virtual Living Labs roles 19 Deliverable 4.1 Living Lab members The LL participants will represent in a balanced way the actors operating in the food safety risk sector (research, laboratories, food safety services, consumers, industry and farmers associations, communicators, etc), including at least one representative from risk assessors and/or risk managers and at least one representative of HOLiFOOD value chains (i.e., cereals, legumes and poultry). Representatives of other EU-funded food safety risk assessment projects and initiatives (e.g., FoodSafety4EU, EIP-AGRI, EEN, etc) will be invited. Each LL will be composed of 5/6 HOLiFOOD consortium members and 9/10 external stakeholders. EU policymakers and experts from EFSA will be invited to support the process, when needed and relevant. Depending on the timing of the different activities in the context of the LL, specific members can be invited to participate to the process or to specific workshops. The LL members will be selected according to the stakeholder mapping exercise (see section 4.1 on stakeholders’ selection). The Lab members are supposed to be (and feel) part of a team. Therefore, beyond the team composition, team building activities to support this process are extremely important. In the team development, the following stages should be considered (Tuckman,1965): 1) Forming, the team starts to work together and establish the ground rules. Formality is still in place and group members still feel as strangers. 2) Storming, members start to communicate and exchange views, but they still consider themselves as individual and not part of a team. There may be resistance to group control and/or leadership. 3) Norming, members start feeling part of the group and accept other points of view. 4) Performing, the team works in a trusting atmosphere. 5) Adjourning, the team assess the work done to fine-tune the work performed. Roles and members contribute are considered. The LL management team (including the facilitator) should facilitate this process through team building activities (e.g., planning ice-breakers exercise to get the participants more comfortable with each other or planning informal encounters among the lab participants). Clear communication and transparency on goals, requests and limitations of the labs will foster the building of trust towards the process as well as its living lab team. 3.2. Timing and activities Each LL will run 4 workshops, as per T4.2, following the “innovation development” phases approach: a. Exploration, consisting of 1 workshop for each LL, preferably as F2F event, planned by M12. The focus is on the priority-setting within each LL as basis for the set-up of an action plan for the LL activity. b. Experimentation, consisting of 2 online workshops for each LL, planned by M24 and M34. In these workshops, the action plan will be discussed and verified, and the mid-term results will be monitored and evaluated. 20 Deliverable 4.1 c. Evaluation, consisting of 1 workshop for each LL, preferably as F2F event, planned by M44. The focus will be on one side the evaluation of the outputs of the LL and, on the other side, the discussion on further exploitation of the activities. While the three Living Labs will follow the same structure of the workshops as detailed above, the detailed program of each workshop will be adapted according to the topic and the needs of the labs, taking emerging information and unexpected events into account. 3.3. Legal Compliance The following section outlines fundamental legal and ethical issues for the execution of Living Labs. 3.3.1. Personal data requirements Whenever personal data or information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person is processed 1 , special care must be taken and compliance with the GDPR is mandatory. In order to execute the LL, it is foreseen that the following personal data of stakeholders will be processed: • Names • Contact details. • Organization’s • Roles and Job titles • Geolocation data • Demographic information (such as gender, age) At this stage, the collection and processing of special categories of personal data is not intended. According to Article 9 of the GDPR, special categories of personal data include racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, genetic data, biometric data, data concerning health and data concerning sex life of sexual orientation. The processing of these categories of data is strictly prohibited unless one of the grounds listed in Article 9(2) is applicable. However, the requirements outline in Article 9 are not currently applicable, as special categories of personal data will not be processed in the context of the LL. 1 ‘Processing of personal data’ means any operation (or set of operations) performed on personal data, either manually or by automatic means such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure, or destruction (Art 4(2) GDPR). 21 Deliverable 4.1 3.3.2. Legal basis through informed consent In the LLs external parties, stakeholders, will participate in the research of HOLiFOOD. Consent according to Article 6(1)(a) GDPR is the legal basis. The processing of personal data is lawful when it is based on a legal basis outlined in Article 6 of the GDPR 2 . Processing in the context of the LLs will be based on the informed consent of the data subjects 3 . Informed consent is an essential building block of research ethics and data protection law. The HOLiFOOD consortium acknowledges these requirements. As outlined in the DMP (D8.1), all external stakeholders will be asked for their consent to participate in the research project and for the processing of their personal data. Before involving participants in the research project, we will provide them with an explanation of the research purpose, the extent of their involvement, any potential risks involved, and all information required by the GDPR. Once participants have received and understood all these information, we will ask for their explicit consent to include them in the research project, as outlined in Articles 4(11) and 7 of the GDPR 4 . HOLiFOOD will provide information sheets to partners with clear information about the project as well as the involvement of the stakeholders in the project and the processing of any personal data. In accordance with the GDPR, participants will be informed in clear language of the purpose and means of processing of their data, and of their rights, including their right to withdraw their consent at any time. This consent will cover the lifetime of the project and will allow for stakeholders to participate in multiple calls and workshop organised by the HOLiFOOD Consortium. A single consent request will ensure that all legal requirements are met without overburdening stakeholders. However, a high level of protection of stakeholder’s personal data will be secured. Once the consent is given, only joint controllers (see below) will have access to the personal data of stakeholders. The informed consent will be sought via electronic means through the HOLiFOOD website. This is in line with recital 32 of the GDPR, which clearly states that a consent can be given also by electronic means. This will also be reflected in the privacy policy available on the HOLiFOOD website. The correct execution of the consent collection will be monitored by the legal partner UNIVIE. The informed consent will be attached to D8.2 ‘Initial Legal and Ethical Framework’ (due in M12). 2 Article 6(1), GDPR. 3 Article 6(1)(a), GDPR. 4 European Commission, Horizon Europe, Ethics, and data protection 22 Deliverable 4.1 3.3.3. Data protection roles When processing personal data, it is of utmost importance to evaluate the roles of the partners involved. Article 13(1) (a) GDPR requires that the identity and contact details of the data controller, data processor and their representatives should be provided to the data subjects whenever personal data is processed. According to Article 4(7) GDPR, a controller is a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, who determines the purpose and means of the processing of personal data. Whereas a data processor is a natural or legal person who processes personal data on behalf of the data controller. Generally, each HOLiFOOD partner is considered as controller of their own data. This means that each consortium partner determines the purpose and means of their processing activities. However, for the involvement of external stakeholders, several partners of the HOLiFOOD consortium will work closely together. All partners involving extern stakeholders will be considered as joint controllers (including LL managers and LL facilitators) for processing the personal data of stakeholders. Before any processing of personal data occurs, relevant partners will agree on a joint controllership arrangement in accordance with Article 26 GDPR. This arrangement will include information on exercising the rights of the data subject and the respective duties to provide information in accordance with Article 13. The arrangement will also designate a main contact point for data subjects. UNIVIE will assist partners in drafting this arrangement. The contents will be provided in D8.2 ‘Initial Legal and Ethical Framework’ (due in M12) 5 . 5 Article 4(8) GDPR 23 Deliverable 4.1 4. Tools and methodologies in Living Labs 4.1. Stakeholder selection ▪ Stakeholder mapping Stakeholder mapping is the first step to identify which stakeholders to engage in the Living Labs. It consists of a visual process to list all potential stakeholders of a product/ project/ organisation/ field on a sheet as map. The visualisation of potential stakeholders helps to concretely see all the relevant people who can be affected or impacted. In a second step, the map can be used to mark how they are interlinked. For this, the single stakeholders are grouped to identify diverse relationships and identify key types of groups and relationships. Additionally, to secure inclusivity, people who might have high interest, but historically low influence are identified in the map. ▪ Stakeholder selection and engagement plan strategy The selection of stakeholders then will be based on specific rules, that ensure that all groups of interest and influence are invited and have a voice in the LL process. For instance, in HOLiFOOD each LL should be composed of: actors operating in the food safety risk sector (research, laboratories, FS services, consumers’ associations, industry and farmers associations, communicators), representatives from risk assessors and/or risk managers, representatives of each HOLiFOOD value chain, as well as representatives of funded projects and existing initiatives in the field of food safety. To reach inclusive participation it is important to maximize gender representation per stakeholder group, and especially for citizen groups as research has shown that men and women are likely to have diverse opinions, perspectives and think of other ranges of solutions as they come with gendered experiences and positions in society. The same needs to be checked for other social dimensions that can be important to make a difference for key stakeholder groups, such as age/generation, wealth/class, religion, locality (country, urban/rural) or civic and health status. We call this a gender+ or intersectional gender approach. The rules to be used can be explored before and again adjusted after a first round of selection by using a stakeholder engagement plan strategy. This help list how various stakeholders can be included in the various stages by explicating their spheres of interest and influence, the frequency of contact, purpose of communication, communication strategy and tools. Examples of templates for drafting a stakeholder engagement plan strategy can be easily found on the internet. 4.2. Interactive learning and inclusive leadership styles Once the main stakeholders to be involved have been selected, it is necessary to identify the tools and methodologies that best fit the Living Lab objective and hence, those ones that can ensure an effective involvement of users. 24 Deliverable 4.1 ▪ Interactive learning Learning is essential in Living Labs. The selection of methodologies and tools take good example of practices of interactive learning and the Reflexive Monitoring in Action approach developed by Van Mierlo with colleagues as reported about in a WUR news item. This approach serves to monitor the learning process within a Living Lab. They formulated 5 requirements what all participants should share to run a successful LL: 1. All participants are willing to invest energy in achieving a collective goal with others; 2. They believe that reflecting on issues and options together is useful; 3. They seek solutions for the obstacles they encounter within themselves or the dominant system through a step-by-step approach; 4. They develop a form of systems thinking. What influences and systemic rules are there, how are they connected, and how much room is there for innovation? 5. They are adaptive, have adaptive capacities and seize opportunities as they present themselves; 6. They are able to handle uncertainty. The outcome is not fixed. The participants must explore and test without a structured plan; the group is their footing, and the process is a future possibility; 7. They reflect on technical, social and institutional innovations. Not a narrow focus on technology but also other wider rules, values and processes. ▪ Inclusive leadership styles For LL Managers and Facilitators practicing such interactive learning attitude it is required and implies they perform their tasks as inclusive leaders and select / elaborate tools and methodologies in line with this. Inclusive leadership refers to capabilities (i.e. mindsets, knowledge, skills and behaviours) that ensure a diversity of employees/participants feel included and that their perspectives improve an organisation/project's strategy, work, and values for success. Inclusive leadership styles are largely presented and generally present as representing 6 core competencies: 1. COMMITMENT: it all starts with commitment, because staying the course is hard. 2. COURAGE: is about courage to be humble and vulnerable, and to admit not being as inclusive as could be. 3. COGNISANCE OF BIAS: is about leaders who are deeply aware of their blind spots. 4. CURIOSITY: deeply curious about other people’s points of views. 5. CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE: deeply motivated to understand other cultures you interact with. 6. COLLABORATION: how do you get a team of different people to be better than they are, because a diverse-thinking team is greater than the sum of its parts. The New Zealand Diversity Institute drafted which intelligences interact to achieve such a style (Figure 4): 31 Deliverable 4.1 5. Learning Labs training for LL Managers and Facilitators 5.1. Set-up of training In the frame of the project, an online Learning Lab training for Living Lab Managers and Facilitators was organized, which took place 28 April 2023, at the presence of 17 participants (project team members). The agenda of the training includes the following themes: • Provide an overview of the Living Lab HOLiFOOD Guidelines (D4.1, first version). • Introduction to the concept of Living Labs. • How Living Labs can contribute to scientific research. • The role of Living Labs within HOLiFOOD. • HOLiFOOD consortium and GDPR issues in relation with stakeholders' engagement. • Stakeholders map co-creation activities For the LL training, questions were prepared, as well as exercises on the MIRO board. Three working boards were made, each of them related to the three LLs, and the participants were asked to cooperate with ideas and inputs using the MIRO boards. These three Living Labs in HOLiFOOD are related to main research fields and Work Packages: • LL1: Identification and monitoring of food safety risk: to develop, test and optimize tools, models and approaches. • LL2: Holistic risk assessment and acceptance: eliciting priorities and filling data gaps for risk assessment • LL3: Platform co-design 5.2. Identification of LL topics and connections Two main questions were asked in each working board: • Which topics could be address within the LL? • How can the LL contribute to the other LLs? Participants were asked to use 20 minutes for interactions. All the following results must be considered exemplificative of the overall preliminary discussions and not as project results. Figures 6-7-8 show the inception of the co-creative ongoing process. The manager of the LL1 presented to the audience the following identified topics to be addressed: • Feedback to/suggestions for risks, drivers, and indicators to be gathered within WP1 & 5. • Incorporation of citizen science. • Gather information on data sources that stakeholders manage or are aware of. • Discuss practicality and feasibility of proposed models and approaches. 32 Deliverable 4.1 • Define networks that could be accessed for future participatory risk assessments. • Primary drivers of perceived risks. • Interaction with authorities and other projects. • Crowdsourcing as an identifier. • Do we include perceived risks and trends? The participants identified as common possible threats a low participation of citizens, industries, NGOs, due to their involvement in many similar co-creation initiatives; in addition to this, stakeholder fatigue was identified as a possible threat. A lack of involvement would be problematic; if a proper strategy cannot be put in place, measures need to be taken. Figure 6 - LL1 - MIRO Board interaction At the moment of the training, the setting up for LL2 had just started. The identified topics to be addressed were the following: • Weights given to all dimensions assessed. • How to deal with uncertainty. • Scope of each case-study, e.g., current scenario and alternatives ones. • How to report results from holistic assessment. • Questions around scaling and timing of various dimensions (midpoints) assessed. • How to avoid risks related to misinformation in context of scientific uncertainty. • What are societal priorities? 33 Deliverable 4.1 The LL1 collected preliminary feedbacks will provide inputs to support the LL2 in shaping the assessment phase (Hazard identification, risk prioritization, etc), while the report from LL2 will support the development of LL3. Figure 7 - LL2 - MIRO Board interaction The LL3 group is assigned to the design of a specific dashboard for support of food companies. The first step regarding the setting up of the platform will be organizing interviews to actors applying AI models for risk identification. Then, quantitative data will be collected, and focused on the detection of contaminants through biosensors. Based on the collected results the dashboard will be set up. The platform will be used by food companies for collecting feedbacks and evaluation, with involvement of regulatory stakeholders. This feedback will support the development of both LL1 and LL2. During the training the following topics have been detected: • ΑΙ models for risk identification. • Detection of contaminants by devices (biosensors etc). • Food companies which will use decision support dashboard. • Regulatory stakeholders interested in decision support dashboard. • Alignment with previous platform designed (e.g. for EFSA). • Platform design and user experience. 34 Deliverable 4.1 The support from LL3 focuses on providing inputs and data for LL1 and LL2. Figure 8 - LL3 - MIRO board interaction 5.3. Stakeholder identification As the second part of the exercise, the participants were asked to contribute to the second exercise regarding stakeholders’ identification and identified possible “change agents” par each LL. Stakeholders were divided into internal and external groups depending on their belonging to project consortium. The participants were asked to include the stakeholder’s category. Then, they would need to be classified by the level of knowledge in connection to the project themes. Their influence level was also asked. The identification of stakeholder and their classification by levels of influence is indeed preliminary and iterative, which is aimed to be modified along the project development in relation with the specific topics addressed. ▪ LL1 results ( Figure 9 ) As external stakeholders were listed • National food safety authorities • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) • National authorities (policy makers) • Consumer organizations, considered to have good knowledge and high influence. • Retailers/Food Industry • Media 35 Deliverable 4.1 • European Commission, very knowledgeable and influential. As internal stakeholders were listed • Food safety scientists (academic/research institutes) • Technical analytical experts Figure 9 - LL1 - Result of the stakeholders mapping ▪ LL2 Results (Figure 10) As external stakeholders were listed • National food safety authorities • EFSA • FAO as they have experience of holistic assessment and management. • Industrial association? Not sure (to be decided) • Partners from Food safety agencies not involved in WP3. As internal stakeholders were listed • Food safety scientists (academic/research institutes) • Technical analytical experts • Regulators 36 Deliverable 4.1 Figure 10 - LL2 - Result of the stakeholders mapping ▪ LL3 Results (Figure 11) As external stakeholders were listed • AI researchers • Food scientists • Food companies • Regulators As internal stakeholders were listed • Platform developers • Food safety scientists 37 Deliverable 4.1 Figure 11 - LL3 - Result of the stakeholders mapping The participants of the LL training were very positive, and several advantages have been identified: • Common dialogue on the topic to be addressed by each LL • Common discussion around the identification of stakeholders • Dialogue about their level of influence and their role in the project • Discussion on possible interactions within different Labs The Miro boards used for the exercise have been let open for interactions and further ideas and contributions by the LLs participants. 38 Deliverable 4.1 References (Bezzi et al. 2019); Bezzi, M.; Valente, M., Iasillo C., 2019. D5.2: Guidelines for QUEST stakeholder engagement approach, QUEST – QUality and Effectiveness in Science and Technology communication, APRE 2019. (Beath & Orlikowski, 1994); Beath, C.M., and Orlikowski, W.J., 1994. The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering, Information Systems Research (5:4), pp. 350-377. (Beaudoin et al., 2022); Beaudoin C., Jouncoux S., Jean-Francois J., Berberi A., McPhee C., Schillo S.R., M. Nguyen V., 2022, A research agenda for evaluating living labs as an open innovation model for environmental and agricultural sustainability, Environmental Challenges, Volume 7,100505, ISSN 26670100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100505. (Baungaard et al., 2021) Baungaard, C., P.W. Kok, K., den Boer Alanya C.L., Brierley C., Van der Meij M. G., Gjefsen M.D., Wenink J., Wagner P., Gemen R., J. Regeer B., E.W. Broerse J., 2021. FIT4FOOD2030: Futureproofing Europe’s Food Systems with Tools for Transformation and a Sustainable Food Systems Network. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12502 (Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2016); Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlstrom, E.C., Stahlbrost, A., Svensson, J., 2016. A Milieu for Innovation – Defining Living Labs, In: Proceedings of the 2nd ISPIM innovation symposium: Simulating recovery - the Role of innovation management, New York City, USA 6-9 December 2009 / (Eds)K.R.E. Huizingh, S. Conn, M. Torkkeli, I. Bitran, htttp://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/3517934/19706123_Paper.pdf (Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet, last accessed, 8 March 2022) (Boncio et al., 2017); Boncio, E., Paoni, S., Massoli, A, Tudisco, V., 2017. Report, INNETWORK 2016/2017 “Creare un ambiente favorevole all’innovazione del sistema regionale attraverso la partecipazione a piattaforme e a reti di specializzazione tecnologica.” Azione 1.2.1. POR-FESR 2014-2020, WP 5 D5.5. https://www.regione.umbria.it/documents/18/576921/20180507+DGR+n.455-2018+- +Allegato+B+REPORT_Living+Lab.pdf/8534f953-40c0-4464-ab8d-f3eac615d7e3 (Bronson et al., 2021); Bronson, K., Devkota, R., Nguyen, V., 2021. Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs. Sustainability 13, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020502 (Compagnucci et al., 2020); Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., & Duarte, C., 2020. Living Labs and User Engagement for Innovation and Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 289. 125721.10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125721. (Den Boer et al., 2021) den Boer, A.C.L., Kok, K.P.W., Gill, M., Breda, J., Cahill, J., Callenius, C., Caron, P., Damianova, Z., Gurinovic, M., Lähteenmäki, L., Lang, T., Sonnino, R., Verburg, G., Westhoek, H., Cesuroglu, 39 Deliverable 4.1 T., Regeer, B.J., and Broerse, J.E.W., 2021, Research and innovation as a catalyst for food system transformation, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 107, pp. 150-156. ISSN 0924-2244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.09.021 (EIP-AGRI, 2017); EIP-AGRI, 2017. Horizon 2020 Multiactor projects Brochure eip-agri_brochure_multiactor_projects_2017_en_web.pdf (europa.eu) (Eriksson et al., 2006); Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P., Kulkki, S., and Hribernik, K., 2006. Living labs as a multicontextual R&D methodology. In: The 12th International Conference Ldots. "Living labs as a multicontextual R&D methodology," 2006 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), Milan, Italy, . pp. 1-8. DOI: 10.1109/ICE.2006.7477082 (European Commission, Horizon Europe, 2021); Ethics and Data Protection, 2021, p. 11; available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ethics-anddata-protection_he_en.pdf. (FAO, 2019); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2019. The state of the World’s biodiversity for food and agriculture, Bélanger, J. & Pilling, D. (Eds.). FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Rome, 572 pp. https://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf (Freeman & Mcvea, 2001); Freeman, R., & Mcvea, J., 2001, A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN Electronic Journal, 10.2139/ssrn.263511. (Greve et al., 2021); Greve, K., Vita, R.D., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., 2021. Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020791 (Hassan, 2014). Hazan, Z., 2014. The Social Labs Revolution. A New Approach to Solving our Most Complex Challenges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. (Jansen & Pieters, 2017); Jansen, S., Pieters, M., and Guldemond, P. (illustrator), 2017. The 7 Principles of Complete Co-creation. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. ISBN 978-90-6369-473-9. (Keleti et al.,2020); Keleti, A., Van de Vondel, B.; Verhaeghe, G., Szaplonczay, O., Norbert, S.M., De Graef, V., 2020. Operational Handbook of the network of living labs, Deliverable 5.1, S3FOOD. Operational Handbook of the network of living labs (s3food.eu) (Malmberg et al., 2017) Malmberg, K., Vaittinen, I., Evans, P., Schuurman, D., Ståhlbröst, A., & Vervoort, K., 2017. Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1146321 (Pino et al. 2014); Pino, M., Benveniste, S., Kerherve, H., Picard, R., Legouverneur, G., CristanchoLacroix, V., Wu, Y.H., Damnee, S., Wrobel, J., Rigaud, A.-S., 2014. Contribution of the Living Lab approach to the 40 Deliverable 4.1 development, assessment, and provision of assistive technologies for supporting older adults with cognitive disorders. Stud. Inform. Universalis 11, 34e62. (RICS & APM, 2021), Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the Association of Project Management (APM). 2021, 10 key principles of stakeholder engagement. https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a-resource/stakeholderengagement/key-principles/ (Rockström et al., 2020); Rockström, J., Edenhofer, O., Gaertner, J., & DeClerck, F., 2020. Planetproofing the global food system. Nature Food, 1, pp.?3–5. (Sabat & Sabat, 2020); Anna & Greda Sabat, 2020. The Role of Living Labs in the Process of Creating Innovation, Disruptive Technology, pp.1169-1184. 10.4018/978-1-5225-9273-0.ch057 (Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012); Ståhlbröst, A., Holst, M., 2012. The Living Lab Methodologies Handbook: A Transnational Nordic Smart City Living Lab Pilot – SmartIES, Social Informatics at Luleå University of Technology and CDT – Centre for Distance-spanning Technology, Sweden; Financed by: Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba, The Research Council of Norway, Norden NordForsk, Rannís and Vinnova. (Tuckman, 1965); Tuckman, B.W., 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63 (6): pp. 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100. PMID 14314073 (van Geenhuizen, 2019), van Geenhuizen, M., 2019. Applying an RRI filter in key learning on urban living labs’ performance. Sustainability 11 (14), 3833. (Veeckman et al., 2013). Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., 2013. Linking living lab characteristics and their outcomes: towards a conceptual framework. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 3, 6e15. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview748. (Viciniet al., 2012); Vicini. S.; Bellini, S., Sanna, A., 2012. How to co-create internet of thingsenabled services for smarter cities. SMART 2012, The First International Conference on Smart Systems, Devices and Technologies, pp 55-61. (Von Hippel, 2001) von Hippel, E., 2001. Perspective: User Toolkit for Innovation, The Journal of Product Innovation Management(18:4, pp. 247-257. (Willet et al., 2019); Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, Wood A, Jonell M, Clark M, Gordon LJ, Fanzo J, Hawkes C, Zurayk R, Rivera JA, De Vries W, Majele Sibanda L, Afshin A, Chaudhary A, Herrero M, Agustina R, Branca F, Lartey A, Fan S, Crona B, Fox E, Bignet V, Troell M, Lindahl T, Singh S, Cornell SE, Srinath Reddy K, Narain S, Nishtar S, Murray CJL., 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393, pp. 447–492.