How to gauge the prestige of an individual researcher when selecting a PhD advisor
In my opinion, the prestige of a potential supervisor in the industry (vs strictly academic) can be (rapidly) assessed by first checking his academic curriculum vitae for:


The committees he is part of. As an academic working with the industry, he should be involved with one or several government / industries related committees with a focus on state of the art application of the knowledge in that industry (procedures to do x,y,z) common best practices (for that field), budgeting and assigning funds, defining road-maps for the next 5, 10 years etc. I know some academics working closely with the transport industry (or government related agencies) - and in addition to the usual academic implication, they are also working actively with those instances, often have a student doing a project with those instances as well.
His publications : he should write or be co-author on papers/books that are recognized in his field. Often large efforts with large groups of academics. His methods/work should be found or referred in some textbooks. He should have international collaborations. Patents ?
Editor : is he on any editorial boards for relevant journals ?


If he is an early career academic, is he that person who is always everywhere, always organizing something, always at conferences and meeting with half a dozen presentation - this could give a hint that this person is dynamic and his career may be promising.

This information should be easy to find. If it is hard to find, this may be a flag. I would personally have a good confidence joining a researcher with at some degree meet those characteristics, even if he is not a tenure at a top university.