Supporting SRI Uptake Across Eight Countries

SRI-ENACT was implemented in eight pilot countries, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Romania and Spain, to co-design national strategies for SRI adoption. Through more than 20 training events, 110 expert interviews and the establishment of national Stakeholder Liaison Groups, the project ensured that each country’s approach was adapted to its local context, building capacity and encouraging long-term market transformation.

Figure 1. Methodological framework for the SRI calculation

A key objective was to customise the SRI methodology to reflect each country’s unique conditions, including climate zones, building typologies, regulatory environments and available funding mechanisms. To achieve this, the project first analysed the national SRI landscapes, identifying existing practices and challenges.

It then launched a co-creation process, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders, including government officials, energy and facility managers, network operators, technical system providers, engineers, energy agencies, investors, policymakers and building users, through a carefully designed Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

A comprehensive overview of the current state of the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) adoption across the European Union, was delivered, focusing especially on the eight pilot countries. As part of this overview, different methodologies and tools for calculating SRI scores and monitoring building smartness were explored, along with widely accepted practices and funding mechanisms that support energy performance in buildings. Financial, technical, and social challenges, along with issues related to privacy, security, and system interoperability were also identified.

A detailed Stakeholder Engagement Plan was designed and rolled out, that enabled meaningful involvement of key national stakeholders spanning across institutional, academic, policy, and market sectors. The plan was verified in practice, through the strong participation of relevant stakeholders in the co-creation sessions.

Stakeholder Liaison Groups were formed in each pilot country through the first round of co-creation workshops that were held at the pilot sites. These groups consisted of a blend of institutional, academic, policy, and market representatives, and were the main reference point to the national dialogue revolving around SRI implementation.

Two rounds of co-creation workshops were organized in each country, with over 200 participants of different backgrounds and expertise involved in total. Complemented with 113 semi-structured interviews, this effort successfully managed to capture the experts’ perspective on the SRI implications, thus bringing valuable insights into the customization of the SRI at national level.

Detailed adaptations of the SRI framework were delivered in each pilot country, at both contextual and methodological levels, including tailoring of the smart service catalogues, weighting factors, and building typology reflections. An update of the tailored methodologies was carried out based on advancements stemming from the formal participation of pilot countries in the SRI Test Phase (e.g., Greece and Bulgaria). Additionally, it was further supported by recent inputs gathered during the latest SRI-ENACT policy events. These updates enabled the final refinement of the national tailoring processes, ensuring that pillar 1 output accurately reflects the most up-to-date developments and insights from piloting activities.

The SRI-ENACT Toolkit, Digitalising Smart Readiness Assessments

Figure 2. The SRI-ENACT digital toolkit

To enable the assessment process, the SRI-ENACT project developed a user-friendly digital toolkit that enables both self-assessment by residents and formal assessments by certified SRI auditors. The web-based application ensures secure access and consistent use of the EU’s official SRI methodology. The toolkit also includes a Decision Support Tool (DST), which analyses assessment results and recommends upgrade scenarios tailored to each building’s needs and improvement goals. The DST is based on a scenario-driven framework that builds on the results of the involved buildings’ SRI evaluations drawn from the SRI Assessment Tool. It provides key insights and targeted solutions to the users regarding the smart-ready upgrades (or combinations of smart-ready upgrades presented as scenarios) that should be implemented towards meeting a user-defined SRI target for the building under evaluation.

Figure 3. The SRI-ENACT Decision Support Tool

Over 1,200 Buildings Assessed Across Europe

The SRI-ENACT pilot programme validated the project’s tools and methodology through real-world assessments. In total, over 1,200 buildings were assessed, covering a diverse range of building types.

SRI Auditors Training courses were conducted in all pilot countries, educating a total of over 160 auditors through both online and in-person formats. Based on the SRI-ENACT training package, these courses enhanced professional capacity by providing in-depth knowledge of the SRI methodology and how smart technologies can improve energy efficiency, occupant comfort, and building functionality.

Informational events were held across all pilot countries to promote the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) and engage key stakeholders in the assessment programmes. Over 20 events, including workshops, conferences, fairs and webinars, reached more than 2,000 participants. These events attracted a diverse audience, from policymakers to technical experts, and introduced the SRI framework, national contexts, and SRI-ENACT tools, while also gathering valuable feedback to support national adaptation and broader uptake strategies.

The pilot operations successfully validated the SRI-ENACT methodology, offering evidence-based insights into smart building readiness across Europe. Over 1,200 residential and non-residential buildings were assessed by 112 trained auditors in three engagement cycles, identifying key areas for technological, policy, and infrastructure improvements. These findings support the EU’s goals of enhancing building intelligence, energy efficiency, occupant comfort, and grid interaction, and will inform further development of the SRI-ENACT toolkit and broader implementation efforts.

The total average SRI Score (%)  represents how well the building utilizes smart technologies across various domains. Figure 4 allows for a direct comparison of how "smart-ready" buildings are, on average, in different pilot European countries.

Figure 4. Average SRI Scores (%)

A higher bar indicates a higher level of smart readiness, according to the SRI metric. The SRI scores range significantly from 9.58 to 35.30, showing considerable variation in smart building adoption across these European countries.

Bulgaria has the highest average SRI score at 35.30, suggesting that, on average, the selected buildings in Bulgaria have implemented more smart technologies and functionalities compared to the other countries in the dataset. Croatia has the lowest average SRI score at 9.58, indicating a lower adoption of smart building technologies compared to the other countries. Spain (26.41) shows a relatively high average SRI score, Romania (25.88) is just slightly below Spain, Austria (22.67) and Czech Republic (20.56) have similar scores, Latvia (18.59) and Greece (11.18) have lower scores.

The graph provides a snapshot of the current state of smart building adoption across these European countries. Countries with higher SRI scores may have more supportive policies, greater investment in smart technologies, or a stronger focus on sustainability and energy efficiency in buildings. Countries can use this data to benchmark their performance against others and identify areas for improvement.

The differences in SRI scores involve examining factors such as building codes, energy efficiency standards, incentives for smart technology adoption, and the availability of skilled professionals in each country.

For the above considerations, a direct comparison of the results and individual components of the SRI test among the countries should not be perceived as uncontested due to reasons such as:

• the initial state of the energy efficiency levels of the assessed buildings: existing non-refurbished buildings and year of their commissioning, renovated and certified buildings for EPB with implemented EE measures with or without the use of RES from different classes A, B, C, new construction with different EPB classes A or B with or without RES
• differences in national scales for EPB in terms of primary energy (PE) consumption kWh/m2y
• differences in national regulatory frameworks regarding mandatory and optional TBS/Domains for buildings in operation and for new construction
• the influence of climatic zones and the differences in the norms for comfort in the occupied premises
• differences in national classifications/grouping of buildings by functional types
• differences in national regulations and policies regarding the use of renewable energy sources in the building sector, including charging stations for electric vehicles
• differences in national regulations regarding mandatory and optional functional levels of automated/intelligent control for buildings in operation and for new construction, incl. dynamic connections to local and external energy networks
• differences in national architectural and engineering norms regarding dynamically coordinated with the TBS management of the building envelope (heating, ventilation, cooling, lighting, sun and wind protection, presence of people, day/night, etc.)
• differences in the regulatory requirements for monitoring and maintenance of the TBS
• the upcoming national adaptations of the SRI in EU assessment methodology

The SRI Class (A, B, C, D, E, F, G)  categorizes the building into a specific readiness level, helping to compare its performance with other buildings.  The pie chart 'SRI Class Distribution' (Figure 5) is divided into slices, each representing a different SRI class. The size of each slice corresponds to the number of buildings in that class. The distribution is heavily skewed towards the lower SRI classes (E and F). This indicates that most of the buildings assessed are not highly "smart-ready" according to the SRI criteria.

Figure 5. SRI Class Distribution

The largest slice is the one, representing SRI class G  (<20%) , which contains 617 buildings. This indicates that the majority of buildings in the dataset have relatively low smart readiness scores.  The slice representing SRI class F (20 - 35%), is the second largest, with 456 buildings and the SRI class E slice (35 - 50%), is the third largest, with 111 buildings. This further reinforces the idea that a substantial number of buildings have only moderate levels of smart readiness. Classes A (90-100%) and B (80 - 90%) each have 0 buildings. There are only a few buildings in the higher classes: 10 in C (65 - 80%) and 26 in D (50 - 65%). This suggests that very few buildings in the dataset have achieved high levels of smart readiness.

The graph 'SRI Classes Distribution per Country' (Figure 6) provides a comparative overview of the SRI class distribution across different pilot countries. It shows the proportion of buildings in each country that fall into different levels of smart readiness, as defined by the SRI. In general, the graph shows that very few buildings across all countries fall into the highest SRI classes (A and B).

Figure 6. SRI Class Distribution per Country

Croatia and Greece are almost entirely composed of the lowest SRI class, G (<20%). This indicates that almost all the assessed buildings in these countries have very low smart readiness scores. Latvia is dominated by class G (<20%), with a solid percentage in class F. Austria shows a significant proportion of buildings in class F (20-35%) and a smaller percentage in class G (<20%), with very small proportions in classes D and E. Spain is also predominantly in class F (20-35%), with a small percentage in class E (35-50%) and class G (<20%). In Czech Republic similar to Latvia, the most buildings are in class G. Bulgaria shows a mix of classes, with a notable proportion of buildings in the moderate and higher classes, including E, D and C class. However, most buildings are still in class F. Romania exhibits a more balanced distribution across several classes, including D, E, and F, indicating a somewhat higher level of smart readiness compared to countries like Greece or Croatia.

The charts reveals that most buildings in the sample have considerable room for improvement in terms of smart technology adoption and functionalities. The data suggests a need for upgrades and investments in smart building technologies to improve energy efficiency, comfort, and other aspects of building performance. Governments and organizations can use this information to develop policies and incentives aimed at promoting the adoption of smart building technologies. This could include financial incentives, regulatory requirements, or educational programs.

Efforts to improve smart readiness should focus on the areas covered by the SRI, such as energy management, comfort, health and well-being, information to occupants, and user empowerment. The SRI class distribution can serve as a baseline for future monitoring of progress in smart building adoption. It can also be used to benchmark the performance of different regions or building types.

In summary, this charts provides a clear visual representation of the current state of smart building readiness, showing that a significant proportion of buildings have low to moderate levels of smart technology adoption. This highlights the need for greater efforts to promote smart building technologies and improve overall building performance.

These results offer valuable benchmarks for countries aiming to enhance energy efficiency and digital innovation in the built environment.

Conclusions

SRI-ENACT made a lasting contribution by also delivered policy recommendations and business model insights to support long-term SRI uptake. The project’s active collaboration with other LIFE-funded projects under the SRI Cluster further strengthened synergies and dissemination efforts across the EU.

The SRI-ENACT project has successfully fulfilled its overarching goal of providing a holistic solution to the widespread adoption and implementation of the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) across Europe. By working closely with the broader SRI cluster and LIFE community, SRI-ENACT has cultivated enduring synergies that will continue to shape the evolution of smart building policies and practices well beyond the project’s conclusion. Through a co-creative, multi-stakeholder, and evidence-based approach, the project has delivered a comprehensive suite of tools, tailored methodologies, training materials, and strategic insights that directly address the diverse national contexts and stakeholder needs across the EU.