# Integrating Sustainable Performance into the Digital Maturity Models for SMEs in Manufacturing
## 3 Literature Review
### Sustainable Performance Measurement
#### 3.3.2 Social Performance  
Social indicators are increasingly used in the literature to measure a company's performance. Of the 28 articles collected, 22 consider it important to measure companies' social performance. Authors use social dependent variables as indicators. This section details all social indicators identified in the literature to deepen understanding of sustainable performance indicators. This section is divided into three categories: **health and safety**, the **firm's appreciation**, and the **societal impact** of the firm. First, when studying social indicators in a company, it is essential to consider worker comfort. This is precisely what the authors of the articles in this literature review do. To achieve this, many authors use indicators related to the **health and safety of workers** as a measure of social performance. The indicators used are related to the **number of workers**, the **level of worker inclusion**, and **workplace appreciation**. Indeed, worker health and safety are extremely important, which is why many indicators on this topic were found in this literature review. Nineteen authors state that health and safety are relevant to social performance. Among them, almost half, including [31; 36; 57], directly use employee **health and safety levels** as an indicator. Similarly, as with [51; 53; 65], part of the remaining authors use indicators of **physical and psychological stress** among employees. To quantify worker health and safety more easily, ref. [66], ref. [33], and ref. [54], respectively, use indicators such as **noise pollution levels**, **accident frequency**, and **air quality**. Ref. [50], on the other hand, considers **screen time** a health risk for users and thus uses screen time as an indicator affecting worker health and safety. Closely related to work improvement, ref. [34] suggests measuring the **amount of hazardous materials** handled by workers. For the psychological aspect, ref. [48] directly measures **worker morale**. Refs. [44; 50; 52] note that security affects more than just workers; there are also risks associated with **social security and data protection**. They therefore propose measuring **data exposure** to the public and **exposure to cybercrime**. Next, still aiming to measure social performance, 13 articles present different techniques to identify worker appreciation levels. Some propose measuring **staff turnover rates**, others the level of employee satisfaction within the company, and others the level of worker inclusion. Ref. [36] directly uses **employee turnover rates** as an indicator of job appreciation--or conversely, job dissatisfaction in cases where the company struggles to hire. Other authors suggest that the **level of inclusion** can increase employee appreciation. Most of these authors, such as [49; 51; 67], use **skill levels required** to measure inclusion. Ref. [52] notes that significant challenges will arise regarding employees' acquisition of new skills during the digitalisation process for SMMEs. Additionally, refs. [44; 49; 67] suggest measuring **worker flexibility levels** and indirectly assessing employee competence and training levels. Similarly, refs. [50; 52] directly measure **in-company training duration**, while refs. [44; 55] measure the **percentage of workers meeting I4.0 requirements**. Specifically, ref. [44] indicates that qualification and skill development for I4.0 present challenges, which could negatively impact worker inclusion. More concretely, ref. [54] measures inclusion levels using **morbidity rates** and the **percentage of disabled employees**. Regarding job satisfaction within a company, many authors directly propose measuring **employee satisfaction levels**. Conversely, another group, including [57; 61], suggests measuring **resistance to change** as an indicator of employee satisfaction. To measure satisfaction more specifically, some authors, such as [48; 68], propose using the **quality of working conditions**, the **number of simple, repetitive tasks**, and **salaries of workers**.