Future plans for saving energy

Firm structure, family-firm life cycle stage, performance and perceptions mainly contribute to the explanation of future plans for saving energy (Table 5.5). The presence of important energy-saving technologies is less important; strategies don’t

24 _{Strategies have been excluded from estimations of avoidance. The limited number of observations}

contribute at all, contrary to their contribution in the explanation of the presence of energy-saving principles (Table 5.4).

The presence of a heat storage tank has a significant negative impact (-0.42) on the likelihood of mentioning a technological energy-saving innovation. The presence of a total energy principle has a negative impact (-0.33) on future plans of extending present energy-saving technologies. These results are in line with the assumption that future plans about technical solutions is less likely if important energy-saving

technologies are present.

Firm size has a significant positive impact on future plans to avoid energy- saving pressure. A large firm requires a large span of control, which doesn’t endure energy-saving pressure. The degree of mechanization has a significant negative impact on future plans on technological energy-saving innovations and management adjustments. This may indicate that firms with a high degree of mechanization have already adopted important energy-saving technologies. However, the degree of mechanization (-0.20) also has a negative impact on management adjustments. This may indicate that highly mechanized firms already have an emphasis on efficiency and thus don’t have many options left to save energy. Future plans with a technical and management focus don’t exclude each other.

Being in the consolidation stage has a significant impact on the likelihood of future plans of extending present energy-saving technologies. In this stage, extension of present technologies can serve the emphasis on fine tuning of the production process. Being in the the entry, growth and consolidation stage makes mentioning management adjustments more likely, and less likely in the exit stage. This implies that although entrepreneurs have the opportunity to apply management adjustments which do not require high costs, they are no longer focussed at saving energy by management adjustments.

Energy intensity has a positive impact on both technological innovations (1.28) and technological adjustments (0.94) to save energy. This can be explained in two ways. First, a high energy intensity means that few energy-saving technologies are present. Second, a high energy intensity has a positive impact on the profitability of energy-saving technologies.

The perception that developments on the labour market is an opportunity has a negative impact (-0.32) on the likelihood that entrepreneurs mention technical

technologies is an opportunity has a significant negative impact on mentioning avoidance as an energy-saving option. This can be explained by the fact that avoidance is not the first alternative solution for the entrepreneur. Only if the entrepreneur doesn’t see other solutions, he will avoid energy-saving pressure of policy makers and society. The perception that the greenhouse regulation on saving energy is an opportunity has a significant positive impact on the likelihood that the entrepreneurs mentions technological innovations to save energy. This can be explained by the fact that entrepreneurs which have the opportunity to invest in energy-saving innovations have a broader range of energy-saving options than colleagues, which lack this opportunity. The greenhouse regulation is more likely perceived as a threat by these colleagues and thus an opportunity for the entrepreneurs with the broader range of energy-saving options.

The perceptions that firm structure is a strength (-0.32) and that technical knowledge is a strength (-0.37) have a negative impact on the likelihood of mentioning technical adjustments to save energy. An explanation is that these

entrepreneurs are critical towards their own firm and entrepreneurial qualities and are not satisfied with only technical adjustments to save energy. The perception that firm structure is a strength has a significant positive impact on the likelihood of

mentioning avoidance as an energy-saving option. These entrepreneurs are confident about their firm structure and don’t prefer to avoid energy-saving pressure. The perception of profitability as a strength has a significant negative impact on the likelihood of mentioning avoidance. This indicates that these entrepreneurs don’t perceive possibilities to comply with future standards of energy use.

In general, future plans are rather independent of the presence of energy- saving technologies. The negative relationships between the presence of the heat storage tank and the future plans on technological innovations to save energy and between the presence of the total energy principle and future plans on technological adjustments to save energy indicate that technological solutions are less likely if the rate of energy-saving technology is high. Mentioning technological innovations is more likely at firms with a low degree of mechanization and a high energy intensity, which perceive the greenhouse resolution on saving energy as an opportunity. These firms have a broader scope for saving energy. Mentioning technological adjustments is more likely at firms in the consolidation stage, which still have a high energy intensity, but which entrepreneurs are less positive about their firm and management

quality. Mentioning management solutions is more likely at all firms with positive future perspectives. The likelihood of mentioning management solutions is increased by a low degree of mechanization, which indicates that these entrepreneurs pay much attention to fine tuning of the production process. Avoidance is more likely at big firms which, if entrepreneurs are positive about their firm qualities and they are less positive about firm performance and future developments on energy-saving

principles.

Both measures of goodness of fit indicate that the explanatory power of the models explaining the presence of energy-saving technologies (Table 5.4 and Appendix 5.A1) is higher than the models explaining future plans on saving energy (Table 5.5 and Appendix 5.A2). This can be explained by the fact that the existing technologies are hard data, representing real decision making, while future plans are based on what entrepreneurs say and still have to realize.

5.5.3 Comparison of presences of energy-saving technologies and future plans to