I was not surprised at the lack of energy audit responses for the 100 days of Carbon Clean-Up Campaign (Basing our case on hard data, BSj 11/06).
From 1993 to 2003, I was manager of the Energy Saving Trust’s Energy Efficiency Advice Centre in Peterborough. At one time, we were required to give advice on reducing energy consumption to small businesses. We carried out direct approaches to companies and made presentations at various business meetings. Responses were near to zero.
So low was the level of interest I set out to contact business people and engaged people I knew personally (probably making a nuisance of myself!). I even did some basic site surveys for nothing. Our centre was not alone – others found the same problems and EST withdrew its obligation to advise SMEs. In general, companies told me that energy bills represented only about 2% of turnover and it was not worth spending staff or management time on it. The same amount of effort in additional marketing or promotional work would return a much greater improvement in the bottom-line profit.
Many businesses occupied leased premises, with the managing agents’ fees based on service charges. There was no incentive for agents to reduce costs, and occupiers could not influence the way in which the building was managed. Many businesses were branches of national concerns – local, regional or even national operational management had no responsibility for the premises they occupied and no influence over, or interest in, the performance of the building. I also found an attitude among some people that being profligate with resources demonstrated success and independence.
In my experience, with a few exceptions, business is not interested in reducing energy consumption or minimising carbon emissions. I hope attitudes can be changed, but I suspect regulation and the law will have a large part to play.
John Davis MCIBSE
Source
Building Sustainable Design