3.2.3. Energy Management Matrixes

The energy managemen<sup>t</sup> matrixes are incorporated with the third stream [55,56], which confers multiple similarities with the maturity model. It o ffers an insight into the present approach to energy issues in a company and helps the managemen<sup>t</sup> to improve energy e fficiency by integrating feedback. It also shows the substantial improvement potential in energy e fficiency that is achievable by technical activity alone. However, the application of the energy managemen<sup>t</sup> matrix in a wider range of industrial organizations has acknowledged manifold activities towards improvement of energy managemen<sup>t</sup> practice. In addition, it puts the hitherto isolated technologically-based attempts to improve energy efficiency in a more e ffective managemen<sup>t</sup> framework, often for the first time. The high standpoint from an analytical perspective, maturity concept conversion into a sophistication level along with a self-appraisal approach based on organization's perspective are the common points of energy matrixes with maturity models. Hence, no additional benefits are provided from these models in terms of approaches and aspects considered for reasoning. However, introducing assessment models have brought an amelioration that incorporates detailed activity list considered as energy managemen<sup>t</sup> practices, whilst critical factors have not been addressed for evaluation [56,57].

#### 3.2.4. Energy E fficiency Measures (EEM) Characterization Framework

The EEM characteristics are delved by the fourth research stream [58]. The energy e fficiency measures characterization framework is important to formulize in the context of information sharing both for the policy and decision-makers about energy e fficiency measures. Thanks to improved knowledge and information on industrial energy e fficiency measures. Indeed, the policymakers could have enhanced support to develop the operative policies for endorsing energy e fficiency at the industries. In addition, the improved knowledge on energy e fficiency measures characteristics can articulate in-depth comprehension of the bottlenecks that hindering the implementation of energy efficiency processes [59]. Indeed, this is an interesting fact for resolution and policy makers.

Fleiter et al. exhibited detailed and thorough narratives of characterizations that facilitated understandings of the endorsement process for EEMs [58]. The framework encompasses twelve diverse features of energy e fficiency measures which are emanated from the field of technical, relative advantage, and informational perspective. Worrell et al. characterized and grouped the energy efficiency measures into multiple attributes such as waste, emission, operation and maintenance, productivity, working environment, among others, where the secondary benefits are listed [60]. On the contrary, Trianni et al. devised a framework to explore energy managemen<sup>t</sup> practices [59]. An inclusive view on energy e fficiency measures integrating the recent applicable perspectives is encompassed in this framework for industrial decision-makers. The framework has inferred in specifying energy alongside the environmental and financial aspects. Moreover, the impact on production system, including the application aspects and interaction with other systems of energy e fficiency measures are also considered in the framework. Another noteworthy feature of the framework is the inclusion of corporate involvement, which is important for industrial decision-makers and policy delegates. Moreover, the inclusion of the attribute set related to non-energy benefits is one of the salient features that has been neglected in the earlier characterization framework. Nonetheless, analytical factors of energy managemen<sup>t</sup> activities are not portrayed comprehensively. Lung et al. a ffirm about the impact of additional savings and productivity benefits stemming from energy e fficiency initiatives

resulting in more compellingly. The authors focused on the methodology to characterize the attributes of productivity benefits as well as ancillary savings into a payback forecasting framework [61].

Another model has been proposed in a contemporary study by Trianni et al. in the domain of characterization framework to assess industrial energy management, focusing on the benchmarking of energy managemen<sup>t</sup> practices [25]. In this model, three elements have been considered that are energy managemen<sup>t</sup> practice lists followed by specific baseline for benchmarking the performances and optimal threshold adoption in the assessment. The notable aspects of this model are the energy managemen<sup>t</sup> practice adoption evaluation and more comprehensiveness output compared to the other models. More importantly, it features elaborate energy managemen<sup>t</sup> approaches and capabilities assessment to an indistinct evaluation of energy managemen<sup>t</sup> practices. On the contrary, Sorrell [62] and Benedetti et al. [63] have considered three-dimensional classification framework focusing to energy service contracts. The framework of Sorrell is customer perspective based and consisted of "Scope", "Depth", and "Finance" dimension. Benedetti et al. considered "Scope", "Intangibility of the Contract", and "Degree of Risk".

The synopsis of the existing managemen<sup>t</sup> assessment models is presented in Table 5.


**Table 5.** Synopsis of the existing energy management assessment models. The table is an aggrandized approach of Trianni et al. [25].


**Table 5.** *Conts.*

## *Energies* **2020**, *13*, 5713




**Table 5.** *Conts.*

272
