top of page

Non-technical factors influencing energy-saving decisions

Technology is not the issue: the "efficiency gap" stems from non-technical factors

In many energy-saving projects at factories or buildings, modern technology is not the barrier. On the contrary, solutions such as intelligent monitoring systems, high-performance equipment, or optimized operational strategies are fully implemented. However, the actual results are often lower than expected, creating a clear gap between the theoretical savings potential and the savings achieved. The root cause does not lie in technical aspects, but in “non-technical” factors such as behavior, awareness, organizational structure, operational culture, and the design of the management system.


Behavior, awareness, and capability: People can neutralize technology

ree

The behavior of operators plays a decisive role. A variable frequency drive system may be turned off because workers fear it will affect machine speed; energy-saving modes may be ignored to “meet deadlines”; new LED lights may be considered “too bright,” leading people to turn on the old lights as well. When these behaviors are repeated, energy efficiency is undermined even though the equipment is functioning properly. This shows that energy saving is not only a technical issue but also a matter of people and organizational dynamics.


Beyond behavior, awareness and capability also make a difference. Many employees do not understand indicators such as kWh per ton of product or do not know how to read an energy dashboard. If the people executing the tasks are not trained, they will struggle to take proactive actions toward saving goals. When new behaviors are more complex than old habits, people tend to revert to familiar ways of doing things. Therefore, if energy-saving procedures create inconvenience or lack a sense of safety, they are difficult to sustain in the long term.


Organizational structure and internal culture: When goals conflict and norms shape behavior

ree

Organizational structure and accountability systems also strongly influence energy-saving decisions. In many companies, production targets are prioritized over energy goals. The production department’s KPIs focus on speed and output, while the energy team plays only a supporting role. This separation of objectives leads to poor coordination between departments and even conflicts of interest. Without mechanisms that clearly link responsibility and authority, no one truly “owns” the long-term savings results.


Social norms and internal culture are also “invisible forces” that shape behavior. People tend to follow the group. If an entire shift runs machines at maximum capacity “just to be safe”, new employees will do the same. Even comparison-based energy programs (such as those by Opower) can sometimes create the opposite effect: low-consuming users increase usage to match the “average”. This shows that if energy-saving messages are not carefully designed, they may create unintended boomerang effects.


Feedback, motivation, and rebound effect: Why is change difficult to sustain?

One commonly overlooked factor is the feedback and incentive system. In many places, people are only given “general reminders” without specific or timely feedback tied to individual actions. When operators do not see results or receive recognition, they lack motivation to change. Conversely, small rewards, direct praise, or team acknowledgments help sustain energy-saving behaviors. The combination of transparent feedback and intrinsic motivation builds a true “culture of conservation”.

ree

The “rebound effect” also occurs frequently: the more energy is saved, the more it is used. For example, when a high-efficiency air conditioning system reduces costs, some departments lower the temperature or run it more often because “it doesn’t cost much.” As a result, the savings benefits are “eroded,” causing the final outcome to fall short of expectations. This shows that behavior management after implementation is just as important as the investment phase.


All these non-technical factors demonstrate that energy saving requires more than just technology, it requires system design based on human behavior, organizational mechanisms, corporate culture, and appropriate communication. When the root causes are correctly understood, businesses can combine technical strategies with human-centered strategies to achieve more sustainable results.


Redesigning behavior and systems: The sustainable key to energy savings

To address non-technical barriers, businesses need to redesign both behavior and systems, rather than relying solely on equipment or software. Change should start with behavior through smart “nudges,” such as visual data displays, energy-saving default settings, and instant feedback to establish new norms. However, behavior is only sustainable when supported by systems, including SOPs that integrate energy-saving requirements, transparent real-time measurement, and clear incentive and reward–penalty mechanisms.

ree

In addition, leadership plays a pivotal role: leaders must act as “culture architects”, directly demonstrating commitment, driving communication, and aligning programs with ESG strategy. Technology remains important but must go hand in hand with people to become the “framework” that sustains behavior. Systems such as BMS, AIoT, or energy management platforms only deliver results when operators are trained and respond quickly. Ultimately, businesses need to shift from a “short-term campaign” mindset to “long-term habits” by embedding energy targets into KPIs, maintaining regular reviews, and creating an environment for cross-department knowledge sharing. This is the key to turning energy saving from a call to action into a natural part of organizational culture.


Energy saving is not just a technical solution; it is a process of operational optimization and cultural reinforcement. When technology is combined with the right behavior, clear processes, and strong leadership commitment, the results will be sustainable and measurable. Now is the right time for businesses to move from “doing when necessary” to “building long-term systems”.

bottom of page