Multi-Stakeholder Impact Environmental Indexes: The Case of NeXt

The design of proper environmental and social indicators is one of the most critical challenges when monitoring and implementing corporate and government policy measures toward ecological transitions and sustainable development. In our paper we outline and discuss the characteristics of a new vintage of “living” multi-stakeholder community-based indicators based on the principles of self-evaluation, dialogue and simplification with a specific focus on the NeXt index. We explain the main differences between them and the opposite extreme of static expert-based indicators, how they integrate firm-level scores with compliance with macro multidimensional wellbeing indicators (such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals) and how they complement with ongoing regulatory standards currently under development. As well, we discuss caveats, policy implications and impact in terms of subjective wellbeing.


Introduction
Environmental and social goals are always bound to be more integrated with traditional economic goals in the coming future. The pressure coming from the ecological transition and financial investors' awareness that environmental sustainability and the reduction of exposure to ESG (environmental, social, governance) risk will be crucial factors for future corporate competitiveness are constantly pushing corporations towards greater integration of these three dimensions. In this new scenario the development of sound and implementable environmental and social indicators becomes a crucial tool enabling companies to evaluate, learn about and signal their progress in ecological transition to consumers and investors, helping them to attract public and private financial resources, as well as increase consumers' willingness to pay for sustainable products. Social and environmental indicators will also be a fundamental intermediate tools for crucial policy related actions such as: (i) developing standards for non-financial reporting metrics (along this path Settembre-Blundo et al. [1] focus on sustainability based risk management mechanisms, while Dwivedi et al. [2] focus on how value chain flexibility/rigidity affect corporate sustainability); (ii) defining admissible investment for private and government green bond issues (the market of private and government green bonds has been dramatically growing in the last years; the Climate Bond Initiative reports that the total volume of issues amounted to an adjusted USD 257.7 billion in 2019, 51% more than in the previous year [3]); (iii) elaborating minimum environmental criteria regulating access to the "institutional vote with the wallet" in public procurement (the importance of green public procurement for sustainable development has been acknowledged with a specific The BES system is a hybrid intermediate example between the static expert-based system and the living community-based system. It includes a process of dialogue, even though neither employ a co-design process nor a joint periodic update involving relevant stakeholders. Additionally-and differently from the NeXt index-BES is directed to measure wellbeing at the geographical level and not at the firm level, and, consequently, the interaction with corporate end-users (starting, in the NeXt indicators case, from corporate self-assessment) is not as relevant as it is the case when measuring corporate sustainability.
Beyond the BES process, community-participation approaches have gained prominence in recent years by improving governance and sustainability practices to include fair and valid evidence of impacts and by being the supply of information to the active involvement of stakeholders in projects decision. According to a "bottom-up" perspective, also driven by the awareness of the limits of "top-down" approaches, participatory methods can generate accurate quantitative and qualitative data and they can capture local priorities for greater validity in final decisions. Second, the legitimacy of the final outcome is higher when the potentially affected parties can state their own case before their peers and have an equal chance to influence the outcome (i.e., the process is fair). Third, public participation is identified as the proper conduct of a democratic government in public decision-making activities, since citizens mature into responsible democratic citizens and reaffirm democracy when they become involved in working-out a mutually acceptable solution to a project or problem that affects their community and their personal lives. Furthermore, participants can grow to understand their own strengths and abilities, leading to a sense of empowerment, specifically as in the case of empowerment evaluation [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34].
More specifically, in the evaluation field, participation combined with both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection can be suited to the purpose of engaging diverse stakeholders and capturing a system's complexity and dynamics. On these premises, Guba and Lincon [35] proposed the so-called "fourth generation evaluation", according to which evaluators cannot separate themselves from evaluands since data are created within this interaction. In this sense, evaluators must use a hermeneutic dialectic process and carry out their inquiries "in a way that will expose the constructions of the variety of concerned parties, open each to critique in the terms of other constructions, and provide the opportunity for revised or entirely new constructions to emerge".
Similarly, integrated impact assessment and collaborative evaluation show the relevance of evaluations in which there is a significant use of varying combinations of survey, qualitative and participatory methods, as well as a certain degree of collaboration between the evaluator and stakeholders in the evaluation process" in order to meet competing demands [29,36].
Nevertheless, such approaches are often associated with little credible evidence on the impact of policy interventions or social projects. On the one hand, several communitybased initiatives remain constrained by the need for quantifiable and 'objectively verifiable indicators' that allow regions to be compared. On the other hand, the few studies relying on rigorous impact evaluation strategies have not evaluated more comprehensive attempts to inform and involve the community in their process. Additionally, in evaluation studies as much as in urban ones, experts are not always involved to overcome a classical problem of active citizenship: the engagement of "really" disempowered citizens-the most vulnerable people, without any chance to affirm their voice [37][38][39].

A Theoretical Sketch of Our Hypothesis
In Equations (1)-(5) we sketch a theoretical argument outlining the difference between the NeXt multi-stakeholder community indicators and the static expert-based indicators.
We define the quality (by which we mean the capacity to capture, synthetically, the crucial features of a given phenomenon, its granularity (i.e., its capacity to translate different performances of corporate end users in indicator differences on a quantitative scale), the biunivocal correspondence between ranking order and quantitative order of two different performances; using the language of the utility function in economics these properties translate into reflexivity, transitivity and monotonicity) of an indicator (QI) as a function of the incorporated knowledge and experience of the different relevant stakeholders (ST) and corporate end users (CEU) plus the competence and technical skills of the statistical experts (SE). QI Relevant stakeholders are those having skills, experience and competences on the given wellbeing domain (i.e., trade unions for the workers domain, consumers' association for the product quality domain, environmentalist NGOs for the environmental sustainability domain). Statistical experts are those having know-how on the state-of-the-art and methodologies of wellbeing indicators, while end-users are the same object of companies' NeXt scores that accept scrutiny and become users, since its definition confers to them advantages in terms of learning and monitoring their competitive position in an ecological transition.
We assume that the knowledge, experience and skills of the three actors do not perfectly overlap. More specifically, we assume that technical experts dispose of all analytical and statistical skills but, without sector specific experience, can miss the fact that some technically valid solutions fail to capture relevant aspects of the reality in that domain, or that it is impossible for corporate end-users to collect reliable information on a given indicator. On the other hand, corporate end-users and relevant stakeholders have important domain and sector specific knowledge but fail to understand how that knowledge can be translated into methodologically rigorous indicators.
Relevant stakeholders, corporate end-users and statistical expert abilities are updated following the evolution of the state of affairs in the social, environmental and economic dimension, as in Equation (2): where k, e and s are the different functional forms reflecting how different actors of the index update their skill (w) over time.
The degree of social and political acceptance of an indicator, on stakeholders' and corporate end-users' side (SA), is, in turn, a function of its quality (QI), cost (in terms of adoption and compliance) (C), friendliness (F), and involvement (FI).
All of the four factors are higher in a living index due to the process of dialogue between experts and stakeholders first producing a co-design of the indicators, followed by periodic consultation for revision.
In the opposite extreme, a static expert-based index fails to incorporate information from stakeholders. Its quality is lower and the degree of acceptance by stakeholders is markedly inferior, both due to a lack of involvement in the process (we refer, here, to the theoretical and empirical literature of procedural utility [19] showing that the acceptance of a given decision of an individual depends on the degree of her/his involvement in the process leading to such decision).
This theoretical framework makes it easy to understand how a static expert-onlybased index (SEI) is at the extreme opposite of a living multi-stakeholder community (NEXT) index.
We, in fact, obtain: and SA t (SEI) = g(f(SE t0 )) < SA t (NEXT) = g(f(CEU t , SE t , Σ i ST it ), C t , F t , Inv t ) Another crucial difference between an SEI and a NeXt index is that the asset of the former is the set of indicators defined at a given point in time. As such the asset is subject to strong depreciation and can be easily imitated. In the NeXt case, the asset is the community of technical experts, relevant stakeholders and corporate end-users in dialogue and consultation. Such asset is not subject to the same rate of depreciation and cannot be easily imitated.
To conclude, living multi-stakeholder indexes of higher quality and adoption rates create the conditions for their superior contribution to sustainability progress.
The NeXt index, therefore, proves much more suitable for the process of trial, error and update required by the complexity of the task at stake and the evolving nature of the economic scenario.

The Process for the Construction of the NeXt Index
The basic tool to calculate NeXt indicators is the Participatory Self-Assessment Survey 2.0 (PSAS 2.0) co-designed over time by a community including statistical experts, relevant stakeholders and corporate end users and timely revised at regular intervals (see Figure 1 for a graphic description of the steps required to create the Index (the PSS 2.0-NeXt index can be accessed on-line at www.nexteconomia.org, accessed on 9 October 2020, where corporate end users are asked to register before performing their self-assessment). The group of statistical experts is based on members of the NeXt Scientific Committee (see the list provided in Appendix A). The survey includes five indicators for each of the following six relevant domains: (i) governance; (ii) workers; (iii) consumers; (iv) the environment; (v) suppliers in the value chain and (vi) local communities, for a total of 30 indicators. Scores for each indicator are provided on a discrete qualitative scale from one (minimum) to five (maximum) (questionnaire details, describing each domain and the related indicator, are in Appendix B).

Calculus and Ponderation of Individual NeXt Indicators
The evaluation process follows two steps. In the first step corporate end-users perform their self-assessment report attributing a score in a one-to-five range to each of the 30 indicators in the six different domains. For any indicator, the survey presents a column where Sustainability 2021, 13, 12364 7 of 20 corporate end users are asked to copy links to corresponding documents supporting their self-assessed score. In the second step of the evaluation process the relevant stakeholders and statistical experts evaluate whether the information provided is consistent with the self-assessed score. If so, they confirm the self-assessed score, otherwise they ask for further evidence consistent with the self-attributed score or revise the latter, consistently with the available information.
If statistical experts evaluate that a given indicator does not apply to the given business the indicator is left missing and the overall score is reparametrized using a standard n/n-m correction factor that takes it into account where m is the total number of indicators in the NeXt index and m is the number of missing indicators.

Aggregation of NeXt Indicators
Aggregation of indicator specific scores from each of the five domains (for total scores in domains and across domains) is performed using the Mazziotta-Pareto [40] Index (MPI) (see Appendix C). This methodological choice has been made to penalize horizontal variability (i.e., companies with higher variability in individual scores) for a given same unweighted arithmetic mean in order to give value to regularity and penalize low scores on some indicators implying poor evaluation from some of the relevant stakeholders. The theoretical rationale is that the logic of "integral" (all-round) sustainability implies a penalty for low scores on a specific indicator or area.
The total aggregate scores and total domain scores are rescaled on a 0-100 interval.

Calculation of NeXt Indicators' Impacts in Terms of Macroeconomic BES and SDG Domains
Each indicator is linked to a priority reference BES and SDG domain. More specifically on this point, the overall structure of the PSAS2.0 NeXt index is based on a two-sided reference framework: (i) An international framework calculating links and the consistency of NeXt indicators with the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 (https://unric.org/it/ agenda-2030/, accessed on 9 October 2020), issued in 2015 by the United Nations; this implies that each of the 30 NeXt indicators is linked with a reference priority SDG. Such ink made by connecting the survey indicators, the GRI framework indicators (https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx, accessed on 9 October 2020) and the SDGs to each other. The first match was made by the NeXt Study Center, while the SDGs Compass platform (https://sdgcompass.org/, accessed on 9 October 2020) was used for the second match. This platform helps companies implement coherent business strategies with the social and environmental sustainability indicators set by the UN Agenda 2030. (ii) A national framework calculating links of NeXt indicators with the 12 domains of Benessere Equo e Sostenibile (https://www.istat.it/it/benessere-e-sostenibilit%C3%A0/lamisurazione-del-benessere-(bes)/gli-indicatori-del-bes accessed on 9 October 2020), the Italian multidimentional wellbeing framework designed by Istat [41][42][43], here recalibrated on a corporate basis, becoming BESA, which stands for "fair and sustainable corporate wellbeing" (this implies that each of the 30 NeXt indicators is linked with a reference to a priority BES domain). Link made by connecting the survey indicators, the GRI framework indicators and BES domains to each other. The first match was made by the NeXt Study Center while the BESA theoretical framework was used for the second match.
Reference to these three frameworks enables the PSAS2.0-NeXt to calculate the corporate end-user's capacity to generate multidimensional wellbeing, through the activation of network based processes of sustainable development.
At the end of the evaluation process the final set of NeXt scores (compared with past evaluations, if applicable) is given by: (i) total aggregate score; (ii) degree of corporate commitment in terms of BES and SDG domains; (iii) domain score and (iv) individual scores for each of the 30 indicators (an example of results is provided in Figure 2).

Discussion
The success of the living index depends on the level of commitment of the actors from the three involved categories (statistical experts, relevant stakeholders and corporate end-users) and their willingness to participate in and activate the process. This, in turn, will depend on the perceived participation benefits. The benefit of statistical expertise is the refinement of the indicators (and underlying theories and methodologies) with knowledge and experience of the relevant stakeholders and corporate end-users, allowing the design of proof-tested, better fit-for-purpose indicators. The benefits from relevant stakeholders' participation are found in possibility of co-designing tools that can help them to achieve their statutory goals, as represented by the wellbeing of their stakeholder category. The living indicators can, in fact, create a dialogue with corporate end-users that fosters progress toward higher labor dignity and worker satisfaction (the goal of trade unions), higher product quality and consumers satisfaction (the goal of consumers' association), greater environmental sustainability (the goal of environmentalists' association) and a higher quality of life of local communities. The goal of other NGOs and organizations included among relevant stakeholders). The benefit of involving corporate end-users consists in having a dashboard of indicators that allows them to monitor progress and position in terms of stakeholder satisfaction. Monitoring such position is going to be increasingly relevant, given the recent strategies and orientations of financial investors and regulators; the CEO of the first global investment fund, BlackRock, in its 2018 letter to CEOs said that "Without a sense of purpose, no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential. It will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders. It will succumb to short-term pressures to distribute earnings, and, in the process, sacrifice investments in employee development, innovation, and capital expenditures that are necessary for long-term growth. It will remain exposed to activist campaigns that articulate a clearer goal, even if that goal serves only the shortest and narrowest of objectives. And ultimately, that company will provide subpar returns to the investors who depend on it to finance their retirement, home purchases, or higher education" [44]. From this perspective the living index tends to create a separating equilibrium among potential corporate end-users. On the one hand are those reporting high scores, who regard, as optimal, their reputational gains from publicizing their scores (thereby earning a place on the NeXt online, geo-referenced good-practice map that can lead to these individual scores, https://www.nexteconomia.org/, accessed on 6 September 2020). On the other hand are those having lower scores, who prefer they not become public but nonetheless find it important to calculate the values of the indicators in order to monitor their positions with relevant stakeholders.
An important limit of the NeXt approach is that its score attribution, starting from the corporate end-user self-assessment, can certainly reduce costs and simplify the process, at the risk, however, of self-reporting bias. The problem relates to the main issue of green and social washing [45], wherein washing becomes the corporate choice when gains from upward-biased self-declared corporate responsibility are higher than expected costs (probability of being detected times the cost of "punishment") of loss of reputation once caught [46,47].
The NeXt approach corrects for this in three ways. First, it defines strict correspondence between objective outcomes and indicator scores for items where this is possible (i.e., the ratio between the top and bottom corporate wages, taking a value of one to five, according to different intervals of the corporate top-bottom wage ratio). Second, it asks companies to provide evidence and documentation, where available, to justify their own self-assessment. Third and more important, it asks relevant stakeholders to evaluate such self-reported scores. The advantage of the living-index-participation approach is, therefore, that of providing an immediate stakeholder check of corporate declarations, thereby increasing the expected cost of being detected in terms of the timing of audits, the quality of information and country-representativeness of the auditing stakeholders). This is expected to reduce the temptation toward green and social washing, despite of the opportunity to self-report one's own level of corporate responsibility.
A second crucial issue is how NeXt indicators interact with existing regulation in progress. As is well known, there has been a growing effort in incorporating ESG factors in the financial industry in recent years. According to a recent PWC survey, 77% of global fund managers plan to exclude stocks with low ESG standards from their portfolios in the next two years, and most of them calculate the exposure of their stock to ESG risk, considered a risk factor independent from those traditionally considered (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19 /almost-60-of-mutual-fund-assets-will-be-esg-by-2025-pwc-says, accessed on 3 January 2021). Given the growing relevance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) concerns and the willingness of responsible financial investors to pay for it, the temptation of fraudulent CSR reporting grows and, with it, the risk of greenwashing if the expected gains are higher than the expected costs of detection and punishment, in economic and reputational terms. This is why EU institutions have launched two main initiatives. The first is the EU Taxonomy on Sustainable Activities (https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainablefinance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en, accessed on 7 November 2020), in which the characteristics of investment that can be regarded as sustainable in each of the six domains (climate adaptation, climate mitigation, circular economy, pollution, water, biodiversity) are progressively defined for each industry. The second is the regulation on sustainability-related disclosure in the financial services sector (https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/ banking-and-finance/sustainable-nance/sustainability-related-disclosure-financial-services-sector_it, accessed on 8 October 2020) that is redefining ESG disclosure precisely to address greenwashing. According to this regulation, investment funds can promote their ESG characteristics to investors only if they rigorously report progress in the environmental quality of their stock portfolio and alignment with the EU Taxonomy for the so-called Article-8 and Article-9 products.
Differently from the recent EU regulation that mainly concerns large capitalization of listed securities, the NeXt approach is also implementable also for small-and medium-sized companies (the large majority, especially in European economies) and covers a wider range of CSR domains, not limiting its scope to environmental issues. The issue of following as close as possible (or not falling into contradiction with the two ongoing regulatory processes) nonetheless applies when the different measurement paths apply to the same companies.
A crucial issue arising with the living indicator approach, similar to the circumstances for static indicators, is the risk of not speaking the same language, as international standards are going to be progressively created in the field. The reasons why occur are, however, different between these two cases. In static expert-based indicators, this occurs because of the missing revision process. In the case of living indicators, it can happen because the dynamic evolution driven by the interaction among participants can lead to directions that do not converge on international standards. A living index has, however, two strategies for coping with the problem. The first is endogenous in the process, since all participants feel the need to comply with international standards and to push toward them. The second is that the system includes methodologies that translate the original indicators into effort in standard classification domains (as is the case for BES and SDGs).

Conclusions: Limits and Direction for Future Research
Social and environmental indicators will play an increasing role in the future of ecological transition under the pressure of the urgent transformation required by the climate challenge and the induced reforms of the regulatory framework.
In our paper, we have argued that the move from static expert-only based indicators to "living" multi-stakeholder community-based indicators, developed through participatory processes and co-design between statistical experts, end-users and relevant stakeholders, is crucial to the quality of indicators and their success, in terms of adoption by end-users and society overall. While, in the first type of index, the main asset is the static set of indicators and, as such, it is subject to rapid obsolescence and depreciation, in the second type of (living multi-stakeholder) index, the asset is the dialogue and interaction (co-design and periodic revision) within a heterogeneous community of technical experts, relevant stakeholders and end-users.
We have also emphasized that a living community-based index has other important advantages, as it fosters a process of learning among participants, it simplifies and reduces the costs of reporting for companies and is, therefore, easily implementable, even by smalland medium-sized firms, allowing them to keep pace with and monitor their progress toward ecological transition.
The main policy conclusion of our research is that the development of communitybased living indicators can significantly improve upon traditional ones in several respects, such as better considering the points of view of end-users and relevant stakeholders, leading to easier social acceptance, easier implementation for small-and medium-sized firms, timely updating and greater involvement and participation from all the relevant actors in society. Owing to these properties, such indicators have the advantage of more effectively stimulating involvement in ecological transition goals and, therefore, progress in sustainability.  Appendix B Table A2. The NeXt Participatory Self-Assessment Survey 2.0 (PSAS 2.0): areas and indicators.

Transparency on shareholders and sources of capital
Criterion: transparency on capital ownership with respect to a control group (percentage value). For example: if the main shareholders are X (15%), Y (12%) and Z (8%), the information concerns 35% of the ownership.
-Less than 10% (score 1) -11-30% (score 2) -31-50% (score 3) -51-70% (score 4) -Greater than 70% (score 5) The main policy conclusion of our research is that the development of communitybased living indicators can significantly improve upon traditional ones in several respects, such as better considering the points of view of end-users and relevant stakeholders, leading to easier social acceptance, easier implementation for small-and medium-sized firms, timely updating and greater involvement and participation from all the relevant actors in society. Owing to these properties, such indicators have the advantage of more effectively stimulating involvement in ecological transition goals and, therefore, progress in sustainability.

AREAS INDICATORS LINK with SDGs and BES
THE CORPORATE AND ITS GOVERNANC

Transparency on shareholders and sources of capital
Criterion: transparency on capital ownership with respect to a control group (percentage value). For example: if the main shareholders are X (15%), Y (12%) and Z (8%), the information concerns 35% of the ownership.
-Less than 10% (score 1) Greater than 70% (score 5) 1.2. Corporate culture and actions against illegality and corruption Criterion: control of suppliers' legality and transparency, to be expressed in percentage terms with respect to the controlled suppliers total amount -Less than 10% (score 1) Greater than 70% (score 5)

Management strategy and attention to diverse stakeholders
Criterion: levels and modes of stakeholders' engagement, to be expressed through numerical values - The firm disregards stakeholders' engagement (score 1)

Corporate culture and actions against illegality and corruption
Criterion: control of suppliers' legality and transparency, to be expressed in percentage terms with respect to the controlled suppliers total amount -Less than 10% (score 1) -11-30% (score 2) -31-50% (score 3) -51-70% (score 4) -Greater than 70% (score 5) The main policy conclusion of our research is that the development of communitybased living indicators can significantly improve upon traditional ones in several respects, such as better considering the points of view of end-users and relevant stakeholders, leading to easier social acceptance, easier implementation for small-and medium-sized firms, timely updating and greater involvement and participation from all the relevant actors in society. Owing to these properties, such indicators have the advantage of more effectively stimulating involvement in ecological transition goals and, therefore, progress in sustainability.

INDICATORS LINK with SDGs and BES
THE CORPORATE AND ITS GOVERNANC

Transparency on shareholders and sources of capital
Criterion: transparency on capital ownership with respect to a control group (percentage value). For example: if the main shareholders are X (15%), Y (12%) and Z (8%), the information concerns 35% of the ownership.

Management strategy and attention to diverse stakeholders
Criterion: levels and modes of stakeholders' engagement, to be expressed through numerical values - The firm disregards stakeholders' engagement (score 1)

Management strategy and attention to diverse stakeholders
Criterion: levels and modes of stakeholders' engagement, to be expressed through numerical values -The firm disregards stakeholders' engagement (score 1) - The firm is aware of the stakeholders' engagement value, but there is no direct involvement (for example, the company only engages them via indirect links and online research) (score 2) - The firm is aware of the stakeholders' engagement value and their direct involvement (for example, one meeting with stakeholders) (score 3) - The firm dialogues with its stakeholders and also involves them in corporate strategy decisions (for example, at least two meetings with stakeholders (score 4) The firm dialogues with its stakeholders, involves them in corporate strategy decisions, and measures stakeholders' satisfaction levels (for example, at least three meetings with stakeholders and measurement of satisfaction level for each of them)

Management strategy and attention to diverse stakeholders
Criterion: levels and modes of stakeholders' engagement, to be expressed through numerical values - The firm disregards stakeholders' engagement (score 1) - The firm is aware of the stakeholders' engagement value, but there is no direct involvement (for example, the company only engages them via indirect links and online research) (score 2)

-
The firm is aware of the stakeholders' engagement value, but there is no direct involvement (for example, the company only engages them via indirect links and online research) (score 2) -The firm is aware of the stakeholders' engagement value and their direct involvement (for example, one meeting with stakeholders) (score 3) - The firm dialogues with its stakeholders and also involves them in corporate strategy decisions (for example, at least two meetings with stakeholders (score 4) The firm dialogues with its stakeholders, involves them in corporate strategy decisions, and measures stakeholders' satisfaction levels (for example, at least three meetings with stakeholders and measurement of satisfaction level for each of them) 1.4. Employee participation and involvement in corporate strategy decisions Criterion: stakeholders' engagement in corporate strategy decisions, to be expressed in percentage terms (100% stands for their engagement in every corporate decisions made) -None (score 1) - Consulting employees for less than 30% of corporate decisions (score 2) -Consulting employees for more than 30% of corporate decisions (score 3) -Sharing and asking for employees' participation in less than 30% of corporate strategy decisions (score 4) -Sharing and asking for employees' participation in more than 30% of corporate strategy decisions (score 5) * Explain what kind of decision is shared. 1.5. Differential between min. and max. remunerations within the company Criterion: differential between the maximum annual remuneration for the best paid and the minimum annual remuneration for the least paid.
-Less than 6 (score 5) More than 80% (score 5) 1.5. Differential between min. and max. remunerations within the company Criterion: differential between the maximum annual remuneration for the best paid and the minimum annual remuneration for the least paid. The firm is aware of the stakeholders' engagement value and their direct involvement (for example, one meeting with stakeholders) (score 3) - The firm dialogues with its stakeholders and also involves them in corporate strategy decisions (for example, at least two meetings with stakeholders (score 4) The firm dialogues with its stakeholders, involves them in corporate strategy decisions, and measures stakeholders' satisfaction levels (for example, at least three meetings with stakeholders and measurement of satisfaction level for each of them)

Employee participation and involvement in corporate strategy
decisions Criterion: stakeholders' engagement in corporate strategy decisions, to be expressed in percentage terms (100% stands for their engagement in every corporate decisions made) -None (score 1) - Consulting employees for less than 30% of corporate decisions (score 2) -Consulting employees for more than 30% of corporate decisions (score 3) -Sharing and asking for employees' participation in less than 30% of corporate strategy decisions (score 4) -Sharing and asking for employees' participation in more than 30% of corporate strategy decisions (score 5) * Explain what kind of decision is shared. 1.5. Differential between min. and max. remunerations within the company Criterion: differential between the maximum annual remuneration for the best paid and the minimum annual remuneration for the least paid. More than 80% (score 5) * To be applied to companies with more than 100 employees only. For companies with less than 100 employees: express the company's own value, explaining the choice on the basis of employees' participation/ engagement. * Explain what kind of decision is shared. 1.5. Differential between min. and max. remunerations within the company Criterion: differential between the maximum annual remuneration for the best paid and the minimum annual remuneration for the least paid. More than 80% (score 5)

Respect for employee dignity through fair remuneration
(concerning work schedule, tasks performed, and responsibilities assigned) Criterion: positive differential between the total amount of remunerations paid by the company and the minimum levels set by the main union contracts (annual basis), to be expressed in percentage terms None (score 1) Less than 5% (score 2) 5-10% (score 3) 11-20% (score 4) More than 20% (score 5) * To be applied to companies with more than 50 employees only. In any other case, to be considered as "not applicable" Sustainability 2021, 13, 12364 13 of 20 * To be applied to companies with more than 100 employees only. For companies with less than 100 employees: express the company's own value, explaining the choice on the basis of employees' participation/ engagement.

Respect for employee dignity through fair remuneration
(concerning work schedule, tasks performed, and responsibilities assigned) Criterion: positive differential between the total amount of remunerations paid by the company and the minimum levels set by the main union contracts (annual basis), to be expressed in percentage terms -None (score 1) -Less than 5% (score 2) -5-10% (score 3) -11-20% (score 4) -More than 20% (score 5) * To be applied to companies with more than 50 employees only.
In any other case, to be considered as "not applicable" 2.3. Dialogue with workers representatives on health and safety at work Criterion: attendance and engagement (of both informative and consultative kind) of one workers' representative for safety and one workers' representative for territorial safety -None (score 1) - Attended, but neither informed nor consulted (score 2) - Attended, but informed only on a few aspects (score 3) -Attended and informed on all aspects (e.g.: accidents at work, risk assessment, prevention and organizational measures, etc.) (score 4) -Attended, informed, and consulted on all aspects (score 5) 2.4. Work-Life balance (smart working, gender opportunities, etc.) Criterion: attendance and diversity of work-life balance agreements -None (score 1) - One agreement or unilateral decision on work-life balance for a specific employee category (score 2) -One agreement or unilateral decision on work-life balance for all employee categories (score 3) -Two agreements or unilateral decisions on work-life balance for a specific employee category or for all employee categories (score 4) -More than two agreements or unilateral decisions on worklife balance for a specific employee category or for all employee categories (score 5)

Dialogue with workers representatives on health and safety at work
Criterion: attendance and engagement (of both informative and consultative kind) of one workers' representative for safety and one workers' representative for territorial safety -None (score 1) -Attended, but neither informed nor consulted (score 2) -Attended, but informed only on a few aspects (score 3) -Attended and informed on all aspects (e.g.: accidents at work, risk assessment, prevention and organizational measures, etc.) (score 4) -Attended, informed, and consulted on all aspects (score 5) Sustainability 2021, 13, 12364 13 of 20 * To be applied to companies with more than 100 employees only. For companies with less than 100 employees: express the company's own value, explaining the choice on the basis of employees' participation/ engagement.

Respect for employee dignity through fair remuneration
(concerning work schedule, tasks performed, and responsibilities assigned) Criterion: positive differential between the total amount of remunerations paid by the company and the minimum levels set by the main union contracts (annual basis), to be expressed in percentage terms -None (score 1) -Less than 5% (score 2) -5-10% (score 3) -11-20% (score 4) -More than 20% (score 5) * To be applied to companies with more than 50 employees only.
In any other case, to be considered as "not applicable" 2.3. Dialogue with workers representatives on health and safety at work Criterion: attendance and engagement (of both informative and consultative kind) of one workers' representative for safety and one workers' representative for territorial safety -None (score 1) - Attended, but neither informed nor consulted (score 2) - Attended, but informed only on a few aspects (score 3) -Attended and informed on all aspects (e. * To be applied to companies with more than 100 employees only. For companies with less than 100 employees: express the company's own value, explaining the choice on the basis of employees' participation/ engagement.

Respect for employee dignity through fair remuneration
(concerning work schedule, tasks performed, and responsibilities assigned) Criterion: positive differential between the total amount of remunerations paid by the company and the minimum levels set by the main union contracts (annual basis), to be expressed in percentage terms -None (score 1) -Less than 5% (score 2) -5-10% (score 3) -11-20% (score 4) -More than 20% (score 5) * To be applied to companies with more than 50 employees only.
In any other case, to be considered as "not applicable" 2.3. Dialogue with workers representatives on health and safety at work Criterion: attendance and engagement (of both informative and consultative kind) of one workers' representative for safety and one workers' representative for territorial safety -None (score 1) - Attended, but neither informed nor consulted (score 2) - Attended, but informed only on a few aspects (score 3) -Attended and informed on all aspects (e.g.: accidents at work, risk assessment, prevention and organizational measures, etc.) (score 4) -Attended, informed, and consulted on all aspects (score 5) 2.4. Work-Life balance (smart working, gender opportunities, etc.) Criterion: attendance and diversity of work-life balance agreements -None (score 1) - One agreement or unilateral decision on work-life balance for a specific employee category (score 2) -One agreement or unilateral decision on work-life balance for all employee categories (score 3) -Two agreements or unilateral decisions on work-life balance for a specific employee category or for all employee categories (score 4) -More than two agreements or unilateral decisions on worklife balance for a specific employee category or for all employee categories (score 5) 2.5. Employee career development, rewarding employees skills and experience through training and lifelong learning agreements -None (score 1) -One agreement or unilateral decision on work-life balance for a specific employee category (score 2) -One agreement or unilateral decision on work-life balance for all employee categories (score 3) -Two agreements or unilateral decisions on work-life balance for a specific employee category or for all employee categories (score 4) -More than two agreements or unilateral decisions on worklife balance for a specific employee category or for all employee categories (score 5) 2.5. Employee career development, rewarding employees skills and experience through training and lifelong learning Criterion: for each employee, annual average of training and continuing education hours -Less than 10 (score 1) Unilateral dialogue (e.g., toll-free number) (score 2) -Regulated dialogue (e.g., regulated toll-free number) (score 3) -Digital/ analogue channels with precise guidelines (score 4) -Digital/ analogue channels with dedicated employee(s), in accordance with corporate mission and culture (score 5)

Full and documented information on the environmental and
social sustainability of products/ services and all related processes, available to customers Criterion: information on products/ service available on labels and informative material -Information available on labels as legally required (score 1) -Additional information available on labels, beyond the legally required information (score 2) -Additional information available on labels, through a link to the corporate website (score 3) -Additional information available on labels about supply chain traceability (score 4) -Additional information about supply chain through ICT/ multimedia systems (e.g., blockchain, GS 1 barcode) (score 5) * To be applied to companies developing services for citizens only 3.3. Customers' valorization as a stimulus for partnership innovations and co-design of products/services Criterion: attendance and diversity of interaction modes with clients - The firm disregards customers' suggestions and indications (score 1) - The firm considers customers' suggestions and indications (score 2) - The firm interacts with single customers' (e.g., through social media and F.A.Q.) (score 3) - The firm interacts with consumers associations (score 4) - The firm develops shared improvement actions (score 5) 3.4. Effective ways for complaint management and resolution, guaranteeing proper response times and satisfaction levels Criterion: attendance and diversity of complaint management strategies

Full and documented information on the environmental and social sustainability of products/services and all related processes, available to customers
Criterion: information on products/service available on labels and informative material -Information available on labels as legally required (score 1) -Additional information available on labels, beyond the legally required information (score 2) -Additional information available on labels, through a link to the corporate website (score 3) -Additional information available on labels about supply chain traceability (score 4) -Additional information about supply chain through ICT/multimedia systems (e.g., blockchain, GS 1 barcode) (score 5) * To be applied to companies developing services for citizens only Unilateral dialogue (e.g., toll-free number) (score 2) -Regulated dialogue (e.g., regulated toll-free number) (score 3) -Digital/ analogue channels with precise guidelines (score 4) -Digital/ analogue channels with dedicated employee(s), in accordance with corporate mission and culture (score 5)

Full and documented information on the environmental and
social sustainability of products/ services and all related processes, available to customers Criterion: information on products/ service available on labels and informative material -Information available on labels as legally required (score 1) -Additional information available on labels, beyond the legally required information (score 2) -Additional information available on labels, through a link to the corporate website (score 3) -Additional information available on labels about supply chain traceability (score 4) -Additional information about supply chain through ICT/ multimedia systems (e.g., blockchain, GS 1 barcode) (score 5) * To be applied to companies developing services for citizens only

Customers' valorization as a stimulus for partnership innovations and co-design of products/services Criterion: attendance and diversity of interaction modes with clients -
The firm disregards customers' suggestions and indications (score 1) - The firm considers customers' suggestions and indications (score 2) - The firm interacts with single customers' (e.g., through social media and F.A.Q.) (score 3) - The firm interacts with consumers associations (score 4) - The firm develops shared improvement actions (score 5) 3.4. Effective ways for complaint management and resolution, guaranteeing proper response times and satisfaction levels Criterion: attendance and diversity of complaint management strategies - No way of contact with customers after-sale (score 1) -Unregulated and unilateral after-sale contact with customers

Customers' valorization as a stimulus for partnership innovations and co-design of products/services Criterion: attendance and diversity of interaction modes with clients -
The firm disregards customers' suggestions and indications (score 1) - The firm considers customers' suggestions and indications (score 2) - The firm interacts with single customers' (e.g., through social media and F.A.Q.) (score 3) - The firm interacts with consumers associations (score 4) - The firm develops shared improvement actions (score 5) Unilateral dialogue (e.g., toll-free number) (score 2) -Regulated dialogue (e.g., regulated toll-free number) (score 3) -Digital/ analogue channels with precise guidelines (score 4) -Digital/ analogue channels with dedicated employee(s), in accordance with corporate mission and culture (score 5)

Full and documented information on the environmental and
social sustainability of products/ services and all related processes, available to customers Criterion: information on products/ service available on labels and informative material -Information available on labels as legally required (score 1) -Additional information available on labels, beyond the legally required information (score 2) -Additional information available on labels, through a link to the corporate website (score 3) -Additional information available on labels about supply chain traceability (score 4) -Additional information about supply chain through ICT/ multimedia systems (e.g., blockchain, GS 1 barcode) (score 5) * To be applied to companies developing services for citizens only 3.3. Customers' valorization as a stimulus for partnership innovations and co-design of products/services Criterion: attendance and diversity of interaction modes with clients - The firm disregards customers' suggestions and indications (score 1) - The firm considers customers' suggestions and indications (score 2) - The firm interacts with single customers' (e.g., through social media and F.A.Q.) (score 3) - The firm interacts with consumers associations (score 4) - The firm develops shared improvement actions (score 5) 3.4. Effective ways for complaint management and resolution, guaranteeing proper response times and satisfaction levels Criterion: attendance and diversity of complaint management strategies - No way of contact with customers after-sale (score 1) -Unregulated and unilateral after-sale contact with customers (e.g., online form) (score 2) Table A2. Cont.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH CITIZENS AND CONSUMERS
3.4. Effective ways for complaint management and resolution, guaranteeing proper response times and satisfaction levels Criterion: attendance and diversity of complaint management strategies - No way of contact with customers after-sale (score 1) -Unregulated and unilateral after-sale contact with customers (e.g., online form) (score 2) -Direct after-sale contact with customers (score 3) -Regulated and direct after-sale contact with customers (score 4) -Joint conciliation and activation of stable partnerships with consumers associations (e.g., ethical and control committees created with consumers associations in order to monitor processes and all tracking criteria) (score 5) 3.3. Customers' valorization as a stimulus for partnership innovations and co-design of products/services Criterion: attendance and diversity of interaction modes with clients - The firm disregards customers' suggestions and indications (score 1) - The firm considers customers' suggestions and indications (score 2) - The firm interacts with single customers' (e.g., through social media and F.A.Q.) (score 3) - The firm interacts with consumers associations (score 4) - The firm develops shared improvement actions (score 5) 3.4. Effective ways for complaint management and resolution, guaranteeing proper response times and satisfaction levels Criterion: attendance and diversity of complaint management strategies - No way of contact with customers after-sale (score 1) -Unregulated and unilateral after-sale contact with customers (e.g., online form) (score 2)

Activation of criteria and procedures concerning the choice of direct suppliers and their socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: relationship between sustainable suppliers and all suppliers, to be expressed in percentage terms (avoiding minimum price bid auctions without concern for environmental and social criteria and choices based on cost savings only) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) -Greater than 60% (score 5)

Adoption and applications of monitoring tools by suppliers on the socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: monitoring suppliers' care towards ethics and human rights, through local visits as well as interviews to managers and employees, to be expressed in percentage terms (percent of the value share of monitored suppliers on total suppliers value) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) Regulated and direct after-sale contact with customers (score 4) -Joint conciliation and activation of stable partnerships with consumers associations (e.g., ethical and control committees created with consumers associations in order to monitor processes and all tracking criteria) (score 5)

Activation of criteria and procedures concerning the choice of direct suppliers and their socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: relationship between sustainable suppliers and all suppliers, to be expressed in percentage terms (avoiding minimum price bid auctions without concern for environmental and social criteria and choices based on cost savings only) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) -Greater than 60% (score 5)

Adoption and applications of monitoring tools by suppliers on the socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: monitoring suppliers' care towards ethics and human rights, through local visits as well as interviews to managers and employees, to be expressed in percentage terms (percent of the value share of monitored suppliers on total suppliers value) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4)

Activation of criteria and procedures concerning the choice of direct suppliers and their socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: relationship between sustainable suppliers and all suppliers, to be expressed in percentage terms (avoiding minimum price bid auctions without concern for environmental and social criteria and choices based on cost savings only) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) -Greater than 60% (score 5) Sustainability 2021, 13, 12364 15 of 20 -Direct after-sale contact with customers (score 3) -Regulated and direct after-sale contact with customers (score 4) -Joint conciliation and activation of stable partnerships with consumers associations (e.g., ethical and control committees created with consumers associations in order to monitor processes and all tracking criteria) (score 5) 3.5. Measurement of customers satisfaction rate (percent of customers at least satisfied customers) Criterion: customer satisfaction rate -Less than 60% (score 1) -60-70% (score 2) -71-80% (score 3) -81-90% (score 4) - Higher than 90% (score 5) THE SUPPLY CHAIN

Activation of criteria and procedures concerning the choice of direct suppliers and their socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: relationship between sustainable suppliers and all suppliers, to be expressed in percentage terms (avoiding minimum price bid auctions without concern for environmental and social criteria and choices based on cost savings only) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) -Greater than 60% (score 5)

Adoption and applications of monitoring tools by suppliers on the socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: monitoring suppliers' care towards ethics and human rights, through local visits as well as interviews to managers and employees, to be expressed in percentage terms (percent of the value share of monitored suppliers on total suppliers value) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) - Higher than 60% (score 5) Table A2. Cont.

Adoption and applications of monitoring tools by suppliers
on the socio-environmental sustainability Criterion: monitoring suppliers' care towards ethics and human rights, through local visits as well as interviews to managers and employees, to be expressed in percentage terms (percent of the value share of monitored suppliers on total suppliers value) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) -Higher than 60% (score 5)

THE SUPPLY CHAIN
Criterion: relationship between sustainable suppliers and all suppliers, to be expressed in percentage terms (avoiding minimum price bid auctions without concern for environmental and social criteria and choices based on cost savings only) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) -Greater than 60% (score 5)

Adoption and applications of monitoring tools by suppliers on the socio-environmental sustainability
Criterion: monitoring suppliers' care towards ethics and human rights, through local visits as well as interviews to managers and employees, to be expressed in percentage terms (percent of the value share of monitored suppliers on total suppliers value) -None (score 1) -Less than 10% (score 2) -10-30% (score 3) -31-60% (score 4) - Higher than 60% (score 5)