This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights Author's personal copy Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Stakeholders’ influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies in Italian homes Umberto Berardi n Worcester Polytechnic Institute WPI, CEE, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, MA 01609, United States H I G H L I G H T S      Why energy saving technologies are rarely adopted in buildings? Diffusion is slowed by the late participation of stakeholders with great interest for energy technologies. The influence of construction stakeholders for the adoption of energy saving technologies is measured in Italian case studies. More integrated relationships among stakeholders are required to help the adoption of energy saving technologies. Process re-organizations and policies which increase final users’ power are needed. art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 4 August 2011 Accepted 29 April 2013 Available online 22 May 2013 The instability and fragmentation of the temporary aggregations of many stakeholders in construction processes are barriers to adopting new technologies. This paper investigates the influence of different stakeholders on the adoption of mature energy-saving technologies in new residential buildings. Recent literature about the influence of different stakeholders on construction processes is reviewed focusing in their interest for energy saving technologies. To gain an insight into the specific roles played by stakeholders (general contractors, construction firms, architects, users and public governments) in different projects, a case study methodology was used. The influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies of stakeholders was assessed through semi-structured interviews. These interviews focused on the interest and power for the adoption of several energy-saving technologies. Having recognized that the interest in adoption is often expressed late in the construction processes, the time of introduction of this interest was assessed. This paper provides an empirical insight into significant barriers for the adoption of energy saving technologies which are the low influence of highly motivated stakeholders on the decision of adoption, and the delay at which the interest in energy-saving technologies emerges. Finally, policies to overcome these barriers are suggested. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Energy saving technologies Stakeholder's influence Technology diffusion 1. Introduction Increasing attention to sustainability has led to policies and regulations that promote green technologies in construction worldwide. In particular, energy efficient buildings are more and more considered a priority to create a sustainable world. This attention for the building sector arises from its energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission which, in developed countries, represent 30% and 40% of total quantities, respectively. Moreover, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the building sector has higher energy and pollution reduction potentials than any other sector (IPCC, 2007; GhaffarianHoseini et al., 2013). n Tel.: +1 39 348 49 67 185. E-mail address: uberardi@wpi.edu 0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.074 Although many policies encourage the adoption of energy-saving technologies in constructions, the rates of adoption are still low (Manseau and Shields, 2005; Beerepoot and Beerepoot, 2007; WBSCD, 2009). Several reasons have been given for this, such as the high risk in case of failure of the innovation and the cultural stability of the building image (Vermeulen and Hovens, 2006; Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). Moreover, it is widely recognized that the construction sector differs from other sectors because its products are unique, expensive, lasting and fixed, whereas its processes are unstable, fragmentary and deprived of a continuous flow (Gluch, 2005; Berardi, 2013). A main barrier for the adoption of innovations is hence represented by the structure of the construction sector, which is based on the temporary network of many people who collaborate side by side on a single project (Anumba et al., 2005). Finally, the most common barrier to the adoption of energy-saving technologies is the contrasting Author's personal copy U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 priorities among stakeholders (de Blois et al., 2011). The main example of this is represented by the low interest of the builders to invest in energy-saving technologies (Albino and Berardi, 2012). One reason for this is that the main benefit for the adoption is for the end-user of the building, whereas the building promoter rarely recalizes advantages (Pinkse and Dommisse, 2009). However, several experiences contradict this simple picture. Studies have shown that technical and economic potential for the adoption of energy-saving technologies is quantifiable for every stakeholder (Cole, 2000; Svenfelt et al., 2011). The influence of stakeholders on more efficient construction has shown contrasting results. Lack of cooperation in the supply chain and inadequate support from governments have constituted important barriers for energy efficient choices (Lutzenhiser, 1994; Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011). Lack of stakeholders with know-how and modest demand are other common barriers to energy efficiency (Runhaar et al., 2008). However, strong support from engaged stakeholders has sometimes been a driver for spurring this transformation (Andrews and Krogmann, 2009; Lee and Yao, 2013). For example, institutional customers, such as social housing organizations, generally support the adoption of green technologies in homes (Brown and Vergragt, 2008). Contrasting examples have led to a questioning of what influence stakeholders have on the adoption of energy-saving technologies. This paper aims to determine which influences different stakeholders have on the adoption of mature energy-saving technologies; doing this, it shows in the context of analysis which policies should be promoted to overcome barriers related to the reduced influence on the adoption of mature energy-saving technologies. Christie et al. (2011) explained the failure in the diffusion of energy-saving innovations through the limits of economic optimization and technology innovation rationality. This happens because choices and decisions are always socially embedded and strongly influenced by cultural, personal and institutional constrains (Gaps, 1998; DeCanio, 1998). The scope of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the influence of construction stakeholders over the adoption of energy-saving technologies in buildings. Moreover, this paper aims at presenting a methodology which can be used for monitoring the influence, interest and power of construction stakeholders during the building processes. The main hypothesis of this research is that the diffusion of energy-saving technologies is slowed by the late participation in the construction process of the stakeholders who have the greatest interest. Consequently, most of the choices related to construction are made by stakeholders with low motivation for the adoption of energy-saving technologies and high power to impose their will. Finally, this paper aims to identify stakeholders with the potential to push the adoption of energy-saving technologies and conditions which encourage these stakeholders to act. The present study focuses on residential buildings, as these represent the large majority of buildings. For example, in Europe, the residential building stock is 75% of the total (Eurostat, 2010), and it still accounts for a significant part of the annual investment of the construction sector (Eurostat, 2010). The European building sector is currently facing the requirements given the 2010/31/EU Directive, which aims to build only nearly zero energy buildings after 2020 (Directive 2010/31/EU. For example, the UK Government has recently revised building regulations towards the target of “zero carbon” new homes from 2016, and many other countries are acting similarly (Annunziata et al., 2013). However, the levels of compliance with energy regulations in new buildings are still poor. A recent research has shown that in England and Wales, the compliance with the code is below 35% (Pan and Garmston, 2012). Thinking that across Italy new residential buildings still have energy consumption for heating and hot water of 84 kW h/m2y 521 on average (Eurostat, 2010), it is clear that a big gap exists with the target to be achieved in next few years. This highlights the urgency to investigate factors which can facilitate the adoption of energysaving technologies. This paper focuses on medium-sized projects (projects which have fewer than 100 dwellings according Eurostat) because these have been shown to be particularly resistant towards the adoption of energy-saving technologies (Williams and Dair, 2007; Nemry et al., 2010). Medium-size projects have large difficulties in becoming more efficient given the lack of home-buyer demand and of economy of scale in case of adoption (Lutzenhiser, 1994; Williams and Dair, 2007; Hauge et al., 2012). The present study only regards new construction, and although the methodology presented in Section 2 could be applied in case of renovations, the conclusions of the study may not be extended to these last. Aspects related to stakeholder participation in construction processes, their decision-making process, subjective preference and adoption of energy-saving technologies are combined here. The following section describes the construction process as a network of stakeholders. This involves the identification of the stakeholders, together with the analysis of their power and interest. The section also analyzes the construction process along the time dimension and reviews stakeholders’ motivations towards the adoption of energy-saving technologies. Section three reports the empirical research of previous discussions in two case studies: stakeholders are indicated and interviewed to measure their power and interest for adopting energy-saving technologies. Section four discusses the results of the analysis and the efficacy of current policies for the adoption of energy-saving technologies. The final section draws concluding remarks and makes suggestions to incentivize energy-saving technologies in the building sector. 2. Stakeholders of construction processes The construction process involves a large number of stakeholders from different backgrounds and with different goals (Anumba et al., 2005; Chinyio and Olomolaiye, 2009). Consequently, the stakeholders’ mapping in construction processes is a complex task. Stakeholders are people or groups of people who can affect or are affected by the achievement of a project and organization objectives (Freeman et al., 2010). They have been classified as internal or external, depending on whether they are members or not of the project coalition (Freeman et al., 2010). Other common divisions are between business and non-business stakeholders or between primary and secondary stakeholders (Johnson and Scholes, 1999; Newcombe, 2003; Winch, 2010). In this paper, only stakeholders who act in a decision-making capacity for the project organization and for the adoption of new technologies are considered. Attention is thus restricted to primary stakeholders with a business or regulative role in construction projects. 2.1. Stakeholders’ mapping Stakeholders’ mapping consists of three steps: stakeholders’ identification, determination of stakeholder’s concern, and stakeholder impact analysis (Mitchell et al., 1997). These phases are described below. A construction process is mainly based on the relationship between the owner of the future building and the builder. However, many people interact in the construction process and influence choices and adoption of traditional or innovative technologies (Pries and Janszen, 1995; Cooke et al., 2007; Entrop et al., 2008). Based on literature studies (Manseau and Shields, 2005; Author's personal copy 522 U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 Winch, 2010), the main stakeholders of construction processes, together with their main focuses and objectives, have been classified in Table 1. Stakeholders are divided into four categories, which correspond to different sides with respect to the project: the client, design, construction, and public sides. This division revises classifications adopted in other studies (Williams and Dair, 2007; Entrop et al., 2008; Yip and Poon, 2009). Stakeholders in each side have a same main focus. For example, stakeholders from the client side invest to use the building after construction and they are all interested in the value of the building: this is represented by the economic value for the owner and by its quality for the user. The financier has been included in the client side, as it share with the owner of the building the interest for the successful construction of a high value building. Moreover, it has been included in the client side as it may be not present in the construction process if the owner has sufficient economic resources. Stakeholders from the design and construction side work in the design and building process, and look at a technically and economically successful construction. Stakeholders from the public side have a regulative role for the project and defend social equity among people, even among those not involved in the construction. As shown in Table 1, the specific objectives of each stakeholder are different, and can also conflict among stakeholders on the same side (Williams and Dair, 2007; Winch, 2010). Construction stakeholders are considered internal if formally and directly connected to the project, while are external if they are simply affected by it (Winch, 2010). Internal stakeholders generally are on the client, design and construction sides, while external stakeholders are often on the public side. Anyone who has a stake in the project, but who is not directly related to construction activities, is an external stakeholder and could be considered on the public side. This paper considers internal stakeholders together with the local government. This last is a key stakeholder for any project because it has a large influence on typological and technological choices in the building, and it has the power to allow the construction (Albino and Berardi, 2012). The way in which governments (both national and local) regulate the construction processes is through the laws. Construction processes have to follow a high number of laws. In particular, with the aim of pushing the building sector towards sustainable practices, new laws have been continually promoted in recent years (Berardi, 2011; Annunziata et al., 2013). This ever-changing situation often increases uncertainty, becoming a barrier to the adoption of energy-saving technologies (Lutzenhiser, 1994; Williams and Dair, 2007; Murphy et al., 2012). Stakeholders discharge different functions and duties in the construction process (Yip and Poon, 2009). Therefore, it is not surprising that they have different concerns. Conflicting objectives among construction stakeholders often revolve around long-term versus short-term objectives, cost efficiency versus jobs, quality versus quantity, and control versus independence (Mlecnik et al., 2010). Conflicts are particularly evident if external stakeholders are considered, given the large impact of construction activities. However, simply considering internal stakeholders, many potential conflicts exist too (Mohsin and Davidson, 1991; Williams and Dair, 2007). Relationships among internal stakeholders are ruled by contracts which are generally signed for every single project (Miozzo and Dewick, 2002). The most investigated of these relationships is that between the general contractor and its subcontractors. In fact, given the fragmentation of the sector, a large number of these relationships exist (Winch, 2010; Albino and Berardi, 2012). The uncertainty about homebuyer concerns, which are often unknown, represents another barrier to innovation and the adoption of energy-saving technologies. This problem is particularly valid for residential buildings, as this type of building is often built before being sold (Beerepoot and Beerepoot, 2007). Previous research has shown that stakeholders’ influence on a project is unequally distributed. In particular, stakeholders with crucial power over the process often have low interest towards the adoption of new technologies (Williams and Dair, 2007). However, existing research has discussed stakeholders’ influence in a qualitative way and it has rarely considered the effect of stakeholders’ influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies. This gap will be covered in the next sections. These will consider the influence of several stakeholders in different phases of building processes. Stakeholder's influence may be considered a combination of power and interest (Johnson and Scholes, 1999). Stakeholder's power is defined as the ability to influence the project, whereas his/her interest is related to the will for something. A decade ago, Johnson and Scholes (1999) developed the powerinterest matrix based on how interested each stakeholder is in impressing his expectation on project decisions and how much power he has to do this. According to the levels of power and interest, different categories of stakeholders can be recognized (as shown in Fig. 1): key players have high power and high interest; stakeholders with high interest and low power aim to be informed; those with high power and low interest aim to keep satisfied; stakeholders with low power and low interest are characterized by minimal efforts. Recent literature about stakeholder management has been shown that stakeholders’ power and interest change over time, and Table 1 Stakeholders of the building sector classified by category, main focus and objectives (objectives according to Williams and Dair (2007), Winch (2010). Category Main focus Stakeholders Objectives Client side Economic value of the building Design side Technical functionality Construction side Economic and successful construction Public side Social equity User Owner (as a landlord) Financier Architect Consultant engineer Project manager General contractor Subcontractor Product manufacturer Local government Regional government National government Neighbour & NGO Usability, energy consumption, internal comfort Reliability, quality, economy Successful completion, time, quality Quality, reliability of owner needs, aesthetics Specific functionality according to the specialization Stakeholder integration, resources coordination Quality, profit and workmanship Work in construction Sale of subcomponents and material products Local development Healthy environment, local conservation Healthy environment, energy-saving, climate change Local conservation, minimization of project disturbance Author's personal copy U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 523 2.3. Stakeholders’ interest in energy-saving technologies Fig. 1. Revised version of the bi-dimensional power-interest matrix by the inclusion of the time dimension. consequently, stakeholders’ influence should not be considered statically (Newcombe, 2003, Walker et al., 2008). 2.2. Time analysis of stakeholders’ involvement The time at which a stakeholder is involved in a construction process is fundamental for stakeholder mapping. As previously seen, uncertainty about stakeholders’ concerns and participation often characterizes construction processes. Moreover, the fragmentary and temporary organization of construction processes represents a barrier to new technologies, given the difficulties in obtaining expertise beyond the single adoption (Miozzo and Dewick, 2002). This lack of continuity often leads stakeholders to be reluctant to adopt new technologies or to understand the potential too late (Toole, 1998; Andreu and Oreszczyn, 2004). Fig. 1 represents a revised version of the bi-dimensional powerinterest matrix originally presented in the paper by Johnson and Scholes (1999). By including the temporal dimension (ti), the figure allows representation of the evolution of stakeholders’ power and interest. One of the hypotheses of this paper is that the time at which a stakeholder starts participating in the construction process can be a barrier for the adoption of a new technology, especially if it is too late. In fact, construction processes are characterized by the participation of different stakeholders at different times. In the first phases, the construction process is mainly ruled by the municipal and regional governments. Later, the project is often controlled by the design team and general contractor, engaged in design and construction decisions, respectively. In particular, the general contractor often has a power over choices regarding the adoption of different technologies during building activities. Building users often join the construction process after that decisions have been made, denying them critical input in the process (de Blois et al., 2011). Some researchers indicated the design team as the key stakeholder for the adoption of innovations because it oversees all phases of construction (Kubba, 2010), whereas according to others, owners, local governments and contractors are key stakeholders, as they are particularly powerful in several key phases of the construction process (Toole, 1998; Albino and Berardi, 2012). Finally, a recent study has shown that many stakeholders participate in the building process at a time in which they do not have enough power to push the adoption of new technologies (Svenfelt et al., 2011), raising a sense of powerlessness in them. The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) has been used to describe stakeholders’ interest. This theory posits that individual behaviour is driven by behavioural intentions which are a function of individual's attitudes toward the behaviour, and the individual's perception of the ease with which the behaviour can be performed. Attitude toward the behaviour is defined as the individual's positive or negative feelings about performing behaviour. According to the recent evolution of the theory of planned behaviour one's interest in a subject is directly related to the personal culture (Blank, 1996). Personal culture is hence attitude and behaviour related. It has been divided into four aspects: awareness, concern, motivation and implementation (Blank, 1996). These four refer to the sense of detection of the need to change an unsatisfied condition, the anxious feelings of an unsatisfied condition, the stimulus to act and the result of behavioural intent, respectively. Awareness and concern represent cognitive aspects, while motivation and implementation are related to behavioural actions. In this study, the implementation (the fourth aspect of personal culture) is considered as a control variable because it represents the outcome of the other three aspects. The stakeholders’ in the adoption of energy-saving technologies is hence considered through their awareness, concern, and motivation. Moreover, the former two (awareness and concern) are composed of the expectation for adoption (Blank, 1996). Finally, the expectation and the motivation represent the two categories in which interest has been decomposed. These categories will be considered for different stakeholders. Construction companies and project managers seldom undertake surveys about customer preferences, as they generally hypothesize these according to previous experiences and expectations (Winch, 2010). Nam and Tatum (1997) spoke of the myth of customer preference, and indicated that in innovative buildings the general constructor promotes innovations without requests from users. The interest of general constructors and construction companies in energy-saving technologies is often limited by cost, which often represents the main barrier to adoption (Lützkendorfa et al., 2011). In order to promote more sustainable buildings, interest and loan rates from banks and investors are lower in case of energy efficient constructions in many countries; on the contrary, in many others, such as Italy, contractors lack privileged conditions for credit (ANCE, 2012). The local government is often powerful enough to influence the adoption of energy-saving technologies both by implementing tight norms and by creating the conditions in which adoption is encouraged (Pinkse and Dommisse, 2009; Comodi et al., 2012). Although its scope and interest can be limited by regional and national regulations, the local government often owns the land where the building will be sited, or it has the power to decide about the construction. Consequently, its power over decision making processes is often high (Albino and Berardi, 2012). Stakeholders from the design side often have a large interest in the adoption of energy-saving technologies, because they generally have the knowledge to assess them (Andreu and Oreszczyn, 2004). However, their power to impose choices is often limited. For example, energy consultants have a role in advising clients about possible sustainable choices, but a limited power over the final decision (Cooke et al., 2007; Engström and Hedgren, 2012). Moreover, inside the design team, a main role is played by the architect who can be more interested in other aspects than energy-saving technologies (Brown and Vergragt, 2008; Albino and Berardi, 2012). A stakeholder with an uncertain interest in the adoption of green technologies (and in particular of energy-saving ones) is the Author's personal copy 524 U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 home buyer. Contractors have often experienced a lack of customer demand for energy-saving technologies (Pinkse and Dommisse, 2009). In fact, home buyers often do not feel the urgency to choose energy-saving technologies or they stay ambiguous (Levander et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2013). Unfortunately, this condition reinforces the predominantly supply driven status of the residential building market (Pinkse and Dommisse, 2009). In fact, in this situation, construction firms have enough leverage in choosing every technology, and explaining why the cheapest option is often chosen (Madsen and Ulhøi, 2001). The relevance of motivations for adopting energy-saving technologies does not only depend on stakeholders’ role, but varies among projects. Factors such as project location, contract type, building type, planning requirements, and the considered technologies become particularly important (Cooke et al., 2007). This case sensitivity requires looking in detail at the peculiarities of every project to understand the role and influence played by every stakeholder. 3. Stakeholders’ influence in italian home projects The aim of the following case study analysis is to investigate stakeholders’ influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies in residential projects and to examine interactions among stakeholders. The use of a case study methodology has been considered appropriate given the exploratory character of this research. Moreover, the examination of the stakeholders’ influence over the dynamic interactions of building processes is particularly suited to analysis with case studies because an understanding of context specificities is necessary. Cases for comparison were chosen to highlight differences between building processes. 3.1. Case studies In 2010, of the 135 billion Euro invested in the construction sector in Italy, 74 billion Euro was invested in residential buildings (ANCE, 2012). In this high intensive sector of the national economy, the cost of new houses constituted 38% of the total (ANCE, 2012), of which the social housing sector constituted 30%. Around 240,000 new buildings are built in Italy per year (ANCE, 2012). Any building is a single, unique and unrepeatable case which made the selection of cases difficult, and complicates drawing general conclusions from single observations. Two case studies of different kinds have been selected: one is a speculative private project and the other is a social housing one. The projects can be described as a supply-driven case and a consumer driven one, respectively. In the former project, the construction firm built the buildings to sell houses on the market whereas, in the latter, cooperatives of young families promoted the realization of the buildings. The two kinds of projects were selected because they represent by far the most common typologies of Italian homes. In particular, medium-size projects promoted with a speculative aim by a general contractor constitute 64% of the total new buildings in the Southern regions of Italy (ANCE, 2012). Social housing buildings are required by national laws, and given the lack of public funding for new public constructions, these buildings are often promoted by housing cooperatives. Other reasons behind case selection were their representativeness of the building sector in the Apulia region, the availability of documents and building sites, and the interest shown by stakeholders in participating in this study. Although previous selection criteria may be inaccurate, it was important to have access to the work site and to be able to interview several stakeholders in each project. The first project was a private intervention consisting of five new buildings totalling 100 apartments and rehabilitation of a degraded area. In this project, the general contractor purchased the land from private owners and acted as a project promoter. He accepted an incentive from the local municipality to increase the maximum building volume after having realized public services. The project was speculative although with the planning consent of the local government. The second project was a social housing intervention which consisted of 96 semi-detached houses. Six cooperatives bought the land from the municipality and then they obtained the permission to build houses without taxes and on condition of limiting the dimensions of the houses to below 95 m2 and using no expensive details. This kind of agreement is common in many OECD countries and aims to give young families cheaper houses. Each cooperative mandated an architect to design the building, a project manager to coordinate the construction activities and a general contractor to build the houses. Both case studies were realized between 2008 and 2011, following the same regulations and within a distance of a few kilometres of each other. 3.2. Stakeholders’ mapping in case studies The first project started soon after the general contractor bought the land. The first step was to reach an agreement with the municipality to increase the project volume. This activity took one year. Then, the general contractor commissioned the design team. Features of the project were established by the design team according to its wills and the requests of the general contractor. Before starting the job, the construction firm selected a project manager who was engaged in contracts with building product manufacturers. A sales agency was mandated with handling sales activities and relationships with clients. Sales continued throughout the construction process, whereas several unsold apartments were put on the market fully built. The main parameters of sale transactions were the floor size and the locations of the apartments. The second project was started by cooperatives of young families. This process is generally slow because the municipality has to expropriate the land before assigning it to the cooperative. In the meantime, members of each cooperative discussed different designs. This allowed members to giving suggestions related to the building design to each design team. After blueprint approvals by the municipality, each cooperative invited several construction firms, evaluated and selected several construction firms. These acted as general contractors and were free to select subcontractors. The main goal of each general contractor was to maintain the costs as low as possible. During the construction phases, the interests of the cooperative were protected by the project manager and the architect. Limited changes were possible among houses of the same cooperative as members could personally choose only a few features. However, different cooperatives decided to adopt different technologies. For example, one cooperative adopted photovoltaic systems, while all the others selected solar water heaters. Table 2 presents the mapped stakeholders for each project and the time of initial involvement in the building process. The number of stakeholders interviewed during the study is reported in parenthesis. 3.3. Measure of stakeholder's influence Semi-structured interviews with 23 stakeholders were conducted between February and May 2011. Fifteen interviews concerned the first project and eleven concerned the second one, Author's personal copy 525 U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 whereas three stakeholders participated in both. Each interview lasted 1.5 h on average, was recorded and then transcribed. Interviews aimed at knowing and assessing stakeholders’ power over and interest in the adoption of green and energy-saving technologies. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect answers, but the interview always maintained an open character. The questionnaires contained qualitative and quantitative questions: a combination of these resulted in a better measure of stakeholders’ preferences as it was useful to assess the consistency of qualitative answers through quantitative results about sustainability related choices (Parnphumeesup and Kerr, 2011). Triangulation of results was obtained by comparing stakeholders’ answers, checking the coherence of the answers given for each stakeholder by others, and considering secondary information data such as the findings of visits to the jobsite, direct observation of meetings and discussion between stakeholders. Finally, it was possible to analyze the design documents and contracts between stakeholders; these sources were particularly useful to reveal the requests and expectations of stakeholders. buildings were asked. The technologies discussed in the questionnaire are reported in Table 3. The questionnaire focused on expectations of and motivation for the adoption of the different technologies which were available, and had already been adopted in other buildings in the same city. This guaranteed that the considered technologies had already passed the early-adoption threshold and could be considered mature, although they were rarely adopted. The questionnaire was divided into four parts in which the interviewee was asked about:  The construction process, his/her role, entering time and the duration of his/her activities;  To rate his/her and other stakeholders’ power for choosing, and   3.4. Formulation of the questionnaire The questionnaire was based on recent research about attitude and behavioural interest in sustainable choices. The theory of human behaviour and human decision process (Ajzen, 1991) was taken as a conceptual basis to build up the questionnaire; aspects of construction-related culture were mainly drawn from Abeysekera (2002) and Berardi (2013). Energy-saving technologies were categorized following current sustainability assessment systems (Berardi, 2012) in envelope efficient technologies (EE), indoor air quality (IAQ) such as heating/cooling and air conditioning technologies and renewable energy technologies (RET). Moreover, taking the opportunity to interview many stakeholders about their interests towards more sustainable buildings, questions about their expectation for water efficient technologies (WE) and green materials (GM) in the to indicate the evolution of his/her power among the planning, design, construction, and utilization stages of the project; Energy-saving technologies adopted in the building, specifying technologies for WE, EE, IAQ, RET and GM which were chosen, and to rate expectations of technologies in any of the previous categories; Motivations for adopting of energy-saving technologies by rating a list of literature-based motivations, and describing what he/she did to influence a more efficient building, also by rating his/her power for energy efficient choices. Each stakeholder answered for him/herself, without comparing his or her point of view with that of the company he or she worked for. Stakeholders were leaders in their respective roles. People who worked on applying the decision of others were not included, as they often have a limited power in the decisionmaking process. The interviewee rated expectations on a Likert scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), in accordance with similar studies (Olander and Landin, 2005; Vermeulen and Hovens, 2006). Moreover, in order to limit the fuzziness of qualitative answers, the interviewee was asked to assess the extra-cost he would consider paying for adopting energy-saving technologies in each one of the considered categories. He/she was also asked to assess the will to Table 2 Mapped stakeholders of the two case studies (the number of interviewed is reported in parenthesis). First project (speculative private) Client side – Design side Construction side Public side Second project (social housing) Stakeholders Initial involvement time Stakeholders Initial involvement time Users (3) Owner ¼ General contractor Financier (1) Sale agency (1) Architect (1) Energy consultant engineer (1) General contractor (1) Project manager (1) Product manufacture (1) Subcontractor (4) Local municipality (1) During or after construction(variable) – From beginning Before construction After land acquisition Before construction start From beginning From beginning Before construction start During construction Before construction Users (2) Owner ¼ Users Financier (1) – Architect (2) Energy consultant engineer (1) General contractor (1) Project manager (1) Product manufacture (1) Subcontractor (1) Local municipality (1) From beginning – Starting point of the construction – After land acquisition After land acquisition After project approval From beginning During construction During construction From beginning Table 3 The energy-saving technologies considered in the questionnaire and in the interviews. Water efficient technologies WE  Rain water tank  Rain water filtration for toilet use Envelope efficient technologies EE  Triple glazing window  High performance envelope (roof & facade) Heating/cooling air technologies IAQ  Condenser boiler  Recovery air unit  Radiant cooling/heating Renewable energy technologies RET  PV panels  Solar water heater Green materials GM  Low VOC painting  Eco-concrete Author's personal copy 526 U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 As shown in Table 4, users in both projects reported similar motivations for energy-saving technologies. However, their expectations showed lower values in the private speculative project, where users perceived a reduced power over the process. Stakeholders from the design side, both the architect and the energy consultant engineer, revealed medium to high power over the adoption decisions. This was true both in the both projects. The power and interest of the architect of the social housing project clearly emerged during the interviews, when one member of a cooperative which adopted PV panels affirmed “the architect is a well known professional. He explained possible choices to us, and after the cost analysis carried out by the energy consultant, he convinced us to adopt PV panels”. By contrast, the general contractor of the speculative project declared,. “it has been a crisis time for construction since 2008, and I have several unsold apartments in the city. Within this market situation there is no justification to invest in solar energy technologies, especially if houses are unoccupied for a long time before being sold. The architect knew this. None of my customers has shown an interest in renewable energies, because none of them would pay the difference in price I would ask if I had put PV systems”. Vermeulen and Hovens (2006), interviewing Dutch managers of construction firms, recorded positive motivation only towards energy-saving technologies which are easy to fit in and easy to use, but negative motivation due to the absence of market demand. This agrees with findings of the present study. The results obtained by subcontractors were similar between the projects, although during the interviews it emerged that, in the speculative project, subcontractors had more room for suggestions with the general contractor than in the social housing project. In fact, in the speculative project the general contractor had a larger decision-making power, being also the project promoter. By contrast, in the social housing project, subcontractors never knew cooperative members and limited their relationships to the general contractor which, being constrained by contract rules, preferred to keep the construction costs as low as possible. The municipal government was considered a powerful stakeholder in both projects. In the speculative project, the municipal spend a fixed amount of money in each of the previous categories of technologies. Questions about extra-costs for the adoption of energysaving technologies regarded stakeholders on construction and client sides only. These were only considered as secondary information to assess the coherence of the self-evaluation about interest for each technology. Finally, the power of each stakeholder was assessed on a Likert scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). As the indicators used to measure the motivation behind the adoption of energy-saving technologies are related to benefits in the case of adoption, the questionnaire implicitly assumed a positivistic point of view according to which, the adoption of technology is favoured by a stakeholder if he or she recognizes a benefit. Moreover, the methodology used in the interviews, which were based on self-rating, can suffer bias from the limited human capacity of self-evaluation, self-reporting inaccuracy and discrepancy between response and real action. For this reason, the numerical rates were given by the stakeholder only after having described both the interest towards each technology and his/her actions for this. The comparison between qualitative and quantitative answers and the cross comparison among interviews was used to confirm the validity of answers. 3.4.1. Results of the interviews Table 4 reports the ratings given by each stakeholder on the power to make project choices, the expectations of and motivation for adoption of technologies, and the power to choose more efficient options. The results of interviews with the financiers of both projects, the sales agency of the first project, and the product manufacturers of both projects contributed to furnishing a better picture of the decision-making process, but both the financiers and the sales agency showed little power to influence the adoption of energy-saving technologies. By contrast, the role of product manufacturers was fundamental and the decision adoption process was better understood through them. Interest in the adoption of each technology was evaluated considering the results of the survey regarding the expectations and motivations for each stakeholder. Table 4 Results of the surveys about power and interest of each stakeholder in the two case studies. Stakeholder User (U) I Project II Project Architect (A) I Project II Project Consultant I Project engineer (CE) II Project I Project General II Project Contractor (GC) I Project Project II Project manager (PM) Sub-contractor I Project (SC) II Project I Project Municipal Government II Project (MG) POWER INTEREST Motivation for adoption of energy-saving/green technologies Power for adoption Power for adoption of green tech. Expectation for adoption of energysaving/green technologies Self rate Average rate given by others Self rate WE EE IAQ RET GM Market demand Higher ROI, Simple to use, Reduced environsubsidy, no tax easy to fit mental impact Image awards publicity 1.7 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 1.8 3.5 3 4 2 4 5 2 3 3.5 3 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 3 3.5 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 3.5 3 4 5 3 2 2 2 3.5 4 4 5 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 2.5 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2.5 3 3 4 3 2 1 1 2.5 4 3 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 3 2 2 3 3.5 4 4 2 3 3 1 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 1 1 3 3 1.75 1 4 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 2 3 3 3 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 4 4 1 2 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 Author's personal copy U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 government agreed to the volumetric increase of the building, while in the social housing project, cooperative members recognized the fundamental governmental role of approving of the cooperative. Although local government was recognized as highly powerful by every stakeholder, the head of the municipal technical office underestimated his power especially for choices related to the adoption of energy-saving technologies, and his expectations about green choices were slightly higher in the speculative project than in the social housing one. However, when questioned about what he had done to promote more efficient buildings, the head of the municipal technical office affirmed. “My role is to control the respect of public regulations and not to influence people's choices. There are so many national laws related to sustainability features that for me, it is sufficient to respect them. The Mayor can request specific municipal regulations if he wants the technical office to judge and promote stricter energy-saving measures in building projects. However, he did not do this” Finally, this difference between the municipal government as an institution and as a single person in an institutional role was particularly surprising and interesting. The interviewed people were also asked to rate possible modifications of their power and interest along the process. Fig. 2 shows the time evolution of stakeholders' power and interest during the construction processes. This graphical representation shows several differences in the time of action for each stakeholder in the two projects. However, the most significant difference between the two processes is represented by the involvement of users of the buildings: in the social housing users were key players and have high power and interest in the adoptions in the building. Considering the time at which each stakeholder enters the construction process and the duration of his or her activities, it is possible to evaluate the interest in the adoption of energy-saving technologies. In the speculative project, the general contractor, the project manager and the local municipality did not discuss adoption of energy-saving technologies at an early time, as these stakeholders had a low interest in them. The interest partially increased when the architect was contacted and then, when the energy consultant engineer entered the process. On the contrary, in the planning stage of the socialhousing project, almost all stakeholders with an interest in the adoption of energy-saving technologies participated in the process. In particular, at the end of the design stage, when the consultant engineer also participated in the meetings, the different interests in energy-saving technologies had already emerged. This difference between the projects remarks the late participation of building users in the speculative project. In general, the levels of interest shown in Fig. 2 largely differ among stakeholders in the same project and among the same stakeholder in different projects. Stakeholders’ influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies may be obtained by considering the level of interest and the power for choices: this produces an idea about the influence of each stakeholder on the adoption of different energy-saving features. From this analysis, a larger influence of the architect and energy consultant engineer in the adoption of energy-saving technologies emerged in the social housing project than in the speculative project. Moreover, the interviews revealed that users had limited power in the speculative project, where the general contractor maintained a strong influence over choices. Finally, a lower influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies in the speculative project than in the social housing may be assumed by considering the power and interest levels of the stakeholders in the two projects. 4. Discussion The previous section has highlighted important aspects related to stakeholders’ influence over the adoption of energy-saving 527 Fig. 2. Power-interest matrices with stakeholders’ positions for the adoption of energy-saving technologies in the two case studies at the planning, design, construction and utilization stage (the meanings of the acronyms are reported in Table 4). technologies in Italian houses. In the speculative project, the general contractor anticipated most of the building costs. The financier did not require any guarantee of the adoption of energysaving technologies, showing a lack of attention to these technologies. At the same time, the general contractor did not perceive being able to obtain higher sale prices in the case of adoption of energy-saving technologies. In this scenario, general contractors would rarely invest in more expensive technologies than legally required. In fact, the uncertainty about time on market led the general contractor to consider the adoption of energysaving technologies as a supplementary cost and to reject most of them. Table 5 shows the available policies in Apulia region and their effects on the two case studies. The policies have been classified as energy-saving planning or economic and fiscal incentives. In the first category, laws and regulations at several levels were included. These policies had a direct impact on the activities of owner, general contractors and design teams. By contrast, the policies classified as economic and fiscal incentives were less effective because they address the owner of the buildings only. Consequently, they were ineffective in the speculative project and not easy to implement in the social housing one. In fact, in order to apply for this fiscal incentive, two cooperatives decided to complete the building before applying for a retrofitting measure. This “artificial delay” in the adoption of an energy-saving technology in new buildings shows an important limit of current fiscal policies. Policies in Table 5 may be compared with the policies currently available in other countries worldwide (Murphy et al., 2012). Tuominen et al. (2012) have recently reviewed the policies for the promotion of energy-saving technologies in ten European countries. Comparison with the result of this study shows that subsidies, information tools, and regulations related to the EPBD recast are available in most of European countries. However, only a few countries (including Germany) have credit facility instruments. Moreover, comparison with other European countries shows that training and education are poorly diffused in Italy and energy audits and performance surveys of buildings are rare (McGilligan et al., 2010; Nemry et al., 2010; Tuominen et al., 2012). Other important outcomes from the case studies are the differences among technologies. These differences could be justified by the higher motivation of the construction firm to adopt some technologies rather than for others. For example, the expectations of energy efficient envelopes were higher than for IAQ or RET technologies. Moreover, both WE and GM technologies were scarcely considered by the general contractor in the speculative project. This reminds the preference of the general Author's personal copy 528 U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 Table 5 Policies for the adoption of energy-saving technologies in the context of analysis (Apulia, Italy) and effects in the case studies. Category of the policy Level of the policy and its strategy Law and objective of the policy Stakeholders interested by the policy Effect of the policy in the case studies Energy-saving planning National laws: reduce the national energy consumption National building codes have been updated repetitively with laws n. 192 in 2005, n. 311 in 2006, n. 28 in 2011, and with the directive EPBD recast (2010/ 31/UE) Most of the stakeholders criticized the frequent regulatory changes or their insufficient and unclear meaning Regional laws: promote environmental protection Regional law n. 13 in 2008 (“Norme per l′abitare sostenibile”) Regional law n. 14 in 2009 (“Piano Casa”) Every stakeholder is affected by these laws, however, only stakeholders on the design and construction sides seem aware as these policies affect the requirements of building technologies during construction The owner may build extra volume as an economic advantage for compensating the cost of adoption of energysaving technologies Municipal laws Absence of policies for energy efficiency measures and for supervision and control of the building activities Feed-in-tariff from selling on site produced electricity to the grid RET in houses with “Conto Energia” (DM May 5th 2011): on site electricity production from solar or wind power are sold at a higher price than the market De-Taxation of energy-saving retrofitting costs (credit facilities) 55% cost compensation from annual taxes (laws n. 296 in 2006, and n. 214 in 2011) reduced to 50% since 2013 Economic and fiscal incentives contractor for simple-to-fit technologies with a high image impact. Highly insulating windows were hence preferred to innovative IAQ systems or water filtration systems, as these were judged complex and risky. RET technologies were simply considered too expensive. A home buyer in the speculative project declared “I would like to have some solar energy systems in my house but when the general contractor told me that the roof had already been designed without them, I bought the house because I agreed on the location and price”. This confirms the supply-driven character of the speculative projects also in the Italian context. On the contrary, in the social housing project, users were involved in the assessment of the energy-saving technologies and in the decisionmaking processes. The energy consultant engineer advised them about energy-saving potential. He was directly linked to future users of the building, and the result of his consulting activity positively affected the adoption of energy-saving technologies. Although members of cooperatives were particularly interested in energy-saving technologies, they did not show homogeneous behaviour. In fact, different interests led to the adoption of different renewable energy technologies among cooperatives. Reasons for differences seemed related to architect's and engineer's suggestions, confirming that the design team can play a large role in the promotion of energy-saving technologies. Finally, the case studies have shown that in the context of analysis there is a very low motivation for WE technologies and GM among all the users. Policies and laws related to these aspects should be encouraged, as they seem to be scarcely promoted in the building sector in Europe (Berardi, 2013). The municipalities may reinforce energy performance requirements of buildings beyond national and regional laws. Examples of this kinds are rare The incentivized feed-in-tariff applies to the electricity production is an advantage for the owner. The first cost barriers of RET for general contractors are not mitigated by this policy 600,000 owners (94% of actions by owners of single houses) realized retrofitting projects in existing buildings between 2007 and 2009 with a total investment of 8 M€ (ANCE, 2012). Only retrofitting projects are incentivized for this policy The selection of the incentive is voluntary. In the speculative project an agreement with the municipality was agreed, but the focus was not for energysaving technologies The municipalities were scarcely interested in promoting energy-saving technologies The cooperative which adopted PV panels used this tariff to help increase the Return of Investment of the RET. This policy was ineffective in the speculative project These incentives do not apply to the case studies because they were new buildings. Two cooperatives were obliged to complete the building before applying for a retrofitting action in order to obtain a de-taxation for the cost of the RET 5. Conclusions This paper has presented a methodology to assess a main barrier for the adoption of energy-saving technologies in the construction sector: stakeholders with power to select these technologies often have no interest in their adoption. This barrier was found in the case studies, where the high uncertainty and the lack of information and communication among stakeholders often increased the reluctance for the adoption of energy-saving technologies. Moreover, in the context of analysis, it has emerged that local municipalities are making a poor effort to promote diffusion of energy-saving technologies and in this way, they are reducing the possible impact of policies promoted by international boards, and national or regional governments. In the case studies, the interest of the local government in adopting energysaving technologies was limited, whereas it mainly focused on legal and administrative aspects. The disconnection between national and local governments merits particular attention in future policies. The analysis and comparison between case studies has also shown that the assessment of the influence of different stakeholders on the adoption of technologies is variable and case sensitive. The paper has looked at two case studies in new buildings in Italy only. Although these were representative of a considerable part of the Italian new building sector, it is evident that location, local and national laws and available information to different stakeholders are variable beyond the context of analysis. Author's personal copy U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 The study suggests that for the promotion of energy-saving technologies, it is necessary to favour more integrated relationships between construction stakeholders and to increase circumstances for market demand of energy-saving technologies. In particular, process organizations and policies which increase final users’ power and increase the interest in efficient adoptions should be supported. Social housing organizations have shown more ability than speculative firms because the power of the final users is higher and their interest emerges earlier. It is hence crucial to increase the occasions for material suppliers and subcontractors to show innovative technologies to design teams and, above all, directly to users. This would increase the market demand for them and would help in educating the buyers of new buildings. This is a necessary step to move the construction sector to a more qualified market demand base. Future research should focus on an in-depth analysis of differences among technologies to investigate the will of stakeholders to adopt them. Extending findings of this study to other contexts (other countries and other typologies of buildings) remains necessary. Acknowledgements The author thanks the Editor and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. References Abeysekera, V., 2002. Understanding ‘Culture’ in an International Construction Context. Perspectives on Culture in Construction, 275; pp. 39–51, CIB Report. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior, organizational behavior and human decision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2), 179–211. Annunziata, E., Frey, M., Rizzi, F., 2013. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: The state-of-art of national regulations in Europe. Energy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.energy.2012.11.049. Albino, V., Berardi, U., 2012. Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian case studies. Business Strategy and the Environment 21 (6), 387–400. ANCE (2012) Trends observatory on the building industry. Available from: 〈http:// www.ance.it/docs/competenze.aspx?id=16&pid=11&pcid=12&docId=6971〉 [Accessed 18 March 2013]. Andreu, I.C., Oreszczyn, T., 2004. Architects need environmental feedback. Building Research & Information 32 (4), 313–328. Andrews, C.J., Krogmann, U., 2009. Explaining the adoption of energy-efficient technologies in U.S. commercial buildings. Energy and Buildings 41, 287–294. Anumba, C.J., Ugwu, O.O., Ren, Z., 2005. Agents & Multi-agent Systems in Construction. Taylor & Francis Ltd, London. Beerepoot, M., Beerepoot, N., 2007. Government regulation as an impetus for innovation: evidence from energy performance regulation in the Dutch residential building sector. Energy Policy 35 (10), 4812–4825. Berardi, U., 2011. Beyond sustainability assessment systems: upgrading topics by upscaling the assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development 2 (4), 276–282. Berardi, U., 2012. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems and rated buildings. Sustainable Development 20 (6), 411–424. Berardi, U., 2013. Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustainable Cities and Society 8, 1. Blank, L., 1996. Changing Behaviour in Individuals, Couples, and Groups. Charles Thomas Publisher, Springfield. Brown, H.S., Vergragt, P.J., 2008. Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change: the case of a zero-energy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75 (1), 107–130. Chinyio, E., Olomolaiye, P.O., 2009. Construction Stakeholder Management. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford. Christie, L., Donna, M., Walton, D., 2011. The ‘apparent disconnect’ towards the adoption of energy-efficient technologies. Building Research & Information 39 (5), 450–458. Cole, R.J., 2000. Cost and value in building green. Building Research & Information 28 (5–6), 304–309. Comodi, G., Cioccolanti, L., Polonara, F., Brandoni, C., 2012. Local authorities in the context of energy and climate policy. Energy Policy 51, 737–748. Cooke, R., Cripps, A., Irwin, A., Kolokotroni, M., 2007. Alternative energy technologies in buildings: stakeholder perceptions. Renewable Energy 32 (14), 2320–2333. de Blois, M., Herazo-Cueto, B., Latunova, I., Lizarralde, G., 2011. Relationships between construction clients and participants of the building industry: 529 Structures and mechanisms of coordination and communication. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 7 (1), 3–22. DeCanio, S.J., 1998. The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable energy-saving investments. Energy Policy 26 (5), 441–454. Directive 2010/31/EU (2010) Energy performance of buildings directive. European Parliament, Official Journal of the European Union. Engström, S., Hedgren, E., 2012. Sustaining inertia?: Construction clients’ decisionmaking and information-processing approach to industrialized building innovations. Construction Innovation 12 (4), 393–413. Entrop, A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., Dewulf, G.P., Halman, J.I.M. (2008) Decision Making Processes and the Adoption of Energy Saving Techniques in Residential and Commercial Real Estate. Proc. SB08, Melbourne. Eurostat, 2010. Housing Statistics, European Commission. Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., de Colle, S., 2010. Stakeholder Theory—The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, New York. GhaffarianHoseini, A., Dahlan, N., Berardi, U., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Makaremi, N., 2013. Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 25, 1–17. Gaps, S.E., 1998. Barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy Policy 26 (15), 1105–1112. Gluch, P. (2005) Building Green Perspectives on Environmental Management in Construction. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. Häkkinen, T., Belloni, K., 2011. Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research & Information 39 (3), 239–255. Hauge, A.L., Thomsen, J., Löfström, E., 2012. How to get residents/owners in housing cooperatives to agree on sustainable renovation. Energy Efficiency , http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s12053-012-9175-5. IPCC, 2007. Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change, IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, New York 〈http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ assessmentreport/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf〉, Available from:. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., 1999. Exploring Corporate Strategy. Prentice Hall Europe, London. Kubba, S., 2010. LEED Practices, Certification, and Accreditation Handbook. Butterwoth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA. Lee, T., Yao, R., 2013. Incorporating technology buying behaviour into UK-based long term domestic stock energy models to provide improved policy analysis. Energy Policy 52 363–37. Levander, E., Engström, S., Sardén, Y., Stehn, L., 2011. Construction clients’ ability to manage uncertainty and equivocality. Construction Management and Economics 29 (7), 753–764. Lützkendorfa, T., Fana, W., Lorenz, D., 2011. Engaging financial stakeholders: opportunities for a sustainable built environment. Building Research & Information 39 (5), 483–503. Lutzenhiser, L., 1994. Innovation and organizational networks barriers to energy efficiency in the US housing industry. Energy Policy 22 (10), 867–876. Madsen, H., Ulhøi, J.P., 2001. Integrating environmental and stakeholder management. Business Strategy and the Environment 10 (2), 77–88. Manseau, A., Shields, R., 2005. Building Tomorrow: Innovation in the Construction and Engineering. Ashgate Publishing, London. McGilligan, C., Sunikka-Blank, M., Natarajan, S., 2010. Subsidy as an agent to enhance the effectiveness of the energy performance certificate. Energy Policy 38 (3), 1272–1287. Miozzo, M., Dewick, P., 2002. Building competitive advantage: innovation and corporate governance in European construction. Research Policy 31 (6), 989–1008. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22 (4), 853–886. Mlecnik, E., Visscher, H., van Hal, A., 2010. Barriers and opportunities for labels for highly energy efficient houses. Energy Policy 38 (8), 4592–4603. Mohsin, R., Davidson, C.H., 1991. Building procurement—key to improved performance. Building Research & Information 19 (2), 106–113. Murphy, L., Meijer, F., Visscher, H., 2012. A qualitative evaluation of policy instruments used to improve energy performance of existing private dwellings in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 45, 459–468. Nam, C.H., Tatum, C.B., 1997. Leaders and champions for construction innovation. Construction Management and Economics 15 (3), 259–270. Nemry, F., Uihlein, A., Colodel, C.M., Wetzel, C., Braune, A., Wittstock, B., Hasan, I., Kreißig, J., Gallon, N., Niemeier, S., Frech, Y., 2010. Options to reduce the environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union— potential and costs. Energy and Buildings 42, 976–984. Newcombe, R., 2003. From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics 21 (8), 841–848. Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management 23 (4), 321–328. Parnphumeesup, P., Kerr, S.A., 2011. Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand. Energy Policy 39 (6), 3591–3601. Pan, W., Garmston, H., 2012. Building regulations in energy efficiency: compliance in England and Wales. Energy Policy 45 (6), 594–605. Pinkse, J., Dommisse, M., 2009. Overcoming barriers to sustainability: an explanation of residential builders’ reluctance to adopt clean technologies. Business Strategy and the Environment 18 (8), 515–527. Pries, F., Janszen, F., 1995. Innovation in the construction industry: the dominant role of the environment. Construction Management and Economics 13 (1), 43–51. Author's personal copy 530 U. Berardi / Energy Policy 60 (2013) 520–530 Runhaar, H., Tigchelaar, C., Vermeulen, W.J.V., 2008. Environmental leaders: making a difference. A typology of environmental leaders and recommendations for a differentiated policy approach. Business Strategy and the Environment 17 (3), 160–178. Svenfelt, Å., Engström, R., Svane, Ö., 2011. Decreasing energy use in buildings by 50% by 2050—a backcasting study using stakeholder groups. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78 (5), 785–796. Toole, T.M., 1998. Uncertainty and home builders’ adoption of technological innovations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124 (4), 323–332. Tuominen, P., Klobut, K., Tolman, A., Adjei, A., de Best-Waldhober, M., 2012. Energysavings potential in buildings and overcoming market barriers in member states of the European Union. Energy and Buildings 51 (8), 48–55. Vermeulen, W.J.V., Hovens, J., 2006. Competing explanations for adopting energy innovations for new office buildings. Energy Policy 34 (17), 2719–2735. Walker, D.H.T., Bourne, L.M., Shelley, A., 2008. Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction Management and Economics 26 (6), 645–658. WBSCD, (2009). Transforming the Market: Energy Efficiency in Buildings, World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Williams, K., Dair, C., 2007. What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustainable Developments 15 (3), 135–147. Winch, G.M., 2010. Managing Construction Projects, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, London. Xu, P., Xu, T., Shen, P., 2013. Energy and behavioral impacts of integrative retrofits for residential buildings: what is at stake for building energy policy reforms in northern China? Energy Policy 52, 667–676. Yip, R.C.P., Poon, C.S., 2009. Cultural shift towards sustainability in the construction industry of Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (11), 3616–3628.