You are on page 1of 54

Journal of Cleaner Production

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: JCLEPRO-D-17-05303

Title: What drives energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector? A


systematic literature review of empirical studies

Article Type: Review article

Keywords: Energy efficiency, Drivers, Innovation

Abstract: The manufacturing sector is a main consumer of energy. To


reduce global energy consumption and emission of greenhouse gases the
sector's ability to innovate and improve its energy efficiency is an
important means to climate change mitigation. Nevertheless, a
substantial, unexploited potential for energy efficiency in the sector is
documented. Exploitation of this potential requires a comprehensive
understanding of the driving forces affecting manufacturing companies'
ability and willingness to improve their energy efficiency. Thus the
objective of this paper is to make a synthesis of the most important
drivers identified in empirical studies. Such an analysis will also allow
the identification of discrepancies or contradicting findings in the
literature. The analysis is based on a systematic literature review
(SLR) including relevant empirical articles published on the topic from
1978 until the end of 2016. Based on the analysis we identify five
categories of drivers: Economic drivers, organizational drivers, external
drivers, policy instruments and contextual determinants. We find that
organizational and economic drivers are most important, followed by
contextual determinants and external drivers. Policy instruments receive
the least importance. Further, the review reveals a vast methodical
variety and inconsistency in the literature. Recommendations to stimulate
energy efficiency are offered, and avenues for further research are
identified.
Highlights (for review)

Highlights

* New taxonomy for drivers of energy efficiency

* Organizational drivers most critical for energy efficiency in manufacturing sector

* Economic drivers second most important for energy efficiency

* Policy should enable efficiency awareness/competence and economic conditions


Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
What drives energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector?
8
9
10 A systematic literature review of empirical studies
11
12
13 Lene Fossa.* and Mette Talseth Solnørdala1
14
15
a
16 UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Pb 6050 Langnes, Tromsø 9037, Norway
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 *
Corresponding author
29
30
31 Prof Lene Foss
32
33
34
E-mail: lene.foss@uit.no
35
36
37
38
Tel.: +47 48 000291
39
40
41
42
43
44 Other authors
45
46
47 Mette Talseth Solnørdal:
48
49
50 E-mail: mette.solnordal@uit.no,
51
52
53 Tel.: +47 77646016/ +47 95769078
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 0
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Abstract
1
2
3
4
5
6 The manufacturing sector is a main consumer of energy. To reduce global energy consumption
7
8 and emission of greenhouse gases the sector’s ability to innovate and improve its energy
9
10 efficiency is an important means to climate change mitigation. Nevertheless, a substantial,
11
12
unexploited potential for energy efficiency in the sector is documented. Exploitation of this
13 potential requires a comprehensive understanding of the driving forces affecting manufacturing
14
15 companies’ ability and willingness to improve their energy efficiency. Thus the objective of
16
17 this paper is to make a synthesis of the most important drivers identified in empirical studies.
18
19 Such an analysis will also allow the identification of discrepancies or contradicting findings in
20
21 the literature. The analysis is based on a systematic literature review (SLR) including relevant
22
empirical articles published on the topic from 1978 until the end of 2016. Based on the analysis
23
24 we identify five categories of drivers: Economic drivers, organizational drivers, external
25
26 drivers, policy instruments and contextual determinants. We find that organizational and
27
28 economic drivers are most important, followed by contextual determinants and external drivers.
29
30 Policy instruments receive the least importance. Further, the review reveals a vast methodical
31
32 variety and inconsistency in the literature. Recommendations to stimulate energy efficiency are
33 offered, and avenues for further research are identified.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

1 Introduction
1
2
3 There is a global consensus concerning the correlation between energy consumption and
4
5 greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The industrial sector is one of the main consumers of energy
6
7 (EIA, 2010). Energy efficient technologies requires less energy to perform the same function
8 (EIA). Hence, the sector’s ability to innovate and implement energy efficiency technologies are
9
10 important means to climate change mitigation. Although the industrial sector has continuously
11
12 improved its energy efficiency over the last three decades (IEA, 2007), it still holds significant
13
14 potential for further improvements (IEA, 2012). Energy efficient technologies are both energy-
15
16 efficient and cost-effective (Thollander and Ottosson, 2008). They also help companies adopt
17
18
stricter environmental laws and new supply and demand policies like the European Union
19 Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Thus, the implementation of energy efficiency
20
21 technologies contribute to the companies’ ability to sustained competitive advantage (Worrell
22
23 et al., 2003; Hart, 1995). The gap between the achieved level of energy efficiency and the
24
25 theoretical potential, given that all cost-effective technologies are implemented, is referred to
26
27 as the energy efficiency gap (Jaffe and Stavins, 1994). Extensive research on barriers to energy
28
29
efficiency has provided much knowledge and insights about factors hampering the
30 implementation of energy efficient technologies (Sorrell et al., 2000; Brunke et al., 2014).
31
32 Nevertheless, continuous observations of the energy efficiency gap (Lin and Tan, 2016; Özkara
33
34 and Atak, 2015; Honma and Hu, 2013; Hu et al., 2012; Cui and Li, 2015) have led scholars to
35
36 call for research on drivers to energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector.
37
38
39 Research suggests several definitions of drivers to energy efficiency. Thollander and Ottosson
40
41 (2008) define drivers as “factors that stress investments in technologies that are both energy-
42
43
efficient and cost-effective”. Ren (2009) argues that drivers are “factors that positively affect a
44 firm’s intentions for innovation and therefore assist innovation activities”. While Cagno and
45
46 Trianni (2013) understand them as “factors facilitating the adoption of both energy-efficient
47
48 technologies and practices, thus going beyond the view of investments and including the
49
50 promotion of an energy-efficient culture and awareness”. The definitions show, with minor
51
52 differences, that drivers are understood as factors promoting energy efficiency in manufacturing
53
54
companies. A majority of studies on energy efficiency take a practice-based rather than theory-
55 based perspective (e.g. Thollander and Ottosson, 2008; Hrovatin et al., 2016). There is no
56
57 generally accepted theoretical framework and different approaches emphasize some drivers,
58
59 while neglecting others.
60
61
62 2
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

In order to identify knowledge gaps or inconsistency in the literature, raise questions for further
1
2 research and provide dependable evidence relevant for policy and practice there is a need for a
3
4
comprehensive synthesis of the extant knowledge on the topic (Cagno et al., 2013; Trianni et
5 al., 2013c). Some authors have proposed fragmented reviews of the literature (e.g. Brunke et
6
7 al., 2014; Trianni et al., 2016b; Hrovatin et al., 2016; Johansson, 2015). However, these
8
9 literature reviews include only a limited number of articles. In other words, a comprehensive
10
11 systematic review of empirical publication on drivers for energy efficiency in the manufacturing
12
13 sector is currently lacking. This systematic literature review (SLR) aims at filling this gap by
14
15
asking: “What characterizes the drivers of energy efficiency in manufacturing companies?”
16
17
18
In order to answer this question we develop an integrative framework guiding our analysis. The
19 outcome of our analysis is a comprehensive presentation of the most important drivers for
20
21 energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector, and a discussion of the implications. The rest of
22
23 the paper is structured as follows: The next section describes the methodology of the SLR. In
24
25 the third section the results of the SLR are reported by first presenting an analysis of research
26
27 methods and operationalization of the dependent variable: Energy efficiency. Then, supported
28
29
by our analytical framework, we introduce an integrative synthesis of the most important drivers
30 for energy efficiency identified in the empirical studies.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
2 Methods
38
39
40
To identify the main drivers for industrial energy efficiency and consolidate published research
41 on the topic we conduct a SLR (Tranfield et al., 2003; Short, 2009). Traditional narrative
42
43 reviews, in management studies, have been criticized for lacking rigour due to the use of a
44
45 personal, subjective and biased methodology (Fink, 1998; Hart, 1998). Tranfield et al. (2003)
46
47 therefore developed an evidence-based review methodology customised for management and
48
49 organizational science. The methodology is inspired by methods developed by the Cochrane
50
51
Collaboration1 in medical science. The SLR requires authors to locate, select, evaluate, analyse
52 and synthesize data in a way that is transparent, inclusive, explanatory and heuristic. Further,
53
54 the methodology demands the results to be reported in a manner that allows reasonably clear
55
56 conclusions to be reached (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). This SLR is conducted according to
57
58
59
60 1
www.cochrane.org
61
62 3
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

the five steps proposed by Denyer and Tranfield (2009): Question formulation, locating studies,
1
2 study selection and evaluation, analysis and synthesis, and reporting and using results.
3
4
5 In the introduction, we outlined the objective and the research question of the paper. The SLR
6
7 targets the concept of energy efficiency, and therefore excludes concepts such as energy
8 conservation and saving (Abdelaziz et al., 2011). Moreover the SLR focuses on factors
9
10 promoting energy efficiency. Such factors are most commonly named drivers (Trianni et al.,
11
12 2016b) and driving forces (Thollander et al., 2013), but are also referred to as triggers
13
14 (Venmans, 2014) measures (Zilahy, 2004) and determinants (Abadie et al., 2012). To capture
15
16 relevant peer-reviewed articles we found it necessary to apply two separate search strings in
17
18
each database, and include truncations characters in the searches. In the first search string we
19 used the search words driv* in the title, and “energy efficiency” in the title-abstract. In the
20
21 second search string we searched for “energy efficiency” in the title and industry* and
22
23 “manufacturing” in the title-abstract. We selected journals in the domains of business,
24
25 management and accounting, economics, energy, environmental science and social sciences, in
26
27 which eligible articles have appeared. Following the advice of Denyer and Tranfield (2009) we
28
29
did not exclude journals on the basis of quality rating. However, books, contributions to edited
30 volumes, conference proceedings, periodicals, and unpublished works were not considered, as
31
32 these usually go through a less rigorous peer-review process. We choose 1979 as the starting
33
34 point of our review, since this year represents the start of the second global oil crisis, and the
35
36 end of cheap oil (Campbell and Laherrère, 1998). The increased oil price marks a turning point
37
38 regarding awareness of global energy consumption and, accordingly, sets a starting point for
39
40
increased focus on industrial energy efficiency. The article searches were conducted in the
41 scholarly databases; ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Scopus. The functionality of the
42
43 databases used differs slightly (see search string in Table A. 1 in the Appendix). In total, the
44
45 search in databases allowed us to identify, after removal of duplicates, 835 unique articles.
46
47
48 For practical reasons the SLR only includes articles written in English and available in full text.
49
50 Following the argument of Fink (1998), the best way to guarantee quality and accuracy is to
51
52 base the SLR on original works rather than on interpretations of findings. The SLR therefore
53
54
only includes empirical articles, and excludes reviews, theoretical and conceptual studies. As
55 opposed to meta-analysis, SLR does not impose any guidelines on the methodology used in
56
57 included articles (Tranfield et al., 2003). Hence, studies applying different methodologies are
58
59 included in the review, e.g.: case studies, various statistical methods and econometrics. The
60
61
62 4
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

level of analysis is the organizational level. Studies on industrial energy efficiency on a micro
1
2 level (e.g., technical solutions or energy measuring systems) as well as on a macro level (e.g.,
3
4
sectoral or national energy consumption and energy efficiency potential) are beyond our scope.
5 Further, the field of interest is the manufacturing sector, which is known for high levels of
6
7 energy consumption. Other sectors like service, transportation or construction were excluded
8
9 from the study. The included studies have to treat energy efficiency as the dependent variable,
10
11 consequently articles considering energy efficiency as an independent variable were not
12
13 included. If an article includes several studies or models (e.g. Ulubeyli, 2013; Brunke et al.,
14
15
2014), only the studies corresponding to the inclusion criteria are considered in the SLR. Our
16 study selection and evaluation criteria are detailed in Table 1.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 5
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Table 1. Selection criteria of the systematic review


1
2 Criterion Inclusion Exclusion
3
4 Any other publication type (e.g., books,
5
contributions to edited volumes,
6 Publication type Peer-reviewed academic journal
7 conference papers, periodicals,
8
unpublished)
9
10 Language English Any other language
11
12 Availability Available online as full text Not available online as full text
13 Business, management and accounting,
14
15 Research discipline energy, environmental science and Any other research discipline
16 social sciences
17
18 Research methodology Empirical Any other study was excluded
19 1978 to 2016
20
21 Time period Remark: The search was performed in Any study published before 1978
22 December 2016
23
24 Any other sector (e.g., service, transport
25 Sector Manufacturing industry
or construction industry)
26
27 Studies on micro, industrial or macro
28 Level of analysis Organizational level
29 level
30 Article addresses; only barriers for
31 Article addresses (at least partly);
32 industrial energy efficiency, article
factors promoting implementation of
33 Relevance addresses only governmental policy
34 industrial energy efficiency at an
35 issues rather than organizational and
organizational level of analysis
36 management issues
37
38
39 The first electronic database search resulted in 835 unique articles. The relevance of the articles
40
41 was verified through a title and abstract review, leading to the exclusion of 766 articles. To
42
43 ensure complete coverage of relevant studies, we identified additional studies through manual
44
45 screening of cross-referencing, allowing us to identify 16 additional studies. A final full text
46
47
analysis of the articles led to the exclusion of 26 additional articles. Finally, 58 scientific articles
48 were considered as eligible for our SLR. The literature search process is illustrated in Table A.
49
50 1 in the appendix.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 6
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 Figure 1: Flow diagram of the study location and selection
32
33
34 In the analysis of the data the software Microsoft Excel and NVivo were used. The articles were
35
36 coded with the objective to best answer our research question. When identifying the most
37
38 important drivers we followed a methodology previously applied by Sorrell et al. (2011),
39
40 Brunke et al. (2014) and Johansson (2015), and coded the three drivers in each study considered
41 to be the most prominent. In addition we selected the drivers, size and sector, because size and
42
43 sector occur in the studies both as determinants and as proxies allowing for comparative
44
45 analysis (e.g. Trianni and Cagno, 2012). The process involved some judgement since several
46
47 of the studies lacked an indication of the relative importance of the various drivers. When three
48
49 or less drivers were identified in a study, all drivers were included in our analysis.
50
51
52 The analysis of the 58 articles included in the SLR brought out a wide range of drivers to energy
53
54 efficiency. An integrative framework was thus needed to synthesize the published knowledge
55 on the topic. Due to inconsistencies in current classifications and taxonomies, (e.g. Cagno et
56
57 al., 2013; Trianni et al., 2016b; Thollander et al., 2013; Thollander and Ottosson, 2008;
58
59 Hrovatin et al., 2016; Venmans, 2014; Kounetas and Tsekouras, 2008; Reddy, 2013), we saw
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

the need for developing a new framework. Developing the framework we applied the constant
1
2 comparison technique (Glaser and Strauss, 2009), identifying important categories. Based on
3
4
the variables’ characteristics we divided them into five groups: (1) Economical drivers, (2)
5 organizational drivers, (3) external drivers, (4) policy instruments and (5) contextual
6
7 determinants.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Figure 2: Synthesising the content of the reviewed articles and developing a new taxonomy
43
44
45 The new framework is illustrated in Figure 2. The figure illustrates how each of the five
46
47 categories builds on several sub-categories. Further, the figure shows the origin of the drivers;
48
49 internal, external or contextual.
50
51
52 3 Results
53
54
55 This section presents the results of the SLR. First, we analyse how the dependent variable,
56
57 energy efficiency, is operationalized empirically. The analysis includes a presentation of the
58
59 measures and proxies used to identify and measure the concept. Secondly, supported by our
60
61
62 8
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

analytical framework presented in Figure 2, we present an integrative synthesis of the most


1
2 important drivers for energy efficiency identified in the included articles.
3
4
5 3.1 Operationalization of the dependent variable – energy efficiency
6
7
8 Energy efficiency contributes to the reduction of energy consumption. (EIA) defines energy
9
10 efficiency as “to use technology that requires less energy to perform the same function”. Energy
11
12
efficiency can also be understood as the ratio between service outputs (result) and the energy
13 input required to provide it (Pérez-Lombard et al., 2013). In other words, a technology is more
14
15 energy efficient if it delivers the same services for less energy input, or more services for the
16
17 same energy input. Energy efficiency should not be confused with energy conservation (or
18
19 saving) which involves the use of less energy caused by changes in behaviour. In such cases
20
21 the service level is not maintained.
22
23
24 It is relatively easy to understand the concept of energy efficiency, however it is equally
25
26
complicated to measure it (Pérez-Lombard et al., 2013). Among the selected articles a wide
27 variety of measures and proxies are used to identify and measure the concept. The identified
28
29 measures can be sorted into three groups: (1) Energy consumption, (2) investment, and (3)
30
31 implementation or adoption. However, we notice that the measures can overlap, and that there
32
33 are inconsistencies between how authors position their papers and how they actually measure
34
35 energy efficiency; for example, authors might claim that they study implementation, while they
36
37
measure investment in energy efficiency.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Figure 3: Distribution of the dependent variable, energy efficiency, according to measure
60
61
62 9
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

The distribution of the measures used is illustrated in Figure 3. The figure shows that
1
2 implementation and adoption is the most frequently used measure (37 articles).
3
4
Implementation can be measured using both objective and subjective methods. Examples of
5 objective measures include implementation rate of external energy efficiency
6
7 recommendations (e.g. Cagno and Trianni, 2014; Anderson et al., 2004; Abadie et al., 2012)
8
9 or participation rate in voluntary energy programs (e.g. DeCanio, 1998; Eichhorst and
10
11 Bongardt, 2009). Subjective measures are often used in firm-surveys (Gerstlberger et al., 2016)
12
13 or interviews (Rohdin and Thollander, 2006; Brunke et al., 2014). In such studies
14
15
implementation is often expressed as a binary variable (yes or no) without any measure of rate
16 or volume. Implementation is a direct measure of energy efficiency that intercepts real
17
18 technological changes. However, it does not capture unsuccessful efficiency projects, which
19
20 impede the possibilities for comparative analysis of implementation success and failure.
21
22
23 Energy consumption (13 articles), is the second most common measure. Energy consumption
24
25 can be measured as: Energy cost (Martin et al., 2012), total energy expenditure (Ramstetter
26
27 and Narjoko, 2014), production output per energy input (Ru and Si, 2015) and energy intensity
28
29
(Martínez, 2010). The service output is, in general in such studies, considered constant and
30 hence a reduction in energy consumption or energy costs indicate increased energy efficiency.
31
32 The strength with this measure is that it is objective and based on “hard facts”. The
33
34 disadvantage is the reduced ability to capture whether if the observed changes are related to
35
36 energy efficiency (technological changes) or energy savings (behavioural changes).
37
38
39 Investment (eight articles) is the third measure of energy efficiency. It is an indirect measure,
40
41 and reflects how technological changes normally require investments (Abadie et al., 2012;
42
43
Aflaki et al., 2013), and that financial aspects play an important role in the decision-making
44 process (Groot et al., 2001; Kounetas and Tsekouras, 2008). The measure is objective and
45
46 traceable, and allows researchers to identify many of the energy efficiency projects initiated by
47
48 the firm. Weaknesses with such an indirect measure include its inability to capture that,
49
50 ultimately, not all investments end in successful implementation of new energy efficient
51
52 technologies. Thus, by measuring investments in aborted projects the investment proxy can
53
54
over-estimate energy efficiency. Further, not all energy efficiency projects require investments
55 but are, rather, incremental improvements (Abadie et al., 2012; Aflaki et al., 2013). In such
56
57 cases case measuring energy efficiency by investments will underestimate the efforts taken by
58
59 the companies.
60
61
62 10
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

3.1.1 Method of analysis


1
2
3 The majority of the studies included in the review use a qualitative method of analysis (30
4
5 articles. In the majority of these studies (17 articles) the empirical data were collected and
6
7 presented with the help of Likert scales. The remaining qualitative studies apply more inductive
8 methodologies. The second most applied methodology is quantitative research (24 articles),
9
10 using methods and models such as econometrics, logit and probit, ordinary least square, Fisher’s
11
12 test and factor analysis. Empirical data are mostly collected through firm-survey or by using
13
14 data from external databases. Mixed method approaches, combining qualitative and
15
16 quantitative research methods, is only applied in two articles. The diversity of the
17
18
methodologies, measures and proxies used by researchers makes it challenging to compare and
19 generalize the research results of the empirical articles.
20
21
22
23
3.2 Drivers for energy efficiency in manufacturing companies
24
25
26
In this section we present an integrative synthesis of the most important drivers for energy
27 efficiency in the manufacturing sector. Following the methodology described in Section 2, we
28
29 were able to identify 185 observations of drivers. The observations are synthesized according
30
31 to the framework and categories presented in Figure 2. The distribution of the findings is
32
33 illustrated in Figure 4.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 11
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Figure 4: Distribution of the most important drivers by category
28
29
30 Figure 4 clearly illustrates the significance of organizational drivers. 38% of the selected drivers
31
32 are sorted under this category. The second most prominent category is economic drivers where
33
34 25% of the observations are sorted under this group. Policy instruments (9%) is considered the
35
36 least important category of drivers, while external drivers (13%) and contextual determinants
37
38 (16%) are given some prominence. As an overall observation we see that energy efficiency is,
39
40
to a larger extent, driven by internal drivers (economic and organizational) compared with
41 external drivers (external drivers and policy instruments).
42
43
44 3.2.1 Organizational drivers for energy efficiency
45
46
47
48
Organizational drivers for energy efficiency comprise of three sub-categories: Management,
49 competence and organizational structure. The three sub-categories attained respectively 24%,
50
51 12% and 2% of the observations. Hence, the importance of management and competence are
52
53 clearly stated by the review.
54
55
56 The review finds that both the managers and their management practises affect the energy
57
58 efficiency of a company. Regarding the managers, several studies uncover evidence of the
59
60 importance of managers’ awareness and sensitivity to environmental issues (Kostka et al., 2013;
61
62 12
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Zilahy, 2004). Moreover, studies emphasize that managers should show strong commitment (e.g.
1
2 Brunke et al., 2014; Chiaroni et al., 2016), and have ambitions (e.g. Rohdin et al., 2007;
3
4
Thollander and Ottosson, 2008). Research by Apeaning and Thollander (2013) shows the
5 importance of top managers’ involvement in energy efficiency projects. The lack of such
6
7 involvement might cause them to perceive energy efficiency improvements as secondary to other
8
9 investments. Consequently, energy efficiency improvements identified by middle managers and
10
11 technical directors might not take place.
12
13
14 An important part of a mangers job is to define the company’s image and strategy. The review
15
16 identifies the significance of a clear energy strategy (e.g. Brunke et al., 2014; Cagno et al., 2015b;
17
18
Venmans, 2014). Porter (1990) argues that companies, when facing competition, can choose
19 between two different strategies; differentiation and cost leadership. The result of the review
20
21 indicates that energy efficiency strategies are driven by both differentiation and cost leadership
22
23 motives. The development of a green image and environmental company profile (e.g. Chai and
24
25 Yeo, 2012; Costa-Campi et al., 2015; Sathitbun-anan et al., 2015) help the company to
26
27 differentiate and thereby achieve competitive advantage. At the same time cost reduction from
28
29
lower energy use, which is motivated by cost leadership strategies, is also a strong driver.
30 Hence, our review supports the argument by Bunse et al. (2011), arguing that energy efficiency
31
32 contributes to the “triple bottom line”, attending economic, environmental and social
33
34 considerations.
35
36
37 Management practices also impact the energy efficiency of manufacturing companies (Bloom
38
39 et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2012; Boyd and Curtis, 2014). Studies from the UK show that both
40
41 generic management practices (Bloom et al., 2010) and climate friendly management practices
42
43
(Martin et al., 2012) have a positive impact on energy efficiency. The relationship was found
44 to be robust to a large number of additional controls like industry, location, technology, size
45
46 and other factor inputs. More specifically, Bloom et al. (2010) uncovered that the use of key
47
48 performance indicators (KPIs) of production and people management are practises that appear
49
50 particularly strongly linked with lower energy intensity. Hence, it seems that the mere existence
51
52 of performance measurement or of lean manufacturing is not sufficient to generate significant
53
54
energy efficiency. Rather, it is the use and analysis of these performance indicators accompanied
55 by some form of consequence management that leads firms to be less energy intensive. Boyd and
56
57 Curtis (2014), studying the same relationship in the US, discovered that effective monitoring,
58
59 incentive structures and lean manufacturing operations are associated with reduced energy
60
61
62 13
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

consumption. The relationship is more pronounced in energy intensive industries. Hence, good
1
2 management practices have a larger impact on energy efficiency in industries where energy
3
4
expenditure is a larger component of their overall input costs. Further, Martin et al. (2012) have
5 identified the significance of having a dedicated environmental manager. In particular, they
6
7 found that firms with an environmental manager are more likely to participate in voluntary
8
9 environmental agreements, adopt energy targets and monitor their energy usage than firms
10
11 without an environmental manager. Energy audit is another management practice identified as
12
13 an important driver (e.g. Chai and Baudelaire, 2015; Sandberg and Söderström, 2003; Tonn and
14
15
Martin, 2000). Energy audits provide access to correct information, better follow-up activities,
16 transparency and understandable calculations (Sandberg and Söderström, 2003). In addition,
17
18 energy audits can help to overcome internal barriers to industrial energy efficiency (Chiaroni et
19
20 al., 2016). In assessing the effect of energy audits Anderson and Newell (2004), located that
21
22 approximately half of the projects recommended by energy assessment teams were adopted by
23
24 plants receiving these recommendations. However, Anderson and Newell (2004) also emphasize
25
that in the absence of energy audits it is impossible to say how many of these projects might have
26
27 been adopted.
28
29
30 Competence is the second sub-category of organizational drivers. Competence and know-how
31
32 is directly linked with firms’ willingness and ability to be innovative and energy efficient (Chai
33
34 and Baudelaire, 2015). Studies focusing on innovation find that both product and process
35
36 innovation (Gerstlberger et al., 2016), and the innovativeness of the market in which firms
37
38 operate Trianni et al. (2013b) are positively related to the firm’s energy efficiency. It is
39
40
suggested that the positive effect of innovation is related to the organizational capability of
41 innovation practices (Cagno et al., 2015a, and the innovative firms’ ability to share information
42
43 and to consider the competitive potential of energy efficiency interventions {Cagno, 2014
44
45 #4342). Innovative firms are also more likely to increase their energy efficiency if they
46
47 considering the reduction of environmental impacts to be an important objective for innovation
48
49 (Costa-Campi et al., 2015). Relevant competences is also acquired through the accumulation of
50
experiences. The propensity for innovative companies to adopt new energy efficiency
51
52 technologies increases with both the introduction of organizational innovations (Costa-Campi
53
54 et al., 2015), and previous experiences with energy efficiency technologies (Costa-Campi et al.,
55
56 2015; Gerstlberger et al., 2016; Trianni and Cagno, 2012). These findings indicate the relevance
57
58 of organizational competences as drivers for energy efficiency
59
60
61
62 14
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Studies also emphasize the role of individuals’ competences, such as education. It is found that
1
2 higher educated employees make companies less sensitive to barriers and more prone to invest
3
4
in energy efficiency (Sardianou, 2008; Groot et al., 2001). The employment of individuals with
5 specific education and competences in energy efficiency also affect firms’ energy efficiency
6
7 significantly (Tonn and Martin, 2000). Training at the workplace is another way of increasing
8
9 the competence of the individuals. Training programmes contribute to both increased
10
11 knowledge about available energy efficient technologies and the awareness about the
12
13 importance of improving energy efficiency (Chiaroni et al., 2016; Cagno and Trianni, 2013).
14
15
Increased knowledge and skills among the employees, not only influences the development of
16 energy efficiency solutions, but also facilitates the implementation process (Svensson and
17
18 Paramonova, 2017). Such vocational training programmes can be facilitated with the help of
19
20 external resources such as Energy Service Companies2 (ESCOs) (Trianni et al., 2016a) or
21
22 Industrial Assessment Centres (IAC) (Tonn and Martin, 2000), or collaboration with R&D
23
24 institutions (Miah et al., 2015). However, in addition to having the necessary competences,
25
employees also need to be engaged and motivated (Zilahy, 2004) in order to produce solutions
26
27 and facilitate implementation.
28
29
30 Organizational structure is the third sub-category, and is found to drive energy efficiency in
31
32 various ways. Firstly, the presence and positioning of an energy manager in the organization
33
34 chart influences the energy efficiency of the firm (Martin et al., 2012). Firms whose energy
35
36 manager is closer in the hierarchy to the CEO are also more climate-friendly; however, the
37
38 relationship with hierarchy is non-monotonic. In fact, environmental practices improve as the
39
40
energy manager moves up the hierarchy, yet practices become worse again if the CEO assumes
41 the responsibilities of energy management (Martin et al., 2012). Secondly, Kounetas and
42
43 Tsekouras (2008) point to the role of a flexible and effective internal organization as a driver
44
45 for energy efficiency. They argue that such organizational structures allow firms to cope with
46
47 a wide range of barriers such as human capital, information gathering and accumulated
48
49 knowledge, process flexibility, and financial constraints.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 2
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/energy-efficiency/eed-support/energy-service-companies
60
61
62 15
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

3.2.2 Economic drivers


1
2
3 The review confirms that economic drivers (25%) are the second most important driving force
4
5 for energy efficiency in manufacturing companies. We classify economic drivers as: (1)
6
7 Operating costs, (2) finance, and (3) technological fit. Cost reduction from lower energy use
8 (e.g.: Apeaning and Thollander, 2013; Thollander et al., 2013; Cagno et al., 2015b) and
9
10 increasing energy tariffs (e.g.: Apeaning and Thollander, 2013; Thollander et al., 2013; Cagno
11
12 et al., 2015b) relates to operating costs. Cost reduction from lower energy use is particularly
13
14 highly rated. This indicates that managers not only use energy efficiency as a means to balance
15
16 energy costs due to increasing energy tariffs, but also that they consider energy efficiency as a
17
18
possibility to reduce the total production costs, produce more efficiently and become more
19 competitive.
20
21
22
Technological fit refers to technological advantages, additional to energy efficiency,
23
24 contributing to drive investment and implementation of energy efficient technologies (Chiaroni
25
26 et al., 2016). Examples of such advantages are: increased production efficiency of new
27
28 machinery (Martínez, 2010; Costa-Campi et al., 2015), the replacement of outdated production
29
30 facilities and fixed capital vintage (Kounetas and Tsekouras, 2008), and production safety
31
32 considerations (Ru and Si, 2015). Hence, energy efficient technologies have additional
33 production advantages contributing to improve the competitiveness of the firm. A study by Ren
34
35 (2009) further found that external limitations through a tight supply of energy (gas feedstock)
36
37 served as an important driver for the implementation of energy efficient technologies. In this
38
39 case the implementation of energy efficient technologies was used as a means to reduce the risk
40
41 of production limitations due to resource sacristy. The referred findings imply that the
42
43
implementation of energy efficiency technologies is strongly driven by economic motives. The
44 economic gain is either directly related to energy costs or through the amelioration of
45
46 production processes. This further supports the argument that energy efficiency is a means to
47
48 obtain the triple bottom line: social, environmental and economic gain.
49
50
51 Finance issues also drive energy efficiency, as the investment decision is related to financial
52
53 drivers such as investment costs, pay-back time and access to capital. Research on investment
54
55 decisions show that payback time and investment costs are the main determining factors when
56
57 deciding whether to invest in energy efficiency (Abadie et al., 2012). In fact, Anderson et al.
58 (2004) uncovered that firms are about 40% more responsive to investment costs than to energy
59
60 savings (operating costs). Further, the results from the empirical studies have located that
61
62 16
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

energy efficiency investments have a larger probability of being realized if the payback time is
1
2 shorter than 2-3 years (Arens et al., 2016; Chiaroni et al., 2016; Blass et al., 2014). However,
3
4
this period can be prolonged if the project is supported by top managers (Blass et al., 2014).
5 The review demonstrates that the economical drivers are not consistent and are, somehow,
6
7 conflicting. Operating costs are given high importance when researchers interview managers’
8
9 considerations driving energy efficiency investments (e.g.: Apeaning and Thollander, 2013;
10
11 Thollander et al., 2013). However, when datasets allow studying determinants of investments,
12
13 after the investment is completed (e.g.: Abadie et al., 2012; Anderson et al., 2004), financial
14
15
considerations are given higher importance. Access to capital also plays an important role when
16 considering a new investment. Several factors affect the firms’ possibilities to access capital.
17
18 First, it depends on the internal financial resources of the company (Chai and Yeo, 2012;
19
20 Hrovatin et al., 2016). Second, Arens et al. (2016) point to the effect of economic prospects on
21
22 the national and global level. The historical rate of growth of industry earnings, ad expected
23
24 future earnings growth also plays a role (DeCanio, 1998).
25
26
27 3.2.3 External drivers
28
29
30 Drivers that originate external to the firm, except policy instruments, are classified as external
31
32 drivers (13 %). External drivers are divided into the sub-categories of network and information
33 (5%) and market forces (8%). Networking and cooperation between companies are shown to
34
35 be valuable drivers for energy efficiency. Through knowledge and information sharing, the
36
37 companies cooperate in finding ideas and inspiration for energy efficiency projects (Johansson,
38
39 2015; Trianni et al., 2013b; Cagno et al., 2015a). The flow of information also allows the
40
41 exploration and exploitation of synergies favouring energy efficiency innovations (Costa-
42
43
Campi et al., 2015). During the decision process clarity and trustworthiness of information are
44 found to be particularly important (Cagno et al., 2015b; Cagno et al., 2016; Sandberg and
45
46 Söderström, 2003). Cooperation is particularly important in SMEs which might suffer from
47
48 internal resources scarcity (Trianni et al., 2013b). Several stakeholders are involved in energy
49
50 efficiency networks, e.g., consultancy services from ESCOs (Chai and Yeo, 2012; Sandberg
51
52 and Söderström, 2003), technology suppliers and installers (Trianni et al., 2016a),
53
54
governmental energy efficiency programmes (Tonn and Martin, 2000), academia (Miah et al.,
55 2015), and other members of multi-national companies (MNCs) (Hrovatin et al., 2016).
56
57
58 Surprisingly, the market forces driver is stronger than networking and information. Competition
59
60 is found to be particularly important together with demand from foreign investors. Competition
61
62 17
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

drives energy efficiency through the motivation of reduced production costs and, thereby,
1
2 improved firm competitiveness. This is particularly the case for firms who face high energy
3
4
costs and international competition (Hrovatin et al., 2016; Groot et al., 2001; Kostka et al.,
5 2013). Furthermore, Kostka et al. (2013) argue that growth ambitions and the firms’ revenue
6
7 size are statistically significant in explaining the level of energy-saving activities of a company.
8
9 Competition also seems to affect the way firms respond to challenges. Singh and Lalk (2016)
10
11 found that competitive organizations are more likely to feel that energy efficient technologies
12
13 can be used across engineering domains. In addition, higher market innovation seems to
14
15
significantly reduce the perception of barriers to energy efficiency (Trianni et al., 2013b). This
16 finding implies that competition drives firms to become more cost-driven and solution-oriented,
17
18 given that they have the resources necessary to implement new energy efficiency strategies.
19
20 The findings are, however, ambiguous. It is also found that companies with competitive
21
22 advantage and high bargaining power have the resources necessary to implement environmental
23
24 strategies (Ulubeyli, 2013). In addition, Trianni et al. (2013a) found that companies lacking
25
competitiveness might seek towards energy efficiency, considering it as a path for their
26
27 survival. Hence, the competitive environment can affect the firms’ energy efficiency strategies
28
29 in various ways. Demands from the owner is a strong driver for energy efficiency (Lee, 2015).
30
31 In particular studies conducted in countries with less developed economies show that the
32
33 presence of foreign ownership (Hrovatin et al., 2016; Ru and Si, 2015), and foreign investments
34
35 (Martínez, 2010) have a statistically significant and positive impact on energy efficiency.
36
37
38 3.2.4 Policy instruments
39
40
41 The review find that policy instruments have a reduced role as drivers for energy efficiency.
42
43
Only 9% of the selected drivers sort under this category. Policy instruments can be prescriptive,
44 economic or supportive (Tanaka, 2011). We find that all three types of instruments are used in
45
46 policy schemes aiming at promoting energy efficiency (Cagno et al., 2015b; Kounetas and
47
48 Tsekouras, 2008). Moreover, the review find that economic policy instruments are considered
49
50 most important. Economic policy instruments can either stimulate energy efficiency through
51
52 increasing energy taxes (Lee, 2015; Groot et al., 2001), and emission fees (Cagno and Trianni,
53
54
2013), or by providing investment subsidies (Cagno and Trianni, 2013; Cagno et al., 2016;
55 Kounetas and Tsekouras, 2008; Sathitbun-anan et al., 2015; Singh and Lalk, 2016). It is worth
56
57 noticing that companies are more responsive to initial costs than annual savings (Anderson et
58
59
60
61
62 18
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

al., 2004; Abadie et al., 2012). This implies that subsidies may be more effective at promoting
1
2 energy efficient technologies than energy price increases.
3
4
5 Legal compliance (Apeaning and Thollander, 2013; Eichhorst and Bongardt, 2009; Masurel,
6
7 2007) is given less importance in the included studies. Legal compliance is an example of a
8 prescriptive policy that directly compels specific actions by companies. Complying with legal
9
10 requirements is a precondition for conducting business activities. It could, therefore, be
11
12 expected that this driver was given more prominence. This finding might imply a lack of policy
13
14 framework (Apeaning and Thollander, 2013), or that regulations are not sufficiently ambitious
15
16 to have a driving effect on energy efficiency in manufacturing companies.
17
18
19 Voluntary agreements (Masurel, 2007; Rietbergen et al., 2002; Venmans, 2014), and
20
21 government energy efficiency programmes such as IAC programmes (Tonn and Martin, 2000)
22
23
are examples of supportive policy tools. Voluntary agreements, are based on cooperation, and
24 have the potential to overcome traditional constraints of implementing top–down policies at the
25
26 local level (Eichhorst and Bongardt, 2009). In the US the Industrial Assessment Center (IAC)
27
28 Program, was associated with a significant positive change in firms’ energy efficiency within a
29
30 relatively short period of time (Tonn and Martin, 2000). Moreover, between one quarter and
31
32 one half of the energy savings in the Dutch manufacturing industry can be attributed to such
33
agreements (Rietbergen et al., 2002). Given the striking results from voluntary agreements, it
34
35 might seem like a paradox that such policy instruments are given minor prominence as a driver
36
37 in the empirical literature. This might be because ineffectiveness of policies result from a lack
38
39 of a common understanding between governmental and industrial organizations of the most
40
41 prominent drivers and barriers (Cagno et al., 2015b). Another explanation might relate to the
42
43 fact that policy instruments, by design, have an indirect effect on energy efficiency and hence
44 their role as drivers is hard to assess. Economic policies, for example, influence the operating
45
46 costs of the enterprise, and need to be considered in relation to the economic drivers presented
47
48 in section 3.2.2. Further, we see that voluntary agreements are indirect policy instruments
49
50 designed to identify opportunities for energy efficiency, cooperative measures, capacity
51
52 building and information policies (Tanaka, 2011), which are also found to be prominent in this
53
54
SLR. Hence, the indirect nature of these policy tools makes it hard to properly capture their
55 effect as drivers for energy efficiency.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 19
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

3.2.5 Contextual determinants


1
2
3 Firm size (9%) and industrial sector (7%) are, here, defined as contextual determinants. The
4
5 determinants have, in the included studies, been used as explanatory variables explaining
6
7 energy efficiency, and proxies enabling comparative analysis (e.g. comparing SME with larger
8 enterprises). Accordingly both the direct and indirect effect of the driver have been observed.
9
10 Hence, the findings related to these variables are slightly different compared with other drivers
11
12 presented in the review.
13
14
15 Firm size is one of the most common drivers in the SLR. Size is most commonly measured as
16
17 number of employees, but it is also measured as firms’ revenue (Kostka et al., 2013) and market
18
19 share (Hrovatin et al., 2016). The majority of the studies state a positive relationship between
20
21 size and energy efficiency (e.g.: Ru and Si, 2015; Kostka et al., 2013; Hrovatin et al., 2016). It
22
is argued that the effect of firm size is caused by larger organizations’ advantageous access to
23
24 internal and external resources such as information about available energy efficient
25
26 technologies (Groot et al., 2001), and technical and financial means (Trianni et al., 2013c; Chai
27
28 and Yeo, 2012). It is also found that larger firms are more concerned about energy costs (Trianni
29
30 et al., 2013c), and consider compliance with legal restrictions and their green image as
31
32 important (Cagno et al., 2016).
33
34
35 Comparative studies assessing the indirect effect of firm size, also confirm the positive relation
36
37
between firm size and energy efficiency. Firm size have an impact on; information and
38 evaluation criteria (Kounetas et al., 2011; Cagno and Trianni, 2014), time or priorities (Trianni
39
40 et al., 2013a), competence and implementation (Cagno and Trianni, 2014; Trianni and Cagno,
41
42 2012; Trianni et al., 2013a), awareness (Cagno et al., 2016; Trianni and Cagno, 2012), operating
43
44 costs (Cagno et al., 2016; Trianni et al., 2013a), and access to capital (Thollander et al., 2007).
45
46 Studies by Trianni et al. (2013c) and Trianni et al. (2016a) further confirm the effect of size by
47
studying the relation between perceive barriers and real barriers to energy efficiency (Trianni
48
49 et al., 2013c), and exploring the decision process step by step (Trianni et al., 2016a). Both
50
51 studies confirm the positive effect of firm size during all phases of the decision process. Hence,
52
53 larger organizations’ access to resources seems to make them more apt to take on new
54
55 challenges and environmental demands.
56
57
58 There are, however, some studies providing contradicting results. Kounetas et al. (2011)
59
60 discovered that the effect of size is reduced when firms are engaged in activities demanding
61
62 20
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

high quality of human capital resources. They thereby argue that size advantage is contextually
1
2 dependent. Some informational barriers are also perceived more pronounced in larger rather
3
4
than smaller enterprises (Trianni et al., 2013c; Trianni et al., 2013b; Trianni et al., 2016a), and
5 larger companies also seem to suffer from stricter formal investment criteria and
6
7 implementation challenges (Rohdin and Thollander, 2006; Trianni et al., 2013c). Smaller
8
9 enterprises, on the other hand, tend to perceive technology either as more adequate or available
10
11 than larger companies, and they tend to trust their information sources, thus perceiving the
12
13 available information as sufficient. This finding could be related to a lower complexity of
14
15
production in smaller companies (Trianni et al., 2013b), or a stronger relationship with their
16 technology suppliers and installers (Trianni et al., 2016a). The referred research results imply
17
18 that the relation between firm size and energy efficiency is ambiguous and not conclusive.
19
20
21 The industrial sector is also a contextual determinant affecting energy efficiency.
22
23
24 To identify the sectorial impact researchers have compared energy efficiency in various
25
26 industry sectors (DeCanio, 1998; Groot et al., 2001; Trianni and Cagno, 2012), and compared
27
28 energy intensive vs non-energy intensive sectors (Cagno et al., 2016; Hasanbeigi et al., 2010;
29
30 Martínez, 2010; Trianni et al., 2016a; Costa-Campi et al., 2015). The SLR reveals that energy
31
32 intensive companies, where energy expenditure is a larger component of their overall input costs,
33 tend to be more energy efficiency aware (Cagno et al., 2016), consider energy reduction per
34
35 output unit to be very important (Costa-Campi et al., 2015) and more adaptive to energy
36
37 efficiency behaviour (Boyd and Curtis, 2014). Furthermore, it is found that energy intensive
38
39 companies are less sensitive to barriers to energy efficiency. This is particularly the case for
40
41 technology and organizational barriers (Trianni et al., 2016a). This implies that energy intensive
42
43
companies consider relevant technology to be available and adequate and that energy efficiency
44 is given a higher status in the organization.
45
46
47
When considering sectorial impact, the results are more ambiguous. Comparative analysis
48
49 across several industrial sectors, also unearthed evidence of sectoral differences (Sardianou,
50
51 2008; DeCanio, 1998). Other empirical studies are, however, less conclusive about the sectorial
52
53 impact and sectoral differences. Groot et al. (2001) highlight few systematic differences
54
55 between the sectors; the only two sectors that stood out were the basic metals sector and
56
57 horticulture. In a sectoral comparative study Trianni and Cagno (2012) found that only the
58 textile sector stands outs. The authors discuss these findings in relation to a deep crisis and
59
60 structural changes occurring within the textile sector in Italy during the last two decades.
61
62 21
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Hasanbeigi et al. (2010), conducting a comparative study between the cement industry
1
2 (representing energy-intensive industries), and the textile industry (representing non-energy-
3
4
intensive industries), found that both industries evaluated the same drivers to be most important,
5 namely, reducing final product cost by reducing energy cost, improving staff health and safety,
6
7 and improving products’ quality. By comparing overall Colombian manufacturing industries,
8
9 non-energy intensive sectors and energy intensive sectors Martínez (2010) found that in all
10
11 three cases the main variables that determine energy efficiency performance are energy prices
12
13 and foreign investments. The only sectoral difference was that investments in machinery and
14
15
equipment also had an impact on energy efficiency performance in less energy intensive sectors.
16 The findings of the review considering sectoral impact on energy efficiency are not conclusive.
17
18 However, where energy costs represent a significant share of the overall costs companies seem
19
20 to have higher incentives to become more energy efficient. However, the awareness of the
21
22 energy efficiency potential and the ability to become more energy efficient is driven by other
23
24 factors than the sector itself.
25
26
27 4 Discussion and implications
28
29
4.1 Limitations
30
31
32 In conducting this SLR we have made a vital synthesis of the most critical drivers for energy
33 efficiency in the manufacturing sector. The review confirms previous studies’ (e.g.: Thollander
34
35 and Ottosson, 2008) findings, that energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector is a complex
36
37 and multidisciplinary process. Further the review reveals that drivers have both a direct and
38
39 direct effect on energy efficiency as they also interact and moderate their relative effect on
40
41 energy efficiency. It is, therefore, a challenging task to generate a comprehensive understanding
42
43
of which and how drivers affect and stimulate energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector.
44 Moreover, several of the studies did not indicate the relative importance of the various drivers
45
46 considered. Consequently, selecting the most important drivers involved some judgement. This
47
48 increases the risk for researcher biases and reduces some of the objectivity required in a
49
50 systematic literature review. To mitigate for this weakness we have included in the appendix
51
52 (Table A. 2) a list of all the included studies and the selected drivers.
53
54
55 Another limitation with the study relates to the search strategy for articles to include in the SLR.
56
57 The search string allowed us to identify 835 articles, of which only 58 were considered to
58 respond to our inclusion criteria. The large number of excluded articles was, to a large degree,
59
60 caused by the search strings’ inability to exclude studies at an industrial level, and studies
61
62 22
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

focusing on other sectors such as service, transport and construction. Even though the selection
1
2 process followed rigorously the predefined inclusion criteria, this manual exclusion process
3
4
partly reduces the transparency required in a SLR.
5
6
7 Nevertheless, despite the identified limitations, the SLR clearly demonstrates some significant
8 findings. Firstly the review reveal the importance of internal organizational and economic
9
10 drivers, compared with policy instruments, external and contextual drivers. It has also provided
11
12 a new framework to classify drivers. In the following we will discuss the results of the SLR and
13
14 argue implications for managers and policy makers as well as researchers.
15
16
17 4.2 A new taxonomy for drivers for energy efficiency
18
19
20 Several of the included studies lack an explicit theoretical root and the literature lacks an agreed
21
22 theoretical framework. The frameworks (taxonomies) commonly applied are based on the
23
24 perspective of the practitioners rather than theoretical insights. Furthermore, the taxonomies
25
26
show signs of being designed to fit specific empirical studies. The outcome is consequently
27 inconsistency in the design of categories and the appointment of drivers within the various
28
29 categories (e.g.: Thollander and Ottosson, 2008; Thollander et al., 2013; Cagno and Trianni,
30
31 2013; Trianni et al., 2016b; Venmans, 2014; Kounetas and Tsekouras, 2008). We therefore
32
33 found it necessary to develop a new taxonomy. The new taxonomy, presented in Figure 2,
34
35 arranges the drivers into five groups: Economic, organizational and external drivers in addition
36
37
to policy instruments and contextual determinants, with additional sub-categories. The strength
38 of this taxonomy is that it is based on aggregated empirical research and only considers drivers
39
40 that are identified as important.
41
42
43 4.3 The most important drivers to energy efficiency
44
45
46 Drivers to energy efficiency can be differentiated between internal and external drivers.
47
48 Internal drivers refer to forces within a company that stimulate the implementation of energy
49
50 efficiency technologies. External drivers, on the other hand, are drivers where external
51
52 stakeholders and forces influence the company’s decision to implement energy efficiency
53
54 technologies (Cagno and Trianni, 2013; Thollander et al., 2013; Trianni et al., 2016b). The
55 review clearly illustrates the significance of internal drivers compared to external drivers.
56
57 Organizational drivers are the most critical drivers, representing 38% of the identified drivers.
58
59 Economic drivers are the second most important category with 25% of the observations.
60
61
62 23
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

External drivers, contextual determinants and policy instruments are given less importance,
1
2 accounting for 13%, 16% and 9% of the identified drivers. This finding contradicts the assumed
3
4
significance of environmental regulations and customer preferences (Bunse et al., 2011). This
5 implies that energy efficiency is most effectively stimulated by internal drivers. Moreover, the
6
7 SLR indicate that successful implementation of energy efficiency technologies is driven by a
8
9 combination of organizational and economic drivers.
10
11
12 In recent years there has been extensive research on eco-innovations. Energy efficiency
13
14 technologies are sub-category of eco-innovations. It is therefore relevant to compare similarities
15
16 and/or differences between drivers for energy efficiency and other eco-innovations. By
17
18
comparing the findings of this SLR with reviews on drivers and determinants for eco-
19 innovations (Bossle et al., 2016; Pacheco et al., 2017; del Río et al., 2016; De Medeiros et al.,
20
21 2014), we can make several interesting observations. Firstly, there is a large degree of
22
23 conformity between the drivers studied empirically in the energy efficiency and eco-innovation
24
25 literature. Considering the findings, both literatures find organizational drivers to be significant,
26
27 in addition to networking, collaboration and company size. The main differences between the
28
29
two sets of literature relate to the significance of economic drivers and policy instruments. The
30 review shows that reduction of operation cost is the single most important driver for energy
31
32 efficiency in manufacturing companies. In the eco-innovations literature the relevance of this
33
34 driver in various empirical studies is contradicting and undetermined. On the other hand, policy
35
36 instruments are found to be significant for eco-innovations, while they are less important drivers
37
38 for energy efficiency. Further, marked demand and the role of customers are given little
39
40
importance as drivers for energy efficiency while they are more relevant in the case of eco-
41 innovations. These findings imply that, even though energy efficiency technologies can be
42
43 considered a sub-category of eco-innovations, there are significant differences in the drivers
44
45 stimulating the two types of innovations. In order to close the energy efficiency gap, both
46
47 researchers and policy makers need to acknowledge these differences and be cautious and
48
49 accurate when conducting research and designing policy programmes.
50
51
52 To sum up, the SLR demonstrates that energy efficiency projects are often associated with
53
54
improvements of the overall productivity and business performance of the company. One
55 should therefore not consider energy efficiency projects separately, but rather as included in
56
57 other productivity or rationalization projects. In order to increase the energy efficiency of
58
59 companies one needs, therefore, to have a holistic approach searching for projects that are both
60
61
62 24
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

energy efficient and business performance enhancing. These dual objectives of energy
1
2 efficiency projects affect how managers, policy makers and researchers should approach and
3
4
agitate to stimulate further energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector.
5
6
7 4.4 Managerial implications
8
9
10 The review clearly states that managers have an important role as drivers for energy efficiency.
11
12
They can affect the energy efficiency by several means. Firstly, managers can foster energy
13 efficiency by being aware, ambitious and supportive, and having a strong personal commitment.
14
15 Secondly, from a strategic perspective, managers can contribute to energy efficiency by
16
17 providing clear energy strategies and creating an environmental company profile. Managers
18
19 should also implement an environmental management system and appoint a dedicated energy
20
21 manager with operational experience. Considering the organization, managers should assure a
22
flexible structure that fosters cooperation and interaction between all units of the firm.
23
24
25
26
The review demonstrates that competencies at individual and organizational levels are
27 important drivers. At the individual level it is found that competent and motivated employees
28
29 are important sources and resources during all phases in the implementation process of energy
30
31 efficiency. To spur these drivers, managers should employ qualified and experienced personnel,
32
33 facilitate internal training programmes and encourage environmental empowerment of both
34
35 executives and employees. At the organizational level it is found that access to relevant and
36
37
trustworthy information is prominent. The most relevant sources of information include
38 industrial networks, competitors, technical experts and consultants and foreign investors. A
39
40 strategy for good monitoring and cooperation with relevant partners is therefore recommended.
41
42
43 The review shows that energy efficiency, second to organizational factors, is mainly driven by
44
45 economic motives. This implies that energy efficiency technologies have a dual potential,
46
47 allowing the pursuit of both differentiation and cost optimization strategies. Managers should
48
49 also be aware of the non-energy benefits that can motivate the adoption of energy efficient
50
51
technologies. Examples of such benefits are improvements of product quality, improved
52 working environment, health and safety, production efficiency, process control, increased
53
54 reliability, and economic benefits from downsizing or elimination of equipment. Hence, energy
55
56 efficiency technologies can contribute to give energy efficiency companies sustained
57
58 competitive advantage.
59
60
61
62 25
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

4.5 Policy implications


1
2
3 The results of the SLR imply that the most important drivers to energy efficiency relates to
4
5 organizational and economic factors. In other words, the implementation of energy efficiency
6
7 measured depends on the organizations’ willingness and ability to take on energy efficiency
8 projects (Chai and Baudelaire, 2015) and the projects’ economic potential. Policy makers need
9
10 to consider both aspects in order to succeed with the design of effective policy instruments. The
11
12 challenge with the design and assessment of policy instruments is that they tend to be
13
14 complementary and/or have an indirect effect on energy efficiency (Venmans, 2014; Cagno et
15
16 al., 2015b). Contextual factors also affect the impact of policies (Tanaka, 2011). Hence, when
17
18
assessing the implications of policies it is necessary to consider both the policy mix and the
19 total spectrum of drivers from a holistic perspective.
20
21
22
Despite this complexity, the review indicates that policy instruments enabling the stimulation
23
24 of energy efficiency awareness and competence in combination with economic conditions will
25
26 have a positive effect on energy efficiency. Voluntary agreements are examples of policy
27
28 instruments that manage to combine the two aspects, and have been shown to be successful.
29
30 These policy instruments should be further developed and adopted in new contexts. Further, the
31
32 review indicates several avenues to stimulate the energy efficiency awareness and competence
33 of the organization. Firstly, the review shows that trustworthy information, knowledge and
34
35 competence at all levels within the organization are significant. Industrial networking and
36
37 cooperation allow firms to exchange experience and develop new ideas. Relevant stakeholders
38
39 include governmental bodies, technology suppliers, competitors, other manufacturers, energy
40
41 suppliers, financial institutions, industrial associations and groupings, clients, and partners
42
43
(Trianni et al., 2016a). Hence, policy makers should encourage the creation of meeting places
44 and networking arenas. As the information flow is affected by geographical proximity, the
45
46 establishment of energy efficiency clusters is advantageous. Secondly, knowledge in the form
47
48 of higher educated and competent employees and more practical oriented training programmes
49
50 are found to be effective. Policy makers should therefore, in cooperation with academia and
51
52 other knowledge institutions, facilitate and stimulate relevant education programmes at all
53
54
levels.
55
56
57 From a business perspective, the review also reveals the effect of competition and
58 internationalization as drivers for energy efficiency. Policy makers should therefore make
59
60 efforts to stimulate market flexibility. This can be done by banishing entry barriers and
61
62 26
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

preventing monopoly or quasi-monopoly situations. In addition, policy instruments should be


1
2 designed to support companies expand their international activities. Examples of such
3
4
instruments include foreign market prospecting and insurances covering internationalization-
5 related risks. To attract foreign investors, policy makers should assure a stable national
6
7 economy and remove legal obstacles such as restrictions on foreign ownership and capital
8
9 repatriation.
10
11
12 4.6 Research implications
13
14
15 A common feature with the studies included in the review is that they all consider energy
16
17 efficiency as the dependent variable. However, the way the variable is operationalized varies to
18
19 a large degree. Firstly, the studies use different measures of energy efficiency (investment,
20
21 implementation, energy consumption) which do not necessarily measure the same construct.
22
Secondly, to measure the extent of energy efficiency different indicators, such as binary
23
24 variables or rate, are used as proxies. This methodological inconsistency reduced accuracy and
25
26 makes it hard to make comparative analysis between the empirical studies. Moreover, we find
27
28 that several of the studies are based on the interviewees’ subjective rating of drivers.
29
30 Subsequently, the studies lack objectivity and risk suffering from personal biases.
31
32 Consequently, it is recommended that future research standardize, to a larger degree, the
33 methodology, definitions and measurement of variables. Clearly defined energy efficiency
34
35 indicators are also essential for policy makers since such indicators allow analysis of energy
36
37 trends and monitoring target achievements of past and present energy policies. Future research
38
39 could, with advantage, take learning from The International Energy Agency (2014) which has
40
41 developed energy indicators relevant for social studies.
42
43
44 The review reveals that in the majority of the articles, the authors take the perspective of the
45
46 practitioners when doing research. Consequently, the researchers do not build on theoretical
47
frameworks and concepts when designing their studies. Instead, the authors structure their
48
49 findings and analysis according to individually designed multidisciplinary taxonomies (e.g.,
50
51 (Thollander and Ottosson, 2008; Reddy, 2013; Trianni et al., 2016b; Aflaki et al., 2013). The
52
53 studies’ multidisciplinary taxonomies provide valuable insights to the complexity of drivers to
54
55 energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector. However, as the taxonomies are not based on a
56
57 common theoretical understanding, a large degree of inconsistency is observed in the
58 categorization and inclusion of drivers in the various taxonomies. The lack of theoretical
59
60 frameworks makes it hard to apply the empirical research results in a larger theoretical
61
62 27
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

discourse. This is a shortcoming in the literature that future research should address and, based
1
2 on our findings, we propose two potential avenues.
3
4
5 The first avenue is based on the high significance given to organizational factors as drivers for
6
7 energy efficiency. The importance of such internal drivers is supported by an emerging
8 literature on energy management (Schulze et al., 2016; May et al., 2017; Backlund et al., 2012).
9
10 However, less is known about the underlying organizational mechanisms enabling the firm to
11
12 succeed with improved energy efficiency. The implementation of energy efficiency
13
14 technologies involves organizational changes. Considering energy efficiency improvements as
15
16 change processes opens up new and interesting avenues for research. This approach to energy
17
18
efficiency also allows the application of more established theoretical frameworks and
19 constructs. Examples of relevant constructs, emanating from the resource based view of the
20
21 firm include the notion of absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Zahra and George,
22
23 2002), dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) and organizational change capacity (Soparnot,
24
25 2011; Judge and Elenkov, 2005). This approach will help us better understand competencies
26
27 and mechanisms necessary for organizations to undertake change in the context of energy
28
29
efficiency.
30
31
32 The second avenue relates to the high level of interaction between drivers and how they mediate
33 their relative effect on energy efficiency. This finding indicates the need for studying drivers to
34
35 energy efficiency from a system perspective (Thollander and Palm, 2015; Coenen and Díaz
36
37 López, 2010). This approach would also enable elaboration of the different functions of
38
39 stakeholders at the different levels of micro, meso and macro (Reddy, 2013). By the use of
40
41 system perspectives we will gain more knowledge about which and how drivers interact, and
42
43
how to best stimulate drivers to foster energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector.
44
45
46 5 Appendix
47
48
Table A. 1: Search strings according to functionality in the applied databases. The search was conducted on 25.01.2017
49
50
51 Database Search string Search
52
53 result
54 pub-date > 1977 and TITLE(driv*) and TITLE-ABSTR-KEY("energy 161
55
56 efficiency") [All Sources(Business, Management and Accounting, articles
57 Science Direct Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Energy, Environmental Science,
58
59 Social Sciences)].
60 Search String 1:
61
62 28
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

pub-date > 1977 and TITLE("energy efficiency") and TITLE-ABSTR- 72


1 KEY(industr* and manufacturing)[All Sources(Business, Management and articles
2
Science Direct Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Energy,
3
4 Environmental Science, Social Sciences)].
5 Search String 2:
6
7 Web of Science driv* (TITLE) AND “energy efficiency” (TOPIC ) AND YEAR = 1978- 132
8 2016 AND DOCUMENT TYPE = (PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL) articles
9
10 Search String 1 ARTICLE.
11
12
13 “energy efficiency” (TITLE) AND (industr* and “manufacturing” 63
14 (TOPIC) AND YEAR = 1978-2016 AND DOCUMENT TYPE = (PEER articles
15
Web of Science REVIEWED JOURNAL) ARTICLE.
16
17
18 Search String 2
19
20 Scopus TITLE ( driv* ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "energy 632
21 efficiency" ) AND PUBYEAR > 1978 AND ( LIMIT- articles
22
Search String 1 TO ( DOCTYPE , "ar " ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "ip
23
24 " ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER " ) OR LIMIT-
25
26 TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI " ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI
27 " ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON " ) OR LIMIT-
28
29 TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI " ) OR LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "DECI
30
" ) ).
31
32 Scopus Search String 2: TITLE ( "energy efficiency" ) AND TITLE-ABS- 124
33
KEY ( industr* AND manufacturing ) AND PUBYEAR > 1978 AND articles
34
35 Search String 2 ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "ar " ) OR LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "ip
36
37 " ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENER" ) OR LIMIT-
38 TO ( SUBJAREA , "ENVI" ) OR LIMIT-
39
40 TO ( SUBJAREA , "BUSI" ) OR LIMIT-
41 TO ( SUBJAREA , "ECON" ) OR LIMIT-
42
43 TO ( SUBJAREA , "SOCI" ) OR LIMIT-
44 TO ( SUBJAREA , "DECI" ) ).
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 29
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Table A. 2: Overview of selected studies in SLR and findings


1
2 The dependent variable – Energy Coding in
3 No. Study Method Drivers to energy efficiency
4 Efficiency categories
5 Measure, Measure, Firm
6 Sector Top 3 drivers
claimed measured size
7
8 Proxy;
9 Abadie et al. Implementation/a yes or Investment costs
10
11 1. (2012) Investment doption no Quant and pay-back time Eco-invest
12 Primary resource
13
stream Eco-tech
14
15 Anderson Proxy;
16 and Newell Implementation/a yes or Energy audits
17
18 2. (2004) Investment doption no Quant Org-mgt
19 Investment costs
20 and pay-back time Eco-invest
21
22 Cost reduction
23 lowered energy use Eco-cost
24
25 Apeaning
26 and Proxy; Cost reduction
27 Thollander Implementati Implementation/ yes or lowered energy use
28
29 3. (2013) on/adoption adoption no Qual Eco-cost
30 Increasing energy
31
prices Eco-cost
32
33 Requirements by
34 government Pol
35
36 Proxy;
37 Arens et al. Implementati Implementation/a yes or
38
4. (2016) on/adoption doption no Mixed Pay-back time Eco-invest
39
40 Attitude towards
41 new technologies Org-comp
42
43 Access to capital Eco-invest
44 Proxy; Involvement of
45 Blass et al. Implementati Implementation/a yes or operational
46
47 5. (2014) on/adoption doption no Quant manager Org-comp
48 Investment costs
49
and pay-back time Eco-invest
50
51 Position of
52 management Org-struct
53
54 Energy Key performance
55 Bloom et al. Energy Energy intensi indicators of
56
6. (2010), consumption consumption y Quant production Org-mgt
57
58 People
59 management Org-mgt
60
61
62 30
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Skilled labour Org-comp


1 Energy
2 Boyd and Energy Energy intensi Effective
3
4 7. Curtis (2014) consumption consumption y Quant monitoring Org-mgt
5 Incentive structures
6
of employees Org-comp
7
8 Lean
9 manufacturing
10
11 operations Eco-tech
12 Commitment from
13 Not
top
14 measur
15 Brunke et al. Implementati Implementation/a management/energ
ed
16 8. (2014) on/adoption doption Mixed y management Org-mgt
17
18 Cost reduction
19 lowered energy use Eco-cost
20
Long-term energy
21
22 strategy Org-mgt
23 Cagno Cagno Not
24 Allowances or
25 and Trianni Implementati Implementation/a measur
public financing
26 9. (2013) on/adoption doption ed Qual x Pol
27 Competition Ext-market
28
29 Increasing energy
30 prices Eco-cost
31
Cagno and Proxy;
32
33 Trianni Implementati Implementation/a yes or Technological
34 10. (2014) on/adoption doption no Qual x complexity Eco-tech
35
36 Innovativeness Org-comp
37 Energy
38
Cagno et al. Energy Energy intensit
39
40 11. (2015a) consumption consumption y Qual Internal R&D Org-comp
41 Training of
42
43 personnel Org-comp
44 Acquiring
45
advanced
46
47 machinery Eco-tech
48 Not
49
50 Cagno et al. Energy Implementation/a measur Cost reduction
51 12. (2015b) consumption doption ed Qual lowered energy use Eco-cost
52 Long-term energy
53
54 strategy Org-mgt
55 Clarity of
56
information Ext-info
57
58 Cagno et al. Implementati Implementation/a Numbe Information about
59 13. (2016) on/adoption doption r of Qual x x real costs Eco-cost
60
61
62 31
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

EEM
1 implem
2 ented
3
4 Clarity and
5 trustworthiness of
6
information Ext-info
7
8 Public investment
9 subsidies Pol
10
11 Not
12 Chai and Yeo Implementati Implementation/a measur x Reduction of
13
14. (2012) on/adoption doption ed Qual operating costs Eco-cost
14
15 Corporate social
16 responsibility Org-mgt
17
18 Resources and
19 competencies Org-comp
20
Chai and Energy
21
22 Baudelaire Energy Energy consum Cost motivation
23 15. (2015) consumption consumption ption Quant Eco-cost
24
25 Know-how Org-comp
26 Monitoring ability Org-mgt
27
Not
28
29 Chiaroni et Implementati Implementation/a measur Energy audit
30 16. al. (2016) on/adoption doption ed Qual process Org-mgt
31
Continuous and
32
33 strong commitment
34 from top
35
36 management Org-mgt
37 Energy saving and
38
cost Eco-cost
39
40 Energy
41 Conrad Energy Energy consum
42
43 17. (2000) consumption consumption ption Quant R&D investment Org-comp
44 Increaced energy
45
prices Eco-cost
46
47 Proxy; Reduce
48 Costa-Campi Implementati Implementation/a yes or environmental
49
18. et al. (2015) on/adoption doption no Quant x x impact Org-mgt
50
51 Innovativeness Org-comp
52 Meet regulatory
53
54 requirements Pol
55 Participation in a Proxy;
56
DeCanio voluntary energy yes or
57
58 19. (1998) Investment program no Quant x x Access to capital Eco-invest
59 Ownership Ext-market
60
61
62 32
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Voluntary
1 agreements Pol
2 Eichhorst Participation in a Not
3
4 and Bongardt Implementati voluntary energy measur Compliance with
5 20. (2009) on/adoption program ed Qual requirements Pol
6
Voluntary
7
8 agreements Pol
9 Support from
10
11 technical expertise Ext-info
12 Proxy;
13
Gerstlberger Implementati Implementation/a yes or
14
15 21. et al. (2016) on/adoption doption no Quant Innovativeness Org-comp
16 Environmental
17
18 management
19 systems Org-mgt
20
Previous
21
22 implementation of
23 technologies Org-comp
24
25 Not Cost reduction
26 Groot et al. measur from lower energy
27 22. (2001) Investment Investment ed Quant x x use Eco-cost
28
29 Fiscal
30 arrangements Pol
31
Green image of
32
33 corporation Org-mgt
34 Not
35 Reducing energy
36 Hasanbeigi et Implementation/a measur
costs
37 23. al. (2010) Investment doption ed Qual x x Eco-cost
38
HMS Org-mgt
39
40 Improving product
41 quality Eco-tech
42
43 Proxy; Energy cost
44 Hrovatin et yes or relative to total
45
24. al. (2016) Investment Investment no Quant x x prodution cost Eco-cost
46
47 Improving safety at
48 work Org-mgt
49
50 Favourable
51 expectations about
52 demand Ext-market
53
54 Hämäläinen Energy
55 and Hilmola Energy Energy consum Lower production
56
25. (2016) consumption consumption ption Qual costs Eco-cost
57
58
59
60
61
62 33
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Not
1 Johansson Implementati Implementation/a measur Networking and
2 26. (2015) on/adoption doption ed Qual cooperation Ext-info
3
4 Senior
5 management
6
prioritises energy
7
8 issues Org-mgt
9 Cost reduction
10
11 from lowered
12 energy use Eco-cost
13
Proxy;
14
15 Kostka et al. Implementation/a yes or Access to energy
16 27. (2013) Investment doption no Quant x x finance Eco-invest
17
18 Familiar with
19 energy efficient
20 practices/equipmen
21
22 ts Org-mgt
23 Energy cost
24
relative to total
25
26 prodution cost Eco-cost
27 Kounetas and Proxy;
28
29 Tsekouras Implementati Implementation/a yes or Public capital
30 28. (2008) on/adoption doption no Quant subsidy Pol
31
Access to capital Eco-invest
32
33 Incrased fixed
34 capital vintage Eco-tech
35
36 Proxy; Cooperating with
37 Kounetas et Implementati Implementation/a yes or external energy
38 29. al. (2011) on/adoption doption no Quant x efficiency experts Ext-info
39
40 Indroduciton of
41 innovative
42
procedures Org-comp
43
44 Exportaiton to
45 foreign markets Ext-market
46
47 Not
Cost savings from
48 Implementation/a measur
49 lowered energy use
30. Lee (2015) Investment doption ed Qual Eco-cost
50
51 Demand from
52 owner Ext-market
53
54 Energy tax Pol
55 Energy
56
Martin et al. Energy Energy consum Environmental
57
58 31. (2012) consumption consumption ption Quant management Org-mgt
59
60
61
62 34
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Management
1 practises Org-mgt
2 Organizational
3
4 structure Org-struct
5 Energy
6
Martínez Energy Energy consum
7
8 32. (2010) consumption consumption ption Quant x Energy prices Eco-cost
9 Machinery and
10
11 equipment
12 investments Eco-tech
13
Foreign
14
15 investments Ext-market
16 Proxy;
17 Working
18 Masurel yes or
conditions
19 33. (2007) Investment Investment no Quant Org-mgt
20
Legislation Org-comp
21
22 Moral duty Pol
23 Energy
24
25 Miah et al. Energy Energy consum Cooperation with
26 34. (2015) consumption consumption ption Qual academia Ext-info
27
Technological
28
29 support from
30 experts Ext-info
31
Trustworthiness of
32
33 information Ext-info
34 Not
35
36 Ozoliņa and Implementati Implementation/a measur NA – no support of
37 35. Roša (2013) on doption ed Qual hyopthesis
38
Ramstetter Energy
39
40 and Narjoko Energy Energy consum NA – no support of
41 36. (2014) consumption consumption ption Quant hyopthesis
42
43 Not
44 Implementati Implementation/a measur Cost savings
45
37. Ren (2009) on/adoption doption ed Qual Eco-cost
46
47 Tight supply of gas
48 feedstock Eco-tech
49
50 Personal
51 commitment of
52 individuals Org-mgt
53
54 Energy Long-Term
55 Rietbergen et Energy Energy consum Agreements on
56
38. al. (2002) consumption consumption ption Mixed energy efficiency Pol
57
58
59
60
61
62 35
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Rohdin and Not


Long-term energy
1 Thollander Implementati Implementation/a measur
2 strategy
39. (2006) on/adoption doption ed Qual Org-mgt
3
4 Increasing energy
5 prices Eco-cost
6
People with real
7
8 ambition Org-mgt
9 Not
10
11 Rohdin et al. Implementati Implementation/a measur Long-term strategy
12 40. (2007) on/adoption doption ed Qual Org-mgt
13
People with real
14
15 ambition Org-mgt
16 Environmental
17
18 company profile Org-mgt
19 Energy
20
Ru and Si Energy Energy consum
21
22 41. (2015) consumption consumption ption Quant x Production safety Org-mgt
23 Private ownership Ext-market
24
25 Technical progress Eco-tech
26 Sandberg and Not Follow-up
27
Söderström measur activities and
28
29 42. (2003) Investment Investment ed Qual x transparency Org-mgt
30 Access to correct
31
information Ext-info
32
33 Environmental
34 management Org-mgt
35
36 Not
37 Sardianou Implementation/a measur Qualified
38
43. (2008) Investment doption ed Quant x employees Org-comp
39
40 Highly educated
41 employees Org-comp
42
43
44 Sathitbun- Not
45 Potential to reduce
anan et al. Implementati Implementation/a measur
46 energy costs
47 44. (2015) on/adoption doption ed Qual Eco-cost
48 Creating a green
49
50 image of the firm Org-mgt
51 Subsidies on
52
investment in
53
54 energy efficiency
55 technologies Pol
56
57 Not
58 Singh and Implementati Implementation/a measur Competitive
59 45. Lalk (2016) on/adoption doption ed Quant x organisations Ext-market
60
61
62 36
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Public finance
1 mechanisms Pol
2 Incrase in energy
3
4 costs Eco-cost
5 Svensson and Not
6
Paramonova Implementati Implementation/a measur Cooperation
7
8 46. (2017) on/adoption doption ed Qual between firm units Org-struct
9 Employee
10
11 involvement Org-comp
12 "Train the trainer" Org-comp
13
Proxy;
14
15 Thollander et Implementati Implementation/a yes or Long-term strategy
16 47. al. (2007) on/adoption doption no Qual Org-mgt
17
18 People with real
19 ambition Org-mgt
20
Environmental
21
22 company
23 profileand/or EMS Org-mgt
24
25 Thollander Not Cost reductions
26 and Ottosson Implementation/a measur from lower energy
27 48. (2008) Investment doption ed Qual use Eco-cost
28
29 People with real
30 ambition Org-mgt
31
Long-term energy
32
33 strategy Org-mgt
34 Not Cost reductions
35
36 Thollander et Implementati Implementation/a measur resulting from
37 49. al. (2013) on/adoption doption ed Qual lowered energy use Eco-cost
38
Threat of rising
39
40 energy prices Eco-cost
41 Commitment from
42
43 top management Org-mgt
44 Tonn and Proxy; Energy
45
Martin Implementati Implementation/a yes or assessments and
46
47 50. (2000) on/adoption doption no Quant audits Org-mgt
48 Staff qualification Org-comp
49
50 Voluntary
51 agreement Ext-info
52
Trianni and Not Previous
53
54 Cagno Implementati Implementation/a measur experience with
55 51. (2012) on/adoption doption ed Qual x x energy efficiency Org-comp
56
57 Not Competition from
58 Trianni et al. Implementati measur emerging
59 52. (2013a) on/adoption Investment ed Qual x economices Ext-market
60
61
62 37
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Complex
1 production
2 processes Eco-tech
3
4
5 Not
6
Trianni et al. Implementati measur Complexity of
7
8 53. (2013c) on/adoption Investment ed Qual x production Eco-tech
9 Demand variability
10
11 Strength of
12 competitors
13
Not
14
15 Trianni et al. Implementati Implementation/a measur
16 55. (2013b) on/adoption doption ed Qual x Innovativeness Org-comp
17
18 Local network of
19 knowledge Ext-info
20
Competition Ext-market
21
22 Not
23 Trianni et al. measur Management
24
25 54. (2016a) Investment investment ed Qual x x support Org-mgt
26 Public investment
27
subsidies pol
28
29 Private financing Eco-invest
30 Proxy;
31
32 Ulubeyli Energy energy yes or
33 56. (2013) consumption consumption no Quant Competition Ext-market
34 Not
35 Increasing energy
36 Venmans measur
prices
37 57. (2014) Investment Investment ed Mixed Eco-cost
38
Commitment by
39
40 top management to
41 an environmental
42
43 policy Org-mgt
44 Environmental
45
image building
46
47 towards clients Org-mgt
48 Not
49
50 Zilahy Implementati Implementation/a measur Environmental
51 58. (2004) on/adoption doption ed Qual awareness Org-mgt
52 Rewards and other
53
54 incentives Org-mgt
55 Performance and
56
competence
57
58 motivation Org-comp
59
60
61
62 38
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Table A. 3: Distribution of drivers in numbers and percentage


1
2
3 Observations
4 Drivers Observations aggregated %
5
6 sub-categories
7 1 ECONOMIC - FINANCE 9 5%
8
9 Access to capital 5 3%
10
Investment cost and pay-back time 4 2%
11
12 1 ECONOMIC - OPERATING COSTS 27 15 %
13
14 Cost reduction from lower energy use 19 10 %
15 Increasing energy tariffs 8 4%
16
17 1 ECONOMIC - TECHNOLOGICAL FIT 10 5%
18 Product quality - improving 1 1%
19
20 Technological solutions and features 9 5%
21
2 ORG - COMPETENCE 22 12 %
22
23 Competence and motivation of employees 11 6%
24
25 Organizational innovativeness 6 3%
26 R&D 2 1%
27
28 Training and education 3 2%
29 2 ORG - MANAGEMENT 44 24 %
30
31 Awareness of energy efficiency 2 1%
32
Energy audits and performance indicators 7 4%
33
34 Environmental company profile 8 4%
35
36 Environmental management system 3 2%
37 HMS 4 2%
38
39 Long term energy strategy 6 3%
40 Management ambitions, commitment and support 14 8%
41
42 2 ORG - STRUCTURE 3 2%
43 Firm cooperation between units 1 1%
44
45 Managers position and role 1 1%
46
47 Org structure 1 1%
48 3 EXTERNAL DRIVERS - MARKET FORCES 14 8%
49
50 Competition 9 5%
51 Customer demand 1 1%
52
53 Ownership 4 2%
54 3 EXTERNAL DRIVERS - NETWORK and INFO 10 5%
55
56 Clarity and trustworthiness of information 4 2%
57
Industrial network and cooperation 4 2%
58
59 Technical support from experts and sector org. 2 1%
60
61
62 39
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

4 POLICY INSTRUMENTS 16 9%
1 Legal compliance 4 2%
2
3 Tax schemes 2 1%
4 Public investment subsidies 6 3%
5
6 Voluntary agreements 4 2%
7
8 5 FIRM DETERMINANTS 30 16 %
9 Firm size 17 9%
10
11 Sector 13 7%
12
13
14 Sum observations 185 185 100 %
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 40
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

6 References
1
2
3 Abadie, L.M., Ortiz, R.A. & Galarraga, I. 2012. Determinants of energy efficiency investments in the
4
5 US. Energy Policy, 45, 551-566. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.002
6
7 Abdelaziz, E.A., Saidur, R. & Mekhilef, S. 2011. A review on energy saving strategies in industrial
8
9 sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 150-168.
10
11 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.003
12
13
14
Aflaki, S., Kleindorfer, P.R. & Polvorinos, V.S.D.M. 2013. Finding and Implementing Energy Efficiency
15 Projects in Industrial Facilities. Production and Operations Management, 22, 503-517.
16
17 doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2012.01377.x
18
19
20 Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K. & Nijstad, B.A. 2004. The routinization of innovation research: A
21
22
constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of organizational Behavior,
23 25, 147-173. doi:10.1002/job.236
24
25
26 Anderson, S.T. & Newell, R.G. 2004. Information programs for technology adoption: the case of
27
28 energy-efficiency audits. Resource and Energy Economics, 26, 27-50.
29
30
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2003.07.001
31
32 Apeaning, R.W. & Thollander, P. 2013. Barriers to and driving forces for industrial energy efficiency
33
34 improvements in African industries – a case study of Ghana's largest industrial area. Journal
35
36 of Cleaner Production, 53, 204-213. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.003
37
38 Arens, M., Worrell, E. & Eichhammer, W. 2016. Drivers and barriers to the diffusion of energy-
39
40 efficient technologies—a plant-level analysis of the German steel industry. Energy Efficiency,
41
42 1-17. doi:10.1007/s12053-016-9465-4
43
44
45 Backlund, S., Thollander, P., Palm, J. & Ottosson, M. 2012. Extending the energy efficiency gap.
46 Energy Policy, 51, 392-396. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.042
47
48
49 Blass, V., Corbett, C.J., Delmas, M.A. & Muthulingam, S. 2014. Top management and the adoption of
50
51 energy efficiency practices: Evidence from small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in
52
53 the US. Energy, 65, 560-571. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.030
54
55 Bloom, N., Genakos, C., Martin, R. & Sadun, R. 2010. Modern Management: Good for the
56
57 Environment or Just Hot Air? Economic Journal, 120, 551-572. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
58
59 0297.2010.02351.x
60
61
62 41
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Bossle, M.B., Dutra De Barcellos, M., Vieira, L.M. & Sauvée, L. 2016. The drivers for adoption of eco-
1
2 innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 861-872.
3 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.033
4
5
6 Boyd, G.A. & Curtis, E.M. 2014. Evidence of an “Energy-Management Gap” in U.S. manufacturing:
7
8 Spillovers from firm management practices to energy efficiency. Journal of Environmental
9
10 Economics and Management, 68, 463-479. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.09.004
11
12 Brunke, J.-C., Johansson, M. & Thollander, P. 2014. Empirical investigation of barriers and drivers to
13
14 the adoption of energy conservation measures, energy management practices and energy
15
16 services in the Swedish iron and steel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 509-525.
17
18 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.078
19
20 Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schönsleben, P., Brülhart, M. & Ernst, F.O. 2011. Integrating energy efficiency
21
22 performance in production management – gap analysis between industrial needs and
23
24 scientific literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 667-679.
25
26 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.011
27
28 Cagno, E., Ramirez-Portilla, A. & Trianni, A. 2015a. Linking energy efficiency and innovation practices:
29
30 Empirical evidence from the foundry sector. Energy Policy, 83, 240-256.
31
32 doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.023
33
34
Cagno, E. & Trianni, A. 2013. Exploring drivers for energy efficiency within small- and medium-sized
35
36 enterprises: First evidences from Italian manufacturing enterprises. Applied Energy, 104, 276-
37
38 285. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.053
39
40
41 Cagno, E. & Trianni, A. 2014. Evaluating the barriers to specific industrial energy efficiency measures:
42
an exploratory study in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production,
43
44 82, 70-83. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.057
45
46
47 Cagno, E., Trianni, A., Abeelen, C., Worrell, E. & Miggiano, F. 2015b. Barriers and drivers for energy
48
49 efficiency: Different perspectives from an exploratory study in the Netherlands. Energy
50
Conversion and Management, 102, 26-38.
51
52 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.04.018
53
54
55 Cagno, E., Trianni, A., Spallina, G. & Marchesani, F. 2016. Drivers for energy efficiency and their effect
56
57 on barriers: empirical evidence from Italian manufacturing enterprises. Energy Efficiency, 1-
58
15. doi:10.1007/s12053-016-9488-x
59
60
61
62 42
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Cagno, E., Worrell, E., Trianni, A. & Pugliese, G. 2013. A novel approach for barriers to industrial
1
2 energy efficiency. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19, 290-308.
3 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.007
4
5
6 Campbell, C.J. & Laherrère, J.H. 1998. The End of Cheap Oil. Scientific American, 3, 78-83.
7
8
9 Chai, K.-H. & Baudelaire, C. 2015. Understanding the energy efficiency gap in Singapore: a
10
Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 100, 224-
11
12 234. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.064
13
14
15 Chai, K.-H. & Yeo, C. 2012. Overcoming energy efficiency barriers through systems approach—A
16
17 conceptual framework. Energy Policy, 46, 460-472.
18
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.012
19
20
21 Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., Franzò, S., Frattini, F. & Manfredi Latilla, V. 2016. Overcoming internal
22
23 barriers to industrial energy efficiency through energy audit: a case study of a large
24
25 manufacturing company in the home appliances industry. Clean Technologies and
26
Environmental Policy, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1298-5
27
28
29 Coenen, L. & Díaz López, F.J. 2010. Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological
30
31 change for sustainable and competitive economies: an explorative study into conceptual
32
33 commonalities, differences and complementarities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1149-
34
1160. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.003
35
36
37 Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
38
39 Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152. doi:10.2307/2393553
40
41
42 Conrad, K. 2000. An econometric model of production with endogenous improvement in energy
43 efficiency, 1970-1995. Applied Economics, 32, 1153-1160.
44
45 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000368400404290
46
47
48 Costa-Campi, M.T., García-Quevedo, J. & Segarra, A. 2015. Energy efficiency determinants: An
49
50 empirical analysis of Spanish innovative firms. Energy Policy, 83, 229-239.
51 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.037
52
53
54 Cui, Q. & Li, Y. 2015. An empirical study on energy efficiency improving capacity: the case of fifteen
55
56 countries. Energy Efficiency, 8, 1049-1062. doi:10.1007/s12053-015-9337-3
57
58
59
60
61
62 43
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

De Medeiros, J.F., Ribeiro, J.L.D. & Cortimiglia, M.N. 2014. Success factors for environmentally
1
2 sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,
3 65, 76-86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.035
4
5
6 Decanio, S.J. 1998. The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable
7
8 energy-saving investments. Energy Policy, 26, 441-454. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-
9
10 4215(97)00152-3
11
12 Del Río, P., Peñasco, C. & Romero-Jordán, D. 2016. What drives eco-innovators? A critical review of
13
14 the empirical literature based on econometric methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112,
15
16 2158-2170. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.009
17
18
Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D. 2009. Producing a systematic review. In: BUCHANAN, D. A. & BRYMAN, A.
19
20 (eds.) The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
21
22 Publications Ltd.
23
24
25 EIA http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=about_energy_efficiency.
26
27 EIA 2010. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey 2010 [Online]. U.S. Energy Information
28
29 Administration https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2010/index.php.
30
31
32 Eichhorst, U. & Bongardt, D. 2009. Towards cooperative policy approaches in China—Drivers for
33
34 voluntary agreements on industrial energy efficiency in Nanjing. Energy Policy, 37, 1855-
35 1865. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.024
36
37
38 Fink, A. 1998. Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper, London, Sage
39
40 Publications.
41
42
Gerstlberger, W., Knudsen, M.P., Dachs, B. & Schroter, M. 2016. Closing the energy-efficiency
43
44 technology gap in European firms? Innovation and adoption of energy efficiency
45
46 technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 40, 87-100.
47
48 doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.04.004
49
50
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. 2009. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
51
52 research, US, Transaction Publishers.
53
54
55 Groot, H.L.F., Verhoef, E.T. & Nijkamp, P. 2001. Energy saving by firms: decision-making, barriers and
56
57 policies. Energy Economics, 23, 717-740. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
58
9883(01)00083-4
59
60
61
62 44
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Hart, C. 1998. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination London,
1
2 SAGE publication.
3
4 Hart, S.L. 1995. A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. The Academy of Management Review,
5
6 20, 986-1014. doi:10.2307/258963
7
8
9 Hasanbeigi, A., Menke, C. & Du Pont, P. 2010. Barriers to energy efficiency improvement and
10
decision-making behavior in Thai industry. Energy Efficiency, 3, 33-52. doi:10.1007/s12053-
11
12 009-9056-8
13
14
15 Honma, S. & Hu, J.L. 2013. Total-factor energy efficiency for sectors in Japan. Energy Sources, Part B:
16
17 Economics, Planning and Policy, 8, 130-136. doi:10.1080/15567240903289564
18
19 Hrovatin, N., Dolšak, N. & Zorić, J. 2016. Factors impacting investments in energy efficiency and clean
20
21 technologies: empirical evidence from Slovenian manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner
22
23 Production, 127, 475-486. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.039
24
25
26 Hu, J.L., Lio, M.C., Kao, C.H. & Lin, Y.L. 2012. Total-factor energy efficiency for regions in Taiwan.
27 Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 7, 292-300.
28
29 doi:10.1080/15567240903096902
30
31
32 Hämäläinen, E. & Hilmola, O.P. 2016. Energy efficiency at the paper mill—dilemma of improvement.
33
34 Energy Efficiency, 1-13. doi:10.1007/s12053-016-9490-3
35
36 IEA 2007. Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions [Online]. International Energy
37
38 Agency.
39
40 http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/tracking_emissions.pdf.
41
42
IEA 2012. World Energy Outlook [Online]. Internatinal Energy Agency.
43
44 http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf.
45
46
47 IEA 2014. Energy Efficiency Indicators: Essentials for Policy Making [Online]. International Energy
48
49 Agency.
50
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/IEA_EnergyEfficiencyIndicator
51
52 s_EssentialsforPolicyMaking.pdf.
53
54
55 Jaffe, A.B. & Stavins, R.N. 1994. The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean? Energy Policy, 22, 804-
56
57 810. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(94)90138-4
58
59
60
61
62 45
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Johansson, M.T. 2015. Improved energy efficiency within the Swedish steel industry-the importance
1
2 of energy management and networking. Energy Efficiency, 8, 713-744. doi:10.1007/s12053-
3 014-9317-z
4
5
6 Judge, W.Q. & Elenkov, D. 2005. Organizational capacity for change and environmental performance:
7
8 an empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of Business Research, 58, 893-901.
9
10 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.01.009
11
12 Kostka, G., Moslener, U. & Andreas, J. 2013. Barriers to increasing energy efficiency: evidence from
13
14 small-and medium-sized enterprises in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 59-68.
15
16 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.025
17
18
Kounetas, K., Skuras, D. & Tsekouras, K. 2011. Promoting energy efficiency policies over the
19
20 information barrier. Information Economics and Policy, 23, 72-84.
21
22 doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2010.08.001
23
24
25 Kounetas, K. & Tsekouras, K. 2008. The energy efficiency paradox revisited through a partial
26
observability approach. Energy Economics, 30, 2517-2536. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2007.03.002
27
28
29 Lee, K.-H. 2015. Drivers and barriers to energy efficiency management for sustainable development.
30
31 Sustainable Development, 23, 16-25. doi:10.1002/sd.1567
32
33
34 Lin, B. & Tan, R. 2016. Ecological total-factor energy efficiency of China's energy intensive industries.
35 Ecological Indicators, 70, 480-497. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.026
36
37
38 Martin, R., Muûls, M., De Preux, L.B. & Wagner, U.J. 2012. Anatomy of a paradox: Management
39
40 practices, organizational structure and energy efficiency. Journal of Environmental Economics
41
42 and Management, 63, 208-223. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2011.08.003
43
44 Martínez, C.I.P. 2010. Investments and energy efficiency in Colombian manufacturing industries.
45
46 Energy and Environment, 21, 545-562. doi:10.1260/0958-305X.21.6.545
47
48
49 Masurel, E. 2007. Why SMEs invest in environmental measures: sustainability evidence from small
50
and medium-sized printing firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 190-201.
51
52 doi:10.1002/bse.478
53
54
55 May, G., Stahl, B., Taisch, M. & Kiritsis, D. 2017. Energy management in manufacturing: From
56
57 literature review to a conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production.
58
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.191
59
60
61
62 46
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Miah, J.H., Griffiths, A., Mcneill, R., Poonaji, I., Martin, R., Morse, S., Yang, A. & Sadhukhan, J. 2015. A
1
2 small-scale transdisciplinary process to maximising the energy efficiency of food factories:
3 insights and recommendations from the development of a novel heat integration framework.
4
5 Sustainability Science, 10, 621-637. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0331-7
6
7
8 Ozoliņa, L. & Roša, M. 2013. The consumer's role in energy efficiency promotion in Latvian
9
10 manufacturing industry. Management of Environmental Quality, 24, 330-340.
11 doi:10.1108/14777831311322640
12
13
14 Özkara, Y. & Atak, M. 2015. Regional total-factor energy efficiency and electricity saving potential of
15
16 manufacturing industry in Turkey. Energy, 93, 495-510. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.036
17
18
Pacheco, D.a.D.J., Ten Caten, C.S., Jung, C.F., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Navas, H.V.G. & Cruz-Machado, V.A.
19
20 2017. Eco-innovation determinants in manufacturing SMEs: Systematic review and research
21
22 directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, Part 4, 2277-2287.
23
24 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.049
25
26
Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J. & Velázquez, D. 2013. Revisiting energy efficiency fundamentals. Energy
27
28 Efficiency, 6, 239-254. doi:10.1007/s12053-012-9180-8
29
30
31 Porter, M.E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York, Free Press.
32
33
34 Ramstetter, E.D. & Narjoko, D. 2014. Ownership and Energy Efficiency in Indonesian Manufacturing.
35 Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 50, 255-276. doi:10.1080/00074918.2014.938407
36
37
38 Reddy, B.S. 2013. Barriers and drivers to energy efficiency – A new taxonomical approach. Energy
39
40 Conversion and Management, 74, 403-416.
41
42 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.06.040
43
44 Ren, T. 2009. Barriers and drivers for process innovation in the petrochemical industry: A case study.
45
46 Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26, 285-304.
47
48 doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2009.10.004
49
50
Rietbergen, M.G., Farla, J.C.M. & Blok, K. 2002. Do agreements enhance energy efficiency
51
52 improvement?: Analysing the actual outcome of long-term agreements on industrial energy
53
54 efficiency improvement in The Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 153-163.
55
56 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00035-X
57
58
59
60
61
62 47
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Rohdin, P. & Thollander, P. 2006. Barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency in the non-
1
2 energy intensive manufacturing industry in Sweden. Energy, 31, 1836-1844.
3 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.10.010
4
5
6 Rohdin, P., Thollander, P. & Solding, P. 2007. Barriers to and drivers for energy efficiency in the
7
8 Swedish foundry industry. Energy Policy, 35, 672-677.
9
10 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.01.010
11
12 Ru, L. & Si, W. 2015. Total-factor energy efficiency in China's sugar manufacturing industry. China
13
14 Agricultural Economic Review, 7, 360-373. doi:10.1108/CAER-11-2014-0131
15
16
17 Sandberg, P. & Söderström, M. 2003. Industrial energy efficiency: the need for investment decision
18
support from a manager perspective. Energy Policy, 31, 1623-1634.
19
20 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00228-8
21
22
23 Sardianou, E. 2008. Barriers to industrial energy efficiency investments in Greece. Journal of Cleaner
24
25 Production, 16, 1416-1423. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.08.002
26
27 Sathitbun-Anan, S., Fungtammasan, B., Barz, M., Sajjakulnukit, B. & Pathumsawad, S. 2015. An
28
29 analysis of the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency measures and factors affecting their
30
31 implementation: a case study of Thai sugar industry. Energy Efficiency, 8, 141-153.
32
33 doi:10.1007/s12053-014-9281-7
34
35 Schulze, M., Nehler, H., Ottosson, M. & Thollander, P. 2016. Energy management in industry – a
36
37 systematic review of previous findings and an integrative conceptual framework. Journal of
38
39 Cleaner Production, 112, Part 5, 3692-3708.
40
41 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.060
42
43 Short, J. 2009. The Art of Writing a Review Article. Journal of Management, 35, 1312-1317.
44
45 doi:10.1177/0149206309337489
46
47
48 Singh, R. & Lalk, J. 2016. An investigation into the barriers to energy efficiency within medium to
49
50 large manufacturing firms operating withinin the ethekwini municipal area. South African
51 Journal of Industrial Engineering, 27, 287-302. doi:10.7166/27-3-1658
52
53
54 Soparnot, R. 2011. The concept of organizational change capacity. Journal of Organizational Change
55
56 Management, 24, 640-661. doi:doi:10.1108/09534811111158903
57
58
Sorrell, S., Mallett, A. & Nye, S. 2011. Barriers to industrial energy efficiency: a literature review.
59
60 Working paper 10/2011 UNIDO [Online]. UNITED NATIONS, I. D. O.
61
62 48
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Services/Research_and_Statistics/WP102011
1
2 _Ebook.pdf.
3
4 Sorrell, S., Schleich, J., Scott, S., O'malley, E., Trace, F., Boede, U., Ostertag, K. & Radgen, P. 2000.
5
6 Barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organisations [Online]. SPRU, E. A. E. P.
7
8 http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/reports/barriers/final.html.
9
10
Svensson, A. & Paramonova, S. 2017. An analytical model for identifying and addressing energy
11
12 efficiency improvement opportunities in industrial production systems – Model development
13
14 and testing experiences from Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, Part 4, 2407-2422.
15
16 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.034
17
18
Tanaka, K. 2011. Review of policies and measures for energy efficiency in industry sector. Energy
19
20 Policy, 39, 6532-6550. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.058
21
22
23 Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic
24
25 Management Journal, 18, 509-533. doi:10.2307/3088148
26
27 Thollander, P., Backlund, S., Trianni, A. & Cagno, E. 2013. Beyond barriers – A case study on driving
28
29 forces for improved energy efficiency in the foundry industries in Finland, France, Germany,
30
31 Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. Applied Energy, 111, 636-643.
32
33 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.036
34
35 Thollander, P., Danestig, M. & Rohdin, P. 2007. Energy policies for increased industrial energy
36
37 efficiency: Evaluation of a local energy programme for manufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy,
38
39 35, 5774-5783. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.06.013
40
41
42 Thollander, P. & Ottosson, M. 2008. An energy efficient Swedish pulp and paper industry - Exploring
43 barriers to and driving forces for cost-effective energy efficiency investments. Energy
44
45 Efficiency, 1, 21-34. doi:10.1007/s12053-007-9001-7
46
47
48 Thollander, P. & Palm, J. 2015. Industrial Energy Management Decision Making for Improved Energy
49
50 Efficiency—Strategic System Perspectives and Situated Action in Combination. Energies, 8,
51 5694. doi:10.3390/en8065694
52
53
54 Tonn, B. & Martin, M. 2000. Industrial energy efficiency decision making. Energy Policy, 28, 831-843.
55
56 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00068-9
57
58
59
60
61
62 49
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-
1
2 Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of
3 Management, 14, 207-222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375
4
5
6 Trianni, A. & Cagno, E. 2012. Dealing with barriers to energy efficiency and SMEs: Some empirical
7
8 evidences. Energy, 37, 494-504. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.005
9
10
Trianni, A., Cagno, E. & Farné, S. 2016a. Barriers, drivers and decision-making process for industrial
11
12 energy efficiency: A broad study among manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises.
13
14 Applied Energy, 162, 1537-1551. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.078
15
16
17 Trianni, A., Cagno, E., Marchesani, F. & Spallina, G. 2016b. Classification of drivers for industrial
18
energy efficiency and their effect on the barriers affecting the investment decision-making
19
20 process. Energy Efficiency, 1-17. doi:10.1007/s12053-016-9455-6
21
22
23 Trianni, A., Cagno, E., Thollander, P. & Backlund, S. 2013a. Barriers to industrial energy efficiency in
24
25 foundries: a European comparison. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 161-176.
26
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.040
27
28
29 Trianni, A., Cagno, E. & Worrell, E. 2013b. Innovation and adoption of energy efficient technologies:
30
31 An exploratory analysis of Italian primary metal manufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy, 61, 430-
32
33 440. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.034
34
35 Trianni, A., Cagno, E., Worrell, E. & Pugliese, G. 2013c. Empirical investigation of energy efficiency
36
37 barriers in Italian manufacturing SMEs. Energy, 49, 444-458.
38
39 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.10.012
40
41
42 Ulubeyli, S. 2013. Drivers of environmental performance of cement plants. Industrial Management &
43 Data Systems, 113, 1222-1244. doi:10.1108/imds-01-2013-0007
44
45
46 Venmans, F. 2014. Triggers and barriers to energy efficiency measures in the ceramic, cement and
47
48 lime sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 133-142.
49
50 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.076
51
52 Worrell, E., Laitner, J.A., Ruth, M. & Finman, H. 2003. Productivity benefits of industrial energy
53
54 efficiency measures. Energy, 28, 1081-1098. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-
55
56 5442(03)00091-4
57
58
Zahra, S.A. & George, G. 2002. Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension.
59
60 The Academy of Management Review, 27, 185-203. doi:10.2307/4134351
61
62 50
63
64
65
Wordcount: 14083

Zilahy, G. 2004. Organisational factors determining the implementation of cleaner production


1
2 measures in the corporate sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 311-319.
3 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00016-7
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 51
63
64
65