Measure what industrial progress creates — and who it serves.
i5Benchmark draws on international standards, diverse cultural traditions and the lived experience of affected people. It turns shared values into actionable, verifiable commitments and examines whether technology and industry create fair and lasting value for people, society and the planet.
Signal families cycle automatically. Select one to hold it.
Where does progress break down in everyday life?
Start with a situation people recognise. Follow what happened, who absorbed the time, cost or risk, what evidence remains, and who is responsible for putting it right.
The case is closed. But has the problem been resolved?
Closing a case and resolving the underlying problem are not the same. The organisation records closure; the person experiences whether the problem has actually been resolved—and whether it returns.
- 01 Stage Promise
- 02 Stage Delivery
- 03 Stage Experience
- 04 Stage Response Case recorded as resolved
- 05 Breakdown Remedy Remedy not evidenced
- 06 Stage Learning
People using the service, and frontline staff who absorb repeat contact.
Remedy
Human ExperienceAccountability
Can the organisation show that an effective remedy reached the affected person and that recurrence was examined?
How many times should someone have to tell the same story?
Each hand-off looks reasonable from inside one department. The cost of repetition lands entirely on the person moving between them.
- 01 Stage Promise
- 02 Breakdown Delivery Hand-offs multiply
- 03 Stage Experience Repetition absorbed by the person
- 04 Also affected Response
- 05 Stage Remedy
- 06 Stage Learning
People needing the service, particularly those with least time, language access or administrative capacity.
Delivery
Human ExperienceAccountability
Can the responsible service owner show that the end-to-end journey works without transferring coordination burden to the user?
The service became more efficient. For whom?
Efficiency measured inside an organisation can be unpaid work moved outside it. The saving is real; so is the transfer.
- 01 Stage Promise
- 02 Stage Delivery Internal efficiency achieved
- 03 Breakdown Experience Time and cost transferred
- 04 Stage Response
- 05 Stage Remedy
- 06 Stage Learning
Users without digital access, time or confidence; frontline staff absorbing exception handling.
Experience
Human ExperienceResponsible InnovationAccountability
Does the efficiency gain remain positive after user time, exclusion risk and frontline workload are included?
The system is live. Who had a say — and who can challenge its decisions?
A system can be technically compliant and still leave the people it governs without a route to explanation or appeal.
- 01 Stage Promise
- 02 Breakdown Delivery System deployed
- 03 Stage Experience
- 04 Also affected Response Explanation and appeal unclear
- 05 Stage Remedy
- 06 Stage Learning
Workers subject to the system, and people whose cases it decides or ranks.
Delivery
Responsible InnovationHuman ExperienceAccountability
Were affected workers and users involved before deployment, and can material automated decisions be explained, challenged and corrected?
The product was sold as sustainable. What happens when it fails?
A sustainability claim made at the point of sale is tested years later, when something breaks and repair is either possible or it is not.
- 01 Stage Promise Sustainability claim made
- 02 Stage Delivery
- 03 Stage Experience
- 04 Stage Response
- 05 Breakdown Remedy Repair route unavailable
- 06 Stage Learning
Owners and users, independent repairers, and the communities receiving discarded products.
Remedy
Sustainable PracticesAccountabilityHuman Experience
Can the sustainability claim be supported across durability, repair, warranty and end-of-life outcomes experienced after purchase?
The project is complete. Can people safely and comfortably use it?
Completion is a construction milestone. Usability is a daily condition, and it is experienced unevenly.
- 01 Stage Promise
- 02 Stage Delivery Project signed off
- 03 Breakdown Experience Use and comfort untested
- 04 Stage Response
- 05 Stage Remedy
- 06 Stage Learning
Disabled people, older people, children and carers; residents and workers using the space daily.
Experience
Human ExperienceSustainable PracticesAccountability
Can the completed project demonstrate safe, accessible and comfortable use for the people affected, including maintenance and correction after occupation?
The resilience plan is approved. Who loses service when disruption comes?
Plans describe intended capability. Disruption reveals which dependencies were unmapped and which users were treated as acceptable losses.
- 01 Stage Promise Plan approved
- 02 Breakdown Delivery Dependencies unmapped
- 03 Stage Experience
- 04 Stage Response
- 05 Stage Remedy
- 06 Also affected Learning
Users with no alternative provision, including people dependent on the service for health, income or safety.
Delivery
Resilience & AdaptabilityAccountabilityHuman Experience
Can critical functions continue or recover for affected groups, with dependencies, responsible roles and learning tested rather than merely documented?
A common basis for judgement, action and learning.
Three domains describe what industrial activity produces. Two domains determine whether those outcomes can be examined, explained and improved at all. A cross-cutting layer keeps the framework intelligible where it is applied.
Purpose
To establish what industrial activity actually produces for the people it affects, as they experience it, rather than as it is intended or reported.
Example evidence routes
- Worker, user and community accounts gathered with protection against retaliation
- Operational and incident records covering health, safety and psychosocial risk
- Organisational documents on participation, accommodation and progression
- Public information and inspection outcomes relevant to the declared scope
Purpose
To establish the environmental burden the declared subject creates, over which boundary it is measured, and what that boundary leaves out.
Example evidence routes
- Measured resource, waste and emissions data with a stated measurement boundary
- Procurement and design records relevant to material retention and recovery
- Research on the relevant ecological limits for the activity and place
- Public information, including regulatory filings and inspection outcomes
Purpose
To establish whether services continue, recover and adjust under disruption, and whether that is achieved without moving unacceptable risk onto others.
Example evidence routes
- Dependency records for people, suppliers, systems and place-based infrastructure
- Incident and recovery records showing demonstrated rather than documented capability
- Accounts from workers, suppliers and affected communities during disruption
- Research and public information on comparable disruption in the same context
Purpose
To establish whether a change was necessary and responsibly introduced, so that outcome claims in the core domains can be attributed and examined. Artificial intelligence is examined here as one class of technology change among others.
Example evidence routes
- Change approval records showing necessity, alternatives and scope of review
- Pre-deployment testing for intended effect and foreseeable harm
- Accounts from the people affected by the change, gathered before and after
- Capability, resourcing and maintenance arrangements supporting the change
Purpose
To establish who answers for the result, whether affected people can obtain explanation and correction, and how benefit, cost and risk are distributed.
Example evidence routes
- Named responsibility for material decisions, and whether it survives reorganisation
- Concern, complaint and escalation records traced through to recorded remedy
- Explanation given to affected people, including for data-assisted decisions
- Records of value distribution, and who answers for it
Cultural Grounding & Contextual Legitimacy
- local intelligibility
- contextual relevance
- participatory legitimacy
- rights compatibility
- knowledge provenance
A shared contextual layer across all five domains.
From shared challenge to evidenced improvement.
Each assessment is bound to a declared subject, scope, evidence period, implementation profile and Framework version. Gaps, contradictions and limitations remain visible throughout.
- 01
Establish the basis
Declare the subject, scope, evidence period, implementation profile and Framework version before anything is assessed.
- 02
Define commitments
Convert shared concerns into commitments that can be acted upon and evidenced, each with an owner and an evidence route.
- 03
Benchmark
Assemble evidence with provenance. Coverage, gaps, contradictions and limitations are recorded rather than resolved silently.
- 04
Respond
Explanation, named ownership, correction and remedy for the people affected — not only an internal response record.
- 05
Improve
Improvement requires new evidence and demonstrated change over time, assessed against the same declared basis.
- 06
Contribute to shared learning
What worked, what failed and what the method got wrong returns to the Framework, the research agenda and the case library.
Domain evidence coverage
Required routes coveredEvidence queue
Human review requiredEnergy intensity fell year-on-year, but the baseline boundary is not confirmed.
Worker participation in change decisions reported at two of three sites.
Concern response times improved; remedy outcomes are not recorded.
Pre-deployment review documented for one production line only.
Explore the tabs to follow evidence from coverage through review to response.
Open the Mapper DemoFollow the reasoning behind a benchmark result.
Four public components carry that reasoning: why a demand is examined, what the evidence supports, what follows from it, and how application in different contexts improves the method.
Challenge Library
Why the Framework must examine particular demands and breakdowns, and what remains unresolved about each.
02i5 Readiness Mapper
How declared scope, evidence coverage, contradictions, limitations and review status are presented for examination.
03Benchmark, Response & Improvement
How a baseline leads to accountable action, correction, remedy and new evidence rather than a standing score.
04Case & Pilot Library
How application in different industrial, cultural and place-based contexts improves the method itself.
Every conclusion retains its boundary and its evidence trail.
Each evidence item keeps its origin, date, scope, review status and relevant limitations. Where sources disagree on the same scope and period, the disagreement is retained and constrains what may be concluded.
Controlled mappings identify correspondence and divergence in purpose, authority, scope and meaning. Mappings support implementation without implying equivalence. Certification or compliance decisions remain with the responsible authority or scheme.
Four evidence foundations
Normative Basis
Recognised rights, international standards, public policy and stated commitments — what is expected, and on whose authority.
Empirical & Technical Basis
Measurement, operational and incident records, and technical research — what can be observed, and within which boundary.
Cultural Resonances
The traditions and institutions through which a requirement becomes intelligible and legitimate in its own context.
Lived & Local Validation
The experience of workers, users and communities — whether the outcome claimed is the outcome received.
Evidence lineage
Source
Where the material came from — a document, a record, a published study or an account from an affected person. The origin, date and scope are recorded before anything is inferred from it.
Context
The jurisdiction, sector and cultural setting in which the source has meaning. A requirement that cannot be understood or evidenced in its context has not been met, however correct its wording.
Commitment
The specific commitment the source is being used to examine, with a named owner and an acceptable evidence route. Without this link, material is information rather than evidence.
Evidence
The item as it enters the assessment, retaining origin, date, scope, review status and relevant limitations. Where sources disagree on the same scope and period, the disagreement is retained.
Judgement
What an accountable person concluded, within declared boundaries. Where the evidence cannot support a conclusion, a limitation is recorded instead of a weaker finding.
Response
Explanation, named ownership, correction and remedy for the people affected — and a record of what actually reached them.
Update
What changed as a result, re-evidenced against the same declared basis. Method findings, including failures, return to the Framework version record.
European origin. Global application. Local legitimacy.
The European Union’s Industry 5.0 vision provides the policy starting point, and European standards and policy inform how implementation begins in other cultural and industrial contexts. A Global Core protects a common floor for rights, safety, dignity and accountability, while jurisdictional, sector and cultural profiles make the requirements intelligible and usable where they are applied.
The bridge carries traffic both ways. Evidence, local experience and tested cases from those contexts return to strengthen the research programme, the method and implementation in Europe and beyond — including where they show that a European assumption does not hold.
i5Index situates eligible results within a governed coordinate system.
Versioned benchmark results may later be placed within comparable cohorts so an organisation, sector, community or region can understand position, evidence coverage and movement. Publication depends on declared scope, cohort rules, method version, evidence thresholds, contextual comparability and consent.
Placement would depend on declared scope, cohort rules, method version, evidence thresholds, contextual comparability and consent.
What is published, demonstrated and still in development.
Foundational Design Charter Draft 0.9 is published and open for review. It provides the foundation for developing the i5Benchmark Framework and its assessment methodology. The i5 Readiness Mapper is an interface demonstration using fictional data.
Implementation profiles, pilot protocols and the Resilience & Adaptability Test Protocol are in development for pilot testing. i5Index is in development. The Challenge Library opens with seven curated, source-informed scenarios and will expand through research and reviewed contributions. Publication of case and pilot records follows participant review and consent.
UN SDG Acceleration Action
i5Benchmark has been reviewed and approved for publication by UN DESA as SDG Acceleration Action #SDGAction49212 on the United Nations SDG Actions Platform. The public action records the project’s pathway from Industry 5.0 commitments to responsible actors, beneficiaries, evidence, implementation and improvement.