International Observatory on managing energy according to ...€¦ · International Observatory on...

1

* 25rueOscarRoty 75015Paris' +33(0)977197234ý www.timetobe.frContact:EmmanuellePATRY¡ +33(0)663909629¡ [email protected]

InternationalObservatoryonmanagingenergyaccordingtoISOstandard50001SummaryreportJanuary 2017

2

Profileoforganizationsandrespondents

Summaryreport– 2016InternationalObservatoryonmanagingenergy– TIMETOBEforAFNOREnergies– Jan2017 3

MetropolitanFrance38%

Frenchoverseas4%

Germany46%

Others12%

Trade/Retail6%

Energy13%

Industry/construction62%

Services19%

Activitysector Geographicalarea

3%

2015WWfigures

17% 18%

62%

8%

5%

42%

40%

¢ Stable vs 2015

¢ Most represented sector: industry / construction

¢ Over-representation of Germany in the energy sector

Others : 2% for : USA, UK, Canada, 1% for : Colombia, Chile, Spain, Finland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Sweden, Taiwan

Industry/construction : 17% agro-food, 9% chemical, 4% heavy, 4% pharmaceutical/personal care, 2% automotive, 22% others, 3% construction

Activitysectorsandgeographicalarea

Survey conducted betw. June 2nd and November 18th 2016, with 185 ISO 50001 certified establishments worldwide : 86 inGermany, 77 in France (69 Metropolitan France, 8 overseas) and 22 dispersed in other countries : 4 USA, 3 UK, 3 Canada, 2Russia, 2 Portugal, 2 Finland, 1 Sweden, 1 Spain, 1 Slovenia, 1 Chile, 1 Colombia, 1 Taiwan


One45%

2to1028%

Over1027%

Registeredoffice34%

Industrialsite/factory52%

Othersubsidiary/entity

14%

<25024%

250-250049%

>250027%

<10022%

100-99944%

1000-999924%

>1000010%

NumberofestablishmentsWW

EmployeesWW

Natureofestablishment

NatureandnumberofestablishmentsandWWemployees

¢ The majority are based on the organization's industrial site; lessheadquarters vs 2015

¢ Almost half with only one site worldwide

¢ Significant increase of Small and Medium Organizations vs 2015

20%26%

28%

9%

45%

46%42%

29%

26%

29%

î

Data excluding DK/NA = 18%For organizations >1 site WW, number of establishments in the country of the respondent (excluding DK) : 12% unique site, 59% betw. 2 and 10, 28% over 10.

ììì

îî

Organizations >1 site WWData excluding DK/NA = 20%Number of employees on respondent’s site : 27% <100 / 57% 100-999 / 15% 1 000 - 9 999 / 1% 10 000+

2015WWfigures


9%

22%

21%13%

17%

18% < 10 M€ 10-49 M€

50-249 M€

250-999 M€

> 1 MM€ DK

9%

34%

35%

12%

10%It is experiencing a period of strong growthIts growth is steady

Its growth is balanced

It is currently experiencing economic difficultyI prefer not to answer

Worldwideannualturnover

¢ A balanced distribution in terms of turnover :

¤ 31% : turnover <50M€ (mainly in Germany), 21% : turnover between 50 and 249M€, and 30% :turnover> 250M€

¢ 69% report balanced or steady growth and 9% report strong growth.

31%

30%

Economicsituation

Overallannualturnoverandeconomicsituation


No certification

Other(s)

OHSAS 18001

ISO 14001

ISO 9001

ISO 50001

22%

52%

19%

38%

52%

100%

¢ 78% state having at least one other certification, usually ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

3« :31%

4« :16%

32%

23%

100%

53%

45%

26%

47%

21%

Certificationsheld byorganizations

3« :34%33%

Astablecertification'portfolio'since2015

Averagecertificationdate:2001




¢ Management systems are far more integrated than before : a leap in one year (from 27% to 49%).

2015WWfigures

¢ 34% report at least 3 certifications out of 50001, 9001, 14001 and 18001 (especially in industrial sites, Franceand large companies, but less in Germany, head offices and small structures).


21%

25%

23%

20%

10% 2 to 6 months

7 to 9 months

10 to 18 months

Over 18 months

Imprecise

Beforemid-201319%

Frommid-2013tomid-2014

9%Frommid-2014tomid-2015

24%

Aftermid-201548%

¢ ISO 50001 certification period

¤ More recent certifications than in 2015

n 48% have been certified for a year and ahalf

n 28% certified before mid-2014 (vs 59% in2015)

¤ The most recent are in : France, head offices,small businesses, and services

¤ The oldest are in : Germany and large groups41%

22%

37%

ISO50001certificationdate

72% ììì

îîî

28%

Certificationperiodanddurationofimplementation

59%îîî

DurationofEMSimplementation¢ Duration of implementation of the EMS before certification

¤ For 46%, the implementation lasts less than 9 months.

¤ Longest durations : Germany, small structures, recentlycertified.

¤ Shortest durations : France, first certified establishments.46%

2015WWfigures


23%

47%

55%

83%

94%

62%

36%

41%

8%

2%

15%

17%

4%

9%

4%

TechnicalBuildingManagement

CentralisedTechnicalManagement

Centralisedsoftwareplatformsforprocessingenergydata

Divisionalmeters(orsub-meters)

Generalmeters

Available Nonavailable DKMeasuringdevices

¢ 97% are equipped with general meters and 90% with divisional meters.

¢ Just over half have centralised software platforms and / or a CTM.

55%

83%

94%

47%

23%ìì

Measuringdevices

65% >10sitesWW/76% >2500employeesWW/63% certifiedbeforemid-2014

44% >2500employeesWW/45% certifiedbeforemid-2014

70% certifiedbeforemid-2014,43% France

¢ A significant increase in TBM

¢ Larger organizations are naturally more equipped with measuring devices, notably in CTM.

2015WWfigures

9

Abeneficialandrecommendedapproach


57%37%

6%

Definitely

Probably

Probablynot

Definitelynot

25%

54%

16%

4% 1%Verysatisfied

Prettysatisfied

Moderatelysatisfied

Ratherunsatisfied

Notsatisfiedatall

ISO50001certifiedEMS:80%aresatisfiedand94%arewillingtorecommend

PerceptionoftheEMSprocess

80%

23%

11%

17%

49%

72%

¢ Satisfaction: a quarter of very satisfied organizations and a decreasing rate of dissatisfied.

¤ The larger the organization, the higher the level of satisfaction.

0%

îî

94% 95%

5%

53%42%

Recommendationpotential

ììîî

¢ Recommendation : "very certain" intentions up sharply, especially among first certified -> a clear message ofperformance.

¤ The recommendation rate is 14 points higher than the satisfaction rate, which shows that even the lessersatisfied would recommend this approach.

2015WWfigures


Negligible23%

Low52%

Veryhigh16%

DK/NA9%

¢ A not significant but interesting trend : the older the certification, the more the budget is considerednegligible compared to the profits made, which reveals the profitability of the approach over time.

75%considerbudgetstobenegligibleorlowinrelationtothebenefitsprovided.

PerceptionofthecertifiedEMSimplementationcost,giventhebenefitsprovided

75%

51%

24%

8%

68%17%

20%France,24%Germany


10%France,21%Germany- :Medium-sizedorganizations

2015WWfigures


26%

30%

3%

3%

26%

9%

3%

WehadnofixedobjectivesintermsofROI

Itistoosoontosay

Itisconsiderablylowerthanourestimates

Itisslightlylowerthanourestimates

itisinlinewithit

Itisslightlyhigherthanourestimates

Itisconsiderablyhigherthanourestimates

TheobservedROIatthetimeofthesurvey

12%3%

11%

24%

3%

0%

38%

21%

14%

ROI:morethanaquarter*haveseentheresultsexceedtheirexpectations,especiallyamongthefirstcertified.

¢ In a overall approach to performance optimisation, financial returns are not necessarily the priority in the shortterm : indeed, 56% do not have a clear idea on the ROI estimate, out of which 26% assume having no fixedobjectives.

¢ 12% have seen the results exceed their expectations (*27% of those who express an opinion), especiallyamong the first certified, and in France.

¢ For almost all others, the observed ROI is in line with the estimates.


16%France,6% Germany



7%France,5%Germany

6% 3%

2015WWfigures


¢ Current energy savings : 18% report that they are over 10% of annual energy performance, and 69% lessthan 10%.

¢ Investment payback : more than a third express no opinion on this question. 36% (* 56% of those whoexpress an opinion) estimate it to be below two years, and 28% over two years.

ROI:morethanhalf*reportthattheaverageinvestmentpaybackperiodisbelowtwoyears.

Average investmentpaybackobserved

Maximumacceptedperiod Lessthan1year 1to2years 3to4years Over4years DK/NA Total

1year 13% 8% 0% 0% 3% 5%

2years 21% 34% 10% 10% 15% 18%

3to4years 63% 53% 62% 45% 34% 48%

5to9years 4% 0% 21% 20% 6% 9%

10years 0% 3% 0% 10% 6% 4%

Beyond 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1%

DK/NA 0% 3% 7% 10% 35% 16%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

¤ The estimated ROI on the undertaken actions is well below the maximum accepted time: for 48%, theaccepted investment payback to initiate investments related to energy performance improvementsolutions is 3 to 4 years.


58%20%

17%5% n°1- Financialandnon-financialinequalmeasure

n°2- Mainlyfinancial

n°3- Mainlynon-financial

DK/NA

¢ 20% of organizations believe that they have mainly received financial benefits, especially the firstcertified, which implies that the ROI is positive in the long run.

¢ In larger structures, the rate of those that believe they have mostly benefited from non-financialbenefits, is above the average.

BenefitsoftheEMS/IS050001atthetimeofthesurvey

6%

17% 65%

12%

Benefits:58%reportthattheyarebothfinancialandnon-financial;astabletrend.

2015WWfigures


2%

3%

4%

7%

7%

11%

12%

13%

15%

15%

18%

18%

27%

32%

57%

11%

18%

29%

21%

26%

38%

50%

28%

44%

45%

45%

47%

47%

54%

30%

24%

26%

37%

34%

28%

30%

29%

36%

31%

26%

22%

20%

16%

7%

9%

36%

24%

26%

26%

33%

14%

6%

16%

9%

8%

8%

13%

8%

4%

2%

27%

29%

4%

12%

6%

7%

3%

7%

1%

6%

7%

2%

2%

3%

2%

Anassetintheeyesofthestockmarkets

Anassetintheeyesofratingagencies

AnadvantageforHealthandSafetyatWork,workingconditions(comfort+)

Ameansoffacilitatingcreditrequestsforinvestments

Astaffmanagementdevice

Atriggerforproductandservicesinnovation

Aleverforimprovingstaffexpertise

Anegotiatingleverforenergypurchasing

Theopportunitytocomparethecompany’senergyperformance(2)

Atriggerforinnovationofindustrialprocedures

Aleverforimprovingmargins(byreducingproductioncosts)

Acatalystfortheimplementationofregulatorymonitoring

Avectorforprioritisingstrategicactions

Along-termvectorforprogress

Atooltoenableeasieridentificationofpotentialenergyandfinancialsavings(1)

Absolutely Somewhat Notreally Notatall DK Absolutely+SomewhatAverageA+SAverage‘Absolutely’

(1)thataredifficulttodetermineempirically/(2)withinitsactivitysector(benchmark)

87%

86%

74%

65%

21%

59%

41%

62%

33%

49%

Nonfinancialbenefits

28%

63%

60%

13%

33%

Thetopthreeobservedprofitsarecomposedofonefinancialprofitandtwonon-financialprofits.

+ : Germany, first certified / - : France

+ : France / - : Germany

+ : France

+ : Germany


2%

3%

5%

9%

12%

14%

18%

30%

33%

35%

47%

8%

24%

20%

29%

39%

23%

35%

28%

22%

36%

30%

15%

21%

22%

31%

27%

20%

30%

22%

18%

13%

16%

75%

52%

53%

31%

22%

43%

17%

20%

27%

16%

7%

Thepriceofcarbon

Theneedforaglobalframeworktomanageandmonitorallsites

Theopportunitytotakepartinacollectiveprocedurewithothercompanies

Theneedtoreducegreenhousegasemissionsfromsourcesofenergyconsumption(environmentalpolicy)

Promotionofthecompanyimagetoitscustomers,externalcommunication

Energymanagementispartofourcorebusiness

Theneedtostructureandrationalisetheexistingsystem(implementationofastructuredandoperationalenergyroadmap)

Companystrategy(headofficedecision):identificationofanenergystrategyconfirmedbyManagement

Theofferofgovernmentsubsidiesandfinancialassistance

Tocomplywithoranticipateregulatoryrequirements

Theneedtomakefinancialsavingsthroughsystematicenergymanagement

Crucial(trigger) Important Anincentivebutnotdecisive Notareasonwhenthedecisionwasmade Crucial+important

Average’Crucial’+‘Important’

Average‘Crucial’

77%

71%

55%

58%

53%

37%

51%

38%

25%

27%

10%IntrinsicOpportunityConstraint

Motivations:mainlyrelatedtoeconomicandregulatoryconstraints

+ : first certified

+ : Germany, smaller structures, unique site, certified before mid-2015

+ biggest structures

+ : WW turnover> 250M€, over 10 sites WW / - : Germany, unique site, WW turnover < 50M€

+ : biggest structures / - : small structures, Germany, recently certified


47%

35%

18%

n°1- Both:onewasimpossiblewithouttheother

n°2- Firstandforemost,obtainingISO50001certification

n°3- Firstandforemost,theimplementationofasystematicapproachofenergymanagement

Trigger:47%wereinitiallyaimingatobtainingcertificationandestablishingaprocessofcontinuousimprovement

ThedrivingforcebehindtheEMS/50001implementationdecisionmadebytheorganization

18%

21%

61%

ìì

îî

82%

82%

¢ The dual objective methodical approach / certification is more prevalent among the more recently certified(not significant).

¢ Strong disparities between France and Germany:

¤ France: 56% "both", 27% methodical approach, 17% certification

¤ Germany: 56% certification, 41% "both", 3% methodical approach

¢ The larger the company, the more the trigger is the methodical approach (to federate and structure), and thesmaller it is, the more it is the certification (to meet customer requirements and to communicate).

2015WWfigures


29%

51%

61%

69%

Providestheexternalperspectiveofanauditor

Enablestoensurelong-termstaffinvolvement

Enablestoenhancethecompany’simage

Enablestocomplywiththeregulations

¢ Image enhancement : especially in headquarters and larger companies

¢ Mobilization of staff : especially in the largest companies

¢ The external view provided by the auditor : especially in France and in the largest companies

Newquestion2016QuestionfilteredonthebasisoforganizationsforwhichcertificationisadrivingforceinthedecisiontoimplementtheEMSapproachaccordingtoISO50001(82%).





Trigger:whenitisthecertification,itisabovealltocomplywiththeregulations

ContributionoftheISO50001certification

19

Conditionsforsuccess


TotalC+IAverage‘Crucial’+‘Important’Average‘Crucial’

50%

90%

92%

85%

89%

90%

63%

97%

82%

95%

Theconditionsforasuccessfultransitionarefirstandforemostrelatedtogovernanceandhumanresources.

+ : services, France / - : Germany

+ : big groups

- : big groups

+ : services

- : Germany, big groups

+ : big groups / - : France

15%

22%

28%

29%

31%

34%

40%

44%

60%

70%

35%

60%

35%

60%

59%

51%

52%

46%

35%

27%

35%

15%

29%

11%

9%

14%

8%

10%

5%

2%

15%

3%

8%

1%

1%

1%

Theuseofoutsideserviceproviderscompetentinthisarea

AgoodcultureofmanagementsystemsinaccordancewithISOstandards

Therecruitmentofdedicatedstaff

Thetimeallocatedtocarryingouttheenergyreview

Thetrainingofstaffmostcloselyinvolvedintheproject

Theanticipationofresources

Theprofileofthemanagementrepresentative

Awareness-raisingamongallemployees

Thecreationofadedicatedteam

ThecommitmentshownbyManagement

Crucial Important Secondary Negligible


15%

22%

28%

29%

31%

34%

40%

44%

60%

70%

Theuseofoutsideserviceproviderscompetentinthisarea

Agoodcultureofmanag.syst.inaccordancewithISOstandards

Therecruitmentofdedicatedstaff

Thetimeallocatedtocarryingouttheenergyreview

Thetrainingofstaffmostcloselyinvolvedintheproject

Theanticipationofresources

Theprofileofthemanagementrepresentative

Awareness-raisingamongallemployees

Thecreationofadedicatedteam

ThecommitmentshownbyManagement

CrucialTotal‘Crucial’+‘Important’

50%

90%

92%

85%

89%

90%

63%

97%

82%

95%

71%

29%

41%

29%

30%

29%

26%

30%

98%

79%

100%

85%

80%

94%

67%

75%

ììì ììì

îîî

ìì

Newcriterion 2016

Newcriterion 2016

Thededicatedteam:aratethatdoublescomparedto2015,toleapupfromthe7thtothe2ndplaceoftheconditionsforsuccess.

2015WWfigures


48%52%

Iinitiatedtheprocedureandvolunteeredtotakeonthisrole

ItwasaManagementdecisionwhichisinlinewiththeestablishment'sstrategy

Existence of a team dedicated

to energy90%

No dedicated energy team

10%

¢ 90% of organizations report having a team dedicated to energy, a leap in comparison to 2015 (77%).¤ NB: 100% of large companies report having an energy team.

¢ The composition of the skills present within the team has not changed (a majority of technical profiles /maintenance), and the frequency of meetings shows a slight downward trend.

Energyteam

ììì

îîî

77%

23%

TheEnergyCommitteeisonthewaytobecomingaprerequisite.


Energyreferents:levelofvolunteering

48%52%56%France,42%Germany

+ : >10 sites WW, > 2500 employees, WW turnover > 250M€

¢ The Energy Referent heads the team dedicated to energy (78% of respondents state serving this function).His role is crucial.

¢ 48% (stable vs. 2015) were early promoters, even prescribers, of the project, either by their experience onprevious energy projects or by their deep conviction.

2015WWfigures


ProfileoftheEMS/ISO50001representative

ThetitleoftherepresentativeappointedbytheTop

Management

• In25% ofcases,therepresentativeappointedbytheManagementtosteertheEMSis"EnergyManager"orassimilated.

• +:Germany,industry,2to10sitesworldwide

• In42% ofcases,thejobtitlesoftheEMSrepresentativesincludetheword"energy",sometimescombined withotherresponsibilities.

• Franceshowsahigherscoreofcombinationwiththeterms"Environment"or"SustainableDevelopment",aswellas"Quality"and/or"Hygiene"and/or"Safety".

Periodofpositiontakingup,and

seniority

• 59%ofEMSreferentstookuptheirpositionin2014or2015 :asharpincreasecomparedto2015(30%),whilesenioritydoesnotvary.

• à Aconfirmationoftheimportanceofhavinganenergyrepresentativewithintheorganization,especiallyinFrance(79%).

Directreporting

• 37%reporttothePlantManager.

• +:Germany,factories,industry,smallandmediumstructures

• 22%directlyreporttotheTopManagement.

• +:France,services,certifiedafter2015

Scopeofactionand

responsibility

• 82%maintainacross-

departmental

activityandresponsibilityforallormostoftheorganization’sservices


13%

1%

2%

10%

27%

47%

DK/NA

Over500K€

Betw.250K€and499K€



Below50K€

¢ 47% assess that the dedicated budget for the implementation of EMS/ISO 50001 is below 50K€ (for the siteof the respondent, stable vs. 2015), and 27% state that it is between 50K€ and 99K€ (vs. 15% in 2015, upsharply).

¢ The « DK » (« don’t know ») rate is dropping : organizations seem to be more aware of allocated budgets andmore mature in their perception of the investment-to-earnings ratio.

50K€to99K€dedicatedbudgetsareup.

EvaluationoftheoverallbudgetdedicatedtothecertifiedEMSonthesiteoftherespondent,includinginternalcosts

50%

15%

8%

4%

0%

24%îî

ìì

13% 12%



7%France,14%Germany

¢ Not surprisingly, the larger the organization, the higher the budgets, and vice versa.

¢ Trend : more budgets in Germany and among the oldest certified, than in France and the recently certified.

2015WWfigures


4%

18%

22%

24%

28%

33%

35%

46%

56%

58%

72%

9%

14%

13%

29%

21%

30%

13%

32%

24%

14%

24%

82%

65%

63%

42%

49%

32%

50%

20%

19%

26%

2%

5%

3%

2%

5%

2%

5%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

ResearchandDevelopment

Recruitments,oneorseveral(trainees,fixed-termcontracts,permanentcontracts)

Outsideserviceprovider(s)toimplementthesoftwareplatformforprocessingenergydata

Machineryandequipment>€10,000

Outsideserviceprovider(s)forregulatorymonitoring

Otherequipment<€10,000

Outsideserviceprovider(s)forEnergyreview/Referenceconsumptionand/orPerformanceindicators

Training

Theinstallationofenergymeters

Outsiderserviceprovider(s)tosupporttheimplementationoftheEMS

Costoftheauditforcertification

DedicatedbudgetforEMS/ISO50001 AllocatedbudgetforanoverallapproachwithotherManagementSystems NoallocatedbudgetforEMS/otherMS DK/NA

EMS+allMSAverageallMSAverageEMS

13%

80%

78%

48%

49%

63%

53%

96%

72%

à Trainees(52%),fixed-termcontracts(42%)andpermanentcontracts(42%)

19%(vs12%in2015)reportotherinvestmentsdedicatedtotheimplementationofEMS/ISO50001,mainlymeasuringandcountinginstrumentsandsoftware,otherthanmeters

32%

35%

58%investedabudgetdedicatedtotheEMSforthesupportofexternalserviceproviders.

ì

î

ì

+ : headquarters, services, small structures, more recently certified.

+ : factories, small and medium sized structures, recently certified

+ : industry, smaller structures, first certified, Germany / - : France

+ : headquarters, small structures, Germany / - : France

+ : smaller structures

+ : factories, smaller structures

+ : smaller structures

+ : bigger structures

+ : bigger structures

+ : Germany / - : France


4%

6%

9%

10%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

14%

27%

35%

28%

25%

68%

27%

30%

65%

51%

49%

37%

51%

50%

51%

55%

63%

21%

46%

45%

21%

29%

32%

44%

29%

17%

14%

13%

6%

1%

17%

16%

2%

8%

6%

5%

5%

6%

1%

Identifyingandchoosingoutsideserviceproviders

ThelackofsupportfromManagement

Understandingandinterpretingthestandard

ThelackofexperienceofoutsideserviceprovidersinISOstandard50001

Thefeelingofisolation

Implementingcertainrequirementsofthestandard

Changemanagement

Theprovisionofqualifiedresources

Thelackoffunding

Theavailabilityandqualificationsofhumanresources

Technicalconstraintsrelatedtotheageofthebuildingsand/orsystems

Managingyourworkload

Greatdifficulty Notalwaysobvious Nodifficulty Notapplicable Total¢¢Average‘NAO’Average‘GD’

32%

77%

51%

63%

77%

39%

31%

85%

65%

63%

77%

37%

Thegreatestvigilancepoints:themanagementoftheworkloadandthetechnicalconstraintsrelatedtotheageofbuildings/systems.

+ : Germany, 250-2500 employees / - : France


4%

6%

9%

10%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

14%

27%

35%

Identifyingandchoosingoutsideserviceproviders

ThelackofsupportfromManagement

Understandingandinterpretingthestandard

ThelackofexperienceofoutsideserviceprovidersinISOstandard50001

Thefeelingofisolation

Implementingcertainrequirementsofthestandard

Changemanagement

Theprovisionofqualifiedresources

Thelackoffunding

Theavailabilityandqualificationsofhumanresources

Technicalconstraintsrelatedtotheageofthebuildingsand/orsystems

Managingyourworkload

Greatdifficulty Total‘Greatdifficulty’+‘Notalwaysobvious’

32%

77%

51%

63%

77%

39%

31%

85%

65%

63%

77%

37%

27%

24%

21%

15%

23%

11%

14%

21%

11%

15%

36%

39%

83%

82%

67%

79%

73%

39%

47%

50%

44%

56%

85%

85%î

îî

îî

î

îî

îîî

îî

îîî

îîî

î

î

Constraintsareperceivedaslessimportantthanin2015.

2015WWfigures


0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,004.4.2Regulatorymonitoring/legalrequirements

4.5.6Design

4.5.5Operationalcontrol

4.4.3Energyreview

4.5.7Purchaseofenergyandenergyservices4.6Verification

4.4.5Energyperformanceindicators

4.5.2Competence,trainingandawareness

4.4.4Referenceconsumption

ScoreInterpretationScoreImplementationAveragescore

¢ Asin2015,regulatorymonitoringremainsthemostdifficultparagraphtobeinterpretedandapplied,followedbytwoparagraphsinChapter4.5"ImplementationandOperation":Design andOperationalControl.

4.4Energyplanning

4.6Verification4.5Implementationandoperation

Comparisonofinterpretationandimplementationscores

Easier

Moredifficult

Focusoninterpretationandimplementationofthestandard

ì

ìì

ì

ìì

î

29

Conclusion:«Ganzodergarnicht* »

* All or nothing


¢ ADDRESS THE RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT AND LAUNCH FAST (IF RELEVANT)

¤ Define the objectives for the organization, and the involvement of the implementation of a ISO 50001certified EMS approach, especially in terms of budget allocated versus return on investment (even if thelatter is not financial).

¤ Once the decision is made, start as soon as possible, and fully engage

Feedbackfromrespondentsonbestpractises

¢ ORGANIZE GOVERNANCE AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

¤ The keys to success lie in:

n The commitment of the Executive Management/Board

n And the management of the project by a competent and invested energy team led by an Energyrepresentative.

n The anticipation of their workload must be taken into account very early, because there is areal risk of saturation and / or demotivation if not.

¤ The involvement of all the employees of the organization is essential, specifically to simplifycommunication with the energy team.

¤ It is essential to raise awareness with all the hierarchical strata, at least with a presentation of theproject, ideally with a training to the standard.


¢ GET SUPPORT AND SHARE

¤ Carefully choose selected experts for guidance on aspects of the standard that require a goodknowledge of the subject.

¤ Share best practices with other organizations in the activity sector.

¢ DIAGNOSE AND ANALYZE : SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS, ENERGY CONSUMPTION MEASUREMENT, ACTION PLAN

¤ It is essential to take the necessary time and perspective on paragraph 4.4 (energy planning), inparticular the energy review, which leads to the definition of the Reference Consumption and theEnergy Performance Indicators.

¤ Some practical tips :

n Go to the simplest and most effective, and keep everyone involved on the long run.

n Also focus on savings : big investments are not always necessary, and a relevant meterimplementation can make the difference.

¤ The integration of legacy systems (9001, 14001 ...) is also a factor of success and time saving.

¢ COMPLY WITH EACH STEP OF THE STANDARD AND USE A PRAGMATIC APPROACH BY SIMPLIFYING PROCESSESAS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

Feedbackfromrespondentsonbestpractises

International Observatory on managing energy according to ...€¦ · International Observatory on...

Documents

Transcript of International Observatory on managing energy according to ...€¦ · International Observatory on...