The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

5 SURVEY OF ORGANISATIONS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This chapter of the report presents the findings from the survey of organisations based within both the public and private sectors which were consulted as part of this review. The section covers a number of key areas including:

• Organisation characteristics
• Nature and scale of support and advice provided
• Importance rating of a number of motivating factors
• Satisfaction with support delivered
• Measures recommended by the package of support
• Implementation of measures and reasons for non-implementation
• Additionality of support provided
• Quantitative and qualitative impacts of support on organisation
• Awareness and receipt of financial support
• Influence of financial support on level of measures implemented

5.2 Methodology

5.2.1 In order to obtain evidence on the impact of energy efficiency and microgeneration support in the business and public sectors, Halcrow undertook a telephone survey with a variety of organisations that had received advice or support through the Carbon Trust ( CT), the EST Business Advisor Network ( BAN) or the Business Environment Partnership ( BEP). In addition, a number of Local Authority Energy Managers were also included in the survey.

5.2.2 The EST Business Advisor Network offers support to SMEs with fuel bills of under £50,000 and the main focus has been on the provision of energy audits to small and micro-organisations.

5.2.3 The BEP also offers support to SMEs irrespective of the fuel bill in many different ways such as energy and waste audits, ISO 14001 accreditation support, "green working days", staff training and other face-to-face advice. The BEP also offers subsidised student placements for 4-8 weeks where the student looks into very detailed aspects of energy or waste and produces a report for the organisation.

5.2.4 The CT offers a face-to-face energy audit to organisations with fuel bills over £50,000 and other face-to-face advice to large organisations. It also provides an extensive Carbon Management Programme to some local authorities, universities and major organisations with very high fuel bills.

5.2.5 Local Authority Managers were consulted in order to gather their views on the support provided by the CT, the EST Local Support Team and energy efficiency and microgeneration support in Scotland in general.

5.2.6 Around 600 organisations were contacted by email and telephone in order to arrange a telephone interview. Unfortunately, the response rate was very low and many businesses indicated that they were very busy in August and did not have time to participate in the survey. Overall, telephone interviews were undertaken with 60 organisations in the private and public sector. All telephone survey questionnaires included similar questions adapted to the type of organisation and there was scope for additional comments and discussion of relevant issues which fed into the qualitative analysis of the telephone survey.

5.2.7 While the sample of firms should not be considered statistically representative of the population of firms as a whole, the findings from the survey do provide a formative understanding of the key emerging issues in relation to organisational support for energy efficiency and microgeneration. The questionnaire was designed in order to find out about the type of support received, the main reasons for seeking support and the quality of the support provided by different organisations. Furthermore, we wanted to find out about the type of measures that were recommended to the beneficiaries, the rate of implementation and the main reasons for not implementing the recommended measures. The survey also assessed the level of additionality of the support provided and the impact of the support on various aspects of the organisation. Finally we asked respondents whether they were aware of the financial support available and if they had received any financial support, such as interest-free loans.

5.3 Description of sample

5.3.1 As mentioned before, the response rate based on contacting around 600 organisations via telephone and email was only 10% and consultations were undertaken with 60 organisations from the private and public sector distributed as followed:

• 15 small and medium sized organisations supported from the BEP database
• 12 mainly large organisations and 3 universities from the CT database
• 23 micro and small businesses from the BAN database
• 7 Energy Managers from a number of Scottish local authorities (consultations were also undertaken with a number of local authority chief executives as part of the stakeholder consultations but these are not included in the user survey)

5.4 Organisation characteristics

5.4.1 The sectoral distribution of all survey participants is shown in Figure 5.1 and one can see that one fifth of all respondents were in the hotel, distribution and restaurant sector. Another fifth was in the manufacturing sector and 23% were in the public, education or health sector.

Figure 5.1 Survey participants by sector

5.4.2 The public administration and health sector respondents are made up of 7 local authorities, 3 universities, 2 colleges, a housing association and the Lothian and Borders Police. The 20% in the distribution, hotel and restaurant sector consisted of 12 hotels and B & Bs of which almost all received an energy audit through the BAN. Other services included a variety of organisations in construction, energy and business services (media, insurance, IT).

5.4.3 The following pie chart in Figure 5.2 shows the distribution of survey participants by number of employees.

Figure 5.2 Survey participants by number of employees

5.4.4 We can see that 42% of participants are small organisations with fewer than 50 employees. On the other hand, 38% of participants are large organisations with over 250 employees. It has to be taken into account that these include many large public entities such as local authorities and universities and a few large businesses supported by the CT.

5.4.5 The levels of energy spend per annum shown in Figure 5.3 are similar to the number of employees within the organisations. Those with fewer than 50 employees are likely to spend less than £50,000 on energy per annum and similarly, very large organisations with over 250 employees often spend more than £500,000 on energy per year.

Figure 5.3 Survey participants by annual energy spend

5.4.6 The following chart in Figure 5.4 illustrates the regional distribution of survey participants.

Figure 5.4 Survey participants by regional distribution

5.4.7 We can see that the majority of support beneficiaries in the sample are located in South East Scotland (37%) and Aberdeen & North East (22%), followed by 17% participants from Strathclyde and Central Scotland and 10% from the Highlands. Only one participant was from the Northern and Western Isles.

5.4.8 Based on the sample, 53% of all the advice and support provided by the BEP was focused on South East Scotland and 27% on Aberdeen & North East, which are their principal markets due to the location of their two offices in each of these two regions. The focus of CT supported firms has been within the main economic and population centres in Scotland where large businesses are most likely to be based. The BAN on the other hand, provided energy audits to small businesses across all regions with 27% of energy audits in the sample provided in the remote regions of the Highlands & Islands.

5.4.9 In summary, the description of the sample of 60 public and private organisations consulted as part of the survey demonstrates that there has been a good mix of sectors, regions and organisational sizes covered.

5.5 Support and advice received & motivating factors

5.5.1 A large proportion of respondents received face-to-face advice (47%) and face-to-face energy audits (90%) from these three organisations (Table 5.1). While many of the organisations will have spoken to the three delivery agents over the phone, just 7% considered that advice had been delivered over the phone. All of these companies subsequently received face-to-face advice.

Table 5.1 Type of Support and Advice Received (as a % of all respondents)

5.5.2 A total of 42% of all respondents received a face-to-face energy audit from the ESTBAN and another 33% received an energy audit from the CT. Overall, all survey respondents received at least some kind of face-to-face support (advice and/or audit). A total of 12% of all respondents also received a subsidised student on placement for 4-8 weeks (all from the BEP) which looked into the organisation's energy consumption or waste management in more detail and then produced a final report with recommendations for the organisation.

5.5.3 It should be mentioned that local authorities and large organisations usually received a more complex package of support from a number of organisations. All local authorities surveyed were involved in the CT Carbon Management Programme and the CT usually provided other face-to-face advice to councils such as multi-site assessments and design advice. In addition, all local authorities received some face-to-face advice from the EST Local Support Team or support from the EST for SCHRI applications for communities within the local authority. However, only 3 local authorities were able to provide more details on the face-to-face advice received from the Local Support Team as the others were not directly involved in dealing with the LST.

5.6 Means by which survey participant heard of support

5.6.1 We asked organisations by which means they first heard about the support that was subsequently provided to them. The results are shown in Figure 5.5 below.

5.6.2 The Scottish Enterprise Business Gateway was the principal organisation through which external referrals were generated for the BEP. There appears to be a very well established and well-functioning referral relationship between Scottish Enterprise and the BEP which might be due to the fact that the BEP is part-funded through Scottish Enterprise and that it offers a holistic waste and energy support service for SMEs. If more appropriate, the BEP then refers organisations further on to the CT or EST.

Figure 5.5 Means by which organisation found out about available support

5.6.3 Nearly a fifth of all organisations looked for available support online and contacted the BEP, CT or EST directly. Other means of finding out about the support included being told by colleagues or friends and also being aware of the support anyway due to the industry involvement (local authorities, universities, environmental consultants).

5.6.4 While good referral networks appear to be in place, the majority of organisations still felt that it could be time consuming and difficult for businesses to find out what support is available and there was a preference for a clear one-stop-shop approach. It was felt that there are too many players and too much duplication in the industry. Economies of scale in marketing through standardised promotional material would be useful. Businesses can currently be targeted with brochures from the EST, the CT, Envirowise and others who all offer the same thing. This can waste both management time in terms of understanding what services are most appropriate as well as public funds in supporting the production of all of this overlapping promotional material.

5.7 Motivating factors in seeking support for energy efficiency or microgeneration

5.7.1 Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of a number of motivating factors in seeking support for energy efficiency and microgeneration on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest. The following chart in Figure 5.6 shows the average rating of motivating factors by database.

Figure 5.6 Rating of motivating factors to seek support by database

5.7.2 We can see that the importance of motivating factors varies slightly with the database of survey beneficiaries. To reduce financial costs was particularly important for businesses that received support through the ESTBAN (mainly small and medium size businesses, particularly hotels) as they rated it with 9.1 on average. This factor was less important for businesses that received support from the BEP at 6.3. The average rating across all databases for the motivating factor "to reduce financial costs" was 8.0 with a standard deviation of 2.3 from the mean.

5.7.3 For businesses who received support from the BEP it was also relatively important to get involved in an accreditation scheme. One particular service that the BEP offers is to help companies achieve recognised environmental management standards such as ISO14001, BS8885 and Green Tourism Business Scheme accreditation.

5.7.4 Getting involved in an accreditation scheme was not a motivating factor for local authorities since energy managers rated this factor with 2.3 on average. It was also of low importance for small businesses supported by the ESTBAN. The average rating across all databases for the motivating factor "to involve in an accreditation Scheme" was 4.5 with a standard deviation of 3.2 from the mean.

5.7.5 To improve public perception was equally important with average ratings between 7.0 and 7.3 for organisations receiving support through the BEP, CT as well as for local authority energy managers. The exception was for micro and small businesses that received an energy audit through the ESTBAN. They rated this motivating factor with 5.0 on average which suggests that this factor has a relatively low significance for organisations of small and very small size. The average rating across all databases for the motivating factor "to improve public perception" was 6.3 with a standard deviation of 2.7 from the mean.

5.7.6 To enhance social responsibility was an important motivating factor across all databases with average ratings between 7.0 ( LA and ESTBAN) and 7.9 ( CT).

5.7.7 To reduce carbon emissions was particularly important for local authority energy managers who rated this factor with 9.1 on average and to respondents from the CT database (average rating 8.4). Respondents from the ESTBAN and the BEP database rated this factor at 7.3 and 7.1 respectively. This suggests that this factor is more important to large organisations and local authorities that have very high levels of carbon emissions and reducing them is therefore of major importance. However, small organisations also consider it as relatively important.

5.8 Nature of support delivered

5.8.1 As mentioned before, only 7% of all participants indicated that they received phone advice, but this was mainly a pre-discussion for the face-to-face advice that followed in all cases. It should be noted that other organisations who received face-to-face advice or energy audits also discussed issues over the phone, but considered these phone conversations as part of the face-to-face advice and so it was not treated separately. Since all respondents received face-to-face advice, it would not make sense to compare phone and face-to-face advice in detail.

5.8.2 Those 4 respondents that indicated specifically that phone advice was provided through the BEP and the CT, stated that there were 6 phone conversations on average with an average length of call of 18 minutes and the quality rating of that phone advice was 8.2 on average.

5.8.3 Out of all 60 respondents, 25% received face-to-face advice from the BEP, 17% from the CT and 5% from the EST Local Support Teams.

5.8.4 It should be noted that when we refer to face-to-face advice provided by the EST it relates to the more qualitative advice that local authorities received through the EST Local Support Team. On the other hand, energy audits provided by the EST relate to the energy audits that were provided to SMEs through the Business Advisor Network. Therefore, face-to-face advice is treated separately from face-to-face energy audits which will be discussed in the next section.

5.8.5 Of those that received face-to-face advice, 37% indicated that energy efficiency areas were covered and only 18% mentioned that microgeneration areas were covered. Other areas covered were waste management, ISO 14001 accreditation or staff training programmes.

5.8.6 The following Table 5.2 provides details on the average number of face-to-face meetings, the average length of visits and the quality rating for the advice on a scale of 1 to 10. This is split by the organisations that provided the advice and indicates the number of survey participants that received advice from the organisation.

Table 5.2 Face-to-face advice details

5.8.7 The average number and length of face-to-face meetings for those that received face-to-face advice was highest for the BEP advice. That is because the BEP offers a service of spending full days on-site and doing "green working days" or other initiatives without doing an explicit energy audit. They seem to have a stronger focus on the actual face-to-face advice and on building up a relationship with the organisation than in just providing one audit and report with recommendations.

5.8.8 The quality rating was very high for the advice provided by the BEP with an average rating of 8.7 with ratings ranging from 7 to 10. Respondents indicated that they were very satisfied with the services provided by the BEP, because the advice was very personal and the BEP advisor would build up a close relationship with the company with regular phone conversations and follow-ups. People had a clear contact within the organisation and felt comfortable seeking more advice whenever further questions arose after the face-to-face advice or the energy audit. The close relationship was considered very important for implementation and overall, respondents said that communication was excellent with the BEP, compared to the communication with the CT or EST (those that had experience with more than one organisation).

5.8.9 For the CT, the average length of face-to-face advice was around half a day and the quality of the advice provided was rated at 6.8 on average with a standard deviation of 2.2 and ratings reaching from 2 to 9. This shows that the quality ratings were spread out with very low and very high ratings (however, no 10 rating) and the experience with the CT was different across all respondents who received support through the CT. A number of respondents indicated that there was no regular communication with the CT and the CT did not adapt to the needs of the organisation.

5.8.10 For the face-to-face advice provided by the ESTLST the average length of visit was only 1.5 hours and the quality rating was 6.5, based on responses provided by 3 local authorities.

5.8.11 Out of all 60 respondents, 15% received a face-to-face energy audit from the BEP, 33% from the CT and 42% from the EST. Of those that received a face-to-face energy audit, 88% indicated that energy efficiency areas were covered and 33% mentioned that microgeneration areas were covered. Another 25% indicated that other areas were covered, mostly waste and water.

5.8.12 Table 5.3 provides details on the average time it took to complete the audit and the quality rating for the audit on a scale of 1 to 10. This is split by the organisations that provided the audit service.

Table 5.3 Face-to-face energy audit details

5.8.13 We can see that the ESTBAN energy audits were relatively short with an average of 3.2 hours. The ESTBAN support is generally focused on small businesses and 16% of the sample was micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees who received an energy audit from the ESTBAN. The CT audits on the other hand were around 10 hours on average. It is understandable that CT audits are generally long, because they serve large companies and BAN audits are rather short because their support is focused on micro and small businesses. The BEP provided audit services to small and medium size businesses with an average length of 5.75 hours.

5.8.14 The quality rating was highest for the BEP energy audits with an average rate of 8.72 out of 10 and all ratings ranging between 7 and 10 which again can be based on the personal advice and regular communication with the BEP.

5.8.15 All respondents who received support and advice from the Business Environment Partnership stated that their experience with the BEP was extremely positive. Some comments included:

• "The BEP is very helpful and knowledgeable; they are doing a very good job."
• "Excellent communication and follow-ups, keen on helping and implementing - day and night compared to the communication with the CT"
• "Knowledgeable and friendly staff, excellent communication and support."
• "Very personal advice and close relationship."
• "Excellent referral to other information sources or organisations."
• "Excellent support and knowledge transfer, will use them in the future."
• "Excellent membership service where they offer training courses, newsletter, workshops and more."

5.8.16 Overall the satisfaction levels and quality ratings were very high and people stated that the key factor for success is that the BEP offer personal and continuous high quality support, they offer an excellent membership services and have a very good referral network to other organisations and information sources.

5.8.17 The personal and close relationship is considered to be very important as small questions and issues always arise after the initial support and it makes implementation easier that the BEP can be contacted at anytime after the advice. Businesses receiving support through more than one source stated that they felt very comfortable contacting the BEP at any time, which they did not feel in relation to support from the CT or the BAN.

5.8.18 The majority of the businesses that had received some support from the BEP thought that they were likely to use them in the future for other support areas that the BEP offers such as the ISO14001 accreditation support, an energy audit, or a student on placement etc. The BEP has also been successful in leveraging client's own funds as well as from public sources to pay for the delivery of these services.

5.8.19 It was also stated that follow-ups are essential because after an energy audit and some recommendations it is easy to put the report to the side and get sucked into the day-to-day work again and forget about the energy measures. With the close relationship that the BEP builds up with the organisations it supports, this is unlikely to happen. The BEP is located in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. It was mentioned that other areas such as Glasgow and Inverness should have an equivalent to the BEP as it offers a fantastic service.

5.8.20 The average quality rating was also relatively high for the EST audits (7.7) and the CT audits (7.5), however, in both cases the standard deviation was higher than for the BEP which suggests that the ratings were not close around the average but spread more widely. For the EST audits the standard deviation of the rating was 1.8 with ratings reaching from 2 to 10 and for the CT the standard deviation was 1.7 with ratings from 4 to 9.5.

5.8.21 The majority of CT support beneficiaries were very happy with the support they received from the CT. Some particular comments included:

• "Excellent survey and design advice from CT."
• "The CT staff are very knowledgeable; the support was very good and comprehensive."
• "The CT support was excellent, communication and follow-ups were very good."

5.8.22 However, there were a small minority of beneficiaries that believed the report was too general and did not have the required depth as there was not enough consultancy time given for the surveys. One respondent was very disappointed and stated that energy audit provided by the CT was a complete waste of time as it was not tailored to the needs of the organisation. It was also stated that the CT recommendations expressed in the audit were not SMART and that microgeneration was not covered, although it was specifically asked for.

5.8.23 It was also mentioned that there should be a better referral framework and the CT should make more referrals to other organisations and information sources. One respondent also stated that more independent expertise should be available to the public and private sector for microgeneration technologies.

5.8.24 The small businesses that received an energy audit from the EST through the Business Advisor Network were generally satisfied with the audit and the report produced. However, there seemed to be a major issue with the lack of practical advice for implementation and the lack of follow-ups. Some particular comments that were made include:

• "Report good and comprehensive."
• "Very good and helpful, surprised at the amount of free advice and information that is available, very knowledgeable staff."
• " EST report well tailored to company's needs, very happy."
• "Audit provided clear picture of costs and benefits."
• "Great service and support, you can call back anytime."
• "Report comprehensive, but no next step and no follow-up, which is negative."
• "Audit and recommendations were good, but that's where it stopped, no further support."
• "More practical support is needed for implementation."
• "The idea is right, but there is a hole between the energy audit and the implementation."
• "No follow-ups and no regular communication with BAN. I would even pay for someone from the EST to help me with the implementation of measures."
• "No follow-up and no practical advice for implementation, support dies off after advice."

5.8.25 The comments above show clearly that although the audit and the report were mostly considered as good and comprehensive, the major problem for a high number of respondents was the lack of practical support for the implementation of recommended measures (such as assistance with sourcing installers and comparing quotes for work).

5.8.26 A sizeable minority of companies that had received an energy audit through the BAN stated that they would have been interested in the potential for the installation of microgeneration technologies to have been included in the energy audit. While this was not asked for at the time of the audit by these businesses, there was a feeling that the energy audits could be used more proactively to prompt businesses to think about the potential for microgeneration. Small businesses supported would generally have preferred a holistic resource efficiency audit including energy efficiency, renewable technologies, waste and water to be undertaken. Businesses that received an energy audit through the BAN believed it was very difficult to get complete resource efficiency information from one source.

5.8.27 Overall the results suggest that respondents were most satisfied with the services provided by the BEP. However, it was also clear that the quality of energy audits provided by the EST and the CT was relatively high on average, albeit with a higher degree of variability.

5.9 Implementation of measures

5.9.1 All respondents indicated that a report was produced for them with recommended measures for implementation. The range of measures recommended is show in Figure 5.7 below.

5.9.2 The chart shows that 87% of all respondents indicated that some of the energy efficiency measures recommended to them required capital expenditure such as new boilers, insulation etc. In addition to that, 77% of respondents said that low or no cost measures were also recommended to them as part of the support package such as behavioural changes or better energy management.

Figure 5.7 Recommended measures

5.9.3 Only a quarter of all respondents received recommendations on installing a microgeneration technology - either because it was not covered as part of the advice/audit or because it was not considered feasible due to the type of building or planning permission restrictions. A total of 5 recommendations regarding microgeneration technologies were made by the BAN, 7 by the CT and 3 by the BEP. Another 10% indicated that other measures such as water and waste measures were recommended to them.

5.9.4 Respondents were asked what proportion of the different types of recommended measures would be implemented by the end of 2008. Implementation rates for low or no cost measures were high for those who received energy audits from the BEP (86%) and CT (81%) and lower, but still relatively high for those who received an audit through the EST (66%) (Table 5.4 ). Slightly less than half of all recommended low cost or no cost measures (48%) were implemented by those who did not receive any energy audits at all (only face-to-face advice).

5.9.5 The implementation rate was lower across all organisations for measures that required capital expenditure. Financial barriers were cited as the main barrier to higher rates of implementation, particularly for small businesses that received an audit from the ESTBAN. These firms only implemented 36% of the recommended measures that required capital expenditure, compared to 65% for CT audits and 61% for audits undertaken by the BEP.

5.9.6 On the other hand, those that received an energy audit from the ESTBAN had a 36% implementation rate for microgeneration technologies compared to 29% for the CT and 15% for those that did not receive an audit at all. However, this is based on small sample sizes where only five participants received an energy audit from the EST where microgeneration technologies were recommended and seven from the CT.

Table 5.4 Implementation of measures based on face-to-face energy audit

5.10 Reasons for non-implementation

5.10.1 Asking all respondents (from both public and private sectors) for the main reasons for not implementing the recommended measures, 62% of all respondents indicated that financial barriers were an important reason, 18% stated that there are internal organisational barriers that hamper the implementation of measures (such as getting approval from management and prioritising these measures) and 63% indicated that there are also other barriers for implementation, such as planning permissions, lack of time and manpower resources and lack of practical advice for implementation.

5.10.2 Financial barriers were a particular issue for a high proportion of small businesses, local authorities and other publicly funded organisations such as colleges. Financial issues were less important for large businesses which struggled more with practical and technical issues, the lack of time and management resources, putting together a business case for the implementation of measures and getting approval from senior management.

5.10.3 The lack of time and manpower resources was a major issue for a number of local authorities and organisations of all sizes which considered the scale of implementation to be very time consuming. One internal problem for larger organisations was that nobody felt responsible for the implementation of measures and there was no time for undertaking it. The set up of an environmental team was a solution for a number of organisations that could afford it and enabled taking the recommended measures forward. One respondent stated that after finally setting up an environmental team, there were no barriers to implementation anymore.

5.10.4 Organisations also reported that recommended low cost measures relating to behavioural changes were difficult to implement as it can be difficult to change people's attitudes in a work environment. It was felt that in order to change people's behaviour long-term, there should be more educational and awareness raising initiatives similar to the current scheme provided to local authorities through an EST pilot staff training scheme.

5.10.5 In addition, another reason for non-implementation was the uncertainty about practical and technical issues. Some respondents mentioned that the report was too general and could not be used to make decisions as there were no exact and realistic details on costs and savings for the particular organisation. One respondent said that this was very frustrating as he was not able to move the recommended measures forward due to the general level of information provided.

5.10.6 Sometimes the recommended measures were not appropriate and not adapted to the organisation's particular situation or were not in line with the organisation-wide strategy, therefore people were not willing to implement them. Another reason reported for non-implementation was that decision-makers in large companies and local authorities did not consider energy as a priority and only looked at the financial side of projects and not at the carbon reduction side. It is important to get approval from management and a budget allocation for the implementation of the recommended measures. A formal, independent report is very useful for that.

5.10.7 For some respondents, estimated savings were not high enough or the payback period was too long, particularly for microgeneration technologies, and so the implementation of measures was not considered to be cost effective. Furthermore, organisations of all sizes indicated that the planning permission requirements for wind turbines were one reason for the non-implementation of this microgeneration technology. In addition to that, wind turbines receive major resistance from residents because they are considered to be noisy and visually intrusive. Another issue raised related to building tenure was that businesses were not able to implement any measures that would change the building.

5.10.8 A high proportion of small businesses stated that financial constraints were the main reason for non-implementation of barriers. Secondly, many small businesses stated that they have not implemented measures because there was no practical support and no help with implementation and they did not have the time and the manpower to organise and manage the implementation of measures themselves. One respondent even mentioned that he would pay for someone from the BAN to help him with the implementation, because he would love to install the recommended measures, but he does not have the time for it. Someone who can provide more practical support for the implementation of measures seems to be a key issue for small businesses. There was criticism that the BAN provides the report and then there is no further communication and no follow ups which does not encourage the implementation of measures.

5.10.9 It was mentioned that one huge gap for small businesses is the lack of grant support for energy efficiency and microgeneration technologies. Some respondents felt that small businesses should be eligible for SCHRI grants that are available to households and communities. Another major problem mentioned was that there are no incentives available if the property is rented.

5.11 Additionality of face-to-face energy audit

5.11.1 We were interested in finding out what level of measures would have been implemented if the organisation had not received a face-to-face energy audit. The results are shown in Figure 5.8.

5.11.2 Even without the face-to-face energy audit, 75% of all respondents said that they would have implemented some or all of the measures anyway. However, only 22% of all respondents said they would have implemented all measures without the face-to-face audit. Many respondents said that they would have implemented the "obvious measures", but that the energy audit highlighted areas or measures that they were not aware of, so it was very useful.

Figure 5.8 Implementation of measures without face-to-face energy audit

5.11.3 The following chart in Figure 5.5.9 shows the implementation rate of measures based on the organisation that provided the face-to-face energy audit. The chart suggests that additionality is lowest for the energy audits provided by the EST Business Advisor Network as 35% indicated they would have done all the measures anyway and only 9% would not have implemented any measures without the energy audit. It should be noted that a large proportion of respondents (78% of those that received a BEP audit) stated that they would have implemented some measures.

Figure 5.9 Implementation rates of measures without the energy audit split by organisation providing audit

5.11.4 A total of 40% of all respondents also indicated that an independent, external report was of great importance in order to build up a case for the implementation of measures, get approval from management and allocate a part of the budget towards the measures. Respondents also indicated that a formal report helps focus and actually implement the measures. This was particularly an issue in medium size and large organisations, and also in local authorities.

5.11.5 In addition to that, a total of 49% of the respondents that received an energy audit and responded that they would have installed some or all of the recommended measures anyway, said that implementation would have been delayed without the energy audit. For some respondents the audit was also essential for setting up an environmental team and for developing an environmental policy.

5.12 Impact of support on organisation

1.1.2 Survey participants were asked to rate the impact that the face-to-face support has had on their organisation on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest). The ESTBAN energy audits seem to have had the lowest average impact on all 4 organisational aspects compared to the impact of other audits or even no audits at all. It was felt that the BEP support had a particularly strong impact on skills and knowledge transfer (8.1) and on enhancing social responsibility (7.6) while the CT had the strongest impact on cost savings (5.7) and on carbon emission reduction (6.5) compared to the others. (Table 5.5 )

Table 5.5 Rating of impact of support split by organisation undertaking energy audit

5.12.1 Overall, the impact of the energy audits appears lower in terms of cost savings and carbon emissions. The average impact on cost savings was 5.0 with a standard deviation of 2.8 and 33% of all respondents rated the impact on cost savings between 1 and 3. Only 20% rated it between 8 and 10. The total average of the impact on carbon emission reduction across all respondents was 5.3 with a standard deviation of 2.6. The impact of the support on carbon emission reduction was considered to be between 1 and 3 for 28% of all respondents and only 20% rated the impact at 8-10.

5.12.2 The impact to date seems to be highest on the aspect skills and knowledge transfer with a total average rating of 6.3 across all respondents and a standard deviation of 2.6. A total of 43% rated the impact on transfer of skills and knowledge between 8 and 10 and 17% rated it between 1 and 3. A total of 38% believe that the support has had a strong impact on enhancing the social responsibility of the organisation and rated it between 8 and 10 while 25% rated it between 1 and 3. The total average impact on this aspect is 5.9 with a standard deviation of 2.7.

5.12.3 The low impact rating for cost savings and carbon emission reduction may be due to the fact that some respondents mentioned that it is very hard to estimate the actual cost savings due to the support as other factors influence the costs, such as increasing electricity prices. It was also considered difficult to give a rating for carbon emission reduction. Furthermore, a number of respondents mentioned that they have not implemented the measures yet or only recently, therefore the impact is low so far, but is likely to be higher in the future.

5.13 Awareness and receipt of interest free loans

5.13.1 A total of 58% of all respondents were aware of the Loan Action Scotland Scheme and 33% were aware of the CT interest free loans. It should be taken into account, however, that both loan schemes are for small and medium enterprises and therefore large businesses and other organisation might not be aware of the two schemes. Therefore it makes sense to look at loan awareness by organisation that provided the energy audit.

5.13.2 All businesses that received an energy audit form the EST Business Advisor Network indicated that they are aware of the LAS Scheme and only 35% of them were aware of the CT interest-free loans. It is obvious that there is less awareness of the CT interest-free loans compared to the LAS Scheme as the LAS Scheme is actively promoted in Scotland while the CT loans are not. Small and medium enterprises are referred to the LAS Scheme by the BAN and the BEP rather than to the CT for interest-free energy efficiency loans. It should be noted that only 5 of all respondents (8.3%) actually received a loan though the LAS Scheme.

5.13.3 For the public sector, all 7 local authorities were aware of the CEEF financial support scheme and they all received funding through CEEF, too. In addition to that, one university was taking part in the Salix Finance pilot scheme for universities in Scotland.

5.14 Additionality of interest free loan

5.14.1 Out of the 5 businesses that received a loan through LAS, 3 said that it is unlikely they would have implemented the same level of measures anyway, whereas 2 said that it is very likely they would have done so.

5.14.2 The 7 local authorities that use CEEF and the university that takes part in the Salix pilot scheme all highlighted that it is very unlikely or unlikely that the same level of measures would have been implemented without the financial support and that the support provided is very important to them.

5.14.3 We also asked those that did not receive any financial support if the receipt of an interest-free energy efficiency loan would have encouraged them to undertake more energy efficiency measures. The results are shown in figure 5.10.

Figure 5.10 more energy efficiency measures implemented with interest-free loan

5.14.4 The pie chart indicates that 53% of all respondents that did not receive an interest free loan said that it is very likely (8%) or likely (45%) that they would have undertaken more energy efficiency measures if an interest-free loan had been available to them.

5.14.5 Particularly, larger organisations did not feel that they need to borrow money from publicly funded sources to implement energy efficiency measures, as other issues were more relevant for implementation such as the practicality of measures. However, one organisation indicated that their parent company is large and so they cannot get the financial support that is available to their competitors, which are SMEs.

5.14.6 A few respondents (around 5%) indicated that loans for microgeneration would be very useful to encourage the installation of these technologies. While LAS is able to provide loans for microgeneration technologies (subject to meeting funding criteria), these firms were not aware that LAS could be used in this way. Others mentioned that they would not want to borrow money for energy efficiency measures, even if it was interest-free as the amount still needs to be paid back.

5.14.7 A number of small businesses also mentioned that they could not afford to take on another loan for energy efficiency. It would be useful to have grant schemes to support small businesses with the installation of energy efficiency measures and microgeneration technologies. It was suggested that grants through SCHRI should also be available to small businesses.

5.14.8 One respondent indicated that the payback period of 5 years of the LAS Scheme is too short and he extended his mortgage because he prefers to pay an interest on the loan while being able to pay it back over a longer term. Another respondent mentioned that they installed a new boiler and wanted to get a loan through the LAS, but the minimum loan amount was £5,000 and that was too much for them.

5.15 Feedback on structure of public sector support

5.15.1 The local authority energy managers consulted as part of this survey were generally happy with the support provided by the CT and the EST. The CT staff were considered very helpful and knowledgeable and communication with the CT was generally very good. The multi-site assessments provided were thorough and comprehensive.

5.15.2 Local authority energy managers were particularly satisfied with the EST council staff training pilot programme that was provided to a number of local authorities. It was indicated that the initiative transferred a high level of knowledge and skills to the council staff and should be provided to all local authorities.

5.15.3 One local authority indicated that they had some negative experience with the EST due to branding issues. The local authority worked in partnership with Scottish Power to deliver 30,000 energy surveys to households within the authority. This was supported by the EST and therefore the EST branded the surveys under their name without mentioning the Council and Scottish Power. It was felt that the EST brand is not as well known and reputable as that of the local authority, resulting in a lower response rate.

5.15.4 This view is supported by the findings of the Energy Action Zone initiatives funded in South East Scotland. The importance of including local authority branding as well as the involvement of local councillors was felt to be very important in ensuring that local households responded positively to the initiative.

5.15.5 There was also one local authority that was not happy with the CT Carbon Management Programme as it felt that support and communication with the CT was poor. The Council was only contacted when the CT needed something done and the support was not adapted to their needs. The LA had to produce a report with recommendations themselves, but did not receive any feedback on it from the CT. Overall, it was felt to be a very frustrating experience.

5.15.6 There was one major issue that emerged from the discussion with Local Authority Energy Managers. It is believed that the support structure is not straightforward and that there should be a better sectoral separation between the CT and the EST. All agreed that the support structure is not clear and that there should be a one-stop-shop approach. In general, there is a lack of understanding of the roles of the CT and the EST.

5.15.7 Nevertheless, the ESTLST support was felt to be very important as it is local face-to-face support and the EST also provides useful promotional material, educational support, help with grant application for SCHRI and other services. However, there was also support for the LST to be integrated within the CT.

5.15.8 Many energy managers felt that the staff training pilot programme and help with climate change declaration, should be delivered by the CT as there is a perception that the EST and CT were competing and trying to do the same thing. One energy manager stated that at some occasions he felt uncomfortable telling the EST that "the CT has done that already" if the EST wanted to provide them with some support that they had already received from the CT. His opinion was very clear: "The Energy Saving Trust should focus on households and the CT on local authorities and businesses".

5.15.9 Overall, Energy Managers believed that the Local Support Team could be integrated within the CT, but that the services which the LST currently provide should be maintained. It is essential to have local support with local knowledge and the CT does not have enough offices in Scotland to deliver local support. Therefore the main conclusion was that the LST should exist and the services they offer should be maintained, but they could be integrated within the CT in order to have one organisation that is responsible for supporting local authorities.

5.15.10 All local authorities were satisfied with the financial support they receive through CEEF and said that it is essential to them. However, it was mentioned that the support should be extended to include microgeneration technologies and the payback period of 5 years should be extended. One local authority also indicated that the initial targets set within CEEF were not realistic and were unobtainable. This is in line with the CEEF evaluation report which states that the initial CEEF targets were overly ambitious

5.15.11 In the education sector, it was mentioned that CEEF funding levels were felt to be too insignificant and short-term, therefore not very helpful for universities which often undertake large scale long-term projects. Overall, the Salix model was felt to be more attractive as it enabled larger scale and longer term projects to be undertaken

5.16 Feedback on structure of business support

5.16.1 One of the key issues being raised both through the stakeholder consultations and the business survey is a preference for a more streamlined and rationalised support structure relating to resource efficiency. There are currently a number of publicly funded organisations and bodies which actively market to businesses their services relating to business resource efficiency. As discussed previously, the Business Environment Partnership is the only delivery vehicle funded by the Scottish Government which is designed to deal with energy efficiency alongside waste and water minimisation.

5.16.2 This type of service is valued by SMEs as providing a holistic approach to its resource efficiency and ensures that onsite visits are able to provide an overall assessment of where cost savings could be implemented through enhanced resource efficiency. Where more specialist consultancy services are required, the BEP is able to bring in deeper expertise from the CT, where appropriate.

5.16.3 The BEP has been effective in developing a more supportive ongoing relationship with their clients to encourage implementation of energy efficiency action plans. This could include support such as sourcing installers, providing further guidance on different equipment options as well as comparing quotes for installation.

5.16.4 The business survey highlighted that the term BAN has a very low level of brand recognition among its customers, with most seeing the service as delivered by the EST. There is an issue here regarding the extent to which the EST is the most appropriate organisation to host this scheme, given that the EST has no strategic interest in providing support and advice to SMEs in relation to energy efficiency. The EST Scotland stated that it would seek to continue to be a key source of support for micro businesses, as it believes this to be a market which has more similar characteristics to the household market.

5.16.5 However, in terms of a wider remit in relation to SMEs, it would be comfortable if this role was not within the portfolio of services provided under the banner of the EST in Scotland. The organisations which are contracted to provide the EEAC service in Scotland (such as the Wise Group in Strathclyde and Changeworks in Lothian) provide the physical locations in which the business advisors are based. From their perspective, it is desirable for the BAN to be retained within the EST as this provides a means of extending their role across the business as well as domestic sectors. This was highlighted by the Wise Group, in particular, which was keen to establish itself as the primary source of information, advice and funding for both businesses and households in the West of Scotland. As the Wise Group also manages the LAS scheme for businesses, it has well developed profile among businesses in terms of being a source of advice and funding.

5.16.6 The EST is currently in the process of upgrading the current EEAC network into a Sustainable Energy Network ( SEN), and this will have implications for the delivery of the BAN. The current proposals envisage that there will be four EST Advice Centres ( ESTACs) within the SEN replacing the current network of eight EEACs across Scotland. The SEN is scheduled to become operational in April 2008, with contracts awarded for the new network in Autumn/Winter 2007.

5.16.7 One key issue is the role of the SEN in relation to the provision of advice and support to businesses. The EST briefing paper regarding the Scottish Sustainable Energy Network also states that "other EST activities currently delivered through the EEAC network will continue under the SEN. These include advice to small businesses. This continued provision will also contribute to the one-stop shop aspect of the network".

5.16.8 A submission of a Carbon Plan is a central aspect to the new delivery arrangements, with each new ESTAC required to produce a plan based on the particular characteristics of its region. One key issue to consider is the extent to which the non-domestic sector would be covered in the carbon plan. The EST stated that it would be up to each of the ESTACs the extent to which non-domestic sector would be covered in the carbon plan. However, this approach could lead to a lack of consistency in the nature of support provided to the non-domestic sector across Scotland.

5.16.9 Another approach would be for the tenders for non-domestic support provided by the BAN to be dealt with separately to the carbon plan. This also provides the opportunity to re-assess the most appropriate delivery mechanisms for non domestic support in Scotland. In addition, it is unlikely that the current support delivered to the Business Environment Partnership can continue in grant form and not be subject to competitive tendering.

« Previous | Contents | Next »