In this section different previous literatures diverse overall categorisation of barriers; obstacles and challenges for implementing energy savings are highlighted.
Subsequently, the overall categorisation of challenges applied in this article is presented.
3.1( StateBofBtheBart( categorisations( of( barriers( for( energy(
efficiency(in(enterprises(
Within the academic field of energy efficiency, a gap is found to exist between profitable energy savings and savings actually implemented – known as the energy efficiency gap or energy paradox (e.g. Backlund et al. 2012; Blumstein et al., 1980;
Hirst and Brown, 1990; Jaffe and Stavins, 1994; Sorrell et al. 2004; Weber, 1997).
Jaffe and Stavins (1994) addresses this energy efficiency gap from a economical theoretical position pointing at various market failures that hinder actors to make otherwise rational choices of implementing profitable energy efficient solutions (Jaffe & Stavins, 2005; Jaffe and Stavins, 1994; Thollander et al. 2007).
Based on an extensive literature review of barriers for enterprises energy savings Sorrell et al. (2000) list 15 barriers related to four overall theoretical categories: 1) market failure; 2) other economic barriers; 3) organisational barriers and 4)
behavioural barriers (Sorrell et al. 2000; Thollander and Dotzauer, 2010). Sorrell et al. (2000) thereby enlarge Jaffe and Stavins (1994) perspective in respect to adding organisational and behavioural perspectives (Sorrell, 2003; Sorrell et al, 2000).
Compiling this earlier work, Sorrell et al. (2004) introduce what they frame as a basic taxonomy. They use this basic taxonomy for a review of different empirical based surveys of barriers for the implementation of energy savings by production companies (Sorrell et al, 2011).
The basic taxonomy consists of six categories (Sorrell et al. 2011 p. 6):
a) Risk (risk of closure and risk of introducing new technology) b) Imperfect information including transaction costs,
c) Hidden costs including disruptions to production and staff replacement/-training;
d) Access to capital;
e) Split incentives where the investors cannot fully acquire the benefit, f) Bounded rationality where constraints on time, attention and lack of the
ability to process information etc. prevent individuals in charge to make
“rational” decisions.
Sorrell et al. (2011) acknowledge that this taxonomy is to be understood as an overall theoretical framing of various barriers that might be framed differently, cut across or appear by other wordings in different contextual analyses of barriers.
They attempt, however, to use their own taxonomy as base for “translating” the various categorisations of barriers found in the reviewed surveys into the same wording and compare, which barriers are found to be significant. They conclude that the barriers highlighted the most relate to “imperfect information”. However they also found that such barriers appear interconnected to both “hidden cost” and
“bounded rationality”. Opposite they emphasise that few enterprises actually highlighted “split incentives” as a barrier (Sorrell et al. 2011).
Thollander and Dotzauer (2010) assess two Swedish surveys on energy savings in SMEs and non-energy-intensive industry (Thollander et al. 2007; Rohdin and Thollander, 2006). Based on these, they conclude that the five main barriers identified were (Thollander and Dotzauer, 2010 p. 1341):
• Lack of time or other priorities (including other priorities of internal capital funding)
• Lack of access to capital or funding
• Cost of production disruption/Inconvenience
• Technical risk such as risk of production disruptions
• Difficulties/cost obtaining information energy use of purchased equipment
In one of these surveys, the barrier “Lack of time or other priorities” was the only one pointed at significantly more than the rest (Thollander et al. 2007). Bradford and Fraser (2008) come to similar conclusions. In a survey of SME’s in the United Kingdom 65 % of the respondents highlighted insufficient time or staff as the most important obstacles for not implementing energy savings. Opposite no significance could be registered in respect to other investigated barriers in that survey (Bradford and Fraser, 2008).
The surveys of respectively Thollander et al (2007), Rohdin and Thollander (2006) and Bradford and Fraser (2008) are all based upon local programmes that resemble the Carbon 20 by providing the enterprises an energy screening free of charge or highly subsidized.
Thollander et al. (2007) point out that offering a screening free of charge indeed influences the results. The purpose of offering screenings to the SME is precisely to address barriers related to “imperfect information”. Exactly the one highlighted by Sorrell et al. (2011) as the barrier otherwise encountered the most (Thollander et al.
2007). The barrier “lack of time and other priorities” would in Sorrell’s taxonomy relate to the “Bounded rationality” category found to coexist with the “imperfect information” barrier in Sorrell et al. (2011) review of various surveys.
In a Danish context, the Danish Society of Engineers (IDA), has asked several experts within the energy saving field about their view of barriers, constrains and challenges for the implementation of energy savings in production enterprises. IDA summarises this into 5 obstacles (IDA, 2012 p. 9):
1. Lack of economic incentives
2. Lack of knowledge about own energy saving options 3. The landlord has the cost, while the tenants the gains
4. When rules and legislation constrains energy savings, and finally 5. Lack of skills to maintain good habits
IDAs framing of the obstacles seem to divert some from the categorisation of both Sorrell et al. (2011) and Thollander and Dotzauer (2010). Four of the highlighted obstacles appear anyhow to concern some of the same aspect as appointed by the others, just using other wordings. Obstacle number four on rules and legislations differs however significantly in nature. Some – especially the more earlier – academic writings do also address such regulatory aspect e.g. Hirst and Brown (1990) and Weber (1997).
IDA’s emphasis on the overall rules and legislation relates to a rather long tradition in Denmark of a strong regulation in the energy field including high levies and taxes on energy production and consumption. The discussion of the appropriate of
these settings and frames is an integral element of the Danish debate on energy efficiency.
3.2(The(overall(categorisation(of(challenges(used(in(this(article(
Above, a selection of different contributions of categorisations of various barriers for companies’ implementation of energy savings has been presented. As shown the different contributions came to somewhat different categorisations with overlapping wordings and boundaries drawn slightly different (see Table 1).
Sorrell et al. (2011; 2004) Thollander and Dotzauer (2010)
IDA (2012) Bounded rationality as
constraints on time, attention and lack of the ability to process information etc.
prevent individuals in charge to make “rational” decisions disruptions to production and staff replacement/-training
investors cannot fully acquire the benefit
Table 1 – Differences between different categorisations of barriers for energy savings.
The aim in this article is to provide input (feedback) to the municipal officers in respect to adapt their facilitation strategies. The term “challenges” was deliberately
chosen instead of barriers as challenges signal that these potentially can be overcome, whereas barriers appear as more permanent roadblocks.
As argued, the empirical statements have been gathered under some overall categorisations for further processing. The forming of these categorisations was as mentioned based iteratively on first the preliminary impressions from the two first years of the Carbon 20 as well as the above literature review of past contributions.
In total six overall categorise of challenges were established. In addition tree supplementary “categories” was created for capturing respectively: statement falling outside these six, statements specifically highlighting that there were not encountered challenges; as well as no responses:
1. Lack of time and priority
2. Lack of ability to implement solutions 3. Economic constrains
4. Split-incentives between Landlords and tenants 5. Rules and legislation
6. Insecurity of new technology
• Other challenges
• Highlighted that no challenge and
• No responses
The majority of these categories do align the wordings of some of the previous literature, but do also divert in some aspect. This diversion follows from the preliminary empirical input during the two first years and will be elaborated further in the next analysis of the character of challenges in next section.