“CANTINA 5.0”—A Novel, Industry 5.0-Based Paradigm Applied to the Winemaking Industry in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes the paradigm shift from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 and provides a best practice case study of the winemaking industry on how to address issues related to Industry 5.0. It could serve as a good "case study" paper.

Author Response

We are extremely grateful to the reviewer for their constructive suggestions, and we provided a point-by-point revision according to their comments.

Reviewer-1

This manuscript describes the paradigm shift from Industry 4.0 to Industry 5.0 and provides a best practice case study of the winemaking industry on how to address issues related to Industry 5.0. It could serve as a good "case study" paper.

 

Thank You for Your kind words, we appreciated them a lot.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the framework Cantina 5.0, that has been developed to promote industry 5.0 concepts in a group of Italian SMEs and large companies in the wine production domain.

Good abstract

I don’t understand the sentence from line 60 to 63. Could you rewrite it for being more clear?

Maybe adding a reference in the sentence from line 70 to 73 will increase the quality of the paper.

From line 74 to line 84, one reference is also required.

From line 87 to line 100, the data and statistics that have been given must be confirm through a reference.

The structure (content) of the paper has to be presented at the end of the introduction to increase its quality.

I think that the literature review has to be added in the paper for increasing its quality. You have two possibilities: developing this part in detail in the introduction or making a specific section on the literature review. The objective is to explain what this research added to the global research in this domain.

It is important to know exactly what the framework that has been developed will bring in comparison to existing other frameworks.

 

The global structure of the framework has not been well presented in the section 2. The global approach has not been shown. The dimensions of the framework have not been well described.

Then it is difficult to understand exactly what has been developed and how it will increase the company’s performance.

Maybe a section on potential results and discussions will be better, before presenting a section on the conclusion. It is important to show what has been done, its impact, the results before concluding.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good quality of language

Author Response

We are extremely grateful to the reviewer for their constructive suggestions, and we provided a point-by-point revision according to their comments.

 

Reviewer-2

This paper presents the framework Cantina 5.0, that has been developed to promote industry 5.0 concepts in a group of Italian SMEs and large companies in the wine production domain.

 

Good abstract

Thank You!

 

I don’t understand the sentence from line 60 to 63. Could you rewrite it for being more clear?

Thank You. Changed.

 

Maybe adding a reference in the sentence from line 70 to 73 will increase the quality of the paper.

Thank You. Reference “European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Renda, A., Schwaag Serger, S., Tataj, D. et al., Industry 5.0, a transformative vision for Europe – Governing systemic transformations towards a sustainable in-dustry, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/17322.” added.

 

From line 74 to line 84, one reference is also required.

Thank You. Reference “Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B. and Wang, L. (2021), Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, conception and perception, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 61, pp. 530-535 and Leng, J., Sha, W., Wang, B., Zheng, P., Zhuang, C., Liu, Q., Wuest, T, Mourtzis, D. and Wang, L. (2022), Industry 5.0: Prospect and retrospect, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 65, pp. 279-295.” added.

 

From line 87 to line 100, the data and statistics that have been given must be confirm through a reference.

Thank You. Reference “https://www.vinitaly.com/en/press/press-releases/wine-uiv-vinitaly-observatory-vineyard-italy-an-asset-worth-56-billion-euros/” added.

 

The structure (content) of the paper has to be presented at the end of the introduction to increase its quality.

Thank You, added.

 

I think that the literature review has to be added in the paper for increasing its quality. You have two possibilities: developing this part in detail in the introduction or making a specific section on the literature review. The objective is to explain what this research added to the global research in this domain.

Thank You. We agree with You and we added some paragraphs and references in the final part of the Introduction.

 

It is important to know exactly what the framework that has been developed will bring in comparison to existing other frameworks.

Thank You. The present paper presents the idea beyond the CANTINA 5.0 project, an idea that is under development right in this period, as the project started few months ago. We tried to explain its contribution to the state-of-the-art in the final part of the Introduction section, where the human-centric perspective was introduced after a literature survey about the main issues of the traditional winemaking.

 

 

The global structure of the framework has not been well presented in the section 2. The global approach has not been shown. The dimensions of the framework have not been well described.

Thank You. According to your suggestions, We have provided the overall numbers of FTE, to give an idea of the size of the involved factories, and we have also specified better the overall “5.0” approach applied in the project.

 

Then it is difficult to understand exactly what has been developed and how it will increase the company’s performance.

Thank You. As said, we have better specified the overall “5.0” approach implemented in the project scenario. The companies, which agreed to participate in the study, are surely aware about the importance of the Industry 5.0 scenario and the possible benefits brought to the whole production chain in the sector of winemaking. The participation of each factory to the project, although voluntary, will enable it to obtain a certificate of participation that, together with the demonstration (as aggregate data) of the implemented good practices, could scale up the reputation of the factory at the national and/or international level.

 

Maybe a section on potential results and discussions will be better, before presenting a section on the conclusion. It is important to show what has been done, its impact, the results before concluding.

Thank You. You are right; however, as said before, the present paper outlines the idea beyond the CANTINA 5.0 project, an idea that is under development just in this period as the project started only few months ago. Therefore, at the moment there is no result in this regard, making the discussion and conclusions section only speculative.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a promising approach to the implementation of Industry 5.0 in winemaking with an emphasis on employee well-being and environmental sustainability. However:

1. It is important to clearly state the main purpose of the work and the research questions guiding the project in the introductory section.

2. The article focuses on how the project will be carried out but does not include any results or specific achievements (results) so far. It would be stronger if it contained some initial conclusions.

3. The article mentions the use of portable sensors to track workers. This raises concerns about data privacy and whether employees actually consented to the monitoring. Authors should note these limitations and explain how they address privacy concerns.

 

4. The paper does not describe how the collected data will be analyzed to inform best practices.

5. It would be useful to include a schematic diagram illustrating the architecture of the proposed platform in the article. In addition, there needs to be more discussion of the privacy measures implemented on the platform to ensure transparency and compliance with data protection regulations.

Author Response

We are extremely grateful to the reviewer for their constructive suggestions, and we provided a point-by-point revision according to their comments.

 

Reviewer-3

This article presents a promising approach to the implementation of Industry 5.0 in winemaking with an emphasis on employee well-being and environmental sustainability. However:

 

1. It is important to clearly state the main purpose of the work and the research questions guiding the project in the introductory section.

Thank You. We modified the Introduction accordingly.

 

2. The article focuses on how the project will be carried out but does not include any results or specific achievements (results) so far. It would be stronger if it contained some initial conclusions.

Thank You for pointing out this fact. However, the present paper outlines the idea beyond the CANTINA 5.0 project, an idea that is now under development as the project started only few months ago. Therefore, at the moment, there is no result to exhibit in this regard, and the discussion and conclusions could just remain speculative in this respect. To avoid in the readers raising doubts similar to the ones expressed by you, we tried to be clearer in the aims and in particular in the final part of the Introduction section.

 

3. The article mentions the use of portable sensors to track workers. This raises concerns about data privacy and whether employees actually consented to the monitoring. Authors should note these limitations and explain how they address privacy concerns.

Thank You. In our team (and among our authors) there are people working on the Institutional office for privacy, with a deep experience and expertise on the topic, therefore this point was already taken into account carefully. First of all, the workers included in the project are all volunteers, and their participation to the study does not imply advantages or disadvantages with respect to peers in terms of working consideration and performances. Furthermore, all data are collected with the permission of the interested parties, and will not be made available to the employer. Finally, in order to preserve, as much as possible, the privacy of workers agreeing to volunteer the project, we decided to keep all data anonymous since the collection, without names and surnames or other data that can lead to the identity of a subject. Even questionnaires on the quality of life are based upon questions that not include personal information; furthermore, the amount of people to be enrolled, according to the protocol (N = 30), is more than sufficient to guarantee a proper statistical analysis for a proof-of-concept study, at the same time allowing to keep the anonymity of workers’ data. We better specified this point in Section 2.5.

 

4. The paper does not describe how the collected data will be analyzed to inform best practices.

Thank You. We have addressed this point at the end of Section 2.5.

 

5. It would be useful to include a schematic diagram illustrating the architecture of the proposed platform in the article. In addition, there needs to be more discussion of the privacy measures implemented on the platform to ensure transparency and compliance with data protection regulations.

Thank You. We added a figure (Figure 6) accordingly. As for data protection, please references to the Section 2.5 have been introduced in response to the query #3.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract has been improved and seems more valuable than previously.

Line 76: instead of  “can be defined” maybe “is defined” is better.

Lines 199 to 203: This part is clear: Two sections have to presented on the paper. It seems that only one has been presented. The second one is a conclusion. I suggest to separate the discussions and the conclusion. The idea would e to develop in detail the discussion for obtaining a real second section and a conclusion.

Line 234 to 240: This part has been well corrected. However, the paradigm presented focuses on the “5.0” aspects and does not treat the “4.0” concepts. I think it is important to explain how the 4.0 concepts are used and to increase their efficiency with the “5.0” aspects. The structure and the architecture of the use of these concepts have to be described.

The figure 1 seems not sufficiently clear (style).

In section 2.1, maybe a paragraph on quantitative and qualitative methods could increase the quality of the paper and justify why a qualitative method has been chosen.

 

Figure 3 is not clear (style).

In the section 2.3 the environmental and social sustainability has to be clearly described through its parameters before discussing and showing how it use in the framework that is proposed. I suppose that the section 2 is focused on the methodology and concepts. If not, it means that one section before this one is missing. If yes, the sub-sections have to include general formalisms before a specific focus.

In the section 2.4, treating about wine quality assessment, the global structure of the assessment with criteria of measure has to be presented before focusing on the specific use.

The figure 7 is not clear (style).

 

This version is better than the previous, however, revisions are required to improve the quality of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good quality of language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are extremely grateful for Your valuable and interesting comments.

Please, find below our point-by-point response (in italics) to Your comments (in plain text):

The abstract has been improved and seems more valuable than previously.

Thank You for Your kind words.

Line 76: instead of  “can be defined” maybe “is defined” is better.

Thank You, Changed.

Lines 199 to 203: This part is clear: Two sections have to presented on the paper. It seems that only one has been presented. The second one is a conclusion. I suggest to separate the discussions and the conclusion. The idea would e to develop in detail the discussion for obtaining a real second section and a conclusion.

Thank You. We modified this part accordingly and we have added Section 4 for Conclusions alone.

Line 234 to 240: This part has been well corrected. However, the paradigm presented focuses on the “5.0” aspects and does not treat the “4.0” concepts. I think it is important to explain how the 4.0 concepts are used and to increase their efficiency with the “5.0” aspects. The structure and the architecture of the use of these concepts have to be described.

According to this suggestion, we intervene in at least two places in the article. At the end of paragraph 2.1 we added some sentence explaining how the illustrate solutions are in continuity and synergy existing between the “4.0” and the “5.0” steps. Then, we redirect the reader to Section 2.5, where the architecture of the IT-platform that is in the plan to be created is better outlined.

The figure 1 seems not sufficiently clear (style).

Figure 1 is the “cover figure of the project” i.e. a schematic figure useful to illustrate, at a glance, the areas of interventions of the project and, above of all, the sharing of data operated by the IT-platform that is designed to be created. We have completed the caption by adding a sentence to better explain the illustrated concepts.

In section 2.1, maybe a paragraph on quantitative and qualitative methods could increase the quality of the paper and justify why a qualitative method has been chosen.

In accordance with this reviewer’s suggestion, we have inserted a completely-new paragraph and a reference more at the beginning of section 2.1. As can be read there, starting from the definition of “quality of life” and of its many dimensions, we illustrate how an objective condition/fact (due to a physical problem) can easily give origin to subjective sensations, involving also mental and spiritual aspects. This justifies the juxtaposition of quantitative methods (detection of some physiological parameters) and qualitative methods (questionnaires) in this project.

Figure 3 is not clear (style).

Figure 3 shows, in a schematic way, the parameters most frequently monitored by a generic smart wearable device. We have modified the caption to better explain the illustrated concept.

In the section 2.3 the environmental and social sustainability has to be clearly described through its parameters before discussing and showing how it use in the framework that is proposed. I suppose that the section 2 is focused on the methodology and concepts. If not, it means that one section before this one is missing. If yes, the sub-sections have to include general formalisms before a specific focus.

Thank You. We added some specifications on the CSR part about novel CSR models, stating that: “The recent models of CSR involve considering economic, environmental, and so-cial aspects simultaneously. From an environmental perspective, the literature con-firms that consumers are increasingly sensitive to the production and packaging of green products, and they are willing to pay a higher price for them [51,52]. From a so-cial perspective, respect for the environment and working conditions, both during the cultivation and production phases, plays a central role [53,54]. Businesses’ adherence to the principles of social responsibility has helped to strengthen their competitive po-sitioning as well as positively affect profitability [55].”

In the section 2.4, treating about wine quality assessment, the global structure of the assessment with criteria of measure has to be presented before focusing on the specific use.

Thank You. We added a paragraph at the end of the section 2.4, better specifying this part. In more detail, we added “Sensorial analysis will be performed by a panel composed by 12 trained assessors (7 females, 5 males) aged between 25 and 63 years, members of the “expert panel” of the DAFE of the University of Pisa. Before the start of the study, all participants will be asked to fill out their informed consent. Each tasting session will involve evaluating a maximum of 8 wines, with judges receiving a sample twice to assess the panelist's repeatability. A 220 mL tulip-shaped wine tasting glass (ISO 3591:1977) will be used to present approximately 50 mL of each blind-coded sample. Water and breadsticks for palate cleansing will be provided by each judge between two consecutive samples. The sensory profile will be assessed through a detailed sensory questionnaire with 24 attributes: 16 qualitative (color saturation, purple hues, garnet hues, olfactory in-tensity, roundness, structure, acidity, alcohol, astringency, bitterness, floral, fruity, vegetal, spicy aromas, off-flavours, persistence); 8 hedonic (attractiveness, finesse, frankness, harmony, retronasal finesse, retronasal frankness, aromatic richness, he-donic level); 6 emotional (fear, anger, sadness, joy/happiness, disgust and surprise). Each attribute was evaluated on a 0-9 scale. All ratings will be digitally acquired.”

The figure 7 is not clear (style).

Thank You. We modified the figure accordingly and we also provided some more details in the figure caption.

 

This version is better than the previous, however, revisions are required to improve the quality of the paper.

Thank You. We tried to do our best to address all Your valuable suggestions. We are really convinced that the suggestions of yours and the other reviewers’ have given a sensible contribution to improve the article from the first version to the current one. We hope that, after these last modifications, the article has arrived to a form worthy to be published in this journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments were answered comprehensively, and the article was amended accordingly. Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are extremely grateful for Your valuable and interesting comments.

Please, find below our point-by-point response (in italics) to Your comments (in plain text):

All my comments were answered comprehensively, and the article was amended accordingly. Thank you.

Thank You for Your kind words and for Your revision, it was appreciated a lot.