Abstract

The main purpose of the research is to assess the corporate energy efficiency of investment subsidies with or without the possibility of drawing on subsidies or without support from the Operational Program Enterprise and Innovation. Systematisation literary sources and approaches for solving the problém is processed according to the methodology of the Operational Program Enterprise and Innovation, Eco-energy program indicates the comparison with real and expected savings of energy concerning the corporate energy efficiency of investment subsidies provided to maintain the principles of EU environmental policy and rules for subsidies on a general level in the Czech Republic, complemented by graph illustration of time series of development of sales in the horizon of the years 2011-2015. The relevance of the decision of this scientific problem is that the provision of subsidies from European climate protection funds can contribute to energy savings and air quality. Investigation of the topic within a methodical survey is processed by the research of Czech and foreign scientific literature in the paper is carried out in the following logical sequence: is the creation of a graph and tables taking into account investments and implemented measures with the evaluation of investment efficiency. Methodological tools of the research methods were the comparison was made between the Eco-energy and Potential subsidy programs. The object of research is the chosen company in the South Bohemia region in manufacturing in the Czech Republic plant with 480 employees because, namely an annual turnover of CZK 520 million in 2015. The paper presents the results of an empirical analysis of statistical data, documents and databases of state and private institutions, particularly Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry for Regional Development and the Czech Invest Agency. The research empirically confirms and theoretically proves that the net present value, which expresses the total present value of the cash flows related to the investment project, the simple and the real-time of return on investments and the internal rate of return is significant to efficiency. The results of the research can be useful to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save electricity and thermal energy. The research empirically confirms and theoretically proves that the net present value, which expresses the total present value of the cash flows related to the investment project, the simple and the real-time of return on investments and the internal rate of return is essential for efficiency.

Keywords: EU environmental policy, structural funds, operational program enterprise and innovation, corporate energy efficiency, investment subsidies, net present value.

JEL Classification: F64, O33, Q43, Q47.

Cite as: Vanickova, R. (2020). Innovation corporate energy management: efficiency of green investment. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2, 56-67. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2020.2-04

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Adamisin, P., Kotulic, R., Mura, L., Kravcakova Vozarova, I. & Vavrek, R. (2018). Managerial approaches of environmental projects: an empirical study. Polish Journal of Management Studies,17(1), 27-38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Agovino, M., Casaccia, M., Crociata, A. & Sacco, P. L. (2019). European Regional Development Fund and pro environmental behaviour. The case of Italian separate waste collection. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 65, 36-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Al-Masri, H. M. K., AbuElrub, A., Almehizia, A. A. & Ehsani, M. (2019). Multi-figure of merit optimisation for global scale sustainable power systems. Renewable Energy, 134, 538-549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Alons, G. (2017). Environmental policy integration in the EU’s common agricultural policy: greening or greenwashing? Journal of European Public Policy, 24 (11), 1604-1622. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
5. Annadanam, S. K., & Kota, S. H. (2019). Emission of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants from railways in India estimated using a modified top-down approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 610-617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Andersen, F. M., Baldini, M., Hansen, L. G. & Jensen, C. L. (2017). Households’ hourly electricity consumption and peak demand in Denmark. Applied Energy, 208, 607-619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Arbolino, R., Romano, O. & De Simone, L. (2017). The role of fiscal incentives for renewable energy on economic growth. International Journal of Business and Society, 18(2), 387-3960. [Google Scholar] 
8. Arbolino, R., Carlucci, F., Cirà, A., Ioppolo, G. & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Efficiency of the EU regulation on greenhouse gas emissions in Italy: The hierarchical cluster analysis approach. Ecological Indicators, 81, 115-123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Baltensperger, T., Fuchslin, R. M., Krutli, P. & Lygeros, J. (2017). European Union gas market development. Energy Economics, 66, 466-479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Bergman, U. M., Hutchison, M. M. & Jensen, S. E. H. (2016). Promoting sustainable public finances in the European Union: The role of fiscal rules and government efficiency. European Journal of Political Economy, 44, 1-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Burrascano, S., Chytry, M., Kuemmerle, T., Giarrizzo, E., Luyssaert, S., Sabatini, F. M. &  Blasi, C. (2016). Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestration and protect biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 201, 370-376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Carley, S., Baldwin, E., MacLean, L. M., & Brass, J. N. (2017). global expansion of renewable energy generation: an analysis of policy instruments. Environmental and Resource Economics,68(2), 397-440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Dyba, W., Loewen, B., Looga, J. & Zdrazil, P. (2018). regional development in central-eastern european countries at the beginning of the 21st century: Path dependence and effects of EU Cohesion Policy. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(2), 77-92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Dziembala, M. (2016). Some considerations on the relationship between economic and social cohesion and implementation of the cohesion policy. Perspectives on Federalism, 8(1), 53-80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Enshassi, A., Ayash, A. & Mohamed, S. (2018). Factors driving contractors to implement energy management strategies in construction projects. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 23(3), 295-311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Felixova, K. (2012). Evaluation of the absorption intensity of the entrepreneurial support in the regions funded intensely by the government. Economy and Management, 15(1), 17-27. [Google Scholar]
17. Havlík, V. (2018). Competing discourses of territorial development: tensions between cities and regions as a result of the new regionalism. European Planning Studies, 26(10), 1999-2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Humphreys, B. R. (2019). Facility subsidies redux. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 38(1), 277-279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Chabbi, A., Loescher, H. W. & Dillon, M. S. (2017). Integrating environmental science and the economy: innovative partnerships between the private sector and research infrastructures. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 5, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Indradewa, R., Tjakraatmadja, J. H., & Dhewanto, W. (2017). Open innovation between energy companies in developed and developing countries: resource-based and knowledge-based perspectives. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 12(2), 137-151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Ishikawa, J., & Okubo, T. (2017). Greenhouse-gas emission controls and firm locations in north–south trade. Environmental and Resource Economics, 67(4), 637-660. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
22. Junker, H., & Domann, C. (2017). Towards industry 4.0 in corporate energy management. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 214, 49-56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Kisiala, W., Bajerski, A. & Stępinski, B. (2018). Preferences of poles concerning the shape of regional policy and the allocation of European funds. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 14(54), 55-72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Klímova, V. & Zitek, V. (2015). Innovation paradox in the Czech Republic: Economic theory and political reality. Political Economy, 63(2), 147-166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Knoke, B., Missikoff, M. & Thoben, K. D. (2017). Collaborative open innovation management in virtual manufacturing enterprises. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 30(1), 158-166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Kostić, M. (2016). Regional sectoral structure of the support realised through the Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation 2007–2013. Ergo, 11(1), 12-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Kulyk V., & Skodova Parmova, D. (2017). E-business development: the comparative study of the czech republic and the ukraine. Deturope, 9(1), 80-110. [Google Scholar]
28. Latif, H. H., Gopalakrishnan, B., Nimbarte, A. & Currie, K. (2017). Sustainability index development for manufacturing industry. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 24, 82-95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Lenkova, O. V., Kot, A. D., Yakunina, O. G. & Yumsunov, M. S. (2018). Lean manufacturing as a way of employees’ motivation in energy saving. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (UAE), 7 (14), 376-380. [CrossRef]
30. Levanen, J., & Eloneva, S. (2017). Fighting sustainability challenges on two fronts: Material efficiency and the emerging carbon capture and storage technologies. Environmental Science and Policy, 76, 131-138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Lim, H., Kim, C., Cho, Y., & Kim, M. (2017). Energy saving potentials from the application of heat pipes on geothermal heat pump system. Applied Thermal Engineering, 126, 1191-1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Liu, P., & Xie, H. (2013). Research on Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises Promoting Policy. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 227 (5), 229-235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Mageshwaran, G., Britto Joseph, G., Sivaji, T., Durairaj Nithiyanantham, R. B., & Maruthairaja (2018). Energy saving in an air conditioning system using modified HVAC unit as an energy reducer. International Journal of Ambient Energy, 39(7), 719-725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Mahmood, D., Javaid, N., Ahmed, I., Niaz, I. A. & Khan, Z. A. (2017). Multi-agent-based sharing power economy for a smart community. International Journal of Energy Research, 41(14), 2074-2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Mense, A. (2018). The Value of Energy Efficiency and the Role of Expected Heating Costs. Environmental and resource economics, 71(3), 671-701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Miller, L., & Carriveau, R. (2018). A review of energy storage financing – Learning from and partnering with the renewable energy industry. Journal of Energy Storage, 19, 311-319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Miller, W., & Senadeera, M. (2017). Social transition from energy consumers to prosumers: Rethinking the purpose and functionality of eco-feedback technologies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 35, 615-625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Moen, J. (2019). Corporate returns to subsidised R&D projects: direct grants vs. tax credit financing. International Journal of Technology Management, 79(1), 84-101. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
39. Monasterolo, I., & Raberto, M. (2019). The impact of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies on the low-carbon transition. Energy Policy, 124, 355-370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Percoco, M. (2017). Impact of European Cohesion Policy on regional growth: does local economic structure matter? Regional Studies, 51(6), 833-843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Prashar, A. (2017). Energy efficiency maturity (EEM) assessment framework for energy-intensive SMEs: Proposal and evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1187-1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Radicic, D., & Pugh, G. (2017). R&D programmes, policy mix, and the ‘european paradox’: Evidence from European SMEs. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 497-512. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
43. Raji, V. P., Srivastava, U., Singh, S. K., Ramesh, L., & Jain, K. K. (2016). A pilot study on electrical power audit in an institutional office. International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Optimization Techniques, ICEEOT 2016, 7755189, 2720-2724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Rogge, N., De Jaeger, S., & Lavigne, C. (2017). Waste performance of nuts 2-regions in the eu: a conditional directional distance benefit-of-the-doubt model. Ecological Economics, 139, 19-32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Sedlacek, M. (2015). Subsidy Effect On Enterprise Competitiveness – Preliminary Analysis. Politicka Ekonomie, 63(4), 474-497. [Google Scholar]
46. Scheurer, L., & Haase, A. (2018). Diversity and social cohesion in European cities: Making sense of today’s European Union–urban nexus within cohesion policy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 25(3), 337-342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Sineviciene, L., Sotnyk, I. & Kubatko, O. (2017). Determinants of energy efficiency and energy consumption of Eastern Europe post-communist economies. Energy and Environment, 28(8), 870-884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Sobotkova, L. (2015). The evaluation of impacts of usage of subsidies from regional operational programs. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of Economics and Administration, 22(35), 114-127.
49. Spiller, E., Sopher, P., Martin, N., Mirzatuny, M., & Zhang, X. (2017). The environmental impacts of green technologies in TX. Energy Economics, 68, 199-214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Stefaniak, J. (2013). Absorption chillers in solar cooling systems as an example of modern technology for sustainable development. Rocznik Ochrona Srodowiska, 15(1), 1216-1227. [Google Scholar]
51. Stefanek, R., & Bockova, K. (2011). How to manage risks in Czech and Slovak engineering projects. Economical and Management, 14(4), 67-77. [Google Scholar]
52. Tascu, A. V. (2014). Structural instruments 2007-2013 – Regional development guarantee. Quality – Access to Success, 15, 265-270. [Google Scholar]
53. Trianni, A., Cagno, E., & De Donatis, A. (2014). A framework to characterise energy efficiency measures. Applied Energy, 118, 207-220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Trotta, G., Spangenberg, J., & Lorek, S. (2018). Energy efficiency in the residential sector: identification of promising policy instruments and private initiatives among selected European countries. Energy Efficiency, 11(8), 2111-2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Vochozka, M., & Marouskova, A. (2017). Economic aspects of carbon management in sewage sludge treatment. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilisation, and Environmental Effects,39(5), 485-489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Waldo, S., & Paulrud, A. (2017). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in fisheries: the case of multiple regulatory instruments in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics, 68(2), 275-295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Wilkesmann, M., & Wilkesmann, U. (2018). Industry 4.0 – organising routines or innovations? VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 48(2), 238-254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Wokoun, R., Kolarík, P., & Kolaríkova, J. (2016). Evaluation of entrepreneurs with a focus on operational programme enterprise and innovation (OPEI). Results of a Questionnaire Survey. Economics and Sociology, 9(4), 272-288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Wolisz, H., Schutz, T., Blanke, T., Wesseling, M., & Muller, D. (2017). Cost optimal sizing of smart buildings’ energy system components considering changing end-consumer electricity markets. Energy, 137, 715-728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]