Reasons for and against developing low-energy products
65
Multiyear energy efficiency agreements The multiyear energy efficiency agreements agree most with the reasons
and conditions that determine a manufacturing companys decision- making processes. They offer the prospect of cost savings and inform
participants of potential grants and tax schemes. Participants receive advice on how to save energy that is tailored to their business and on
how to share energy saving information and experiences within the industry. Furthermore, the compulsory introduction of energy
management and energy saving reports increases the companies knowledge of their own energy consumption. Our survey found that
companies thought they did not have enough knowledge. More than a quarter 27 said they did not have enough knowledge. This was true
of 29 of the small companies, 24 of the medium-sized companies and 11 of the large companies. A breakdown of the large companies shows
that those with between 250 and 1,000 employees, in particular, do not have enough knowledge. Only companies with more than 3,000
employees said they had enough knowledge. It is assumed that voluntary agreements create social pressure to save
energy. However, the social pressure of the current agreements in the manufacturing industry does not seem to have a decisive influence on the
companies behaviour. The effect of the second generation of multiyear agreements is due to their influence on the expected consequences of
energy savings and the extent to which companies think they can make energy savings. Our audit revealed that companies thought multiyear
agreements provided the greatest incentive and that participants acquired energy efficient technology and worked on energy savings in the
production chain more often than non-participants. The final self- reported percentage energy saving, however, did not differ from that
of non-participants. Benchmarking Agreement
The Benchmarking Agreement only partially agrees with the relevant reasons and conditions. Furthermore, its effect was weakened when the
target for 2012 and the agreements obligations were largely abandoned upon the introduction of the CO
2
emissions trading system. Tax schemes and grants
Small and medium-sized companies found tax schemes and grants to be the most effective instruments. The schemes and grants used by the
government to encourage energy savings agree with the financial aspects of a companys economic rationalism. Financial incentives influence the
66
calculation of a potential investments payback period. Companies that use financial schemes acquire energy
–efficient technologies more often. The idea that companies do not use financial schemes because the
administrative burden is too heavy was not confirmed by our survey. Most companies expect more paperwork but it does not stop them using a
financial scheme. There were strong indications, however, that a decision to invest in energy saving is often taken regardless of the schemes and
grants if a company has a strong culture of energy savings. Environmental Management Act
Companies do not see the Environmental Management Act as an incentive to take energy saving measures. It requires companies take all energy
saving measures that pay themselves back within five years provided their financial situation permits. Our audit found that many companies
used a shorter payback time: 41 invest in energy saving only if the payback time is less than four years, for 33 the criterion is three y ears
or less. Since the prescribed behaviour differs so much from the spontaneous behaviour, a great deal of enforcement is needed to ensure
companies comply with the statutory obligation. The potential consequences of non-compliance with statutory obligations risk of
sanctions or fines did not prompt the companies we surveyed to invest in energy efficiency.
CO
2
emissions trading system As noted above, the CO
2
emissions trading system was named in our survey as the least effective instrument. It does not directly agree with
the reasons and conditions that influence energy saving decisions. Reasons such as a stronger market position and industry leadership,
however, can reinforce its effect. The instrument is not concerned primarily with energy savings but at reducing CO
2
emissions. Within the trading system, a company is free to opt for other CO
2
reducing measures or to buy emission allowances. With the current low price of emission
allowances, there is little incentive to save energy. The instruments that agree most with the energy saving reasons
multiyear agreements and tax schemes are appreciated more and have more effect than other instruments. It is therefore likely that poor
agreement between policy instruments and the target groups reasons contributes to the underachievement of the targets.