Our research is taking place in close collaboration with industry and we could never have written this paper without this amazing collaboration with leading industrial companies. A short background to this paper was that in 2012, we published a re-definition of the energy efficiency gap, showcasing that the potential for energy efficiency, if including the way energy-using technologies are being used, give rise to up to a double potential compared with if only viewing technology alone (Backlund et al., 2012). The energy efficiency gap was redefined and the energy management gap was defined. The paper was later cited in the IPCC 2014 report.

Around 2016, the Swedish national policy program, PFE, a Voluntary Agreement Scheme came out with their report, “Ten years with PFE” (in Swedish), from the Swedish Energy Agency. The PFE involved undertaking an energy audit, implementing an energy management system and implementing all measures with three years pay-back or less. Sweden is one of the countries with the most energy intensive industry in Europe and the PFE covered around +60 % of the Swedish industrial energy use.

Notably, the second five-year program of the PFE showcased similar report energy efficiency measures as the five year program period. In the report “Ten years with PFE”, it was stated that the Swedish Energy Agency could not explain these results. Commonly deployed models include information asymmetries and imperfections, i.e. market failures. This triggered the question among us researchers, WHY? Can there be alternative explanatory models for explaining these results.

In the paper by Paramonova et al. (2021), a paper that took us seven years to have published that finally was published in the Journal Energy Policy, we showcased that a majority of the energy efficiency measures from the PFE from electric motor systems, emanate from measures of whole systems and how this was managed. However, this still does not explain in detail why.

One year later, a paper was published of a review of energy management in industry, blending the Aristotle knowledge definitions Techne, Phronesis and Episteme (Andrei et al., 2022).

Around the 2016, the idea for the current paper started to arise. However, not until coming across colleagues, which are co-authors of the paper who are researchers within socio-ecological governance, a former research executive for one large multinational company (also a co-author), not to mention the other co-author’s contributions through years of discussions, we came to the conclusion that energy efficiency and energy management in fact is a social construction shaped by norms and beliefs. Moreover, it is critical to distinguish between technology interventions and management interventions and that in order to steward the constantly changing landscape, leadership is key for companies to maintain successful and advance.

In the Swedish PFE, the electricity-intensive companies reported energy efficiency measures of nearly ten percent of their electricity use over two five year program periods. We estimate that mature energy management across industry globally can contribute to help manufacturing industry cut energy costs and energy-related emissions with at least 5 % on a global scale corresponding to emissions of ten developed countries the size of Sweden. 

Our findings of the publication are synthesized below.

• Energy Management as a Social Construct: The article emphasizes that energy management (EnM) is not solely a technical endeavor but is significantly influenced by social constructions within organizations. These include shared beliefs, norms, and practices that shape how energy efficiency is perceived and implemented.
• Nine Identified Social Constructions: Nine distinct social constructions of energy management are identified, ranging from technology-centric views to more holistic approaches that integrate operations, processes, and knowledge dissemination. Recognizing these constructions can help organizations tailor their energy efficiency strategies more effectively.
• Knowledge Forms in Energy Management: Drawing from Aristotelian concepts, the paper discusses three forms of knowledge crucial for effective EnM: technē (technical skills), epistēmē (scientific understanding), and phronēsis (practical wisdom). A balanced integration of these knowledge forms is essential for maximizing energy efficiency.
• Policy Implications: The study suggests that incorporating energy management into policy frameworks can lead to substantial emission reductions. Specifically, effective EnM policies and voluntary initiatives have the potential to cut at least 5% of global industrial fossil CO₂ emissions.
• Recommendations for Corporations and Policymakers: The authors advocate for a shift from purely technological solutions to approaches that also consider organizational culture and leadership. For corporations, this means fostering environments that support knowledge sharing and continuous learning. Policymakers are encouraged to design programs that recognize the social dimensions of energy management.
• Call for Interdisciplinary Research: The article highlights the need for interdisciplinary research that bridges technical, social, and behavioral sciences to better understand and enhance energy management practices in the industrial sector.