Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

ISO 50001 standard-based energy management maturity

model e proposal and validation in industry
c a, *, Jovan Filipovi

Bojana Jovanovi
cb
a
Iritel a.d. Belgrade, Batajnicki put 23, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia
b
Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ili
ca 154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Different standards drive organizations to use energy more efficiently. ISO 50001 provides a basis for
Received 30 January 2015 energy management improvement. The energy management standards represent a good practice, but
Received in revised form they are not the best energy performance models. Energy maturity models help achieve superior per-
29 September 2015
formance. The paper proposes a new ISO 50001-based energy management maturity model which links
Accepted 6 October 2015
Available online 23 October 2015
ISO 50001 processes and Capability Maturity Model Integration criteria. The paper presents organiza-
tions that surpass ISO 50001 certification requirements, reaching higher maturity levels. A knowledge
base that has been founded on the ISO 50001 processes, Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle and Capability
Keywords:
Energy management
Maturity Model Integration criteria, represents a novelty and a real contribution of the paper. This
ISO 50001 knowledge base contributes to better understanding and implementing energy management system,
Maturity model since it shows the relationship between the ISO 50001, which is an example of good practice in the
Knowledge base energy management system implementation; the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, which underpins all the
Industry standards for systems management; and Capability Maturity Model Integration criteria, which can be
associated with certain phases of the energy management systems development as shown in literature.
The model for assessing the maturity of the energy management system utilizes a combination of
different management concepts, which has not been displayed in the literature so far. The model was
validated through its application in ISO 50001 certified and non-certified organizations and its validation
shows that all maturity levels exist in practice. The model is universal and can be applied in
manufacturing, as well as in service sectors. For ISO 50001 non-certified organizations there is a wide
spread of results, while ISO 50001 certified organizations' results reveal consistency. The obtained results
can be used as the reference for benchmarking studies in different industries and different countries. The
proposed model can serve as a basis for national awards for energy excellence, applicable in Serbia and
other countries.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the energy costs, energy inefficiency generates excessive environ-

Energy is a critical resource for industry and, as Laitner (2013)
notes in study about energy efficiency, one of the basic produc-
tion factors. In the paper about integrated energy and environ-
mental management, Amundsen (2000) states that in addition to
Abbreviations: ISO, International Organization for Standardization;
EMMM50001, ISO 50001-based Energy Management Maturity Model; PDCA, Plan-
Do-Check-Act methodology; EnMS, Energy Management System; CMM, Capability
Maturity Model; CMMI, Capability Maturity Model Integration; EUMMM, Energy
and Utility Management Maturity Model; SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences; SMEs, Small and medium-sized enterprises.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ381 11 3073542; fax: þ381 11 3073434.
E-mail addresses: bojana.jovanovic.123@gmail.com (B. Jovanovi
c), jovanf@fon.
bg.ac.rs (J. Filipovi

c).
mental costs. As stated in the Morfeldt and Silveira's (2014)
research about energy efficiency in European iron and steel pro-
duction, the European industry is working towards increased en-
ergy efficiency, because “the adoption of energy-efficiency measures
can significantly reduce industrial energy use” (as Kermeli et al., 2014
added in research of energy efficiency improvement potentials in
the global industrial sector).
In his study on environmental perspectives, Bowonder (1987)
cites three types of responses to environment problems: (i) per-
sonal, (ii) technical, and (iii) organizational. In this paper, we will
focus on organizational responses to energy issues. If industrial
processes are disorganized, it is very difficult to achieve improve-
ments, which calls for the application of widely accepted energy
management models, often embodied in the form of standards.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.023
0959-6526/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755
Energy management is defined in different ways in the litera-
ture. In a study about energy efficiency gap, Backlund et al. (2012b)
note that energy management is focused on the implementation of
energy-efficient technologies, displacement of inefficient equip-
ment and maintenance of technology, while Lee et al. (2011) claim
that energy management is tied to optimization of energy use,
according to their research about energy management system in IT
industries of Taiwan. According to CarbonTrust's (2011) guide to
controlling energy use, energy management includes systematic
use of organizational methods and technology. As stated by the
Energy Office (2013), energy management is a set of measures to
achieve the minimal energy use, while levels of comfort and pro-
duction remain the same. In a case study on energy saving in Japan,
Mizuta (2003) claims that all the employees participate in energy-
saving activities and that all levels of energy use need to be known
and monitored.
Bunse et al. (2011), in their gap analysis between industrial
needs and literature, state that energy management includes
directing, monitoring and improving of energy efficiency, while
Abdelaziz et al. (2011) in a review on energy saving strategies in
industrial sector present that it has three components: review,
trainings, and maintenance. ISO 50001 (ISO, 2011), standard for
energy management system, which was developed to help improve
energy efficiency of organizations, defines energy management
system (EnMS) as “set of interrelated or interacting elements to
establish energy policy and energy objectives, and processes and
procedures to achieve those objectives”.
Maturity models are used in different contexts and industries.
Literature reports application of maturity models in different areas
such as: information technology (for example, as tool in software
development, e.g., in a study on maturity model of open source
software community by Kuwata et al., 2014), healthcare (frame-
work for maturity and improvements in clinical efficiency by
Brooks et al., 2015), mining (framework for risk management and
continual improvements by Unger et al., 2015), manufacturing
(framework for service systems in enterprises by Neff et al., 2014),
engineering and construction (project management maturity
models for estimating project effectiveness and efficiency by
Backlund et al., 2014), ecodesign (management framework to
support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing by Pigosso
et al., 2013) and utility and work management (model proposed
by Strategydriven, 2014). Energy management maturity models are
used as a tool for energy efficiency improvements (for example,
energy maturity models proposed by Introna et al., 2014 or
O'Sullivan, 2012).
In their study about energy efficiency gap, Backlund et al.
(2012b) state that potential for energy-efficiency improvements
through the adoption of energy management practices primarily
depends on the size of a company, type of production and energy
intensity. In discussion about ISO 50001 for industrial energy
management, Pin ~ ero (2009) conclude that the adoption of stan-
dards, such as ISO 50001, contributes to an increase of energy ef-
ficiency of more than 20% in different manufacturing industries.
Similarly, energy management programs can facilitate reduction of
energy costs of up to 20%, as CarbonTrust (2011) notes in the guide
to controlling energy use.
In a study on energy efficiency in manufacturing industry in
Sweden, Backlund et al. (2012a) confirm that the energy efficiency
improvement potential through recognized management practice
is higher than that of technology. In evaluation of an energy pro-
gramme for SMEs, Thollander et al. (2007) have shown that
implementation of energy-efficiency programs could improve en-
ergy performance 16%e40%. These high percentages signify the
importance of organizational measures in achieving the improve-
ment in energy efficiency. However, the true value of sound energy
2745
management has not been recognized, as Molla et al. (2012)
conclude in their study on information system based energy
management practices. This claim is corroborated by Gonzalez et al.
(2012), in a study on energy efficiency improvement in cement
industry.
Although being useful frameworks, energy management stan-
dards are just models of good practice, but not excellence models.
On the other hand, maturity models facilitate achieving the best
energy performance. To create a maturity model with knowledge
base, we blended the advantages of three management tools: the
ISO 50001 process model, the PDCA cycle and the energy man-
agement maturity criteria based on CMMI. This hybrid model can
be used for self-assessment and improvements of organizations,
following ISO 50001 certification. This paper is concerned with the
energy management practice, while the energy technology aspects
remain beyond its scope.
2. Maturity models
As Chrissis et al. (2003) note in the guidelines for CMMI inte-
gration in process development and improvement, maturity
models have become an important vehicle for process improve-
ments in the 20th century. The popularity of maturity models has
been increasing with the development of the Capability Maturity
Model (CMM) (as Paulk et al., 1993 noted in their study on capa-
bility maturity model) and Capability Maturity Model Integration
(CMMI). As Wendler (2012) states in a study about maturity of
maturity model research, “CMMI is a framework that contains best
practices for developing products and services”, and “the applicability
of maturity models is not just restricted to software-related domains”.
Wendler (2012) also notes that maturity concepts originated from
the quality management field, particularly from the work of
Shewhart (1931) about economic control of quality. However, the
creator of maturity concept is Phillip Crosby (1979), who proposed
the quality management maturity grid with five maturity levels.
In a proposal of a business process management maturity
model, De Bruin and Rosemann (2005) define organizational
maturity as “a measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization
in regard to a certain discipline”. In their paper on quality manage-
ment maturity, Ivanovi
c and Majstorovi
c (2006) claim that “… with
the increase of maturity the process capability is also increased”. In
their structured content analysis of maturity models, Kohlegger
et al. (2009) define maturity models as: “… phases of increasing
quantitative or qualitative capability changes of a maturing element …
with respect to defined focus areas”. Maturity models, as Neuhauser
(2004) states in the paper about implementation of maturity
concept in online education, “allow individual and organizations to
self-assess the maturity of various aspects of their processes”, and
provide “a systematic framework for carrying out benchmarking and
performance improvement” (as Demir and Kocabas, 2010 stated in
proposal of project management maturity model in educational
organizations). Antunes et al. (2014) emphasize that “maturity
models have helped organizations overcome the challenges of the need
for cost cutting”. As De Bruin and Freeze (2005) stress in their paper
about methodology for understanding the main maturity phases,
maturity models are voluntary tools that help organizations
introduce improvements through a five-point maturity scale.
3. Energy management maturity models
Some of the previously proposed energy management maturity
models were based on CMMI criteria. Following the publication of
the ISO 50001 standard, Ireland has developed its maturity model
(O'Sullivan, 2012), linking PDCA and ISO 50001, but leaving the
CMMI criteria outside the scope of the model.
2746 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755
Based on the CMMI, Ngai et al. (2013) propose an energy and
utility management maturity model (EUMMM), which provides
process areas, but does not provide a detailed description of the
process area state at each of the maturity levels, which makes it a
not-easy-to-use for self-assessment. Based on the CMMI criteria (the
oldest and widely implemented maturity model), this model pro-
vides a good basis for the creation of specific energy management
maturity model with the knowledge base. Introna et al. (2014)
referenced their energy management maturity model to the ISO
50001 requirements, but included only the ISO 50001 key issues.
The maturity model proposed by Antunes et al. (2014) is also asso-
ciated with ISO 50001 requirements and PDCA cycle, but it restricts
energy management development path to ISO 50001 certification.
The amalgamation of ISO 50001 processes and maturity criteria,
with the addition of expanded knowledge base suitable for self-
assessment, was inspired by the works of Buglione et al. (2010),
who described relationship between EN 16001 (CEN, 2009) stan-
dard (not as comprehensive as ISO 50001) and maturity criteria, as
well as those of O'Sullivan (2012) (Energy Management Maturity
Model e EM3) and Introna et al. (2014) (Energy Management
Maturity Model for continuous reduction of energy consumption).
4. ISO 50001 process model
Management system standards and maturity models are based
on the process approach. According to ISO (2008) guidance on the
concept of the process approach for management systems “A major
advantage of the process approach … is in the management and
control of the interactions between these processes”. In discussion
about business process re-engineering, Talwar (1993) defines the
process as a series of predefined activities, which are implemented
to achieve a predefined result. Business processes can be viewed as
a chain of activities that links an organization's operations and
customer requirements, as IMI (1994) noted in briefing paper about
business processes.
ISO 50001 is a model for activities related to energy, as Brogan
(2012) notes in the discussion about energy management imple-
mentation in different countries. ISO 50001 provides a good basis
for improving energy management in industries which have well-
Fig. 1. ISO 50001 process model based on PDCA cycle.
defined and structured processes. The ISO 50001 standard is
intended for certification. Auditors, who assess the degree of re-
quirements' fulfillment, decide on certification acceptance or
rejection. The same certificate is given to each organization that
fulfills the requirements, regardless of the extent to which they are
met. Therefore, ISO 50001 certified organizations differ in maturity.
Maturity models can be used to make a difference among them. In a
proposal of an energy management maturity model, Antunes et al.
(2014) conclude that energy management maturity model could be
linked to the ISO 50001 requirements. Fig. 1 shows the ISO 50001
process model as a foundation of proposed EMMM50001 model,
based on Deming PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) methodology of
continuous improvement.
5. ISO 50001-based energy management maturity model
(EMMM50001)
Based on the EUMMM (a model proposed by Ngai et al., 2013),
and inspired by the previous maturity models (in particular by
models proposed by O'Sullivan, 2012 and Introna et al., 2014), this
paper showcases EMMM50001 (“ISO 50001-based energy man-
agement maturity model”) with the knowledge base. The
EMMM50001 links the EUMMM maturity levels (based on CMMI)
with all the ISO 50001 processes and PDCA phases, incorporated in
a knowledge base. Accordingly, the model represents a convenient
combination of the previous models in this field.
A comparative summary of the relevant models is presented in
Table 1.
While EUMMM was used to create a conceptual framework for
maturity criteria based on CMMI, EMMM50001 is particularly
important because it connects the CMMI criteria with all the pro-
cesses of international standard ISO 50001. It has practical signifi-
cance, because it offers a knowledge base easy to use for self-
assessment, monitoring and improvements after the initial ISO
50001 certification.
O'Sullivan's (2012) model is also aimed at improvements after
certification, but it is not based on the CMMI. Besides, the existing
models often set high requirements, inappropriate for developing
countries.
 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755
Table 1
Distinction of EMMM50001 compared to previous models.
Authors/model Previous energy management maturity models' characteristics
Relationship with all ISO
50001 processes
Antunes et al. (2014) Only to certification
Introna et al. (2014) Only key issues
Buglione et al. (2010) Only with EN 16001
O'Sullivan (2012) Almost all
Ngai et al. (2013) No
EUMMM50001 Yes
Bold highlights the difference between the new model and existing models.
Unlike the Antune's et al. (2014) model, EMMM50001 exhibits
the maturity levels that go beyond the ISO 50001 requirements. It
should be noted that the organization solely conforming to the ISO
50001 requirements can reach at the most maturity level 3 (ac-
cording to CMM (Jalote, 2000) and CMMI (Processgroup, 2009),
who did research on similarities and differences between ISO and
CMM/CMMI). Therefore, to reach levels 4 or 5, organizations must
carry out activities that extend beyond the ISO 50001.
The requirements on the maturity level 3 are the ISO 50001
processes that represent good practice. Attainment of lower
maturity levels forms the basis for progression to higher maturity
levels. If the organization desires to reach higher levels than those
usually attained by the application of the ISO 50001, it needs to
establish a base for achieving energy management excellence.
The knowledge base given in the Appendix (presented in
Table A.1) provides a detailed description of each level for each of
the ISO 50001 processes. Some of the descriptions for processes at
different maturity levels were inspired by the ISO 9004 (ISO, 2009),
which is an internationally accepted maturity model for the sus-
tainable success of organizations, as well as by previous maturity
models. With EMMM50001 it is possible to estimate the maturity
level for each of the ISO 50001 processes, as well as the overall
maturity of an organization, an industrial sector or a country. The
EMMM50001 levels arrangement was inspired by Ngai et al. (2013)
and is described below.
5.1. Maturity level 1: initial
At the maturity level 1, energy management processes are
chaotic; there are no implemented procedures and policies; energy
performance depends only on the self-discipline of individuals
(Ngai et al., 2013).
The organization has not implemented the ISO 50001 processes.
5.2. Maturity level 2: managed
At the maturity level 2, requirements for energy management,
significant energy users, the mechanisms for monitoring and
measurement are applied; results achieved are only visible to some
points; the organization has defined its energy requirements in
some processes, and has established plans; corrective actions are
applied when processes differ significantly from the plans (Ngai
et al., 2013).
ISO 50001 processes are partly implemented.
5.3. Maturity level 3: defined
At the maturity level 3, energy management practices are
standardized and applied; processes are documented; staff training
is an important requirement (Ngai et al., 2013). All ISO 50001
processes are implemented.
2747
PDCA cycle CMM/CMMI Knowledge base for improvements
phases maturity levels after certification
Yes No No
No No Yes
No No Partially
Yes No Yes
No Yes Partially
Yes Yes Yes
Literature reports that organization reaches a maximum matu-
rity level 3 (according to CMM Jalote, 2000 and CMMI
Processgroup, 2009) by implementation of the ISO standards' re-
quirements for management systems. In order to reach levels 4 or 5,
it is necessary to apply more than ISO 50001 requirements.
5.4. Maturity level 4: quantitatively managed
At the maturity level 4, an organization has effectively imple-
mented standardized energy management processes; energy use
data are collected, statistically analyzed and benchmarked; causes
of process variation are identified; the objective is to monitor
pollution as well as energy use (Ngai et al., 2013).
This maturity level requires a more comprehensive analysis of
the environment impact than the ISO 50001. All ISO 50001 pro-
cesses are applied, including some additional measures. This
maturity level corresponds to the integrated implementation of the
ISO 50001 and ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004) standard for environmental
management systems. Energy benchmarking is needed at this level.
For that purpose, it is possible to use the European standard BS EN
16231 (BS, 2012), which provides a methodology for energy man-
agement benchmarking.
5.5. Maturity level 5: optimized
At the maturity level 5, the goals of energy performance
improvement are established; processes are changed; improvement
is achieved through technology and working methods; an organi-
zation achieves sustainable production process (Ngai et al., 2013).
An organization continually improves energy management
processes, practices energy-saving and environmental protection,
and operates in accordance with the sustainable development
principles. Personalized energy management system is developed
and improved. Key ISO 50001 processes are used as a basis for
developing more stringent internal standards.
Table 2 presents the summarized EMMM50001, which shows
the ISO 50001 processes (table rows) at each CMMI maturity level
(table columns). All EMMM50001 processes are connected to PDCA
phase, which is a link between the maturity model and the ISO
50001 standard.
During the self-assessment, organizations get from one to five
points. This is a way to monitor the maturity level by processes, but
also the maturity level of an organization, industrial sector or a
country.
6. EMMM50001 validation in ISO 50001 certified
organizations
The EMMM50001 was applied in four ISO 50001 certified or-
ganizations. Due to a small sample of the organizations in Serbia
2748 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755

Table 2
Summarized presentation of EМMM50001 model.

ISO 50001 processes PDCA ISO 50001-based energy management maturity model (EMMM50001)
phase
Level 1: Initial Level 2: Managed Level 3: Defined Level 4: Quantitatively Level 5: Optimized
managed

EnMS establishment Plan Unsystematic Partially implemented Formally implemented Driven by interested Continuously improved
parties' requirements
Demonstration top Plan No commitment Focus on legal energy Focus on long-term Energy as base for Best performance
management problems energy planning strategic planning rewarding
commitment for
energy management
Energy manager Plan No energy manager Energy manager as one Dedicated energy Team of energy manager Planned energy manager's
appointment job task manager and users career
Energy policy defining Plan Informal Not communicated Formalized; internally Internally and externally Continuously updated
communicated communicated
Energy planning Plan Informal Partially implemented Fully documented Integral part of strategic Base for sustainable
planning energy performance
Energy legal and other Plan/Check Not identified Identified; not Documented; evaluated Subscriber to energy Innovator in the field
requirement's implemented regulations
identification and
evaluation
Energy review Plan Not conducted Partially conducted Documented; regularly Annually benchmarked Monthly, to predict
conducted and analyzed performance
Energy baseline Plan Not established Partially established Documented; adjusted Analyzed; improved Determined by leading
establishment technology
Defining energy Plan Not defined Partially defined Defined for significant Decisions driven by Included in real-time
performance indicators energy users complex indicators monitoring system
Defining energy Plan Not established Defined; unplanned Documented; reviewed Integrated; analyzed Focused on leading
objectives and targets technology
and action plans
Energy plans Do Not defined Partially applied Implemented; achieved Fully achieved; validated Achieved in more efficient
implementation manner
Involving employees in Do Individually Awareness without Documented; training Internal network of Knowledge sharing and
energy management initiated involving provided knowledge continual learning
Internal and external Do Not established Informal communication Documented Internal and external Annual sustainability
communication communication feedback reporting
Energy documentation Do Not established Partially established Formalized Integration with Personalized
and records environmental documentation
management documentation
Control of operation Do Not established Partially implemented Documented, with Statistically managed Real time monitoring and
affecting energy effective work's criteria forecasting
performance
Energy-efficient design Do Not established Partially applied Documented Project planning includes Energy performance
and renovation of energy review calculations during a
facilities, equipment, whole project
systems and processes
Energy-efficient Do Not established Partially applied Documented Additional monitoring of Green suppliers'
procurement large consumers prioritization
Monitoring, measurement Check Informal Partially implemented Documented Statistically analyzed Statistical models for
and analysis of energy forecasting
indicators
Internal audit of the Check Informal Partially implemented Formalized; documented Integrated energy and Audits by external auditor
energy management environmental audits
system
Energy related corrective Check Not implemented Partially implemented Formalized; documented Statistically analyzed Proactive actions led by
and preventive action's forecasting
implementation
Energy management Act Not implemented Partially implemented Formalized; documented Demonstrating good Results shared with
review performance interested parties

(only two), the model has been tested additionally in two organi-
zations in the region (one from Croatia, and one from Slovenia).
The questionnaire used in the research presents the
EMMM50001 (given in the Appendix, Table A.1), with guidelines
for self-assessment. The organizations were asked to mark one
statement (each row of the table) which is the best description
of their processes. It is important to note that the organizations
did not have any knowledge about the statement's weighting
factors.
The questionnaire was distributed via e-mail to all seven ISO
50001 certified organization in Serbia, and additional 17 ISO 50001
certified organizations from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro and Slovenia, some of whom conducted the self-
assessment. Response rate was 28.57% in Serbia, and 11.76% in the
region. The organizations were from different industrial sectors.
A basic statistical analysis was done using SPSS, calculating
average, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values. Re-
sults show that the average maturity level is 3.46. Literature reports
that organization implementing the ISO standards' requirements for
management systems, reaches maturity level 3 (according to CMM
Jalote, 2000 and CMMI Processgroup, 2009). Results reveal that the
average maturity is above the level 3, as expected. All sample orga-
nizations reached average maturity level 3 for almost all the pro-
cesses, which is believed to be the result of EnMS certification efforts.
However, there were organizations with “involvement of em-
ployees” at maturity level 2 (presented in Fig. 2). Some of the
 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755
organizations went beyond the ISO 50001 requirements. The
weakest processes were the “involving employees” and “energy-
efficient procurement” (average level 3). However, the “EnMS
establishment” criterion was at maturity level 4 (average level 4.25).
Fig. 2 presents mean, minimum and the maximum values, for
each of the process in the model tested in the ISO 50001 certified
organizations.
7. EMMM50001 validation in ISO 50001 non-certified
organizations
Certification to a recognized international standard is not a
precondition for a successful EnMS. Non-certified organizations
may achieve higher maturity levels than certified ones. This was the
ground on which we tested the model in ISO 50001 non-certified
organizations.
The EMMM50001 was tested in six ISO 50001 non-certified
organizations in Serbia (three of them food factories and three
non-metallic mineral products' factories). Selection of these in-
dustrial sectors was done in accordance with the results of the
energy management improvements prioritization study of
manufacturing sectors in Serbia, done by Jovanovi

c et al. (2015). ISO
50001 non-certified factories are chosen from the list of 300 most
Fig. 2. Distribution of EMMM50001 maturity levels in ISO 50001 certified organizations.
2749
successful companies in Serbia, according to operating income
(FOS, 2014). All selected organizations were ISO 9001 certified.
The questionnaire was distributed via e-mail to 32 food fac-
tories, and to 19 non-metallic mineral products' factories. Sample
factories conducted the self-assessment. Response rate was 9.37%
in food factories, and 15.79% in non-metallic mineral products'
factories.
A basic statistical analysis was done using SPSS, calculating
average, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values. Re-
sults show that the average maturity level is 3.61, but the distri-
bution of the results was not as even as in certified organizations.
The weakest processes were “energy documentation and records
management” (average level 3), “energy planning”, “involving
employees” and “monitoring, measurement and analysis of energy
indicators” (average level 3.17). However, “energy review” was very
close to the maturity level 5 (average level 4.67). Because of a small
sample the results are of limited significance. However, it has been
shown that some of the organizations in the region reached higher
energy management maturity levels.
The unexplored field is the maturity of smaller and less orga-
nized factories in Serbia, which will be our topic for future research.
Fig. 3 presents mean, the minimum and the maximum values,
for each process in the model tested in ISO 50001 non-certified
organizations.
2750 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755
Using the bar charts presented in Figs. 2 and 3, organizations can
conduct benchmarking analysis, in order to position themselves
within an industry or a country. Mean values can be used as the
target for improvement to average performance. Maximum values
can be used as the target for improvement to the best industry
performance in a country.
8. Discussion
Results obtained in the small sample of factories reveal that ISO
50001 non-certified organizations have achieved better average
results in energy management maturity. However, this puzzling
result was obtained because small organizations, according to the
European Commission's criteria (EC, 2015), were not participating
in the research.
Organizations that belong to the group of small enterprises
suffer significantly from market pressures. Innovation resources are
extremely limited. Most organizations in this category are
committed to energy management, but their financial resources do
not permit sufficient investments. It is important to emphasize that
maturity levels displayed in ISO 50001 non-certified organizations
can be applied only to large organizations in Serbia (the European
Commission's criteria for the size of the organizations EC, 2015).
The EMMM50001 was validated in developing countries and it
proved to be applicable. Validation in this case means that the
model is applicable in industry. A detailed validation of this model
will be a part of the future research, which will also include analysis
of the advantages and disadvantages of the model.
Fig. 3. Distribution of EMMM50001 maturity levels in ISO 50001 non-certified organizations.
The distribution of values around their averages is important to
evaluate differences among ISO 50001 certified and non-certified
organizations. For ISO 50001 non-certified organizations, a wide
range of results is obtained. Some of them are far below the ISO
50001 standard level; some of them are far above, while the ISO
50001 certified organization's results are more even.
Table 3 shows that standard deviation is from 0 to 0.98 in
certified organizations, but ranges from 0.52 to 1.63 in ISO 50001
non-certified organizations. All EMMM50001 processes (except
involving employees) have at least the maturity level 3 in certified
organizations, with only a few processes at the maturity level 5. In
non-certified organizations, there is a big difference in the pro-
cesses' maturity levels, as can be seen from the minimum and
maximum values.
Distribution of values was presented in Table 3.
The maximum values show that some certified organizations
reach the maturity level 5, given that ISO 50001 is based on a
continual improvement approach.
It will be interesting to analyze different energy management
strategies in organizations. Maturity at the beginning of the
research and after a period of time could be measured, to track
progress in maturity in certified and non-certified organizations.
Energy management strategies (ISO 50001 requirements or some
other energy management strategy) could be analyzed, to identify
organizations with greater progress. This future research could
come up with the best strategy for energy management, and
answer the question if the application of the ISO 50001 standard is
a too time consuming and cumbersome process.
Table 3
Distribution of energy management maturity levels.

B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755

No EMMM50001 processes ISO 50001 certified organizations ISO 50001 non-certified organizations

Mean Std. deviation Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation Minimum Maximum

1 EnMS establishment 4.25 0.50 4.00 5.00 3.67 1.51 2.00 5.00
2 Demonstration top management commitment for 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.09 3.00 5.00
energy management
3 Energy manager appointment 3.75 0.50 3.00 4.00 3.33 1.63 1.00 5.00
4 Energy policy defining 3.75 0.96 3.00 5.00 3.67 1.21 2.00 5.00
5 Energy planning 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 3.17 1.47 1.00 5.00
6 Energy legal and other requirement's identification and evaluation 3.75 0.50 3.00 4.00 3.33 0.82 2.00 4.00
7 Energy review 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 4.67 0.52 4.00 5.00
8 Energy baseline establishment 3.25 0.50 3.00 4.00 4.17 0.98 3.00 5.00
9 Defining energy performance indicators 3.25 0.50 3.00 4.00 4.17 0.98 3.00 5.00
10 Defining energy objectives and targets and action plans 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 4.00 0.89 3.00 5.00
11 Energy plans implementation 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 3.67 0.82 3.00 5.00
12 Involving employees in energy management 3.00 0.82 2.00 4.00 3.17 1.33 1.00 5.00
13 Internal and external communication 3.25 0.50 3.00 4.00 3.83 0.98 3.00 5.00
14 Energy documentation and records management 3.25 0.50 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.41 1.00 5.00
15 Control of operation affecting energy performance 3.25 0.50 3.00 4.00 3.33 0.52 3.00 4.00
16 Energy-efficient design and renovation of facilities, equipment, 3.75 0.50 3.00 4.00 3.67 0.82 3.00 5.00
systems and processes
17 Energy-efficient procurement 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.33 1.21 2.00 5.00
18 Monitoring, measurement and analysis of energy indicators 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 3.17 1.60 1.00 5.00
19 Internal audit of the energy management system 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 3.50 1.05 2.00 5.00
20 Energy related corrective and preventive action's implementation 3.25 0.50 3.00 4.00 3.50 0.84 3.00 5.00
21 Energy management review 3.50 0.58 3.00 4.00 3.50 1.22 2.00 5.00
Energy management maturity 3.46 0.28 3.19 3.81 3.61 0.82 2.90 4.71

Non-bold rows represent maturity per process, calculated using maturity model. Bold row represents average maturity for group of companies (sample companies), calculated as average of maturity for all processes.

2751
2752 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755

9. Conclusions and future research

The paper presents a new energy management maturity model.

is to achieve the best industry performance.

Inspired by previous models, the EMMM50001 is based on ISO

energy and the best industry performance

EnMS is improved. Scope and boundaries

monitored. Energy manager is supported

Energy planning is a base for sustainable

are changed. Incremental improvements

achievement. Use of statistical models is

by team, including all interested parties.
Energy policy is continuously improved,
to reflect environmental changes. Policy
Energy manager's career is planned and
50001 process model, PDCA cycle and the CMMI levels incorpo-

improvement is encouraged. Tendency

Learning and rewarding employees for

is updated, to respond to challenges.

rated in knowledge base, which was not the case for previous
maturity models in this domain. The knowledge base provides

and innovations are introduced.

guidelines for identifying, monitoring and self-assessing the
maturity level, describing all ISO 50001 processes at all CMMI
maturity levels.

Level 5: Optimized
The maturity levels 4 and 5 go beyond ISO 50001 requirements,
such that EMMM50001 reveals differences among organizations
that have implemented this standard.

required.
The EMMM50001 validation shows that all maturity levels exist
in practice. Minimum and maximum values show that we identi-
fied all maturity levels in corresponding EMMM50001 processes,

requirements and is integrated in strategic planning.

Interested parties' requirements and environmental

externally. Energy policy achievement is monitored

which implies that these levels are achievable. The results can also

Energy manager's competence is reviewed. Energy

performance exists. Decisions are based on energy

planning. Policy is communicated internally and

be used as benchmarking data for different industries and different

Energy policy is integrated with environmental

countries. The model is universal and can be applied in

Evidence about strategically planned energy

manager is supported by team, including all

Energy planning includes interested parties'

manufacturing, as well as in service sectors.

significant energy users and polluters.

The contribution of the EMMM50001 is the amalgamation of
ISO 50001 process model, PDCA cycle and the CMMI (the oldest

Level 4: Quantitatively managed

framework of maturity) levels in a knowledge base. This knowledge
base contributes to better understanding and implementing energy

data are included in EnMS.

management system, since it shows the relationship between the

and used for updates.

ISO 50001, which is an example of good practice in the energy
management system implementation, the PDCA cycle, which un-
derpin all the standards for systems management, and the CMMI PDCA ISO 50001-BASED energy management maturity model with knowledge base (EMMM50001)
criteria, which can be associated with certain phases of the energy
management systems development as literature shown. The model

data.
for assessing the maturity of the energy management system uti-
lizes the combination of different management concepts, which has

Resources are allocated.

All EnMS requirements

reviewed and updated.

ISO 50001-based energy management maturity model with knowledge base (EMM50001).

is considered in long-
not been displayed in the literature so far.
described in manual.

manager exists, with

Energy policy exists.

Energy performance
Commitment exists.

Energy planning is
Policy is internally
Knowledge base facilitates self-assessment of maturity levels

Dedicated energy

opportunities are
Level 3: Defined

communicated,
and could be used by industry or regulatory bodies to monitor term planning.
were met and

improvement
documented;
defined role.
energy management maturity on state-level. Furthermore, the

reviewed.
model can also be used in establishing Serbian national award for
energy management excellence.
The use of self-assessment is not a very reliable process, because

Energy planning does Some energy uses are informally

Commitment is focused on legal

is not his main job. His role was

legal requirements. Policy is not

Energy manager does Energy manager exists, but this

of the subjectivity of sample organizations and tendency to present

Some EnMS procedures were

Energy policy considers only

better results. However, the sample organizations did not know

requirements and major
problems. Resources are

how many points each statement carried. The authors did not un-
not precisely defined.

dertake an assessment of participating organizations in order to

Level 2: Managed

allocated ad-hoc.

prevent response suggestions.

communicated.

Our future research will focus on determining energy manage-

established.

ment maturity levels in industry in Serbia as a whole. This paper

planned.

proves that organizations can use the model to estimate energy

maturity level. We will conduct the further research using a third
party assessment by independent and impartial experts. Future
Energy policy does

research will be based on a larger sample, so we will be able to

Commitment does

provide more accurate results.

EnMS was not
Level 1: Initial

implemented.

In future research, the EMMM50001 will serve as the founda-

not exist.

not exist.

not exist.

not exist.

tion of a computer-based energy management expert system,

which is currently under development.
phase

Plan

Plan

Plan

Plan

Plan

Acknowledgments
energy management

Energy policy defining

This paper is part of the project supported by the Ministry of

ISO 50001 processes

EnMS establishment

commitment for
Demonstration top

Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of

Energy planning
Energy manager
management

appointment

Serbia; reference III 43008, entitled “Development of methods,

Appendix

sensors and systems for monitoring the water, air and soil quality”.
Table A.1

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Lloyd's

Register Belgrade, as well as the Serbian Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, for their contribution to the research.
Energy legal and other Plan/ Energy legal and
requirement's Check other requirements
identification and were not identified.
evaluation
Energy review Plan There is no energy
review.
Energy legal and other
requirements were identified,
but they are not applied.
Energy review includes only
energy sources and uses,
occasionally recorded.
Energy legal and other The organization is a subscriber to energy regulations The organization participates in the
requirements and standards. In case of changes, processes are adoption of energy regulations and
were documented and updated to reflect changes of regulations. Compliance standards. This is a way to improve
applied. evaluation is documented. requirements' identification, application
Requirements are and compliance evaluation.
reviewed. Evaluation
of compliance is
documented.
Energy sources, past Energy review is realized annually to identify changes Energy review is realized monthly, to
and current use, in energy use. Benchmarking between energy users propose improvement actions. Statistical
significant energy and regression analysis of influential parameters analysis identifies trends and creates
users, influential direct improvements. forecasting models.
parameters, prediction
of future use
and improvement
opportunities are
documented.

B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755

Energy baseline Plan Energy baseline was Energy baseline was established Energy baseline was Baseline is determined through statistical analysis, Baseline is determined based on the
establishment not established. for some processes. documented and and adjusted to reflect changes. best available technology, and adjusted to these
is adjusted. values.
Defining energy Plan Energy indicators Some energy indicators were Energy indicators were Complex indicators are used (as a statistical models) Indicators are integrated in real-time monitoring
performance were not defined. defined. documented for management decisions. system. Statistical analysis provides a basis for
indicators for all significant energy prediction.
users, as well
as monitoring
methodology.
Defining energy Plan Energy objectives, Energy objectives and targets Energy objectives, Objectives and targets are the result of statistical Statistical models are used to predict targets.
objectives and targets targets and action exist, but not action plans to targets and action analysis and benchmarking. The energy and Action plans are based on the best available
and action plans plans do not exist. reach them. plans are documented. environment plans are integrated. technology.
Action plans
are reviewed.
Energy plans Do Plans were not Some defined plans are applied. Plans are implemented Plans are fully achieved, and method for their Plans are achieved ahead of schedule and more
implementation defined. and achieved. validation is defined. efficiently than targeted.
Involving employees in Do Staff involving, Staff involving partially exists. Staff involving is Network of energy management employees The collective learning involves all employees.
energy management awareness and Awareness exists. Some training documented. Staff is forms the collective knowledge. Energy Energy team develops and disseminates new
training do not exist. is provided. Competence is competent and aware. management career planning was developed. knowledge.
reviewed unplanned. Skills are
improved through
training.
Effectiveness of training
is monitored.
Internal and external Do Communication does Internal communication is Internal Results of targets achieving and benchmarking Annual environmental/sustainable report is
communication not exist. informal. communication is are communicated internally. There is employees' published. Feedbacks are main source for
documented. feedback. Energy performance and policy are improvements.
Anyone can give communicated to interested parties.
suggestions for energy
performance
improvements.
Energy documentation Do Documentation and Documentation and records Documentation and EnMS and environmental documents and records Documentation and records management is
and records records management management partially exists. records management are integrated and integrally managed. improved by reducing its complexity. A
management does not exist. is formalized. All personalized documentation management system
required EnMS is used.
documents and records
exist.
Control of operation Do Operation control Some processes that significantly Operation control was Operation control is managed, using statistical The parameters of operation are monitored in real-
affecting energy does not exist. affect energy use are defined, as documented analysis. Processes that significantly affect energy time, enabling simultaneous corrections and
performance well as some criteria of effective through procedures. use are defined, and their impact on the improvements. Forecasting statistical models exist.
work. Processes that environment is considered. Criteria for operation
significantly affect are integrated and applied.

2753
energy use are
(continued on next page)
Table A.1 (continued )

2754
ISO 50001 processes PDCA ISO 50001-BASED energy management maturity model with knowledge base (EMMM50001)
phase
Level 1: Initial Level 2: Managed Level 3: Defined Level 4: Quantitatively managed Level 5: Optimized

defined and criteria of

effective work
are applied.
Energy-efficient design Do Design and Design and renovation consider Design and renovation Design and renovation consider the impact on Design and renovation consider the impact on
and renovation of renovation do not the impact on energy consider the energy performance, including improvement energy performance, including improvement
facilities, equipment, consider the impact performance, but not always, nor impact on energy calculations. Energy review is a part of project calculations during a project life cycle. Energy
systems and processes on energy documented. performance. planning. Energy manager is the project manager is a project team member.
performance. There are records about team member.
results.
Energy-efficient Do Energy-efficient Energy-efficient procurement Energy-efficient Life cycle costing analysis is conducted for Green suppliers have priority in procurement.
procurement procurement does exists, but is not always applied. procurement all procurements affecting significant energy Assessment of procurement effectiveness and
not exist. is documented. Energy uses. There are guidelines for procurement impact on energy performance is conducted.
use is one of equipment that consume significant

B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755

of the procurement amount of energy.
criteria. Suppliers
are informed that
energy performance
is an evaluation
criterion.
Monitoring, Check Monitoring, Indicators are periodically Monitoring, Energy data are collected, statistically analyzed Monitoring and measurement are preformed daily.
measurement and measurement and monitored, but without a measurement and and benchmarked, to determine the causes of Measuring equipment and techniques are updated.
analysis of energy analysis do not exist. measurement plan. The analysis analysis variation in processes. Monitoring and measuring Statistical models are a basis for forecasting and
indicators is limited. are documented. are frequent, using calibrated equipment with improvement.
Indicators are defined accuracy.
monitored, measured
and analyzed.
Measurement
plan exists. Equipment
is calibrated.
Internal audit of the Check Internal audit does Internal audit partially exists, but Internal audit is Internal audit's results are used in long-term Internal audit's results are used in strategic
energy management not exist. without a plan. documented and planning. Energy and environmental internal planning. Audits are conducted by impartial
system recorded. audits are integrated, conducted by impartial external auditor or other interested party.
Audit plan and schedule auditors.
are defined.
Auditors are competent
and impartial.
Energy related corrective Check Corrective/ Corrective actions are Corrective/preventive Influence of energy nonconformities on the System status is continuously monitored and
and preventive preventive actions implemented only for large actions are environment is considered, and vice versa. analyzed. The emphasis is on proactive actions,
action's are not implemented. nonconformities, but preventive documented. Nonconformities and their influence on energy based on statistical forecasting models.
implementation actions are not implemented. Nonconformities are performance are statistically analyzed, as a
reviewed as they occur. base for prevention.
Corrective
actions are performed
and recorded in
response to
nonconformities.
Preventive
actions are limited.
Energy management Act Management review Management review is partially Management review is Energy and environment management Energy management review data are presented as
review does not exist. conducted, but without plan. documented and review are integrated. Data are presented prediction models. Results are shared with
conducted at planned in form of statistical analysis and trends. interested parties, to facilitate collaboration and
intervals. Actions The results show that organization achieves learning in the supply chains.
resulting from observed good performance in all energy aspects.
trends are
carried out.
 B. Jovanovi
c, J. Filipovi
c / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 2744e2755 2755

References ISO, 2011. ISO 50001 Energy Management Systems e Requirements with Guidance
for Use.
Ivanovi
c, M.D., Majstorovi
c, V.D., 2006. Model developed for the assessment of
Abdelaziz, E.A., Saidur, R., Mekhilef, S., 2011. A review on energy saving strategies in
quality management level in manufacturing systems. TQM Mag. 18 (4),
industrial sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 150e168. http://dx.doi.org/
410e423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780610671075.
10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.003.
Jalote, P., 2000. Moving from ISO 9000 to the higher levels of the capability maturity
Amundsen, A., 2000. Joint management of energy and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 8
model (CMM). In: The 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering,
(6), 483e494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00018-4.
Limerick, Ireland.
Antunes, P., Carreira, P., da Silva, M.M., 2014. Towards an energy management
Jovanovi
c, B., Filipovi

c, J., Baki

c, V., 2015. Prioritization of manufacturing sectors in
maturity model. Energy Policy 73, 803e814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Serbia for energy management improvementeAHP method. Energy Convers.
j.enpol.2014.06.011.
Manag. 98, 225e235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.03.107.
Backlund, S., Broberg, S., Ottosson, M., Thollander, P., 2012a. Energy efficiency po-
Kermeli, K., Graus, W.H., Worrell, E., 2014. Energy efficiency improvement poten-
tentials and energy management practices in Swedish firms. In: ECEEE 2012
tials and a low energy demand scenario for the global industrial sector. Energy
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry.
Effic. 1e25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-014-9267-5.
Backlund, S., Thollander, P., Palm, J., Ottosson, M., 2012b. Extending the energy ef-
Kohlegger, M., Maier, R., Thalmann, S., 2009. Understanding maturity models. Re-
ficiency gap. Energy Policy 51, 392e396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
sults of a structured content analysis. In: Proceedings of I-KNOW ‘09 and I-
j.enpol.2012.08.042.

er, D., Sundqvist, E., 2014. Project management maturity SEMANTICS ’09 2e4, Graz, Austria.
Backlund, F., Chrone
Kuwata, Y., Takeda, K., Miura, H., 2014. A study on maturity model of open source
modelsea critical review: a case study within Swedish engineering and con-
software community to estimate the quality of products. Procedia Comput. Sci.
struction organizations. Procedia Social Behav. Sci. 119, 837e846. http://
35, 1711e1717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.08.264.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.094.
Laitner, J.A., 2013. An overview of the energy efficiency potential. Environ. Innov.
Bowonder, B., 1987. Integrating perspectives in environmental management. Envi-
Soc. Trans. 9, 38e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2013.09.005.
ron. Manag. 11 (3), 305e315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01867158.
Lee, S.-K., Teng, M.-C., Fan, K.-S., Yang, K.-H., Horng, R.S., 2011. Application of an
Brogan, M., 2012. Why are Certain Countries Stronger in Energy Management?
energy management system in combination with FMCS to high energy
Energy Manager Today. http://www.energymanagertoday.com/why-are-
consuming IT industries of Taiwan. Energy Convers. Manag. 52 (8e9),
certain-countries-stronger-in-energy-management-086920/ (accessed
3060e3070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.12.031.
15.05.12.).
Mizuta, Y., 2003. A case study on energy saving and new energy services in Japan.
Brooks, P., El-Gayar, O., Sarnikar, S., 2015. A framework for developing a domain
Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 14 (2), 214e220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
specific business intelligence maturity model: application to healthcare. Int. J.
14777830310470431.
Inf. Manag. 35 (3), 337e345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.01.011.
Molla, A., Ijab, M.T., Copper, V., 2012. Information Systems Based Energy Manage-
BS, 2012. BS EN 16231 Energy Efficiency Benchmarking Methodology.
ment Practices at Telecom Acadia. Green IT Working Paper Series.
Buglione, L., Martino, D., Masuero, F., 2010. EM3 Base Model e Overall Staged
Morfeldt, J., Silveira, S., 2014. Capturing energy efficiency in European iron and steel
Representation. www.eng-it.it/spimq-l1/EM3.pdf (accessed 23.05.13.).
€ nsleben, P., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integrating production e comparing specific energy consumption and Malmquist produc-
Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Scho
tivity index. Energy Effic. 1e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-014-9264-8.
energy efficiency performance in production managementegap analysis be-
Neff, A.A., Hamel, F., Herz, T.P., Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W., Vom Brocke, J., 2014.
tween industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (6), 667e679.
Developing a maturity model for service systems in heavy equipment
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.011.
manufacturing enterprises. Inf. Manag. 51 (7), 895e911. http://dx.doi.org/
CarbonTrust, 2011. Energy Management e a Comprehensive Guide to Controlling
10.1016/j.im.2014.05.001.
Energy Use.
Neuhauser, C., 2004. A maturity model: does it provide a path for online course
CEN, 2009. EN 16001 Energy Management Systems e Requirements with Guidance
design? J. Interact. Online Learn. 3.
for Use.
Ngai, E.W.T., Chau, D.C.K., Poon, J.K.L., To, C.K.M., 2013. Energy and utility man-
Chrissis, M., Konrad, M., Shrum, S., 2003. CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration
agement maturity model for sustainable manufacturing process. Int. J. Prod.
and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Econ. 146 (2), 453e464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.12.018.
Crosby, P.B., 1979. Quality Is Free: the Art of Making Quality Certain. McGraw-Hill,
O'Sullivan, J., 2012. Energy Management Maturity Model (EM3) e a Strategy to
New York.
Maximize the Potential for Energy Savings through EnMS. Sustainable Energy
De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., 2005. Understanding the main phases of developing a
Authority of Ireland. http://www.seai.ie/News_Events/Previous_SEAI_events/
maturity assessment model. In: 16th Australasian Conference on Information
Creating_the_Right_Environment_for_ISO_50001/John%20O%20Sullivan.pdf
Systems, Sydney.
(accessed 14.10.14.).
De Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., 2005. Towards a business process management
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V., 1993. Capability maturity model,
maturity model. In: Bartmann, D., Rajola, F., Kallinikos, J., Avison, D., Winter, R.,
version 1.1. IEEE Softw. 10 (4), 18e27.
Ein-Dor P, et al. (Eds.), ECIS 2005 Proceedings of the Thirteenth European
Pigosso, D.C., Rozenfeld, H., McAloone, T.C., 2013. Ecodesign maturity model: a
Conference on Information Systems, pp. 26e28. Germany, Regensburg.
management framework to support ecodesign implementation into
Demir, C., Kocabas, I., 2010. Project management maturity model (PMMM) in
manufacturing companies. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 160e173. http://dx.doi.org/
educational organizations. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 9, 1641e1645. http://
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.379.
~ ero, E., 2009. ISO 50001: Setting the Standard for Industrial Energy Manage-
Pin
Energy Office. 2013. www.energyoffice.org (accessed 18.05.13.).
ment. Green Manufacturing News, pp. 21e24. http://www.greenmfgnews.com/
European Commission, 2015. What Is an SME? http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/
magazine/summer09/iso.pdf (accessed 19.11.14.).
policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm (accessed
Processgroup, 2009. ISO/CMMI Similarities and Differences, Version 2.0. In: http://
16.01.15.).
www.processgroup.com/iso-cmmi-comparison-v2p0.pdf (accessed 05.08.13.).
Faculty of organizational sciences (FOS), 2014. 300 most Successful Companies in
Shewhart, W.A., 1931. Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product.
Serbia According to the Criteria: Operating Revenue (in Serbian), (accessed
Macmillan, London.
15.01.15.). http://proorg.fon.rs/Files/d2b60cd8-e9e0-41ce-889c-c7aa3136b6a5/
Strategydriven, 2014. Utility Work Management Program Optimization. http://
300_Naj.doc.

n, R., Quisepe, E.C., 2012. Energy efficiency improvement in www.strategydriven.com/utility-work-management-program-optimization
Gonzalez, A.J., Castrillo
(accessed 18.08.14.).
the cement industry through energy management. In: 2012 IEEE-IAS/PCA 53rd
Talwar, R., 1993. Business re-engineering e a strategy-driven approach. Long. Range
Cement Industry Technical Conference. IEEE, pp. 1e13.
Plan. 26 (6), 22e40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(93)90204-S.
IMI, 1994. Business Processes e an IMI Briefing's Briefing Paper, Innovative
Thollander, P., Danestig, M., Rohdin, P., 2007. Energy policies for increased industrial
Manufacturing Initiative. EPSRC, Swindon.
energy efficiency: evaluation of a local energy programme for manufacturing
Introna, V., Cesarotti, V., Benedetti, M., Biagiotti, S., Rotunno, R., 2014. Energy
SMEs. Energy Policy 35 (11), 5774e5783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
management maturity model: an organizational tool to foster the continuous
j.enpol.2007.06.013.
reduction of energy consumption in companies. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 108e117.
Unger, C.J., Lechner, A.M., Kenway, J., Glenn, V., Walton, A., 2015. A jurisdictional
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.001.
maturity model for risk management, accountability and continual improve-
ISO, 2004. ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems e Requirements with
ment of abandoned mine remediation programs. Resour. Policy 43, 1e10. http://
Guidance for Use.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.008.
ISO, 2008. ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N 544R3 ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Package:
Wendler, R., 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping
Guidance on the Concept and Use of the Process Approach for Management
study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54 (12), 1317e1339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Systems.
j.infsof.2012.07.007.
ISO, 2009. ISO 9004 Managing for the Sustained Success of an Organization e a
Quality Management Approach.