Increased global competition and resource scarcity drives industrial companies to cut costs. Energy can be a significant component of such cuts, particularly for energy-intensive companies. Improving energy efficiency in industry is complex, as it pertains to various energy-using processes that are heavily intertwined. One such process is the compressed air system (CAS), which is used in most industrial companies worldwide. Since energy efficiency improvement measures for various types of energy-using processes differ, technology-specific measures might encounter different barriers to and drivers for energy efficiency. The same applies to the non-energy benefits (NEBs) related to energy efficiency improvement measures; since measures vary between various energy-using processes, the perceived NEBs might be different as well. The aim of this paper is to study the barriers to, drivers for and NEBs of CAS energy efficiency improvement measures from the perspectives of three actors. Carried out as an interview study combined with a questionnaire, the paper merges the perspectives of users, audit experts and suppliers of CASs. The results showed that the major barriers are related to the investment, or are of an organisational character, and that organisational and economic factors seemed to be important for making positive decisions on energy efficiency investments and measures in CASs. Major NEBs for CASs include productivity gains and the avoidance of capital expenditures. The results of this study also address the importance of having a comprehensive approach to recognise additional effects of energy efficiency improvements in CASs.

The energy efficiency gap is known as the difference between optimal level of energy efficiency and the actual level of achieved energy efficiency. Energy management has proven to further close the energy efficiency gap. Energy management may differ depending on whether it concerns a large, energy-intensive company or small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs are of high interest since they form a large share of the economy today. For SMEs, a lighter form of energy management, in the form of energy efficiency network participation, has proven to deliver sound energy efficiency impact, while for larger, energy-intensive firms, a certified energy management system may be more suitable. However, various barriers inhibit adoption of energy efficiency measures. While there is an array of research on barriers to and driving forces for energy efficiency in general, research on barriers to, and driving forces for, energy management is rare, one exception being a study of energy-intensive pulp and paper mills. This holds even more so for industrial SMEs. This paper aims to identify the barriers to, and drivers for, energy management in manufacturing SMEs. Results of this explorative study show that the top four barriers to energy management are lack of time/other priorities, non-energy-related working tasks are prioritized higher, slim organization, and lack of internal expert competences, i.e., mainly organizational barriers. The top four drivers for energy management are to reduce production waste, participation in energy efficiency networks, cost reduction from lower energy use, and commitment from top management. Furthermore, results show that energy management among the studied SMEs seems to not be as mature, even though the companies participated in an energy management capacity building program in the form of energy efficiency networks, which, in turn, shows a still largely untapped potential in the societal aim to reduce the energy efficiency and management gaps. The main contribution of this paper is a first novel attempt to explore barriers to, and drivers for, energy management among SMEs.

Improvements in industrial energy efficiency demonstrated various additional effects beyond pure energy savings and energy cost savings. Observed on many levels, these additional effects, often denoted as non-energy benefits, constitute a diverse collection, for instance, effects related to firms’ production or improvements in the work environment and the external environment. Previous studies showed the potential of including quantified and monetised non-energy benefits in energy efficiency investments. However, there seems to be a lack of methodological overview, including all the steps from observation to monetisation and inclusion in investments. This study systematically reviews the academic literature on non-energy benefits relating to methods for observation, measuring, quantification, and monetisation of the benefits. The most commonly applied research design was a case study approach, in which data on non-energy benefits were collected by conducting interviews. Furthermore, the primary methods used to enable quantification and monetisation of observed non-energy benefits were based on classifications, indexes in relation to the energy savings, or frameworks. Calculation methods, databased tools, classification frameworks, and ranking were applied to evaluate the benefits’ potential in relation to energy efficiency investments. Based on a synthesis of the review findings, this article contributes a novel scheme for improved utilisation of the non-energy benefits of industrial energy efficiency.