IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1511-d736517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational (Non-) Adoption of Legally Obliged Energy-Saving Technologies: Why (Not) Comply?

Author

Listed:
  • Carlijn G. C. van Helmond

    (Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Robert A. W. Kok

    (Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Although there are organizations that have adopted legally imposed measures regarding energy-saving technologies, up until now, there has been a lot of unused energy-saving potential. Based on existing theories, such as the adoption theory and the institutional theory, this exploratory research investigates the reasons for firms to (or not to) adopt energy-saving technologies, even though they are legally obligated, and it has a positive impact on economic organizational performance. A “multiple mini-case” study, with six cases in the Dutch metalworking/electrical engineering sector and in the synthetic material/rubber sector, were conducted. Results show that, nowadays, organizations do not feel any regulatory pressures as they are not aware of the existence of the concerned legal obligations, e.g., where an organization’s self-awareness (of the relative advantages of the technologies) begins to play the most important role. To adopt the technologies, decision-makers must be convinced that adopting energy-saving technologies involves advantages for the organization and that the payback time is sufficient. Financial dilemmas negatively influence these adoption processes. Lastly, the continuous intentions of organizations to adopt energy-saving technologies appear to be positively related to the number of adopted technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlijn G. C. van Helmond & Robert A. W. Kok, 2022. "Organizational (Non-) Adoption of Legally Obliged Energy-Saving Technologies: Why (Not) Comply?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1511-:d:736517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1511/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1511/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. García-Quevedo, Jose & Jové-Llopis, Elisenda, 2021. "Environmental policies and energy efficiency investments. An industry-level analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Jorge Cunha & Manuel Lopes Nunes & Fátima Lima, 2018. "Discerning the factors explaining the change in energy efficiency," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 163-179, December.
    3. van Soest, Daan P., 2005. "The impact of environmental policy instruments on the timing of adoption of energy-saving technologies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 235-247, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agliardi, Elettra & Sereno, Luigi, 2012. "Environmental protection, public finance requirements and the timing of emission reductions," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 715-739, December.
    2. Ruijs, Arjan & Vollebergh, Herman, 2013. "Lessons from 15 Years of Experience with the Dutch Tax Allowance for Energy Investments for Firms," Energy: Resources and Markets 151533, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Zhice Cheng & Xinyuan Chen & Huwei Wen, 2022. "How Does Environmental Protection Tax Affect Corporate Environmental Investment? Evidence from Chinese Listed Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Peng Qi & Yu Shang & Fang Han, 2022. "The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Investment Efficiency—An Empirical Analysis of Manufacturing Firms in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Yang, Zhenbing & Hao, Chunyan & Shao, Shuai & Chen, Zhuo & Yang, Lili, 2022. "Appropriate technology and energy security: From the perspective of biased technological change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    6. Hammar, Henrik & Löfgren, Åsa, 2010. "Explaining adoption of end of pipe solutions and clean technologies--Determinants of firms' investments for reducing emissions to air in four sectors in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3644-3651, July.
    7. Svensson, Elin & Berntsson, Thore, 2011. "Planning future investments in emerging energy technologies for pulp mills considering different scenarios for their investment cost development," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 6508-6519.
    8. Ben Jebli, Mehdi & Ben Youssef, Slim, 2014. "Timing of adoption of clean technologies, transboundary pollution and international trade," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 8, pages 1-31.
    9. Coria, Jessica & Mohlin, Kristina, 2017. "On Refunding of Emission Taxes and Technology Diffusion," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 6(3), pages 205-248, March.
    10. E. Agliardi & L. Sereno, 2012. "On the optimal timing of switching from non-renewable to renewable resources: dirty vs clean energy sources and the relative efficiency of generators," Working Papers wp855, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Zeng, Bingxin & Zhu, Lei & Yao, Xing, 2020. "Policy choice for end-of-pipe abatement technology adoption under technological uncertainty," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 121-130.
    12. Konstantinos Evangelinos & Ioannis Nikolaou & Walter Leal Filho, 2015. "The Effects of Climate Change Policy on the Business Community: A Corporate Environmental Accounting Perspective," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 257-270, September.
    13. Engelen, Peter-Jan & Kool, Clemens & Li, Ye, 2016. "A barrier options approach to modeling project failure: The case of hydrogen fuel infrastructure," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 33-56.
    14. Rong Zhou & Kathleen Segerson, 2012. "Are Green Taxes a Good Way to Help Solve State Budget Deficits?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-25, June.
    15. Dagmar Nelissen & Till Requate, 2007. "Pollution-reducing and resource-saving technological progress," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(1), pages 5-44.
    16. Agliardi, Elettra & Sereno, Luigi, 2011. "The effects of environmental taxes and quotas on the optimal timing of emission reductions under Choquet–Brownian uncertainty," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2793-2802.
    17. Fleiter, Tobias & Worrell, Ernst & Eichhammer, Wolfgang, 2011. "Barriers to energy efficiency in industrial bottom-up energy demand models--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 3099-3111, August.
    18. Kounetas, Kostas & Tsekouras, Kostas, 2010. "Are the Energy Efficiency Technologies efficient?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 274-283, January.
    19. Slim Ben Youssef, 2015. "Timing of Adoption of Clean Technologies by Regulated Monopolies," Panoeconomicus, Savez ekonomista Vojvodine, Novi Sad, Serbia, vol. 62(1), pages 77-92.
    20. Xianrui Liao & Wei Yang & Yichen Wang & Junnian Song, 2019. "Uncovering Variations, Determinants, and Disparities of Multisector-Level Final Energy Use of Industries Across Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1511-:d:736517. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.