organisational factors determining the implementation of cleaner production measures in the...

Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 311–319www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Organisational factors determining the implementation of cleanerproduction measures in the corporate sector

G. Zilahy∗

Hungarian Cleaner Production Centre, Department of Environmental Economics and Technology, Budapest University of Economic Sciencesand Public Administration, Fovam ter 8, H-1093 Budapest, Hungary

Received 10 August 2001; accepted 30 January 2003

Abstract

Empirical research undertaken at the Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration concentrated on theorganisational factors hindering energy related cleaner production measures at several major Hungarian companies. The underlyingobjective of the research was to analyse the barriers to preventive environmental actions which often impede the implementationof cost effective CP measures at the company level. As a result of this research, organisational barriers to effective implementationof CP measures have been identified at eight enterprises of the Hungarian industry and recommendations have been developed toovercome the barriers for the implementation of the CP options.

Although some characteristics of the sample companies are specific to a country in transition, most of the experiences gainedcan be utilised in more developed regions of the world as well. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Barriers to implementation of cleaner production measures; Organisational factors in cleaner production; Human behaviour and environ-mental protection; Energy efficiency; Hungarian industries; Hungary; Preventive Environmental Protection in Central Europe

1. Introduction

The international literature concerning the improve-ment potential of corporate energy efficiency refers tothe so called energy efficiency gap as the energyefficiency potential which is not exploited, in practice.It indicates the difference between the economicallyoptimal and actually implemented levels of energyefficiency measures. In other words, the energyefficiency gap covers the amount of energy savings thatcan be realised by so called no-regret options (optionswhich are feasible to implement purely on a financialbasis) but are, nonetheless, not utilised by individual pro-ducers and other organisations.

Several explanations for the energy efficiency gaphave been identified during the last decade in researchthat focused upon the following question: Why does thepractical implementation of energy efficiency measures

∗ Tel./fax.: + 36-1-215-5808.E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Zilahy).

0959-6526/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00016-7

lag far behind potential energy efficiency improvementlevels suggested by both theoretical results and alreadyimplemented practical solutions?[1].

Research to obtain answers to the question have beenconcentrated on market barriers, the risk and uncertainty ofpreventive environmental actions and more recently, someattention has been given to the organisational factorsdetermining the level of preventive environmental measures.

Parallel to this research, similar questions have beendiscussed among cleaner production experts at nationaland international levels during recent years. They mainlyask, why are cleaner production measures notimplemented on a much wider scale and why is it sohard to convince company representatives of the advan-tages of preventive environmental measures?

Based on the literature, on practical experiencesgained during the last four years with cleaner productionmeasures and on empirical research conducted in theHungarian industrial sector, this paper concentrates onthe organisational factors of preventive environmentalmeasures, in order to contribute to the solution of thesepressing questions.

312 G. Zilahy / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 311–319

2. Organisational factors of the identification andimplementation of preventive environmentalmeasures

For the purposes of this study organisational factorsare defined as those factors characteristic to a particularenterprise which influence the level of implementation ofpreventive environmental options. Organisational factorsinclude the size and situation of the company, its indus-trial sector, the available infrastructure (including thetype and state of the equipment used and other character-istics of its infrastructural environment) and humanbehavioural patterns, like the motivation and awarenessof the employees and organisational culture.

In his study of the organisational factors of energyefficiency options DeCanio uses a database on the ration-alisation of lighting equipment developed by the U.S.EPA to reveal the characteristic features of theimplementation of energy efficiency measures [2].According to his findings, although economic consider-ations play a significant role in defining the companies’attitude towards environmental protection, organis-ational and institutional factors also have to be taken intoaccount. DeCanio applies the method of regressionanalysis to determine the weight of these variables in theprofitability of projects. Organisational variables consistof the basic indicators of the company such as the sizeand organisational form, the supplier of new technology,the method of the installation of the machinery, the waysof financing, etc. After analysing the data, DeCaniocomes to the conclusion that “ the data show thatalthough obvious economic factors such as electricityprices and intensity of usage clearly influence the profit-ability of energy saving, lighting investments, an entirelyseparate set of factors is simultaneously at work. Theseother determinants of investment behaviour and out-comes can best be described as bureaucratic or organis-ational barriers to economic optimisation” [2].

Lutzenhiser analysed the organisational barriers ofenergy efficiency investments in the USA constructionindustry [3]. In his view “ it is a mistake to assume thateither firms or consumers act in markets solely on thebasis of rational self-interest. Economic calculations takeplace in social and cultural contexts” [3]. “ Intendedlyrational economic calculations are also influenced by arange of considerations other than monetary costs, bene-fits or returns on investment, e.g. social status attainmentand risk avoidance.” He concludes that “ the behaviourof firms seems to be shaped by a combination of cultural,institutional, macro-social/economic and technical fac-tors.” [3].

These factors which have also been experienced dur-ing the implementation of CP projects have been the sub-ject of a study conducted at the Department of Environ-mental Economics and Technology at the BudapestUniversity of Economic Sciences.

2.1. Methodology of the research

A sample of eight companies characterised by the pro-duction and release of significant environmental loadshas been identified for inclusion in this research. Inter-views and a questionnaire were used to study the organ-isational factors defined earlier.

Companies have been chosen that are in high energyintensity industries. Additionally, an electricity generatorhas also been included in the sample. All of the compa-nies have been operating for several decades and arecompeting successfully within their specific markets.

The selected companies export a significant share oftheir products to the world market and have utilised up-to-date management practices as a result of their privatis-ation in the early 1990s. For this reason, the operationof the companies is similar to organisations indeveloped countries.

Two to three oral, face-to-face interviews were con-ducted in each company with members of the manage-ment or environmental professionals. Additionally, awritten questionnaire was distributed to 8–10 employees,at each company, who are responsible for energy man-agement within the companies and who are situated atdifferent levels of the organisational structure.

Questions used during the interviews and in the ques-tionnaires, focused on the following topics:

� What is the comparative efficiency of the currentenergy production/consumption of the technologiesused at the company?

� What energy efficiency improvement measures havebeen undertaken during the last five years?

� What additional plans for energy efficiency improve-ments have been made for implementation in thenear future?

� What barriers do exist for implementation of energyefficiency improvement and environmental perform-ance improvement measures within the company?

The employed methodology was not suitable to pre-pare industry-wide generalisations but it did provide anunusually deep insight into questions addressed withinthe research (e.g. by asking the same questions from sev-eral different organisational members at different levelsof the organisations).

3. Results of the research

3.1. Energy efficiency at the surveyed companies

During the interviews it was found that the process ofidentification and implementation of energy efficiencyimprovement measures had occurred in all of the compa-

313G. Zilahy / Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004) 311–319

nies within the research sample, during the previousfive years.

Also, all of the companies plan to make additionalsuch investments in the coming years, because theirimprovement potentials have not yet been fullyexploited.

It was difficult to determine the rate of energyefficiency improvement in past years because mostrespondents did not have precise information on meas-ures such as the amount of energy saved or the financialgains resulting from the implementation of the projects.Nevertheless, it was possible to classify the mostimportant measures implemented. See the data withinTable 1 for explicit results of energy efficiency improve-ment measures actually implemented at the companiesparticipating in the research.

Table 2 illustrates the number of implemented andpotential energy efficiency improvement measuresclassified by the above mentioned categories as men-tioned during the interviews.

On the basis of the interviews and the questionnaires

Table 1Types of energy efficiency improvement measures implemented within the companies in the research

Description Energy efficiency improvement optionsimplemented at the surveyed companies

1. Application of new technology The replacement or amendment of an existing �Replacing boilersequipment, the introduction of technologies not usedbefore

�Automation�Utilisation of residual heat�Installation of gas turbine

2. Modification of existing The modification of an important feature of an �Rationalising of the piping systemtechnology existing equipment or technology

�Rationalizing the set up of equipment�Insulation of pipelines

3. Upgrading and modernisation of Modernisation of an existing technology without any �Modernisation of gas boilersthe equipment major modification of processes

�Modernisation of heating systems�Modernisation of air system

4. Measurement of energy Measurement, monitoring and documentation of �Energy measurement programconsumption, energy controlling activities in the fields of energy

production/consumption�Waste gas analysis�Measuring efficiency�Energy audits

5. Awareness raising, education Developing environmental awareness among �Objectives and programme designedcompany management and employees for saving energy

6. Modification of working Increasing efficiency by better work organisation and �Time co-ordination of equipment usemethods more attention within the given technological

framework�Optimal load of boilers�Modification of weekend time table

7. Other Efficiency improvement measures not belonging to �Switch to natural gas with a higherany of the above categories heating value

�Reducing the number of units ofstandby equipment

�Modification of contracts withsuppliers to use cheaper energy

at the companies, we identified 89 energy efficiencyimprovement measures in the past five years. The mostcharacteristic and most frequently implemented measurewas the installation of new technological solutions, in36 cases. This, in terms of the categories describedbefore, does not necessarily mean the replacement of thewhole technological line, but may mean certain additionsor completion of the installation of the original tech-nology e.g. the automation of the processes. The secondmost often used measures were in the category of mod-ernisation of already existing equipment, which wasdocumented in 17 cases. This was followed by the sig-nificant modification of technologies and the modifi-cation of working methods with the same number ofoccurrences.

The respondents identified 49 potential energyefficiency improvement measures to be implemented inthe future among which the most frequently mentionedones were—as opposed to the implemented measures—modernisation and upgrading. This refers to the fact thatthe examined companies, in the past few years, have not


Table 2Implemented and potential energy efficiency improvement measures at the companies studied

Number Type of measure Number of occurrences in the sample

Implemented Potential

1 Application of new technology 36 132 Modification of existing technology 11 23 Modernisation, upgrading of existing 17 19

technology4 Measuring consumption, controlling 5 25 Awareness raising, education 1 06 Modification of working methods 11 97 Other 8 4

Total identified measures 89 49

fully exploited the possibilities of modernising the exist-ing equipment and machinery. Relatively few consideredthe modification of existing technologies as feasible.Furthermore, future projects for measurement of energyconsumption were mentioned in only two cases.

Comparing implemented and potential measures, wefound that the companies have been more active in theapplication of new technology in the past, while theyshare the opinion that modernisation and the upgradingof existing technology have a high potential in the future.This might originate from the fact, that large scaleinvestments have been undertaken by most of the com-panies after their privatisation in the early 1990s and donot plan to invest in new technologies in the near futurebut rather improve their existing equipment. In manycases, the existing machinery is used as long as its func-tioning can be preserved with proper maintenance.

The questionnaire-based survey results revealed arange of saving potentials from a few percent to justbelow 80%. For this reason, the average value of 43%energy efficiency improvements implemented, can onlybe accepted with serious reservations. The value of thisindicator exceeds the value projected for the Hungarianindustrial sector in the corresponding literature (see e.g.Kerekes et al. [4] and Szlavik et al. [5]). According tothis, the estimations of the energy saving potential in theshort run is about 10%, while in the long run it is a littlemore than 18% on average as opposed to the result ofthe present survey, which exceeds 40%. We cannotattach serious importance to the significant differencebetween the two data partly because of the size of oursample and partly because of the methodological differ-ences between the two studies.

Another plausible explanation of the high value in ourstudy is that it may include energy efficiency improve-ment measures, which will probably not be implementedfor economic reasons. Since the questions did not limitthe interviewees of the questionnaire to include only thefeasible measures, the calculated value does not rep-resent only the market or economic potential for energy

efficiency improvements for the companies but it morelikely represents the technical potential or a valuebetween the economic and technical potentials.

During the interviews, a much more precise picturewas drawn regarding the companies energy savingpotential.

The majority of the interviewees were of the opinionthat their company achieved significant results in thisfield in the past years. Several expressed the view thatthe level of energy efficiency improvements at theircompany did not show significant backwardness as com-pared to the level experienced in developed countries.According to one interviewee, the large companies priv-atised at the beginning of the decade have already util-ised their energy efficiency improvement potentials. Atanother point the same interviewee claimed that thedomestic conditions of production meet the West-Euro-pean standards to 70-80%.

In slight contradiction to this, the interviewees wereable to identify several potential measures at their com-panies as shown in Table 2.

3.2. Barriers to the implementation of preventiveenvironmental measures

3.2.1. Information and the decision making processThe different answers given by the respondents of the

questionnaire-based survey show a lack of informationavailable to them which was also manifested in the factthat, in many cases, the respondents based their opinionson estimations instead of real data.

As opposed to this, the results of the interviewsshowed that prior to each and every investment decision,a concrete and detailed feasibility study is preparedregarding economic and technical conditions of the pro-jects. This provides the evidence that in the case ofimplemented energy efficiency improvement invest-ments, a large number of the interviewees were notinformed about the results or the existence of such analy-ses.


As for the potential savings, the data are even morebased on estimations and the companies as shown by theinterviews only occasionally prepare energy efficiencyaudits regarding the total production process or parts ofthe process. But they do monitor the most important pro-duction data (unit based). The interviews revealed thatamong the examined companies, there was only one thatunderwent an energy audit in the past years. That auditwas financed by an external party. Although, severalfavourable opportunities were explored and implementedas the result of the audit, the company did not repeat theaudit with its own resources.

The representative of another company stated thatthough they regularly elaborate or prepare developmentplans, the practical utilisation of the plans is incidentaland ad-hoc decisions are often made which are not prop-erly prepared and integrated into the original plans. Suchmeasures are implemented quite often depending onindividual interests (e.g. making use of personal con-tacts, etc.).

In 70-80% of the cases, the listed measures were sup-plemented by the respondent - depending on the com-pany - with concrete savings data. The data in Table 3shows that the figures provided to illustrate the rate ofenergy savings were based on calculations or esti-mations. As can be seen in the case of implemented mea-sures, the application of estimated data is definitely morefrequent, while in the case of potential measures calcu-lations are virtually non-existent or are not known.

These results are supported by results of a question-naire survey of 150 Hungarian companies designed toidentify the implemented environmental managementpractices [4]. The researchers of this study concludedthat only 8.7% of the company representatives are awareof calculations of the potential for environmental man-agement improvements in their companies. Examiningthe results in Table 3, the present research also docu-mented that calculations and surveys in this area are veryrare (3 out of the 38 provided data based oncalculations).

3.2.2. Financial factorsAmong the factors hindering the implementation of

energy efficiency improvement measures, as expected,financial factors played a dominant role both in theresponses in the interviews and in the responses givento the questionnaires. Nevertheless, the respondents also

Table 3The source of data on energy efficiency improvement (number of cases)

Implemented measures Potential measures

Data based on measurements and calculations 37 3Data based on estimations 58 35Total data given 95 38

drew attention to several other problems, which alsopose difficulties in the way of implementation.

All respondents in the interviews highlighted the ques-tion of the financial background of energy efficiencymeasures. It can be concluded that, apart from other fac-tors, companies most frequently use the rate of return asa major instrument in evaluating investment possibilities.Besides this, companies have an annual investmentbudget within which different decision making processestake place depending on the volume of the investment.

Small-scale modernisation is usually financed fromthe annually defined budget of maintenance. Investmentsbeyond this point are decided upon at different levels ofdecision making, depending on their capital need, whilethe largest value decisions are taken by the top manage-ment or by the parent company. These decision-makingprocesses are often very bureaucratic and time consum-ing.

Table 4 shows the most important types of obstaclesaccording to the number of occurrences.

As the data in Table 4 illustrates, the barriers relatedto economic considerations can basically be divided intotwo groups: on the one hand they are closely related tothe lack of resources, while on the other hand they arerelated to the slow rate of return on the investments;additionally, the high costs can also hinder implemen-tation. These two factors should be considered separatelysince in the lack of financial resources, even investmentswith a high rate of return, are not implemented.

This phenomenon is supported by considerationsaccording to which energy efficiency improvement mea-sures are often pushed into the background, because pri-ority is given to other areas. Such an area can be, forexample, the priority given to production, which is typi-cal in cases when the company can hardly meet the pro-duction demands or a high priority is given to marketshare.

3.2.3. Human factorsBarriers related to human resources were often men-

tioned during the interviews. One aspect of this problemis that human resources are often missing or are not suit-able to manage the energy efficiency improvements. Anumber of the companies tried to increase overall pro-duction efficiency after the privatisation process byreducing the number of employees, which often resultedin the lack of internal human resources. In many cases,


Table 4Factors hindering implementation of energy efficiency improvement measures on the basis of the questionnaire-based survey (number of occurrences)concrete obstacles mentioned

Type of obstacle Number of occurrences

Lack of financial resources 10High costs, slow return 12Priority of other projects 5Problems related to human factors 6Lack of awareness 5Market conditions 2Technical obstacles 3Other obstacles 13Total obstacles Mentioned 56

this had a disadvantageous impact on the implementationof energy efficiency improvement measures because thedaily problems related to the running of the companytook the attention away from areas, which bring benefit,only in the long run.

This research put a special emphasis on the motivationof the employees with regards to energy related preven-tive environmental measures.

Based on a model of individual motivation towardsenvironmental measures within the companies, it becamepossible to identify two sets of motivation factors:restrictive and incentive factors (see Tables 5 and 6).

Restrictive factors can be defined as all factors, thelack of which, hinders the implementation of energyefficiency improvement measures whereas their favour-able position will not promote efficiency improvement.Such factors are e.g. the technical dependencies, whichcan significantly restrict efficiency improvements. How-ever, the non-existence of such dependencies does notimply that such measures are taken frequently. Anotherexample of restrictive factors is professional com-petence, the lack of which can strongly restrict theimplementation of energy efficiency improvement meas-ures. Excellent professional qualities, however, do not

Table 5The impact of restrictive motivation factors upon the implementation of energy efficiency improving changes

Restrictive factors Effect

No restriction Weak restriction Strong restriction

Job security, resistance to changes +Barriers of decision making +Knowledge of objectives, involvement in setting +objectivesProfessional competence +Awareness of former measures +Ability to change and learn +Job features +Social (group) dependence +Technological and administrative dependence +

automatically mean that the employees have the abilityto take the initiative.

As opposed to this, the lack of incentive factors doesnot impede implementation, but given these factors, theimplementation of efficiency increasing measures ismore likely to take place.

Table 5 shows that among the restrictive factors thestrongest impact is made by the barriers of the decisionmaking process, the awareness of former efficiencyimproving measures, and technological dependencies.

Among the problems related to the decision makingprocess the most important was the lengthy and compli-cated nature of decision making and the fact that in thecontext of international companies large volumedecisions are not made in Hungary. These decisions areoften subordinated to the interests of the whole companygroup. Therefore, regarding new investments or modern-isation, a part of the measures worth implementing mightbe neglected.

The second strongly restrictive factor is the awarenessof energy efficiency improvement measures. The analy-sis of this factor showed that there are big differencesamong respondents according to their level of awarenessof the implemented and potential measures: employees


Table 6The impact of incentive motivating factors in the implementation of energy efficiency improvements in the companies studied

Incentive factor Effect

No incentive Weak incentive Strong incentive

Financial rewards, other incentives +Promotion +Esteem, status +Self-fulfilment +Environmental awareness +Performance motivation, competence motivation +Power motivation +Presence of colleagues +Environmental awareness of other organisation members +Attitudes +Reinforcement +

in lower positions were able to identify definitely fewermeasures. This is worth taking note of because they arethe organisation members who from their daily experi-ence have the best knowledge of the energy systems.

The third strongly restrictive factor is the technicaldependence of companies, primarily upon their infras-tructural background. This takes the form of oversizedproduction capacities at several companies. The inflex-ible nature of capital investments and the application ofthe same technology for a long period without modifi-cation also hinders the improvement at the efficiencylevel. In such cases, efficiency improvements can onlybe increased by means of smaller-scale projects until thebasic technology of the company has been modernised.

Analysing the incentive factors, it can be seen thatone of the most important factors related to the job iscomprised of the financial conditions. As opposed tothis, companies in general do not have sufficient incen-tive schemes, especially schemes that aim at efficientenergy consumption.

Though promotion within the hierarchy of the com-pany showed similar results—companies have not elab-orated systems and regulations in this area—employeesconsider this point as being less important.

Respondents and informants placed a high priority onperfect work performance, therefore this factor is alsoamong the strongly motivating factors just like theenvironmental awareness of the employees. Although,environmental awareness can still be improved, therespondents reactions to this question were favourable.It should also be noted that the environmental awarenessof those employed in non-energy related aspects of thecompany would also be worth examining, because theyalso have significant impacts on the overall efficiency ofthe companies.

3.2.4. Technical barriersTechnical barriers were mentioned only three times

among the hindrances. This suggests that the improve-

ment of energy efficiency is primarily not a technicalproblem. According to the respondents of the interviews,technological solutions are readily available to them aswell as a list of suppliers able to deliver these solutions.

In several cases companies were approached by otherenterprises specialising in energy efficiency measures inorder to install energy savings measures. In one case acompany agreed to make a change that promised sig-nificant savings in the natural gas consumption, eventhough the technology was not fully understood by theenterprise. In this case, the investment costs were to befinanced by the reductions of energy costs.

3.2.5. Other barriersApart from these factors, several other barriers were

identified during the interviews and as a result of theevaluation of the questionnaires, which cannot be classi-fied into any of these categories. These are also stronglyrelated to the individual features of the enterprises andinclude the following:

� The short term thinking of the owners, short termplanning;

� The indifference towards environmental problems onthe side of the management;

� Conflicting personal interests;� Poor communication;� The full utilisation of production capacity;� Difficulties in keeping proper records of energy sav-

ings;� Bureaucratic obstacles;� Improper company structure.

Among the above-mentioned barriers, the difficulty ofkeeping records of the potential energy savings wasraised as an important problem in several interviews. Itis especially typical in the field of thermal energy andsteam consumption where measuring is not possible orposes serious technical problems.


The remarks related to personal interests tackled thelack of interest, and in one case it referred to the counterinterest of the employees. The latter phenomenon how-ever, is very important to address. While mentioning thatimproving energy efficiency is one of their job responsi-bilities, respondents frequently stated that energyefficiency measures did not have any effect on their jobs.The few effects mentioned were related to the quantityof workload and the acquisition of new knowledgerelated to changes.

3.3. Practical experiences related to organisationalbarriers

Practical experiences gained during the implemen-tation of different cleaner production projects at overthirty Hungarian enterprises are in line with findings ofthe above mentioned research. The following points canbe made on the basis of the practical work:

� Apart from economic considerations, companies aremaking their decisions over preventive environmentalmeasures dependent upon a number of organis-ational factors.

� Environmental awareness is one of the mostimportant organisational factors determining the levelof environmental measures within an organisation.

� The professional competence of organisational mem-bers relating to technical problems is generallyadequate.

� The motivation of the management and the employeeshas a crucial role in the success of CP projects. Motiv-ation at the company level often comes from externalfactors such as environmental authorities or cus-tomers.

� Without the commitment and effective support of thetop management, the possibility that the projects aregoing to fail is very high.

� Motivation schemes aiming at the individuals withinorganisations are very rare and often do not functioneffectively. Schemes frequently do not relate to theenergy efficient operation of the processes.

� Technical dependencies (e.g. outdated infrastructure)have an important role in the decision over implemen-tation. Technical conditions specific to the individualorganisations often prevent environmental measuresfrom happening.

4. Summary of results and recommendations

The results of the empirical research revealed thatdespite the fact that nearly all the examined companiesare successful and have a leading position on the dom-estic market, they have not fully exploited their opport-

unities available in the field of energy efficiencyimprovements.

Describing the reasons for this phenomenon theresearch introduced the concept of organisational factorsof energy-related preventive environmental measuresand came to the conclusion that although economic con-siderations are very important barriers to energyefficiency improvement investments, organisational bar-riers also have a significant impact on these decisions.

Organisational barriers can be manifested in virtuallyan infinite number of ways, depending on the givenorganisation; therefore, the removal of such hindrancesis only possible if we take the characteristic features andthe environment of the analysed organisations into con-sideration.

4.1. Recommendations for company management

More specific results show that not even the first stepshave been taken in the area of corporate incentiveschemes. During the application of the schemes, theefficiency improvement criteria of the production pro-cesses are usually not taken into account. Therefore, thisarea has a lot of development potentials.

Another shortcoming is the lack of employee accessto information on energy efficiency issues. Employeesat lower levels of the hierarchy have only a vague ideaof already implemented measures and of future poten-tials. This situation should be remedied becauseemployees at these levels could contribute to theimprovement of the efficiency of the organisations.

Concerning the attitude of organisational members tothe issues of environmental protection, we concludedthat those employed in the field of energy managementhave a high level of environmental awareness. It is ques-tionable whether other employees have the same levelof environmental awareness or not. In the lack of appro-priate awareness, this area also calls for measures sinceit has a direct influence on energy consumption.

By simplifying and accelerating decision making pro-cesses, the decision makers could also improve theimplementation of energy efficiency improvement meas-ures. They should make the decision making processmore transparent. Though the essential decisions arelikely to be taken by the foreign parent company, in thefuture, the simplification and the increased speed of thedecision making process might bring substantial benefits.

Technological dependencies, as reflected by the name,can only be solved, in the long run, however, their grad-ual elimination can have a favourable influence onefficiency.

4.2. Recommendations for policy makers

The core of the message for environmental policymakers can be summarised as follows: the implemen-


tation of energy efficiency improvement measures bycompanies are not determined only by the available fin-ancial resources and the access to information but alsoby motivational and organisational factors that shouldnot be ignored. However, these factors are so diverse innature that a simple and efficient solution is hardly poss-ible to find.

In the elaboration of the governments energyefficiency improvement policy and the programs to pro-mote other cleaner production practices, furthermore, inthe preparatory process of international agreements(e.g. climate agreements) the expected rate of energyefficiency improvement will not be determined solely onthe basis of financial factors. The organisational factorsalso have to be considered, which may lead to a slowerimplementation process than expected.

On the other hand, energy policy has to considerorganisational factors when establishing its instrumentsto support energy efficiency improvements. This meansthat different supportive instruments should be estab-lished for companies in different sectors. This, in prac-tice, can take the form of various credit terms for thedifferent target groups of individual programs, or forvarious types of information provided by programs. Bymeeting these requirements, the objective of ensuring theparticipation of companies with diverse organisationalfeatures in increasing the efficiency of the Hungarianeconomy, can be achieved.

4.3. Conclusions for the researcher

As resulted by the methodology of the research, someresults gained can not be generalised for entire industriesor the whole country. At the same time it provides uswith a degree of understanding of company behaviourin the environmental field i.e. energy efficiency and cle-aner production.

The analysis also gave rise to several problems. One

of the most important obstacles was the unwillingnessof organisation members: the interviewees and the ques-tionnaire respondents, to talk openly about the barriers ofdevelopments or about their inner motivations and drivesinfluencing their behaviour. These obstacles were partlyeliminated by means of the interviews and the anony-mous questionnaires. Despite this, the author frequentlyhad the impression that several pieces of information rel-evant for the research were kept hidden. In such cases,experiences gained during the implementation of cleanerproduction measures have been of much importance.

To summarise the results of the research, it has clearlyproved that organisational factors play a very importantrole during the assessment of cleaner production poten-tial and the implementation of corresponding cleanerproduction options. These kinds of factors require moreresearch, but it can already be stated, that concentratingonly on technical terms (i.e. the technical feasibility ofCP options) and purely economic considerations (e.g. therate of return of the projects) is not adequate without theconsideration of organisational barriers to cleaner pro-duction measures within companies.

References

[1] Jaffe AB, Stavins RN. The energy-efficiency gap - What does itmean? Energy Policy 1994;22(10).

[2] DeCanio SJ. The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organis-ational barriers to profitable energy saving investments. EnergyPolicy 1998;26(5).

[3] Lutzenhiser L. Innovation and organizational networks - Barriersto energy efficiency in the US housing industry. Energy Policy1994;22(10).

[4] Kerekes S, Baranyi A, Csutora M, Kovacs E, Nemcsicsne ZsA,Zilahy Gy. Evaluation of the environmental performance of Hung-arian companies. Strategic Research of the Hungarian Academyof Sciences, 1999.

[5] Szlavik J, et al., editors. Economics of greenhouse gas mitigation -Country study: Hungary; 1999

organisational factors determining the implementation of cleaner production measures in the...

Documents