Abstract
The benefits of energy efficiency (EE) improvements in industry include multiple energy benefits (MEBs) that have not been studied extensively. Although MEBs are assumed to result from energy efficiency measures (EEMs), they have not been examined simultaneously with EE, creating a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed. This paper investigates MEBs among industrial small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in different regions in Europe. The study suggests that MEBs are social constructs and argues that EEMs and MEBs belong to the same culture, with interactions occurring at macro, meso, and micro levels. This research examines the influence of regional energy policy contexts on SMEs using a questionnaire distributed across five European regions. The analysis considers regional differences and explores how contextual factors influence the prioritization of various MEB categories. The results show that “increased knowledge about energy use in the company” is the top-ranked MEB among the investigated SMEs. Although all regions have supportive energy policies available, there is a tendency to prioritize certain benefit categories over others. Companies in Groningen, the Netherlands, demonstrate stronger engagement with market, competition, and production-related benefits. SMEs in Hessen, Germany, focus mainly on production-related benefits, while companies in Burgenland, Austria, show engagement in organizational, knowledge, production, and waste-related benefits. Meanwhile, companies in La Rioja, Spain, and South-West Oltenia, Romania, do not appear to be engaged in a particular category of benefits but demonstrate strengths in specific areas and noticeable gaps in others. The findings indicate that MEBs are socially constructed outcomes shaped by interactions between regional contexts and company-level practices. The study highlights the importance of considering MEBs alongside EEMs rather than as separate outcomes. Further research examining meso- and micro-level interactions is suggested to broaden the understanding of how MEBs emerge and develop among industrial SMEs.
1 Introduction
The industrial sector has not fully realized its energy efficiency (EE) potential, often referred to as the EE gap (). Scholars have noted that investments in EE technology alone are insufficient to reduce the gap (; ; ) and energy management activities are necessary (Thollander and Palm, 2013). It is important to note that EE improvements can result in benefits beyond direct energy cost savings, known as multiple energy benefits (MEBs) or non-energy benefits. This concept gained attention in 1996 and was formalized by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2012 () and 2014 (). In this study, we use the term MEBs of EE following the IEA reports.
Studies on MEBs have shown extensive interest in economic and quantitative aspects (; Pye and Mckane, 2000; ), which delved into more economic, environmental, and social aspects (; ; ). Although scholars agree that MEBs result from EE work and consideration of EEMs (Nehler, 2018; Nehler, 2019; ), MEBs have not been systematically approached compared to EE.
Despite growing interest in MEBs, the literature has primarily treated them as objective and measurable outcomes of EE activities. In contrast, EE itself has increasingly been conceptualized as a socially constructed phenomenon shaped by interactions among institutional, organizational, and individual factors. This creates a theoretical gap: while MEBs emerge from the implementation of energy efficiency measures (EEMs), they have rarely been examined through the same social constructivist lens. Consequently, there is limited understanding of how contextual factors influence the generation, perception, and recognition of MEBs.
Some scholars emphasize the role of social science in understanding EE (Palm and Thollander, 2010; ; ; Palm and Thollander, 2010) argue that the implementation of an EEM depends on the barrier intended to be solved and the prior knowledge of performers. In this study, barriers refer specifically to barriers to EE adoption as defined by (Sorrell, et al., 2004), where a barrier is understood as a mechanism that inhibits decisions or actions that would otherwise be both energy-efficient and economically efficient (Sorrell, et al., 2000). categorize these barriers into three broad dimensions: economic, behavioral, and organizational. This taxonomy provides a useful framework for understanding the mechanisms through which barriers emerge and influence the adoption of EEMs (Sorrell, et al., 2011). Since MEBs emerge from the implementation of EEMs, these barriers may also affect the realization, perception, and recognition of MEBs. As a result, similar EEMs may generate different perceived benefits across organizations and contexts. Understanding how MEBs are recognized and valued therefore requires consideration not only of technical outcomes, but also of the cognitive, organizational, and institutional factors that shape their interpretation.
() emphasizes the need to consider social science in EE literature and argues that EE can mean different things depending on how it is defined and applied (; Thollander, et al., 2025) argue that what is perceived to be important is based in part on an individual’s ontological foundation as embedded in a socially shaped reality and suggest perceiving energy management as social constructs. How “real” transition barriers to EE are perceived to be is hence shaped by a complex web of knowledge systems, beliefs, norms and values, and other socially constructed features. Not only physical or technical facts, but also dominant social constructions () such as corporations, determine energy management. Essentially, this means that how corporate staff and policymakers organize, how EE and energy management are communicated, and which specific ideas and values are perceived to be meaningful in any organization—what cultural knowledge is employed—shape how EE is managed (Thollander, et al., 2025).
König et al. also consider EE as a social construct (). There appears to be a gap if we compare the social constructivism approach to EE and the approach to MEBs. EE has been viewed as a culture where decisions and actions are based on interactions at three levels: macro, meso, and micro, according to (), based on Geel’s research on multilevel perspective of socio-technical systems (). The macro level represents the EE issue field, including customers, policies, regulations, markets, media, competitors, consultants, energy agencies, EE networks, national/international movements, economic representatives, etc. The meso level focuses more on organizational aspects such as EE practices, climate, culture, and material environment. The micro level represents the individuals within the organizations. These findings consider EE as a social construct and suggest a systematic framework for approaching EE culture, but no similar initiatives exist for considering MEBs as social constructs (). Assuming that MEBs emerge from EE improvements, they belong to the same socio-technical and organizational context. Therefore, MEBs can be conceptualized as social constructs and analyzed using the same macro–meso–micro framework (). This allows a systematic link between EE practices and MEB outcomes. Previous research shows that the perception of MEBs influences decision-making regarding EE investments and implementation (Nehler, 2019; ; ; Trianni, et al., 2013). In addition (Nehler, et al., 2014), show that including MEBs in investment models may significantly increase the estimated potential of EE, provided that barriers to inclusion are reduced.
Even though MEBs have not been widely analyzed as social constructs, some studies have addressed related macro- and meso-level aspects. At the macro level, research remains limited, with only some studies examining MEBs in relation to policy programs, such as Swedish policy instruments (Nehler, et al., 2018a) and comparisons between energy audit programs and energy efficiency networks (EENs) (). However, comparative studies of regional energy policy programs across countries and their relation to MEBs in industrial small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs remain scarce. At the meso level, research has primarily focused on quantification of benefits and investment analysis calculations (; ; ; ) while micro-level perspectives remain underexplored.
Regional policy programs are particularly relevant from a macro-level perspective as they constitute key institutional mechanisms through which EE policies are translated into firm-level action. These programs operate as intermediaries between national or European policy objectives and industrial implementation contexts, typically combining instruments such as energy audits, EENs, training and capacity-building initiatives, financial incentives, and voluntary or regulatory schemes. Through these mechanisms, regional policy programs not only influence the adoption of EEMs but also shape the conditions under which MEBs are identified, communicated, and recognized within participating firms, thereby providing a suitable empirical setting for examining how macro-level institutional conditions influence MEB perceptions.
MEBs are often treated as directly measurable outcomes of EEMs, while EE itself is increasingly understood as a socially constructed process shaped by institutional, organizational, and individual factors (). This creates a conceptual gap, as MEBs also emerge from the same socio-technical context as EEMs and are influenced by how actors perceive and interpret outcomes. Accordingly, MEBs can be understood as socially constructed outcomes shaped by interacting macro-, meso-, and micro-level conditions, where regional policy programs represent the macro-level institutional setting influencing both EEM implementation and MEB recognition.
The general aim of this paper is to conceptualize MEBs as social constructs by extending the macro–meso–micro framework previously applied to EE (). The paper suggests that MEBs emerge from interactions among the same factors that shape the implementation of EEMs. Rather than viewing MEBs as direct or universal outcomes of EEMs implementation, the study argues that their recognition and perceived importance are influenced by interactions among factors operating at multiple levels.
The empirical focus of the study is limited to the macro level and examines how perceptions of MEBs differ across regional EE policy programs. By assessing and ranking MEB perceptions among 34 industrial SMEs from five European regions (), the study provides an initial application of the proposed framework. While the analysis does not capture the full complexity of meso- and micro-level processes, it offers an initial step toward understanding how macro-level conditions may influence the perception of MEBs and highlights the need for further research examining interactions across all three levels.
The underlined novelty of this study can be attributed to three factors:
Considering MEBs as social constructs and suggesting that MEBs and EE belong to the same culture ().
Addressing the macro level by investigating how MEBs are affected by regional policy programs in different regions within Europe.
Highlighting the importance of complementary studies on the meso level and the micro level to gain a comprehensive understanding of MEBs.
The findings of this paper contribute to the literature on EE, energy policy, and MEBs. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews EE policies for industrial SMEs and MEBs, Section 3 presents the methodology, Section 4 presents the results and analysis, Section 5 discusses the findings, and Section 6 concludes the paper.
2 Industrial EE policies and MEBs
2.1 EE policies for industrial SMEs in Europe
EE policy plays a central role in reducing industrial energy consumption, improving competitiveness, and contributing to climate change mitigation objectives (Thollander and Palm, 2013). Within Europe, particular attention has been directed toward SMEs, which represent a substantial share of industrial activity but often face greater barriers to implementing EEMs than larger firms (). These barriers include limited financial resources, insufficient technical expertise, lack of time, and restricted access to energy management knowledge ().
Industrial EE policies are commonly classified into three broad categories: administrative, economic, and informative instruments (). Administrative instruments seek to influence energy-related decisions through legislation, standards, and regulatory requirements. Economic instruments rely on market mechanisms, including taxes, subsidies, grants, and financial incentives, to encourage investments in EE improvements. Informative instruments focus on knowledge creation and capacity building through mechanisms such as energy audits, consultancy services, training programs, benchmarking initiatives, and EENs. While each policy type can contribute independently to EE improvements, previous research suggests that combining different instruments often produces stronger and more sustained outcomes (Thollander and Palm, 2013).
The selection of policy instruments frequently depends on enterprise characteristics. Energy-intensive and larger firms are generally better positioned to engage with regulatory frameworks and long-term voluntary agreements because they possess greater technical and organizational capacity to manage energy-related activities () (Price, 2005). SMEs, in contrast, often require more supportive approaches that reduce information gaps and build internal capabilities (Prashar, 2017). Consequently, policy instruments targeting SMEs frequently emphasize energy audits, advisory services, training initiatives, and collaborative learning activities aimed at facilitating the identification and implementation of EEMs ().
At the European level, industrial EE policy has progressively evolved toward greater support for SMEs. The Energy Services Directive introduced in 2006 encouraged member states to establish national programs promoting EE improvements, including energy audit schemes (). This development was followed by the EE Directive of 2012, which increased attention to industrial energy management and introduced mandatory energy audits for large enterprises every 4 years (). More recently, the revised EE Directive of 2023 strengthened these requirements by introducing mandatory energy audits for companies with annual energy consumption between 10 TJ and 85 TJ and requiring certified energy management systems for organizations exceeding this threshold (Office Journal of the European Union, 2023).
While European directives establish overarching objectives, implementation largely occurs through regional and national policy programs. These programs function as intermediary governance mechanisms translating policy objectives into firm-level actions. A comparative review of regional industrial EE programs within Europe identified five main policy types: (1) energy audit programs, (2) investment subsidy schemes, (3) EENs, (4) programs incorporating energy management practices, and (5) benchmarking initiatives (). The specific regional programs included in this study are summarized in Appendix A.
These policy instruments differ not only in their design but also in their maturity. Lower-maturity programs typically focus on technology adoption and the identification of energy-saving opportunities through audits and financial support. More advanced programs emphasize continuous improvement, organizational learning, knowledge exchange, benchmarking, and systematic energy management practices. As illustrated in Figure 1, policy maturity can therefore be understood as a progression from technology-oriented interventions toward approaches emphasizing knowledge creation and long-term energy management capabilities ().
FIGURE 1
This distinction is particularly relevant because policy programs do not merely influence whether EEMs are implemented; they also shape the organizational environment in which energy-related outcomes are identified, discussed, and evaluated. Consequently, regional policy programs provide a useful empirical setting for examining how broader institutional conditions may influence the perception and recognition of outcomes associated with EE improvements.
2.2 MEBs of EE beyond techno-economic perspective
The implementation of EEMs often generates benefits that extend beyond direct energy savings. These additional outcomes are commonly referred to as MEBs or non-energy benefits (; ). Since the introduction of the concept, research has demonstrated that MEBs can significantly increase the overall value of EE investments.
Early studies primarily focused on quantifying MEBs and integrating them into economic assessments of EEMs (; Pye and Mckane, 2000; ). Including MEBs in investment calculations has been shown to improve the economic attractiveness of EEMs by reducing payback times and increasing returns on investment (; ). In some cases, MEBs have been found to equal or even exceed direct energy cost savings ().
Subsequent research expanded the scope beyond economic considerations, linking MEBs to environmental improvements, better working conditions, increased productivity, reduced maintenance needs, enhanced competitiveness, and broader social outcomes (Worrell et al., 2003; ; ; ; Nehler et al., 2018b).
More recent studies highlight additional benefits such as organizational learning, employee engagement, improved decision-making, operational resilience, and innovation capacity (; ; ; Sahan et al., 2025; Ramos Farroñán et al., 2025). Overall, this body of work indicates that many MEBs extend beyond measurable energy and financial outcomes and are deeply embedded in organizational and social processes (; National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2023).
Despite this growing literature, MEB research remains largely dominated by techno-economic approaches emphasizing quantification, monetization, and performance measurement (). While these approaches are valuable for assessing tangible outcomes, they are less able to explain how less tangible benefits emerge, how they are recognized, and why similar EEMs may generate different perceived benefits across contexts.
Similarly, EE policy evaluation frameworks developed by the European Union (), the IEA (), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2019), primarily assess policy performance through measurable outcomes such as energy savings, emissions reductions, and cost-effectiveness. Although these frameworks provide structured and transparent evaluation approaches, they tend to prioritize quantifiable impacts and pay limited attention to organizational, behavioral, and contextual dimensions. As a result, the broader value of EE initiatives may be underrepresented in policy assessments (Paramonova, et al., 2015).
Adopting a social construction perspective might address this limitation by drawing on Berger and (), social construction does not imply that MEBs are subjective or unreal, but rather that their meaning, recognition, and value are shaped through social and organizational interactions. This perspective is consistent with Science and Technology Studies (STS), which conceptualizes technological and socio-technical systems as outcomes shaped by interpretive, institutional, and group-specific processes (). This perspective aligns with previous research conceptualizing EE and energy management as socially constructed phenomena (Palm and Thollander, 2010; ; ; Thollander, et al., 2025). If EE outcomes are shaped by institutional arrangements, organizational cultures, knowledge systems, and individual perceptions, then the benefits arising from EEMs are likely to be shaped by similar mechanisms. Building on the macro–meso–micro framework (), MEBs can therefore be understood as outcomes emerging from interactions across multiple levels rather than consequences to a single factor. At the macro level, policies, regulations, markets, and support programs shape the institutional context. At the meso level, organizational structures, routines, communication, and culture influence how benefits are generated and shared. At the micro level, individual knowledge, experience, and interpretive frames shape how actors recognize and value these outcomes. Such a perspective can illuminate how organizational cultures, interactions, and shared meanings shape the recognition and realization of MEBs.
3 Methods
Recognizing that MEBs have not been conceptualized as social constructs and that an MEB culture reflects the interaction between macro, meso, and micro levels, this study focuses on the macro level to explore how regional EE policies shape the perception and prioritization of different MEBs across Europe. The study adopts a qualitative multiple case study design, drawing inspiration from (Yin, 2009). A multiple case study approach is particularly suitable for exploring socially constructed phenomena, as it enables a nuanced examination of context-specific dynamics across regions. Figure 2 provides an overview of the methodological steps carried out in this study.
FIGURE 2
3.1 Data collection
Questionnaires are a commonly used data collection method in research including case studies, and are particularly useful for collecting structured data from a large group (). To fulfil this qualitative aim, a structured questionnaire was developed to capture both company characteristics and perceptions of MEBs in relation to participation in regional EE policy programs. The questionnaire was based on established MEB frameworks from previous studies by (Nehler, et al., 2014; ) and were further refined through regional policy workshops with program operators and administrators to ensure relevance and practical alignment. To ensure linguistic and cultural validity, the questionnaire was translated into the local languages of participating regions and reviewed by project partners.
The data collection was carried out through the EU Interreg project SMEPlus, in which partners distributed the questionnaire to industrial SMEsin their respective regions. A purposive selection strategy was applied, as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
| Criterion | Description |
|---|---|
| Firm type | Industrial SMEs |
| Program participation | Active or recent participation in regional EE policy programs (e.g., audits, networks, subsidies, training) |
| Geographic scope | SMEs located in six EU regions (Austria, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Italy, Romania) |
| Sector | Manufacturing and industrial-related sectors |
| Size | SME definition according to EU recommendation (≤250 employees) |
| Reachability | Via regional SMEPlus project partners |
| Data relevance | Availability of complete and valid questionnaire responses |
The selection criteria for the SMEs within the study.
Targeting companies engaged in or affected by regional EE policies, each partner was tasked with collecting responses from approximately 5–10 SMEs. Respondents ranked the perceived significance of 38 MEBs on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (“no significance”) to 5 (“very high significance”) in relation to the impact of regional EE policies.
The respondents had different professional roles, primarily at managerial and technical levels. The roles included, e.g., financial, industrial, plant and general managers, managing directors and technicians. In some cases, the respondent had dual roles, such as managing director and owner. Also, several respondents had administrative positions and notably, from Romania, respondents were represented only by administrative roles.
To ensure transparency and ethical standards, participation was voluntary, and all responses were anonymized. In total, 34 companies responded to the questionnaire as shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
| Region | Country | Number of respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Burgenland | Austria | 5 |
| Groningen | Netherlands | 6 |
| La Rioja | Spain | 8 |
| Hessen | Germany | 4 |
| Campania | Italy | 6 |
| South-West Oltenia | Romania | 5 |
Number of respondents who filled in the questionnaire per region.
However, data from Italy were excluded because the responses did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria requiring respondents to be industrial SMEs. As a result, the analysis is based on a cross-regional case study covering responses from five European regions across six EU member states. Although the questionnaire took place in the second half of 2020, COVID-19-related delays meant that all responses were collected by early 2022. The case study design is appropriate for an explorative qualitative approach aimed at generating insights into policy–benefit interactions rather than statistical generalization. Overall, the case includes regions with heterogeneous SME structures, Hessen (Germany) has a large and highly diversified SME base with strong representation in manufacturing, engineering, automotive industry, and advanced services, making it one of the most industrially intensive regions in the case. Groningen (the Netherlands) exhibits a robust SME ecosystem with strengths in energy, chemicals, agri-food, and high-tech manufacturing, and a relatively high share of innovation-oriented firms. La Rioja (Spain) has a smaller SME population with a clear specialization in food processing, wine production, and light manufacturing. Campania (Italy) is characterized by a large but fragmented SME structure, with a high proportion of micro-enterprises and uneven industrial organization. South-West Oltenia (Romania) presents a more limited and transitional industrial SME base, mainly concentrated in manufacturing and energy-related activities. Burgenland (Austria) represents a small regional SME base, typically focused on small-scale manufacturing, construction-related activities, and cross-border economic linkages. This variation strengthens the relevance of the case for examining contextual differences in MEB perception across regional policy frameworks.
3.2 Data analysis and interpretations
The ranking data from the Likert scale were normalized to a 0–1 scale to facilitate meaningful comparison across regions and categories. Min–max normalization is a widely applied method for rescaling Likert-type data, as it preserves the relative distances between ordinal categories and enables aggregated analysis across multiple dimensions, which is a common approach in psychology (). In this study, min–max normalization was applied by subtracting the minimum value (1) and dividing by the range (4). This transformation produced standardized values as detailed in Table 3. For each benefit, the mean normalized value was then calculated, resulting in a final score between 0.0 and 1.0. This approach simplified data aggregation, enhanced the clarity of visualization, and improved the interpretability of the results.
TABLE 3
| Original [1–5] scale | Normalized |
|---|---|
| 1 | 0.00 |
| 2 | 0.25 |
| 3 | 0.50 |
| 4 | 0.75 |
| 5 | 1.00 |
Normalized values for [1–5] Likert scale values using Equation 1.
In the analysis, the MEBs were categorized, inspired by (Nehler, et al., 2014), into production, operation, and maintenance, working environment, waste and emissions, knowledge and information, market and competition, and organization.
The interpretation of results was guided by two analytical frameworks. First, the regional policy profile model () was employed to classify regional policy programs into five maturity levels, providing a structured basis for comparing policy design and MEB perceptions. Second, the cultural framework proposed by () was applied to complement the macro-level policy perspective with the micro (individual) and meso (organizational) levels, thereby conceptualizing MEBs as socially constructed phenomena emerging through multilevel interactions.
4 Results and analysis
In this section, the evaluation of MEBs identified by various SMEs across the five EU regions is presented. Figure 3 illustrates the ranking of 38 MEBs, revealing a rich diversity of benefit categories.
FIGURE 3
The knowledge and information category emerged as the most prominent, underscoring its central role in enabling effective energy transitions within SMEs. The highest-ranked benefit overall, increased knowledge about energy use in the company, demonstrates how improving internal understanding of energy flows can drive more informed and strategic decision-making. Similarly, increased awareness of energy efficiency within the company, ranked third, reinforces the importance of cultivating awareness as a foundation for energy-related action. Another benefit within this category, increased knowledge about accessible energy-related support, ranked sixth, highlights how access to relevant information can empower companies to adopt and sustain energy measures more effectively.
The organizational dimension also plays a notable role in shaping energy outcomes. The second-ranked benefit, behavioral change in energy efficiency, illustrates how shifts in everyday practices and attitudes can be just as impactful as technical improvements. In addition, the seventh-ranked benefit, more measurements and/or visualization of energy performance are taken, shows how improved monitoring and feedback mechanisms can enhance transparency and support continuous improvement. Moreover, the tenth-ranked benefit, energy-related activities get higher priority at management level, reflects growing strategic commitment, which is essential for sustaining and scaling energy initiatives over time.
Environmental outcomes are reflected in the waste and emissions category, where the fourth-ranked benefit, reduced emissions of CO, CO2, NOx, and SOx, stands out. This indicates not only improved energy performance but also meaningful contributions to climate and sustainability objectives. The market and competition category is represented by the fifth-ranked benefit, improved company image, demonstrating that energy measures can enhance corporate reputation and competitive positioning in increasingly sustainability-driven markets.
Finally, tangible operational outcomes are evident in other categories. Within the working environment category, the eighth-ranked benefit, improved temperature control, shows how energy efficiency can enhance indoor comfort and workplace conditions, supporting both employee wellbeing and productivity. The operation and maintenance category is represented by the ninth-ranked benefit, reduced cooling demand, which reflects concrete efficiency gains in daily operations.
Overall, Figure 3 indicates that the most highly valued MEBs are predominantly related to knowledge and information, as well as organizational outcomes, compared to operation and maintenance and production-related benefits, which are ranked lower. This pattern suggests that SMEs place greater emphasis on learning, awareness, and organizational development benefits rather than or production-oriented benefits. One possible explanation is that SMEs with relatively slim organizational structures may prioritize benefits that can be realized without disrupting core production processes, making knowledge-related and organizational improvements more immediately visible and relevant in practice.
4.1 Knowledge and information
As illustrated in Figure 4, the perception of knowledge and information-related benefits varies notably across EU regions. Austrian SMEs stand out, scoring above average on nearly all benefits except increased knowledge about accessible energy-related support and increased understanding and knowledge of the ambient environment. Dutch SMEs perform strongly on three of six benefits, particularly increased awareness of energy efficiency within the company, increased knowledge about energy use, and accessible energy-related support. German SMEs also show strong performance in areas tied to process and operations knowledge, energy use, and understanding of the ambient environment. Spanish SMEs exceed the average for accessible energy-related support and understanding of the ambient environment, while Romanian SMEs lag behind in this category, indicating room for growth in knowledge and information-related MEBs.
FIGURE 4
4.2 Organizational
As shown in Figure 5, perceptions of organizational-related benefits vary across EU regions. Austrian SMEs stand out, scoring above average on nearly all benefits except facilitating comparison with other companies, where they fall slightly below. Dutch SMEs also perform strongly, with above-average scores for most benefits except increased work ethic and collaboration with nearby companies. German SMEs excel particularly in management prioritization of energy-related activities, behavioral change regarding energy efficiency, and increased measurement and visualization of energy performance. Spanish SMEs score highest on work ethic and behavioral change, while Romanian SMEs perform above average in external collaboration benefits, especially facilitating comparison with other companies and collaboration with nearby companies.
FIGURE 5
4.3 Market and competition
As shown in Figure 6, clear regional differences emerge in how SMEs perceive market and competition-related benefits. Dutch SMEs lead the way, scoring above average on all three benefits. German SMEs follow closely, performing well on increased competitiveness and improved company image. Austrian and Romanian SMEs stand out for increased sales linked to energy efficiency investments, while Spanish SMEs score below average overall, which signifies a gap in this category.
FIGURE 6
4.4 Production
As illustrated in Figure 7, perceptions of production-related benefits vary across EU regions. Dutch SMEs lead the way, scoring above average on all benefits in this category. German SMEs also perform strongly, falling below average only on increased lifetime of equipment (Germany). Austrian SMEs show solid results on three key benefits: increased productivity/production, longer equipment lifetime, and lower material costs. In contrast, Spanish and Romanian SMEs lag behind, indicating room for growth in leveraging production-related energy benefits.
FIGURE 7
4.5 Operation and maintenance
As shown in Figure 8, regional differences are also evident in operation and maintenance-related benefits. Dutch SMEs stand out once again, scoring above average on all benefits in this category. German SMEs perform well on reduced labor demand and reduced cooling demand, while Austrian SMEs excel in reduced cooling demand, reduced need for engineering control, and maintenance reduction. Spanish SMEs are above average only for reduced labor demand, whereas Romanian SMEs fall below average across all operation and maintenance-related benefits.
FIGURE 8
4.6 Waste and emissions
As illustrated in Figure 9, perceptions of waste and emissions-related benefits differ across EU regions. Dutch SMEs perform strongly, scoring above average on nearly all benefits except reduced amount of hazardous waste and reduced emissions of CO, CO2, NOx, and SOx. German SMEs show a similar pattern, falling below average only for reduced hazardous waste and reduced emissions of ash or dust. Austrian SMEs are above average on most benefits, except for reduced wastewater and reduced emissions of ash or dust. Spanish SMEs excel in reduced wastewater and reduced emissions of CO, CO2, NOx, and SOx, while Romanian SMEs stand out only for reduced emissions of ash or dust.
FIGURE 9
4.7 Working environment
As shown in Figure 10, perceptions of working environment-related benefits vary across EU regions. Dutch SMEs score above average on all five benefits except safer working environment, while German SMEs perform well on most benefits but fall short on safer working environment and improved quality of light. Austrian SMEs stand out mainly for safer working environment, whereas Spanish and Romanian SMEs lag behind across this category.
FIGURE 10
5 Discussion
5.1 Regional policy perspective
In various contexts, numerous studies have been tackling MEBs (; Pye and Mckane, 2000; ; ; ; ), but this study covers a regional perspective, adding to the plethora of literature in the field. From analyzing the top ten ranked MEBs, this study reveals that SMEs across five EU regions perceive MEBs, with knowledge-related benefits consistently ranking highest. Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that the majority of the policies in these regions are of an informative nature (). In contrast, operation and maintenance and production-related benefits are less frequently acknowledged. These findings align with existing literature, which suggests that SMEs often prioritize strategic advantages, such as enhanced knowledge and organizational capabilities, over operational efficiencies when implementing EEMs ().
It is important to note that while this study captures SME perceptions of MEBs, it does not identify the specific EEMs implemented. Consequently, while we can ascertain which benefits SMEs recognize and value, we cannot directly attribute them to particular EEMs. Nevertheless, these perceptions are meaningful: they reflect which benefits are salient, guide future energy initiatives, and indicate the influence of regional policy on SME priorities.
SMEs in Groningen exhibit a high level of maturity regarding MEBs, particularly in market and competition, production, and operation and maintenance. This maturity is supported by a robust regulatory framework based on national environmental law, which guides compliance and provides post-enforcement support (; ). Provincial authorities further contribute through structured administrative tasks aligned with multi-year planning cycles, offering a systematic approach to environmental challenges and promoting sustainable business practices (). Companies also participate in benchmarking schemes that assess energy structures and production site audits, enabling comparisons of energy use and fuel consumption, which fosters improvements in production-related benefits. While SMEs are fully engaged in market, production, and operational benefits, their engagement in knowledge and information, organizational, waste and emissions, and working environment-related benefits is more moderate. This nuanced pattern likely reflects differences in SME priorities, allocation of resources, and levels of awareness regarding the potential benefits of EE.
SMEs in Hessen show strong engagement with production-related benefits, while their interest in other MEB categories varies. This emphasis on production benefits is likely influenced by regional programs that promote integrated environmental protection within production processes, providing incentives and guidance to optimize methods for greater sustainability (; ). Additionally, SMEs benefit from a regional audit program offering consultancy on production process optimization, further reinforcing this focus (). Despite the strong attention to production, other benefits such as market and competition, knowledge and information, organizational aspects, waste and emissions, and working environment-related benefits receive moderate engagement. Operation and maintenance-related benefits are comparatively under-prioritized. The availability of funds for innovative technologies and EEMs affects SME capacity to implement broader energy initiatives. Moreover, the presence of ten regional EENs supports sustainable practices and encourages environmental impact reduction, shaping how SMEs perceive and prioritize MEBs across categories.
SMEs in Burgenland demonstrate strong engagement in organizational, knowledge and information, production, operation and maintenance, and waste and emissions-related benefits, while market and competition and working environment-related benefits receive comparatively less attention. This pattern reflects the influence of a supportive regional and national policy landscape (; ; Bioland Burgenland, 2022). The region benefits from a consultancy program aimed at enhancing environmental and energy performance, as well as the Burgenland Ecological Promotion Act, which encourages renewable energy and green electricity adoption (). In addition, a local authority climate and energy consultancy provides targeted support to SMEs, promoting EE and sustainability initiatives (). The combined effect of these programs, legislative frameworks, and regional initiatives shapes SME priorities, encouraging focus on benefits that improve internal capabilities, operational performance, and environmental outcomes. Conversely, market-facing and workplace-related benefits appear less emphasized, suggesting that policy support and consultancy services are more closely aligned with internal and operational improvements than external competitiveness or working environment enhancements.
SMEs in La Rioja demonstrate selective engagement with MEBs, showing above-average recognition in knowledge and information, organizational, operation and maintenance, and waste and emissions-related benefits, while market and competition, production, and working environment benefits are less emphasized. This pattern appears to be influenced by regional initiatives (; ), including the La Rioja Regional Operational Program of the European Regional Development Fund (2014–2020) and the establishment of the Regional Directorate for Energetic Transition and Climate Change, which provide guidance, awareness-building, and support for renewable energy and EE adoption (). These policies likely encourage SMEs to focus on internal capabilities, process improvements, and environmental performance, reflected in the observed engagement with knowledge and awareness, behavioral change, and waste reduction. Partial engagement in operational and production-related benefits may indicate limited access to financial or technical resources, which constrains the implementation of broader EEMs. Similarly, lower attention to market and working environment-related benefits suggests that external competitiveness, employee comfort, and workplace improvements are not strongly prioritized by SMEs in the current policy landscape. These patterns highlight the role of regional policy in shaping which MEBs are recognized and valued, demonstrating that SME perceptions are influenced not only by internal priorities but also by the structure, focus, and availability of supportive programs.
SMEs in South-West Oltenia show limited engagement with MEBs, being above average in only four out of 38 benefits; two organizational-related, one market and competition-related, and one waste and emissions-related benefit. Engagement in critical areas such as knowledge and information, production, operation and maintenance, and working environment benefits is notably low. This appears to stem from the absence of a coordinated regional (EE) policy, which reduces incentives and guidance for SMEs to prioritize activities that generate MEBs. Even though stakeholders promote EEMs, the lack of regulatory frameworks and strong policy directives limits SME engagement and maturity in EE. Despite informative regional policies and funding initiatives, such as the Romanian Funds for EE, SMEs show minimal uptake of production and working environment-related benefits (; Oltenia, 2025). This suggests a disconnect between policy initiatives and actual SME practices, highlighting the need for targeted interventions, capacity building, and awareness programs to strengthen engagement with a broader range of MEBs in the region.
The significance of this study lies in examining MEBs at a macro-level across different categories, considering the maturity of regional EE policies. It highlights gaps in certain benefit categories and provides actionable insights for policymakers and stakeholders, emphasizing the importance of regional context when promoting specific MEBs. The comprehensive first part of the study, which ranks MEBs across multiple regions, offers insights applicable to SMEs throughout the EU. The comparative second part explores how SMEs in different EU regions perceive MEBs, demonstrating a relationship between engagement in these benefits and the presence of supportive regional policies. While the study does not aim to generalize findings to individual regions or countries, it provides a nuanced understanding of the influence of regional policy on SME perceptions. It is important to note, however, that macro-level factors such as regulatory, economic/financial, normative, and cognitive-cultural dimensions beyond regional policy may also influence these perceptions. Additionally, factors operating at the meso and micro levels, which fall outside the scope of this investigation, may further shape these dynamics.
5.2 Multilevel cultural perspective
Regional policy alone, as discussed in Section 5.1, cannot fully explain the diversity of perceived MEBs. A social science lens is essential to complement the existing literature and to offer a more comprehensive understanding of how MEBs emerge and are perceived (). Cultural and social factors shape the meaning of EE within SMEs with an ontological dimension that determines how EE is understood and enacted (). This study argues that MEBs and EE culture are interlinked and influenced by common underlying factors. Conceptually separating EE culture from MEB culture is not enlightening, as pursuing EE inherently involves implicit or explicit MEB outcomes. For instance, replacing a ventilation unit explicitly targets energy savings, but it implicitly aims to improve air circulation and the working environment. While organizations may be aware of their EE actions, they may be less conscious of the accompanying MEBs that unfold simultaneously or over time. Thus, EE and MEBs belong to the same cultural sphere as shown in Figure 11.
FIGURE 11
At the macro level, policies that aim to reduce energy use, for example, by 5% not only influence EE but also trigger MEBs. These macro-level factors include regulatory frameworks, financial incentives, normative sources of information, and cognitive culture. The study recognizes that regional policy alone cannot account for the observed ranking of MEBs. Overlapping macro-level factors such as economic-financial instruments, regulatory pressures, normative influences, and cognitive framing also shape how EE is perceived and, consequently, how MEBs are valued (). Each factor contributes to shaping organizational decisions and perceptions of benefits.
At a meso level, approaching EE through Lean (Womack, et al., 1990) for instance implies a different epistemology from energy management and leads to different conclusions about MEBs. Energy management as an epistemology focuses on both technology and managerial improvements to lower energy use. It leads to EEMs being implemented along with energy benefits and MEBs. Approaching EE through another epistemology like Lean might lead to a different conclusion about MEBs. As Lean is based on waste reduction that leads to the reduction of material, time, energy, and cost (Womack, et al., 1990), these benefits are recognized as “competitive advantages” (). The choice of epistemology might affect how MEBs are approached because these benefits seem to be recognized in delegate energy systems and seem to be implicit in Lean systems. Such implicitness might be misleading for policymakers and decision-makers especially related to policy evaluation. We recommend studying MEBs on the meso level to determine if these companies are engaged in Lean practices or similar initiatives.
At a micro perspective, MEBs reflect the meaning of EE of individual members within organizations (). The meaning of EE as socially constructed is based on the organizational practices and structures that are perceived as appropriate or desirable within some socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (). Then, we can argue that MEBs from a micro level highly depend on the meaning of EE within the organization (), prior knowledge of the performers (Palm and Thollander, 2010), and the selection of EEMs (Nehler, 2018). For prior knowledge, the technologist would go for technological EEMs, and management would go for behavioral EEMs, each of which results in different MEBs. Studies investigating the resulting MEBs of implementing certain EEMs are scarce except for Nehler who studied the MEBs for sealing leakage in compressed air (Nehler, 2018). Such studies can provide more insights into how MEBs are developed out of performing certain EEMs and not focus merely on the quantitative savings. The lack of representation of MEBs might lead to a lack of interest in EE in general and EEMs in particular and omit the full picture of benefits.
5.3 Policy implications
Contemporary energy policies have predominantly relied on technology-driven instruments, prioritizing technical EEMs while often marginalizing management and knowledge-related interventions (Thollander, et al., 2025). This narrow orientation has influenced both policy design and evaluation practices, which tend to capture only quantifiable, technology-based outcomes, thereby obscuring the broader scope of MEBs (Paramonova, et al., 2015). As a result, policy frameworks risk underestimating the full potential of EEMs, particularly their indirect and longer-term effects.
A more comprehensive policy orientation requires recognizing EE as a multilevel socio-technical process, rather than a purely technological intervention. At the macro level, policy incentives and regulatory structures shape organizational strategies and routines at the meso level, which subsequently influence individual learning, engagement, and behavioral practices at the micro level. Intra-level interactions explain the mechanisms through which MEBs emerge within a given level (e.g., organizational routines or policy structures), while inter-level interactions reveal how institutional, cultural, and behavioral dynamics travel across levels, producing cumulative and reinforcing effects. Embedding this multilevel dynamic into policy design would enable more effective alignment between technical interventions, organizational practices, and long-term strategic outcomes.
Treating EE and MEBs as belonging to the “same culture” means recognizing them as inherently interconnected policy objectives. MEBs should therefore be embedded directly into EE program structures, strategies, and evaluation criteria, ensuring that benefits such as improved productivity, enhanced work environment, and process quality are valued alongside energy savings. Policies like energy audits, investment grants, and capacity-building initiatives should explicitly require or encourage reporting on MEB outcomes, not only energy savings. Training and advisory programs can help SMEs identify, measure, and communicate these broader benefits. By linking outcomes to performance-based incentives, policymakers can motivate firms to adopt comprehensive EEMs. This aligns with the International Energy Agency, which advocates treating EE as a strategic investment, positioning firms to remain competitive in evolving markets ().
6 Concluding remarks
The literature on MEBs does not include the social science aspects in discussions of, despite acknowledging its importance in understanding EE. Since MEBs stem from EE efforts, what motivates EE also motivates these benefits, intentionally or unintentionally. Recognizing MEBs as socially constructed outcomes may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how benefits emerge, are perceived, and are valued across different contexts. Such an understanding can complement existing techno-economic approaches to EE. Without a proper understanding of the MEB culture, significant improvements remain elusive, especially if it is not well understood by the strategic decision makers.
The word “culture” might be misunderstood as it means different things in different contexts. In this study, culture is understood as the interaction of macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors that shape how EEMs and their associated benefits are interpreted, communicated, and valued. Under this perspective, EEMs and MEBs are viewed as embedded within the same socio-technical and organizational context. Rather than representing separate phenomena, they are linked through shared institutional conditions, organizational practices, and individual interpretations that influence both the implementation of EEMs and the recognition of their benefits. A macro level reflects the meaning of MEBs with respect to different policies, markets, customers, competitors, and other external factors in the organization. A meso level suggests that the meaning of MEBs might be different if the organization is engaged in initiatives other than EE. A micro level explains that MEBs are dependent on the understanding of individual members of EE. Unifying EE and MEB culture enhances the understanding of both, as they are inseparable. This broader perspective may influence decision-making regarding certain EEMs.
The study examines regional differences, finding that while all regions support policies for MEBs, their focus varies. For instance, SMEs in Groningen, Netherlands, show maturity in market, competition, production, and operation-related benefits, whereas SMEs in Hessen, Germany, prioritize production-related benefits. In Burgenland, Austria, the emphasis is on organizational, production, and waste-related benefits while SMEs in La Rioja, Spain, and South-West Oltenia, Romania, show strengths in certain areas but lack a concentrated focus.
The study’s macro-level findings reveal that perceptions of MEBs vary across regions characterized by different EE policy environments. However, the results should not be interpreted as evidence that specific regional policy programs directly caused these differences. Rather, the findings suggest that regional policy frameworks may constitute one contextual factor associated with how MEBs are recognized and valued. Since the analysis focuses primarily on the macro level, it does not capture the full range of organizational (meso-level) and individual (micro-level) factors that may also influence MEB perceptions. Consequently, the relationship between regional policy environments and MEB perceptions should be viewed as exploratory rather than causal. A more comprehensive understanding of MEBs therefore requires future research that examines the interactions between macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors. From a practical perspective, adopting a multilevel perspective may help policymakers and practitioners better understand the diverse conditions under which MEBs emerge and are recognized within organizations.
What distinguishes a social construction perspective on MEBs is that MEBs are not treated as direct or universal consequences of implementing EEMs, nor as outcomes attributed to a single factor. Instead, this perspective views MEBs as emerging from interactions among factors operating at multiple levels. Consequently, differences in perceived MEBs are understood not only as the result of technical measures, but also as outcomes shaped by interactions among macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors surrounding the implementation of EEMs. This perspective therefore shifts the focus from asking what benefits result from EEMs to how and why certain benefits are recognized, valued, and realized across different contexts.
Viewing MEBs as social constructs implies several limitations. On the macro level, the authors of this paper are not aware of whether the participating companies are affected by other macro-level factors that could be economic-financial, normative, and cognitive-culture on the perceptions of MEBs. On the meso level, it is unclear if any participating companies in the study are engaged in other initiatives. From a micro level, the participants in the study may not all have the same understanding of a particular benefit.
This study invites future research to discuss MEBs as social constructs especially considering the impact of macro-level factors beyond regional policy. Further investigations at the meso and micro levels could deepen the understanding of how MEBs emerge and are interpreted across different levels. Micro-level studies may explore how individual perceptions and interpretations of MEBs vary and how these differences collectively shape organizational practices. Meso-level studies, in turn, could focus on how organizations develop shared meanings and practices around MEBs, thus linking individual understanding to broader collective understanding and orientation.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
NJ: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. IJ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. PT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review and editing. TN: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review and editing. SB: Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study has been carried out as a part of the EU Interreg project SMEPlus. The work is supported by the European Commission within the European Regional Development Fund, and the University of Gävle.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
ADER (2020). Energía y medioambiente (in Spanish). Available online at: https://www.ader.es/ayudas/ayudas-por-areas/ (Accessed February 1, 2026).
2
AgrawalR.De TommasiL.LyonsP.ZanoniS.PapagiannisG. K.KarakostaC.et al (2023). Challenges and opportunities for improving energy efficiency in SMEs: learnings from seven European projects. Energy Effic.16, 17. 10.1007/s12053-023-10090-z
3
BacklundS.ThollanderP.PalmJ.OttossonM. (2012). Extending the energy efficiency gap. Energy Policy51, 392–396. 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.042
4
BergerP.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality- A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. s.l.: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
5
BijkerW. E.HughesT. P.PinchT. J. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
6
Bioland Burgenland (2022). Klimaschutz – made in Burgenland. Available online at: https://www.burgenland.at/themen/klima/ (Accessed February 1, 2026).
7
Bioland Burgenland (2026). Klima- and energiestrategie (in German). Available online at: https://www.burgenland.at/themen/klima/ (Accessed February 1, 2026).
8
BoydG.PangJ. (2000). Estimating the linkage between energy efficiency and productivity. Energy Policy28 (5), 289–296. 10.1016/s0301-4215(00)00016-1
9
BrymanA.BellE. (2021). Social Research Methods. 6th. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
Bundeskanzleramt der Republik Österreich (2025). Landesrecht konsolidiert Burgenland: Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift für Burgenländisches Ökoförderungsgesetz, Fassung vom 12.11.2025 (in German). Available online at: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=LrBgld&Gesetzesnummer=20000626 (Accessed February 1, 2026).
11
BunseK.VodickaM.SchönslebenP.BrülhartM.ErnstF. O. (2011). Integrating energy efficiency performance in production managemente gap analysis between industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Cleaner Production19 (6), 667–679. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.011
12
CagnoE.MoschettaD.TrianniA. (2019). Only non-energy benefits from the adoption of energy efficiency measures? A novel framework. J. Cleaner Production212, 1319–1333. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.049
13
ChatterjeeS.Ürge-VorsatzD. (2021). Measuring the productivity impacts of energy-efficiency: the case of high-efficiency buildings. J. Clean. Prod.318, 128535. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128535
14
De GrootH.VerhoefE.NijkampP. (2001). Energy saving by firms: decision-making, barriers and policies. Energy Econ.23 (6), 717–740. 10.1016/s0140-9883(01)00083-4
15
DunlopT. (2019). Mind the gap: a social sciences review of energy efficiency. Energy Res. and Soc. Sci.56, 101216. 10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.026
16
EU, 2023. Energy Efficiency Directive (2023/1791). European Union (2023). Directive (EU) 2023/1791 of the european parliament and of the council of 13 September 2023 on energy efficiency (recast). Official J. Eur. Union.
17
EU Commission (2021). Technical assistance services to assess the energy savings potentials at national and European level, s.l.: s.n.
18
European Comission (2014). La Rioja ERDF 2014-20 OP, Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes/2014-2020/spain/2014es16rfop016 (Accessed November 1, 2020).
19
European Commission (2006). Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on Energy End-use Efficiency and Energy Services and Repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC, 4. Brussels.
20
European Commission (2012). Directive 2012/27/EU of the european parliament and of the counsil of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC., s.l.: s.n.
21
European Investment Bank (2021). Can European businesses achieve productivity gains from investments in energy efficiency. Luxembourg: EIB.: European Invesment Bank EIB Working Paper 2021/07.
22
FinmanH.LaitnerJ. (2001). Industry, energy efficiency and productivity improvements. s.l., s.n.
23
FinsterM. P.HenrkeM. T. (2014). Benefits organizations pursue when seeking competitive advantage by improving environmental performance. J. Industrial Ecol.18 (5), 652–662. 10.1111/jiec.12106
24
FleiterT.HirzelS.WorrellE. (2012). characteristics of energy-efficiency measures e a neglected dimension. Energy Policy51, 502e513. 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.004
25
GeelsF. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy31 (8-9), 1257–1274. 10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8
26
Gemeente Groningen (2015). Groningen Energizes- programme 2015-2018. Available online at: https://gemeente.groningen.nl/file/groningen-energizes-2015-2018 (Accessed February 1, 2026).
27
GennitsarisS.OliveiraM. C.VrisG.BofiliosA.NtinouT.FrutuosoA. R.et al (2023). Energy efficiency management in small and medium-sized enterprises: current situation, case studies and best practices. Sustainability15 (4), 3727. 10.3390/su15043727
28
Groningen (2020). Making city. Available online at: https://makingcity.eu/groningen/ (Accessed February 1, 2026).
29
HallN. P.RothJ. A. (2003). Non-energy benefits from commercial and industrial energy efficiency programs: energy efficiency may not be the best story. s.l., s.n.
30
HassenT. (2020). Technologieland hessen pius invest kampagne (in German). Available online at: https://www.technologieland-hessen.de/Pius-Foerderung (Accessed February 1, 2026).
31
HeffnerG.CampbellN. (2011). Evaluating the Co-benefits of low-income energy efficiency programmes. Workshop Rep.
32
HeimanG. W. (2014). Research methods in psychology. s.l.: Cengage learning.
33
HirstE.BrownM. (1990). Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resour. Conservation Recycl.3 (4), 267–281. 10.1016/0921-3449(90)90023-w
34
IEA (2012). Spreading the Net: The Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency Improvements. Paris: Insight Series 2012.
35
IEA (2014). Capturing the Multiple Benefits of Energy. Paris, France: International Energy Agency.
36
IEA (2015). Accelerating Energy Efficiency in Small and medium-sized Enterprises. 2015. International energy agencyParis: OECD/IEA Publishing.
37
IEA (2025). Gaining an edge – unlocking the potential of energy efficiency, s.l.: s.n.
38
JaffeA.StavinsR. (1994). The energy-efficiency gap what does it mean?Energy Policy22, 804–810. 10.1016/0301-4215(94)90138-4
39
JaloN. (2025). Beyond Technology-Driven Efficiency Towards Knowledge-Driven Approaches Among Industrial SMEs Lean-based Energy Efficiency Networks, Knowledge Creation, and Social Constructions. Gävle, Sweden: University of Gävle.
40
JohanssonI.ThollanderP. (2019). Non-energy benefits in energy audit and energy efficiency network policy programs for industrial SMEs. ECEEE 2019 Summer Study Proc.225–234.
41
JohanssonI. (2020). Review of regional energy efficiency policies towards industrial SMEs from within Europe. s.l., s.n.
42
KetenciA.WolfM. (2024). Advancing energy efficiency in SMEs: a case study-based framework for non-energy-intensive manufacturing companies. Clean. Environ. Syst.14 (17), 100218. 10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100218
43
KillipG. (2019). Multiple benefits of energy efficiency at the firm level: a literature review. Eceee Summertudy Proc., Presqu’île Giens, Fr., 303–312.
44
KimuraO.NodaF. (2014). Does regulation of energy management systems work? A case study of the energy conservation law in Japan. ECEEE Ind. Summer Study, 647–657.
45
KönigW. (2020). Energy efficiency in industrial organizations––A cultural-institutional framework of decision making. Energy Res. and Soc. Sci.60, 101314. 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101314
46
KönigW.LöbbeS.BüttnerS.SchneiderC. (2020). Establishing energy efficiency—drivers for energy efficiency in German manufacturing Small- and medium-sized enterprises. Energies13 (19), 5144. 10.3390/en13195144
47
LaitnerJ. A.RuthM. B.WorrellE. (2001). Incorporating the productivity benefits into the assessment of cost-effective energy savings potential using conservation supply curves. s.l., s.n.
48
Landes energie agentur (2020). Energieeffizienz Hessen Umweltberatung für Unternehmen (in German). Available online at: https://www.energieeffizienzhessen.de/beratungsfoerderung/pius-beratung.html (Accessed February 1, 2026).
49
LewisM. A. (2000). Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage. Lean Production20 (8), 959–978. 10.1108/01443570010332971
50
LillyP.PearsonD. (1999). Determining the full value of industrial efficiency programs. Proc. 1999 ACEEE Summer Study Energy Effic. Industry, 349e362.
51
LindénA.Carlsson-KanyamaA. (2002). Voluntary agreements - a measure for energy-efficiency in industry? Lessons from a Swedish programme. Energy Policy30, 897–905. 10.1016/s0301-4215(02)00003-4
52
LungR. B.MckaneA.LeachR.MarshD. (2005). Ancillary savings and production benefits in the evaluation of industrial energy efficiency measures. s.l., s.n.
53
MillánM.ArandaJ.SantosM.BallestínV.NeuselL.DurandA.et al (2022). Energy efficiency engagement training in SMEs: a case study in the automotive sector. Sustainability14 (17), 10504. 10.3390/su141710504
54
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2023). Non-energy benefits of manufacturing energy efficiency. Available online at: https://www.nrel.gov/manufacturing/non-energy-benefits (Accessed 26 September 2025).
55
NehlerT. (2018). Linking energy efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems with non-energy benefits – a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Vol. 89, 72–87. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.018
56
NehlerT.ThollanderP.LiselottF.SaraF. (2018b). Non-energy benefits of Swedish energy efficiency policy Instruments-A three-levelled perspective. The paper is a conference paper presented in 2018 in ECEEE Industrial Summer Study, Kalkscheune, Berlin, Germany, 11–13 June 2018; Industrial Efficiency 2018: Leading the low-carbon transition; 11-13 June 2018, Kalkscheune, Berlin, Germany
57
NehlerT. (2019). Non-Energy Benefits of Industrial Energy Efficiency: Roles and Potentials. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press.
58
NehlerT.ThollanderP.OttossonM.DahlgrenM. (2014). Including non-energy benefits in investment calculations inindustry – empirical findings from Sweden. s.l., s.n.
59
NehlerT.ParraR.ThollanderP. (2018a). Implementation of energy efficiency measures in compressed air systems: barriers, drivers and non-energy benefits. Energy Effic.11 (5), 1281–1302. 10.1007/s12053-018-9647-3
60
OECD (2019). Better Criteria for Better Evaluation: Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Principles for Use. 2019. Organisation for economic Co-operation and development (OECD)Paris: OECD Publishing.
61
Office Journal of the European Union (2023). Directive (EU) 2023/1791 of the european parliament and of the council of 13 September 2023 on energy efficiency and amending regulation (EU) 2023/955 (recast) (text with EEA relevance). Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/1791/oj/eng (Accessed September 22, 2024).
62
ADR SV Oltenia (2025). South west oltenia regional development agency. Available online at: https://www.developmentaid.org/organizations/view/43259/adr-sv-oltenia-south-west-oltenia-regional-development-agency (Accessed December 12, 2025).
63
PalmJ.ThollanderP. (2010). An interdisciplinary perspective on industrial energy efficiency. Appl. Energy87, 3255–3261. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.019
64
ParamonovaS.ThollanderP.OttossonM. (2015). Quantifying the extended energy efficiency gap-evidence from Swedish electricity-intensive industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.51, 472–483. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.012
65
PrasharS. (2017). Adopting PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle for energy optimization in energy-intensive SMEs. Journal of cleaner production.
66
PriceL. (2005). Voluntary agreements for energy efficiency or GHG emissions reduction in industry: an assessment of programs around the world. s.l., s.n.
67
PyeM.MckaneA. (2000). Making a stronger case for industrial energy efficiency by quantifying non-energy benefits. Resour. Conservation Recycl.28, 171–183. 10.1016/s0921-3449(99)00042-7
68
Ramos FarroñánR.LópezC.GarcíaS.MartínezJ.Otiniano LeónM. Y.Mogollón GarcíaF. S.et al (2025). Organizational strategies for energy sustainability: systematic review of the literature spanning 2020–2024. Sustainability17 (12), 5252. 10.3390/su17125252
69
SahanU. M.JaaffarA. H. H.OsabohienR. (2025). Green human resource management, energy saving behavior and environmental performance: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.19 (1), 220–237. 10.1108/ijesm-01-2024-0013
70
SorrellS. (2000). Reducing barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organisations. s.l.: Fraunhofer Institute System and Innovation Research.
71
SorrellS.O’MalleyE.SchleichJ.ScottS. (2004). The Economics of Energy Efficiency Barriers to Cost-Effective Investment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
72
SorrellS.MallettA.NyeS. (2011). Barriers to industrial energy efficiency - a literature review. s.l.: United Nations Industrial Development Organisation.
73
ThollanderP.PalmJ. (2013). Improving Energy Efficiency in Industrial Energy Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Barriers, Energy Audits, Energy Management, Policies, and Programs. London: Springer-Verlag.
74
ThollanderP.AndreiM.JaloN.RohdinP.PalmJ.SannöA.et al (2025). Advances in the social construction of energy management and energy efficiency policies. Nat. Communications16, 4075. 10.1038/s41467-025-59284-2
75
TrianniA.CagnoE.ThollanderP.BacklundS. (2013). Barriers to industrial energy efficiency in foundries: a European comparison. J. Cleaner Production40, 161–176. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.040
76
WomackJ. P.JonesD. T.RoosD. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
77
WorrellE.LaitnerJ. A.RuthM.FinmanH. (2003). Productivity benefits of industrial energy efficiency measures. Energy28, 1081–1098. 10.1016/s0360-5442(03)00091-4
78
YinR. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th ed.s.l.: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Appendix A
The policy programs considered in this study were selected from regional EE initiatives identified within the SMEPlus project and categorized according to the framework developed by (). The appendix summarizes the main policy instruments and their characteristics to improve transparency and reproducibility of the analysis.
Table A1
| Energy policy program | Description | Type | Objectives | Relevant to MEBs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy audit programs | Programs providing on-site assessments of energy use and identification of energy-saving opportunities. Audits often include recommendations for technical and organizational improvements | Informative | Increase awareness of energy use and identify EEMs | May generate knowledge-related benefits, improved awareness, organizational learning, and improved operational practices |
| Investment subsidy schemes | Financial support programs that reduce the cost of implementing energy-efficient technologies and equipment | Economic | Facilitate investments in EEMs by reducing financial barriers | May contribute to productivity improvements, reduced maintenance costs, improved competitiveness, and environmental benefits |
| Energy efficiency networks | Collaborative programs in which firms participate in structured peer-learning activities, workshops, and knowledge-sharing initiatives related to energy management and EE | Informative | Promote knowledge exchange, capacity building, and continuous improvement | Often associated with organizational learning, employee engagement, networking benefits, and enhanced energy management capabilities |
| Programs incorporating energy management practices | Programs supporting the implementation of systematic energy management approaches, including monitoring, target setting, and continuous improvement activities | Informative / Administrative | Strengthen long-term energy management capabilities within firms | May support organizational learning, improved decision-making, enhanced communication, and operational capabilities |
| Benchmarking initiatives | Programs enabling firms to compare their energy performance with peers, industry averages, or best-practice organizations | Informative | Support performance evaluation and stimulate continuous improvement | May improve competitiveness, motivate organizational change, enhance learning, and facilitate identification of improvement opportunities |
Energy policy programs relevant to the study ().
Table A2
| Region | Country | Main policy instruments represented |
|---|---|---|
| Burgenland | Austria | Energy audits, investment support, energy advisory services |
| Groningen | Netherlands | Energy efficiency networks, benchmarking initiatives, energy management support |
| La Rioja | Spain | Energy audits, investment subsidies, SME energy support programs |
| Hessen | Germany | Energy management programs, energy efficiency networks, benchmarking initiatives |
| South-West Oltenia | Romania | Energy audits, investment support schemes, energy advisory programs |
: Energy policy programs relevant to the study ().
Summary
Keywords
energy efficiency, energy policy, multi-level perspective, multiple energy benefits, social constructions
Citation
Jalo N, Johansson I, Thollander P, Nehler T and Barthel S (2026) Multiple energy benefits from regional policy programs within Europe – a social construction perspective. Front. Energy Effic. 4:1856723. doi: 10.3389/fenef.2026.1856723
Received
15 April 2026
Revised
22 June 2026
Accepted
23 June 2026
Published
22 July 2026
Volume
4 - 2026
Edited by
Mouloud Denai, Ecole Supérieure en Genie Électrique et Énergétique d’Oran, Algeria
Reviewed by
Aurel Burciu, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania
Paola Clerici Maestosi, Centro Ricerche Casaccia, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Jalo, Johansson, Thollander, Nehler and Barthel.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Noor Jalo, noor.jalo@hig.se
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.