Implementing energy efficiency measures: do other production resources matter? A broad study in Slovenian manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd Literature has largely investigated barriers to energy efficiency in industrial firms. Recently, research is looking at the non-energy benefits accompanying the adoption of energy efficiency measures that may contribute to overcoming these barriers. In our study we take an innovative perspective by specifically exploring the relationships between energy efficiency measures and other production resources, being assessed by their importance and capability of firms to manage them efficiently. By analysing 10% of Slovenian small and medium-sized manufacturing firms, our exploratory findings show that decision-makers carefully look at the multiple effects (either positive or negative) energy efficiency measures may have on a number of other production resources, particularly on those closer to the production (shop floor). Additionally, companies seem to struggle in efficiently managing the most important production resources, thus suggesting that energy efficiency measures should be looked in close consideration to other resources, which represents a new barrier to energy efficiency not accounted by previous research. Further, we could not detect significant differences between clusters of small versus medium-sized firms and energy intensive versus non-energy intensive ones, differently from previous research that was emphasizing the larger perception of barriers in smaller and less energy intensive firms. Our findings may challenge the discussion over incentive schemes for energy efficiency measures by promoting those with the largest (positive) implications for other production resources

Investments in Global Warming Mitigation: The Case of “Activities Implemented Jointlyâ€\x9D

This paper examines bilateral cooperation between developed countries (home country) and developing countries (host country) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance carbon dioxide sinks. With the home-host country pair as the unit of analysis, our logistic regression model examines 158 Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) investment projects from 1993 until 2002 across 2541 country-pairs. Because the marginal costs of reducing emissions may be lower in developing countries, the AIJ projects served as a policy laboratory to assess whether such investments might be advantageous to both countries in the event future regimes allowed emission credits from such bilateral projects. Instead of investing in home countries where maximum pollution reductions (or carbon sequestration) might be possible, home countries invest in locations where they can conduct their policy experiments at low transaction costs. Prior trade and aid relationships were used as a proxy. Regarding energy projects, location decisions are driven by home countries’ desire to reduce air pollution that they receive from abroad. Geography – proximity of a host country to a home country – in interaction with host country's coal production, is a very important driver of location decision in AIJ energy sector projects. Location of sequestration projects is impacted by the host country's potential for avoiding deforestation as well as by previous aid and trade patterns between a home and a host country. Proximity is not important in this case. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006Global climate change policy, Global warming policy, International environmental policy, International environmental regimes, International cooperation, Global commons, Energy policy, Environmental policy, Activities implemented jointly, International regimes,

Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a resilience framework

Adaptation is a process of deliberate change in anticipation of or in reaction to external stimuli and stress. The dominant research tradition on adaptation to environmental change primarily takes an actor-centered view, focusing on the agency of social actors to respond to specific environmental stimuli and emphasizing the reduction of vulnerabilities. The resilience approach is systems orientated, takes a more dynamic view, and sees adaptive capacity as a core feature of resilient social-ecological systems. The two approaches converge in identifying necessary components of adaptation. We argue that resilience provides a useful framework to analyze adaptation processes and to identify appropriate policy responses. We distinguish between incremental adjustments and transformative action and demonstrate that the sources of resilience for taking adaptive action are common across scales. These are the inherent system characteristics that absorb perturbations without losing function, networks and social capital that allow autonomous action, and resources that promote institutional learning