In this document analysis of employee awareness about energy costs in companies is given trough tests of questionnaire. There was tree main questions observed about other sources of energy, including fossil fuels and renewable energy as a supplementation and\or replacement for the electric energy. In the conducted research 150 respondent (employees) was included with their opinion about the importance of source of energy related to companies’ energy costs. In this paper relation between companies (employees) with higher energy costs and the level of awareness about different energy source is proven

Andjelic, Goran B.

Djakovic, Vladimir Dj.

Dolga, Ivana

Mihailović, Aleksandra

Ralevic, Nebojsa M.

Ralevic Nebojsa M.

Dolga Ivana

Mihailović Aleksandra

Djakovic Vladimir Dj.

Andjelic Goran B.

University of Szeged

 24th International Symposium on Analytical and Environmental Problems 383 ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE’S AWARENESS OF ENERGY COSTS   Nebojša M. Ralević1, Ivana Dolga1, Aleksandra Mihailović1 Vladimir Dj. Djakovic1,Goran B. Andjelić2  1University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Fundamentals Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia 2Educons University, Faculty of Business Economy, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia e-mail: nralevic@uns.ac.rs, ivana.dolga@gmail.com, zandra@uns.ac.rs,   v_djakovic@uns.ac.rs, goran.andjelic@educons.edu.rs,   Abstract In this document analysis of employee awareness about energy costs in companies is given trough tests of questionnaire. There was tree main questions observed about other sources of energy, including fossil fuels and renewable energy as a supplementation and\or replacement for the electric energy. In the conducted research 150 respondent (employees) was included with their opinion about the importance of source of energy related to companies’ energy costs. In this paper relation between companies (employees) with higher energy costs and the level of awareness about different energy source is proven.   Keywords: Electric energy, renewable energy, fossil fuels, costs of energy.  Introduction Survey "Renewable energy sources on a test sample of 150 respondents" was conducted. It contained questions about personal data and an opinion on efficient consumption and renewable energy sources (1st competitiveness and consumption, 2nd sources of energy). Each of the questions asked consisted of answers with a scale of 5 offered responses: A - insignificant, B - less significant, C - intermediate, D - very significant, E - extremely significant.  We will consider the criterion question  Electricity consumption has a significant share in the total cost of the company.  The answer to this criterion question shows us how the respondent looks at the consumption of electricity within the work he deals with. Since this is the criterion question, it means that the entire sample is divided into 5 groups depending on their answers to it. So the sample is divided into 5 groups: A - insignificant (0 respondents), B - less significant (5 subjects), C - intermediate (37 subjects), D - very significant (72 respondents) and E - extremely significant (36 subjects). Based on the distribution of the answers to the criterion question, we see that the group A is minimal, we will not use it in the future because there are no respondents, while the results of group B are less significantly taken with the reserve because the group has a small number of respondents, so we can not consider the result as relevant. So our focus will be on the difference in attitudes between groups: C - medium significant (37 subjects), D - very significant (72 respondents) and E - extremely significant (36 respondents). Methodology  Our goal is to determine whether there are differences and on which questions differences exist between the 4 groups mentioned. That is, among the respondents who consider that electricity consumption has a significant share in the total costs of the company. We will test hypotheses:  24th International Symposium on Analytical and Environmental Problems 384 H1 – Groups defined by criteria question (CQ) have different opinion (answer) on the question “Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal ...) will remain the basic type of energy supply until 2020.” H2 - Groups defined by criteria question have different opinion (answer) on the question “It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources”. H3 - Groups defined by criteria question have different opinion (answer) on the question “The share of renewable energy from 25% by 2020 is at a satisfactory level”.  From the analysis, we will use MANOVA and ANOVA analysis. The analysis was done with R-project. First, the MANOVA analysis was done where we tested whether there was a difference on all groups. If there is the difference as a result of MANOVA, later ANOVA analysis was conducted to test between which groups differences exists.   Results First test was done on the first question in relation to the criterion question: 1. Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) will remain the basic type of energy supply until 2020. 2. Electricity consumption has a significant share in the total cost of the company. (criterion question, CQ)  MANOVA results are shown in the table bellow  Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F) CQ 3 5.41 1.804 1.576 0.198 Residuals 146 167.05 1.144    There is no a significant difference, so hypothesis H1 is not proven.    Next analysis, ANOVA was done on questions: 1. Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal ...) will remain the basic type of energy supply by 2020.  2. Electricity consumption has a significant share in the total cost of the company. (criterion question, CQ)  Groups defined by criteria question Diff lwr upr p adj (C - intermediate)- (B - less significant) 0.037838 -1.28671 1.362389 0.999853 (D - very significant) - (B - less significant) 0.033333 -1.25232 1.318987 0.99989 (E - extremely significant) - (B - less significant) 0.477778 -0.84896 1.804517 0.785607 (D - very significant) - (C - medium significant) -0.0045 -0.56681 0.557806 0.999997 (E - extremely significant) - (C - intermediate) 0.43994 -0.21085 1.090727 0.298448 (E - extremely significant) - (D - very significant) 0.444444 -0.123 1.01189 0.179797  In all cases p value is grater then 0.05 so the conclusion is that there is no significant difference. In this case it means that between the groups defined by criteria question, there are no significant differences on the first question “Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal ...) will remain the basic type of energy supply by 2020.” This means that the groups have similar opinion about the mentioned subject.  Second test was done on the third question in relation to the criterion question  24th International Symposium on Analytical and Environmental Problems 385 3. It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources. 2. Electricity consumption has a significant share in the total cost of the company. (criterion question, CQ)  MANOVA results are shown in the table bellow  Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F) CQ 3 10.48 3.492 3.026 0.0315  Residuals 146 168.48 1.154    In this case there is the statistically significant difference because p = 0.0315 which is less than 0.05. Hypothesis H2 is proven.  Next analysis, ANOVA was done on questions: 3. It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources.  2. Electricity consumption has a significant share in the total cost of the company. (criterion question, CQ)  Groups defined by criteria question Diff lwr upr p adj (C - intermediate)- (B - less significant) -0.32973 -1.65995 1.000495 0.917422 (D - very significant) - (B - less significant) -0.11389 -1.40505 1.177272 0.995738 (E - extremely significant) - (B - less significant) 0.4 -0.93242 1.732422 0.863331 (D - very significant) - (C - intermediate) 0.215841 -0.34888 0.78056 0.753466 (E - extremely significant) - (C - intermediate) 0.72973 0.076155 1.383305 0.022039 (E - extremely significant) - (D - very significant) 0.513889 -0.05599 1.083765 0.093028  There is a significant difference between groups E and C and between groups E and D.  In the group C for the third question 35.1% respondents answered with C – intermediate and in the group E 19.4% respondents answered with C – intermediate. In the group C for the third question 8.1% respondents answered with E - extremely significant and in the group E 38.9% respondents answered with E - extremely significant  In the group D for the third question 16.7% respondents answered with B - less significant and in the group E 5.6% respondents answered with B - less significant. In the group D for the third question 25% respondents answered with C – intermediate and in the group E 19.4% respondents answered with C – intermediate  Given result illustrate that the group of respondents who think that eelectricity consumption has significant share in the total cost of the company (answer E on the CQ), have different opinion (answer) on question “It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent  24th International Symposium on Analytical and Environmental Problems 386 25% of total energy sources” and for the group E characteristic answer on the same question   E- extremely significant  On the other side respondents who think that eelectricity consumption has insignificant share in the total cost of the company (answer C on the CQ), have moderate opinion (answer C – intermediate) on question “It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources”.  Frequency distribution of answers on the question “It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources” in regard to criteria groups   Third test was done on the fourth question in relation to the criterion question: 4. The share of renewable energy from 25% by 2020 is at a satisfactory level.  2. Electricity consumption has a significant share in the total cost of the company. (criteria question, CQ)  MANOVA results are shown in the table bellow  Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr (>F) CQ 3 1.36 0.4547 0.383 0.766 Residuals 146 173.47 1.1881    There is no a significant difference, so hypothesis H3 is not proven.  Next analysis, ANOVA was done on questions: 4 The share of renewable energy from 25% by 2020 is at a satisfactory level. 2 Electricity consumption has a significant share in the total cost of the company. (criterion question, CQ)     A - insignificant B – less significant C - intermediate D – very significant E – extremely significant. Criteria group n % n % n % n % n % B - less significant 0. .0 0. .0 3. 60. 1. 20.0 1. 20.0 C - intermediate   significant 3. 8.1 4. 10.8 13. 35.1 14. 37.8 3. 8.1 D - very significant 3. 4.2 12. 16.7 18. 25.0 25. 34.7 14. 19.4 E - extremely significant 1. 2.8 2. 5.6 7. 19.4 12. 33.3 14. 38.9  24th International Symposium on Analytical and Environmental Problems 387 Groups defined by criteria question Diff lwr upr p adj (C - intermediate)- (B - less significant) 0.324324 -1.02544 1.674087 0.924082 (D - very significant) - (B - less significant) 0.138889 -1.17124 1.449014 0.992666 (E - extremely significant) - (B - less significant) 0.083333 -1.26866 1.435326 0.998531 (D - very significant) - (C - medium significant) -0.18544 -0.75845 0.387578 0.834785 (E - extremely significant) - (C - mean) -0.24099 -0.90417 0.422184 0.780945 (E - extremely significant) - (D - very significant) -0.05556 -0.6338 0.522691 0.994512  There is no significant difference.  Discussion Respondents who have moderate opinion (answer C – intermediate) on the criteria question, they also usually have moderate opinion (answer C – intermediate) on the tested question “It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources”. Reason is given by the fact that they do not feel pressure with high costs of electric energy, and so their interests for the other source of energy are small. Respondents from the companies where costs for electric energy are intermediate, has no attention on the other sources of energy beside electric energy. Otherwise respondents from companies with high electric energy costs, have more attention on the renewable sources of energy.  Conclusion For hypothesis H1 and H3 results indicated that there is no significant differences between criteria groups. For hypothesis H2 results indicate statistically significant difference between criteria groups. This means that the group of respondents who think that eelectricity consumption has significant share in the total cost of the company (answer E on the CQ), have different opinion (answer) on question “It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources” and for the group E characteristic answer on the same question is E- extremely significant. And on the other side respondents who think that eelectricity consumption has insignificant share in the total cost of the company (answer C on the CQ), have moderate opinion (answer C – intermediate) on question “It is feasible that by 2020, renewable energy sources represent 25% of total energy sources”.  Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia, within the Project No. TR34014.  References [1] Martin Kaltschmitt, Wolfgang Streicher, Andreas Wiese (ed): Renewable energy. Technology, economics and environment, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. 2007.    

Analysis of emloyees awareness of energy costs

http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/56376/1/proceedings_of_isaep_2018_383-387.pdf

Analysis of emloyees awareness of energy costs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Szeged