European industry faces a shared challenge: turning flexibility from concept into reality. Through a holistic methodology and real-world feasibility studies, a European consortium has mapped how solutions can move beyond pilots and adapt to diverse settings. Challenges remain, but experts are confident: “Flexibility is no longer an abstract ambition, but something that can be designed and improved in practice.”


After four years, the FLEXIndustries project is drawing to a close. Launched in June 2022, the initiative brought together companies and research institutions across several sectors, including automotive, biofuels, polymers, steel, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals. The goal was to implement new strategies and technologies to strengthen European industrial competitiveness through energy efficiency and greater flexibility. In short, not simply to use fewer resources, but to employ them better, and with more room to adapt to changing energy and production demands.
Now, the next phase concerns “reproducibility”—or, in the language often used in European innovation projects, “replicability”. But the term does not imply copying and pasting the same solution exactly everywhere.

Indeed, once a research project like FLEXIndustries moves beyond the pilot stage, the central question becomes whether its results can be adapted and implemented in different industrial contexts without losing effectiveness.

To get a sense of what’s next, now that the project is wrapping up, we spoke with Juan Carlos del Castillo, a researcher at the Energy Division of the CARTIF Technology Center in Spain—one of FLEXIndustries’ partners. He got involved in the project specifically to identify pathways for transferring project results to other sectors and environments.

Could you tell us something about your responsibilities within FLEXIndustries?

My main responsibility has been to ensure that the project went beyond simply achieving “successful pilot status,” so to speak. In practice, that meant moving from the basic question of whether a solution works technically to several broader ones concerning safety, sustainability, economic viability and future adaptability.

Your role also focuses on scalability. Can you tell us about that and how it relates or differs from reproducibility?

That is a good starting point, because the distinction between these two matters a lot. Reproducibility is about whether a solution can work again in a different context and still yield credible results. So it’s basically asking, "Can this be transferred?" Scalability, on the other hand, is about whether the solution can grow in reach, volume, and systemic relevance.

And why is reproducibility such an important element to highlight at the end of the project? What does it mean in practical industrial terms?

Because a project like this only creates real value if the results can travel beyond the original pilot boundaries. In practical industrial terms, reproducibility doesn't mean taking a solution developed in one place and dropping it unchanged into another. It means being able to obtain comparable benefits in different contexts by understanding which elements are essential, which ones must be adapted, and which local conditions determine performance, since no two industrial plants are identical. Different infrastructure, energy prices, market rules, production constraints and organisational practices mean that what matters is not simple duplication, but structured and credible transferability. That is why reproducibility, or, in project terms, replicability, is so important now that FLEXIndustries is ending.

And what methodology was used to ensure that project results could be reproduced across different environments?

One method was the holistic assessment approach, which addressed economic, environmental, life-cycle and safety implications beyond the technical aspects. Another was the use of pre-feasibility studies for early-adopter cases, paired with a general effort toward standardisation.

Were there obstacles when transferring solutions between sites, companies or countries?

Yes, definitely. Infrastructure differences played a major role. Existing equipment, monitoring systems, data availability and process integration can vary significantly from one site to another. On top of that, each company has its own operational priorities and internal culture.
These differences affect how easily a solution can be transferred in practice.

So, how did the consortium manage these differences?

Mainly by avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach. We created a common methodological backbone, but then allowed each case to be adapted to local realities.

Any examples?

Well, for example, when we extended the FLEXIndustries concept to early-adopter industrial cases, we didn't simply ask them, “Does this technology look interesting to your company?” We looked at what it would actually take to implement it in practice: the costs, the regulatory barriers, and all the local conditions that could make or break its success.

What do you see as the project's most important achievements overall?

For me, the most important achievement is that FLEXIndustries has shown that industrial flexibility is concrete and multidimensional, not just a theoretical concept. And, to circle back to what we discussed a moment ago, replication in early-adopter cases was certainly pivotal. It made the project’s legacy much more than a set of isolated pilots. That made its long-term legacy much more solid.

From your perspective, what made this project distinctive from other European innovation initiatives?

Probably its breadth and level of integration. It was not a project focused on a single technology or a narrow optimisation problem. It brought together multiple sectors, countries, energy vectors and layers of innovation. Also, it connected local industrial realities with broader European and even international perspectives—such as our cooperation with US stakeholders through dedicated knowledge-sharing activities. That added an external perspective not always present in EU projects.

Let’s talk about the future. Which FLEXIndustries outcomes do you think may have the strongest potential for adoption beyond the consortium?

I would say there are several promising ones. Certainly, the digital and analytical components—forecasting, planning, modelling, and so on. These are often easier to adapt than site-specific hardware. The methodological outcomes themselves also have strong value because they help future adopters make informed decisions. And some of the integrated technology packages, especially when combined with energy management logic, have strong replication potential in energy-intensive industries too.

What legacy do you hope the project leaves for the wider European industrial landscape?

Perhaps, above all, a clearer pathway for European industry to become more flexible, more digital, more sustainable and more connected to the wider energy system. I also hope it instils belief that industrial flexibility is not just an abstract policy ambition, but something that can be designed and improved in practice. And since we are closing the project after opening an international dialogue through knowledge-sharing activities, maybe its legacy will go beyond just individual solutions. It may very well support a wider push toward a new industrial transition.


Article by Massimiliano Saltori

Photo credits: Homa Appliances via Unsplash

Contributors: Juan Carlos del Castillo

Contacts:

Project coordinator:
Niccolò Santoni, Rina Consulting SPA - coordinator@flexindustries.eu
Communication Manager:
Leonardo Improta, ICONS - info@flexindustries.eu

Project website: Homepage - FLEXIndustries
LinkedIn: FLEXIndustries
Mastodon: @FLEXIndustries