60
Figure 8 Percentage of companies that found an instrument to be an incentive or a significant incentive
By size of company
Medium-sized and large companies thought multiyear agreements provided the greatest incentive. Small companies that are not eligible for
the multiyear agreements thought grants and tax schemes provided the greatest incentive see figure 8. Remarkably, there was little
appreciation of the instruments across the board. The only instrument that enjoyed the approval of all companies was the multiyear agreement.
If the scores are broken down by company size, this is particularly true of large and medium-sized companies. The CO
2
emissions trading system, which is targeted chiefly at large companies, is perceived as being th e
least effective energy saving instrument.
5.3 Reasons for and against energy saving behaviour
A possible explanation of the underachievement of the governments energy saving targets is that the policy instruments do not agree with the
target groups reasons to save energy or with the target group’s
negative expectations deterring them from saving energy. A better understanding of the target groups reasons might improve the
effectiveness of policy instruments. Only small-scale, qualitative studies have been made of why companies
decide to invest in energy savings or not Masselink, 2008; Muthulingam et al., 2008; Rohdin Thollander, 2005; Sandberg Söderström, 2003.
61
They found that other factors influence the decision-making process apart from the direct investment cost. It is not clear which reasons, or
combinations of reasons, determine the ultimate investment decision. To gain an insight, our audit drew on the Theory of Planned Behaviour
TPB. This theory and the related research method offer a comprehensive and tried and tested framework to analyse the various
layers of reasons quantitatively and in such a way as to provide opportunities to influence behaviour.
35
The method requires information from a large number of respondents. We collected the necessary
information by means of a survey of manufacturing companies. More information on the survey can be found in the section on audit
methodology. To obtain useful results, the behaviour studied must be defined as
precisely as possible. It is not enough to ask for energy saving reasons in general. Our audit looked at two forms of behaviour:
1. The acquisition of technologies, components and machinery that
improve the energy efficiency of production; these investment decisions require a modification of the production line.
2. The development of low-energy products; this requires investments
in time and knowledge to modify the products the company makes. According to the TPB, there are three variables that together can predict
or explain behaviour. 1.
The first variable is attitude, the positive or negative appreciation of the behaviour studied. We considered the factors that determined a
companys ultimate attitude. To this end, we asked the companies to estimate the consequences of the two forms of behaviour studied.
2. The second variable is social pressure. This is the pressure exerted by
people or organisations that influence a company’s decisions to invest in energy efficient technologies or develop low-energy products.
We studied who exerted the social pressure that influenced a companys decision to take energy saving measures.
3. The third variable is perceived feasibility. This is the extent to which
a company thinks it has the resources, knowledge and skills necessary to take energy saving measures and the extent to which it
expects problems in the production process. We studied which factors determined whether a company considered itself capable of investing
in energy saving behaviour.
35
For an accessible summary of the theory, see Staats 2003. Lokhorst 2009 provides a recent study of a Dutch environmental problem.
62
According to the TPB, each of these three variables is determined by the many assumptions people make at a very basic level. The attitude
towards a particular behaviour depends on the consequences expected of that behaviour, the social pressure of assumptions of what others expect
and the perceived feasibility of all manner of assumptions on what is needed for a particular behaviour and whether it is feasible. For the
behaviour studied, the survey included a large number of items on assumed financial consequences, for example make more profit, run
large financial risks and unable to invest in something else. We also asked about image-related issues such as being an industry leader and
stronger green image. To study the assumptions relating to social pressure, we asked how
important banks, customers, industry organisations, shareholders and employees thought it was for a company to acquire energy efficient
technology or develop low-energy products. To determine perceived feasibility, we asked about the role of available knowledge, capital and
ability to apply new technologies and the consequences for relations with suppliers and maintenance contractors.
Apart from these classical behavioural aspects of the TPB, we also asked about the corporate culture with regard to energy saving. This is the
extent to which a company sees investing in energy efficient technology or low-energy products as a moral duty or appropriate to its operations.
5.3.1 Reasons for and against acquiring energy efficient technologies
Attitude is a decisive factor in acquiring energy efficient technology. Our survey found that social pressure and perceived feasibility were not
significant see figure 9. Attitude is determined by an assumption that the behaviour will strengthen market position or industry leadership.
Negative attitude is determined chiefly by an assumption that an investment in energy efficient technology will cause the company to break
existing relations with maintenance contractors. Two other small-scale studies found that fear of disruptions to the production process deter
entrepreneurs from acquiring energy efficient technology Masselink, 2008; Rohdin Thollander, 2005. Our survey found no significant
relationship between the two. Apart from attitude, corporate culture is also an important explanatory
factor in a companys acquisition of energy efficient technology. Energy intensity also plays a role. The higher a companys energy costs as a
