Building communities and social potential: Between and beyondorganizations and individuals in commercial properties

Kathryn B. Janda n

Environmental Change Institute, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

H I G H L I G H T S

� We discuss literature on occupant behaviour and organisational factors in commercial buildings.� We introduce two frameworks drawn from previous research: “3Cs” (concern, capacity, and conditions) and “building communities”.� Gaps in the literature call for a “building communities” approach to the 3Cs, which we recommend for near-term research.� We introduce the concept of “social potential” as a counterpoint to technical potential for longer-term research.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 December 2012Accepted 12 August 2013Available online 2 October 2013

Keywords:Occupant behaviourOrganisational factorsBuilding communitiesSocial potential

a b s t r a c t

Axon et al., (2012) argue that maximizing the potential for energy efficiency and demand reduction intenanted commercial properties requires a “building communities” approach. This paper develops andextends Axon et al.′s proposed framework in two ways. First, by extending its applicability from tenantedto owner-occupied properties. Second, by situating it within the literature related to organizationalculture, occupant behaviours, and technology adoption. The paper begins with a brief review of theexisting research on people, energy and commercial buildings. This literature tends to address eitherorganizational choices, or occupant behavior, but it rarely crosses the analytical boundaries betweenthese two groups. The paper then explores these different levels of analysis within a 3Cs – “concern,capacity, and conditions” – framework, which was developed to describe and distinguish organizationalresponses to an energy crisis. The combination of the “building communities” and 3Cs frames revealsgaps and grey areas between organizational culture, occupant behaviour, and technology adoption wherefurther conservation opportunities may lie. These understudied areas suggest that there may be “socialpotential” for change that is between and beyond the frames used by previous research in the field.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The UK non-domestic stock plays a significant role in contri-buting to carbon emissions, representing about 18% of the total(Carbon Trust, 2009). The commercial sector also plays a signifi-cant role other countries. In the US, for example, commercialbuildings consume roughly 20% of total energy use and in 2010had the fastest growth rate of any other sector (Bin, 2012, p. 11). Inrapidly developing countries, such as India, the non-domesticstock is only 8% of the total energy consumption but its share isincreasing at about 10% per year, which is twice as fast as theresidential sector (Seth, 2011).

Increased legislative requirements in the investment propertymarket, together with an increased emphasis on the sustainability

agenda, have led to an added impetus to improve the environmentalperformance of buildings. During 2008, the UK Climate Change Actcalled for an 80% reduction on 1990 UK carbon emission levels by2050, a target which is now legally binding. This goal is nowunderpinned by the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Effi-ciency Scheme (CRC) and the Green Deal. The transposition of theEuropean Union Energy Performance in Buildings Directive (EPBD)and its recast to the UK means that energy performance of buildingsis at the forefront of visible legal requirements, building regulations,and professional guidance. Finally, there is a current UK governmenttarget to achieve zero carbon in all new non-domestic buildings by2011 (DCLG, 2009).

Recent research has shown an emerging and increasing demandfor sustainable offices by corporate occupiers (Dixon et al., 2009) andsimilar findings have emerged from both the USA and Australia(Newell, 2008; Eichholtz et al., 2009) This is being driven not only bylegislation but also by the perceived cost advantages that more

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy Policy

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.058

n Tel.: þ44 1865285544.E-mail address: katy.janda@ouce.ox.ac.uk

Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–55

energy-efficient commercial property can offer tenants and thepotential for increased rentals for landlords (see for example, Katset al., 2003; Fuerst and Mcallister, 2008; Dixon et al., 2009; Eichholtzet al., 2009). This has also been driven by changes in corporateattitudes towards environmental issues and sustainability, withmany companies now recognising the benefits of ‘going green’,driven by the desire to highlight corporate social responsibility (CSR)credentials (Pivo and Mcnamara, 2005; Nelson, 2008; Pivo, 2008).

Despite the overall policy and practical interest in improvingbuildings, there is much work to be done. A recent global survey of700 listed property companies and fund managers revealed thatthe majority of the companies surveyed are not yet activelymanaging environmental issues in their property portfolio (Koket al., 2010). Although techniques and technologies could cutexisting buildings’ consumption substantially, overall refurbish-ment rates remain low and a range of barriers to energy efficientbuildings need to be overcome (European Commission, 2011).

Closing the gap between an existing commercial building′stechnical potential and its resource use in practice is a complexand multi-layered problem that requires both technical and socialsolutions. However, research worldwide has often followed aphysical, technical, and economic approach to increasing the levelof energy performance in the building sector (Lutzenhiser, 1993).Social and institutional factors have been understudied relative totechnologies, yet they hold the key to significant market transfor-mation in practice (Biggart and Lutzenhiser, 2007). This problem isheightened by the diverse and complex nature of the different“stakeholders” involved in the commercial property market(Carbon Trust, 2009). Owners, landlords, agents, facilities man-agers, tenants, building services companies, employees, and usersall have different levels of interest, investment, and control overchanges to existing commercial buildings. All stakeholders need tobe involved in the process of improving energy performance ifextreme goals (like an 80% reduction in carbon emissions) are tobe achieved.

This paper considers sociotechnical problems and potentialsolutions in improving the energy performance of existing com-mercial properties. New build has received much attention but asit represents only 1–2% of total stock, transforming the energyefficiency of existing property remains crucial (Dixon et al., 2009).The paper concentrates on energy use, but the arguments aresimilar for other environmental impacts. Although we have high-lighted policies in the UK, and there are differences in detail in theproperty and letting practices of the major developed nations, thisresearch agenda is internationally relevant. The multiple stake-holder problems are similar around the world, and moreover, boththose owning and renting commercial spaces are often interna-tional players.

As the “people problem” is understudied relative to technicalsolutions, this paper begins by setting a context within the literatureon stakeholder engagement in energy efficiency, discussing severalframes for understanding the relationships between people, energyand commercial buildings. This literature tends to address eitheroccupant behaviors or organizational factors, but it rarely crosses theanalytical boundaries between these two groups. To consider theintersection of these different levels of analysis, this paper employstwo existing analytical frames: a “concern, capacity, and conditions”framework (Janda et al., 2002; Lutzenhiser et al., 2002) and a“building communities” framework (Axon et al., 2012). The paperuses the combination of these two frames to shed light on energyefficiency opportunities at the intersection of organizational factors,occupant behaviour, and technology adoption. The paper argues thatthe concept of a building community is useful in identifying near-term energy efficiency and conservation opportunities within work-place practices. In the longer term, the paper concludes by suggest-ing that a larger concept of “social potential” could serve to reorient

and broaden the questions we ask about what “improving perfor-mance” means in the context of the built environment, bothcommercial and residential.

2. Background and scope

This section briefly orients the reader to the key challenges intransforming commercial properties in the built environment, aswell as defining the scope of this paper. A significant challenge inimproving the energy performance of commercial buildings is tounderstand and tackle the complexity that stems from the inter-relationship of:

i. Physical and technical factors: e.g., the range and variety ofcommercial building stock (age, condition, use etc); the exist-ing technologies they were built to contain, and the state of thesystems currently in use

ii. Social and organizational factors: e.g., the number of stake-holders – investors, developers, agents, owners, tenants, facil-ities managers, and users of the space (employees andcustomers) – as well as the fragmentation within and acrossthese groups

iii. Legal factors: e.g., traditional leasehold structures and language.

This paper focuses in particular on the stakeholders (ii) andtheir relationship with the physical space they occupy (i), so it isapplicable to both tenanted and owner-occupied spaces. It recog-nizes but does not explore the critical importance of the lease (iii)in tenanted properties. A full discussion of this issue is beyond thescope of this paper, but has been taken up elsewhere (e.g., Hinnellset al., 2008; Langley and Hopkinson, 2009; Axon et al., 2012).

Physical and technical factors have been addressed in greater detailin other publications (e.g., Urge-vorsatz et al., 2011; Levine et al.,2007); this research moves from that existing knowledge base toaddress the role of social and organizational factors in energy effi-ciency adoption. This approach fits within the broader “stakeholderengagement” literature in the climate change field (Carney et al.,2009), while recognizing that that stakeholder engagement can meanmany things. In a recent Energy Policy paper, for instance, Bukarica andRobić (2013) use the word “stakeholder” to indicate “the socialstructures that play a prominent role in moving society towardsgreater energy efficiency.” They identify four general groups of stake-holders in their study: public institutions, businesses, civil societyorganizations and the media. A recent special issue of BuildingResearch and Information (Volume 39, Issue 5, 2011) recognised andinvestigated the importance of a number of more specific stakeholdergroups – e.g., architects, engineers, developers, building regulators,building clients, financial institutions – in producing (or inhibiting)necessary environmental change in the building industry. Special issueeditor Raymond Cole noted:

There is increasing recognition that technological solutions,economic/business arguments based on benefits and appro-priate governance solutions are often insufficient to deliver thischange. A missing catalyst is the social and organizationalinterplay amongst and between different stakeholders. Inparticular, there is a need to orchestrate the complex array ofstakeholders and to understand each other′s particular motiva-tions and drivers (Cole, 2011, p. 431).

Although there are many different types of stakeholders involvedin commercial properties, this paper follows Cole′s direction to focuson the interplay of two of the main players (1) occupants, and(2) organizations, while bearing in mind the physical circumstancesthat bring and bind them together. As described below, in muchprevious research these two groups are often treated as separate and

K.B. Janda / Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–55 49

distinct instead of intricately interrelated. A recent rapid evidencereview of the literature in the non-domestic sector also found muchof the work divided into these categories (CSE and ECI, 2012).

2.1. Occupant behavior—Acting efficiently

Researchers in domestic buildings have long been aware thatdifferent inhabitants can use the similar buildings very differently,with enormous variations in energy use (Socolow, 1978). This leadsto the conclusion that buildings don′t use energy, people do (Janda,2011). The same principle applies in non-domestic settings. Compe-titions in university dormitories (Petersen et al., 2007) and programsin public sector and office buildings (Bin, 2012) have shown thatthere are at least short term gains to be made by inducing occupantsto change the way they use technologies and spaces.

However, there are seldom established mechanisms for ensur-ing that the community of persons using a particular space do soefficiently. Tiedemann et al. (2008) surveyed 279 business custo-mers about lighting, air conditioning, and heating behaviors.Although approximately half of those surveyed had the ability totake conservation actions, a smaller percentage of the respondentsactually perform the actions. In the case of lighting, for instance,52% of the respondents had the ability to turn off lights inunoccupied spaces, but only 39% actually reported doing so alwaysor often. Nevertheless, designers of low-energy commercial build-ings often make unrealistic assumptions about how users willactually behave (Lenoir et al., 2011). Not only are these averageassumptions either “too high” or “too low”, they do not capturethe diversity of users, their behaviors, or their reasons for doing ornot doing what they′re “supposed” to do (Hauge et al., 2010).

Individual “behavior” studies, whether in residential or com-mercial buildings, tend to only assess actions that individuals cancontrol at the time of the study. This view separates actions fromthe evolving context in which they occur. What is missing fromsuch studies is the recognition that such actions as embedded in adiverse social and technical context which can and does changeover time. Different organizations whether tenants, landlords, orowner-occupiers, will place different emphasis on the importanceof environmental performance, as will different subgroups withinthem. Cebon (1992) for instance, studied two universities in thesame city. These universities retrofitted their building stocks invery different ways (one in a highly-integrated, technologicallysophisticated manner; the other through very basic weatheriza-tion measures and lighting upgrades), in greater accordance withtheir organizational cultures than standard economic criteria.These different kinds of retrofits influence the capacity of indivi-dual employees to interact with the new systems put in place. Soemployee behaviors, actions, and possibilities for action arecouched within the guidelines and limits of their jobs, which areset by the organizations for which they work, and are furtherconscribed by the premises in which they perform their duties.These premises may seem static, but they are punctuated byperiodic changes which are often invisible in studies of individualbehaviors.

2.2. Organizational factors—Adopting and managing efficiency

It is widely recognized in the organizational behavior and publicchoice literatures that organizations, firms, and social groups do notbehave like individuals (March, 1988; Schein, 1985; Perrow, 1970).Instead, they exhibit their own dynamics that may contribute to thelow level of energy efficiency implementation (Cebon, 1992; Decanio,1993; Decanio and Watkins, 1998; Lutzenhiser, 1994).

The extent to which energy is “seen” as a problem by seniormanagement in most firms is unclear. Although energy efficiencyinvestments and practices are cost-effective, they are often not

pursued; energy is often seen as peripheral to the strategic goals offirms and other investments are seen as having higher priority orprofitability (for a thorough and recent review of the managementliterature, see Cooremans, 2011, 2012). Energy visibility, as both atechnical and organizational issue, is therefore a key factor inimproving building performance. It is often assumed that there isan energy manager who sees, monitors and manages energy usebut, depending on the size, composition, and interests of theorganization, this management function may be served by no one,one person, an entire team, or even moved offsite. Across differentorganizations, therefore, technical and organizational abilities toincorporate and respond to energy issues vary.

Both common sense and previous empirical work by the authorsupports the conclusion that firms and organizations differ from eachother in other ways as well. In 2000–01, the US State of Californiaexperienced serious energy supply problems, but potential disrup-tions were mitigated or avoided by significant reductions in electricitydemand. To understand the nature of these demand reductions, ateam of researchers funded by the California Energy Commissioninvestigated conservation behaviors in the residential, commercial,and agricultural sectors. In the commercial sector, the researchersconducted 84 semi-structured interviews with members of commer-cial and institutional organizations and with 21 key informantsrepresenting program managers, administrators, and aggregators aswell as a small number of energy service providers and utilities. Theresearchers found significant differences in conservation actions,energy efficiency adoption, and program participation betweenorganizations that seemed similar as well as similarities betweenorganizations that looked different. The empirical research showedthat the nature and substance of an organization′s responses were noteasily mapped to the size of its buildings, the composition of its wares,or the class of its customers. For example, a demand responseprogram was equally attractive to three different types of organiza-tions: a big box retailer, a high-end department store, and a grocerychain. However, of the five full-line department stores interviewed,only two participated in a government program, and these storeschose different types of programs. Of the three department stores thatdid not participate in a program, one applied for program participa-tion but was rejected (and did nothing). One hired Enron. And thethird worked alone. What factors can explain why different organiza-tions do the same thing and similar organizations do different things?

Based on these data, the researchers developed a “3Cs” frameworkthat suggests that energy efficiency and conservation actions inorganizations depend on the level of “concern” within the organisa-tion about efficiency relative to other business goals; the “capacity” ofthe organisation to take action; and the real-world physical andtechnical “conditions” of the premises that are to be acted upon(Lutzenhiser et al., 2002; Janda et al., 2002). The presence or absenceof these three variables can be used to recognize variation withinorganisations and potentially map different policy approaches toencourage energy efficiency or conservation (see Table 1). Thischaracterization also suggests that there is not one kind of firm;there may be at least eight different kinds. Each of these kinds of firmscould need a different kind of policy incentive to strive for higherlevels of efficiency, resulting in a rough policy segmentation model.

As shown below, this framework was originally employed as aset of binary variables related to the state of the organization atthe time of the research. Organizations either did or did not haveconcerns about energy; did or did not perceive conservationopportunities; did or did not take action on these opportunities.As the research was based on short term crisis responses topossible blackouts at a specific point in time, this simple approachseemed appropriate. However, in the process of the research anddevelopment of the framework, other questions arose. For exam-ple, over time, can one kind of organization turn into another kindof organization? What are the underlying factors that lead to these

K.B. Janda / Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–5550

different observed “states”? These questions will be explored inSection 4.

3. Building communities and communities of practice

Analytically, studying either employees or organizations makesdisciplinary sense. However, from an energy reduction perspec-tive, combining these approaches may lead to additional oppor-tunities that would be inaccessible through either lens on its own.

To understand how to maximise the opportunities that exist toimprove the energy performance of the commercial built environ-ment, Axon et al., 2012 argue that new interdisciplinary research isneeded. These authors propose a “building communities” frame-work that accommodates the perspectives of all the actors, thephysical context in which they interact, as well as the legal, policy,and market frameworks that shape their interactions.

Axon et al.′s concept of a building community is built around theidea of “communities of practice” (CoP) A CoP is a system of relation-ships between people, activities and their outside world developingover time and interconnected with other CoPs, which themselves canbe foundwithin businesses, across businesses and other organisationaland professional structures (Cushman et al., 2002; Ruikar et al., 2009).The concept of CoP also has implications for knowledge managementand its codification (Zboralski and Gemunden, 2006; Lave andWenger, 1991). Such communities can be either geographicallycoherent and organizationally diverse (e.g., a multi-tenanted officebuilding or shopping mall); or organizationally coherent and geogra-phically diverse (e.g., a fleet of Marks & Spencer stores). As shown inFig. 1, these communities are at the core of three interlocking themesand can be investigated through three cross-cutting levels of analysis.The themes included in Axon et al.′s research are (1) legal andproperty aspects of improving energy performance; (2) policy contextand organizational response; and (3) technology adoption and envir-onmental performance. The levels of analysis recognize that buildingcommunities are affected simultaneously by the general context inwhich the community is situated (e.g., the building standards andresource costs in a particular country); company-level expectationsand building-level specifics.

One benefit of a “building communities” frame is that it movesbeyond the usual levels of analysis that tend to take account of either“organizations” or “users.” It recognizes that employees are both apart of and apart from the organization in which they work. Employ-ees have to do their jobs, but in many office contexts, they have someagency over their actions that their employers do not completelycontrol. Organizations govern some, but not all, of the actions theiremployees take, and the expectations that they have about their workpractices. Similarly, organizations are a part of and apart from a largermarket and social context for the goods and services they areproviding. This kind of multilevel analysis is inspired by and reflective

of other forms of multi-level research, including transitions theory(Geels, 2002) and recent work on construction and innovation in themanagement literature. Hoffman and Henn (2008), for instance,identify social and psychological barriers to green buildings at threelevels: individual, organizational, and institutional.

4. Cross-cutting frameworks: 3Cs and communities

To conceptually explore the grey area that lies between andaround organization and employee interactions, we have augmentedthe “3Cs” framework introduced earlier and used it to consider thetwo different analytical levels commonly used in “behavior” studies.Table 2 shows an overlay of the intersection of these two frame-works. Because the complexity of the framework has increased, thedirect policy implications suggested in Table 1 have been removed.Wrapped around these two frames is the concept of “buildingcommunities” which includes (but is not limited to) both organiza-tional and individual analytical levels.

The overlay of these frameworks serves five purposes. The firstpurpose is to move beyond the binary “states” used in the original3Cs framework to call attention to factors that may shape thesestates at different analytical levels. The second purpose is toquestion the relationship between “organizational” and “indivi-dual” levels of analysis. The third purpose of the overlay is tosuggest that there is a grey area between the organizational andbehavioural levels of analysis that is (a) not well understood, and

Table 1Policy implications of variation in “concern, conditions, and capacity” (3Cs).Source: (Janda et al., 2002; Lutzenhiser et al., 2002).

Concern concern aboutenergy

Conditions opportunities forconservation

Capacity ability to act onopportunities

Policy approach to increasing energy efficiency (EE)

Yes Yes Yes Recognize/encourage EEYes No Yes Recognize past EE, create future opportunitiesYes Yes No Technical assistance, incentives, peer support, educationYes No No Technical assistance, incentives, peer support, education, create future

opportunitiesNo Yes Yes Incentives, non-energy benefits, recognize past EENo No Yes Support continuous improvement, identify non-energy benefits,

recognize past EENo Yes No Technology assistance, incentives, peer supportNo No No Mandatory efficiency standards

General

Company

Building

Law & PropertyPolicy & Organisations

Technology

Commercial Property Communities

General

Company

Building

Law & PropertyPolicy & Organisations

Technology

Commercial Property Communities

Fig. 1. A conceptual framework of issues affecting commercial property commu-nities (source: Axon et al., 2012).

K.B. Janda / Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–55 51

(b) capable of affecting the interrelationship of organizational aimsand individual actions. The fourth purpose is to suggest that a“building communities” approach might help knit together theorganizational and individual levels by looking above, below, andbetween them. A “building communities” approach is grounded inthe real world of what is achievable either now or in the near termwith roughly current levels of resource allocation. This leads to thefifth purpose of the paper, which introduces the overarchingconcept of “social potential,” which is more about the envelopeof possibility in the future. This concept is introduced as a possiblecounterpoint to the concept of “technical potential,” which iscommonly used in energy efficiency studies. Each purpose isdiscussed in turn below.

4.1. Factors shaping 3Cs: Individual and organizational aspects

In its original application, the 3Cs framework was conceptualizedas a binary set of variables, where concern, physical conditions, andcapacity were either present or absent. This paper augments thisframework by considering in more detail how these variables areconstructed and operationalized at the individual and organizationallevels. For example, organizational concern about energy may be moredirectly affected by leases and legislative requirements, which tend tobe aimed at the organization, not the employee. Employee concernmay be more affected by personal attitudes, practices, habits, andbeliefs than organizational concern. Similarly, the physical and tech-nical conditions of energy actions are different at the level of theorganization and the individual employee. Individual employees mayhave a modicum of control over the space inwhich they work and themachines they use to do their job, but unless they are the buildingmanager they rarely have any say in procuring full scale buildingretrofits. In terms of the capacity to take energy actions, the organiza-tion creates job descriptions, staffing levels and employee responsi-bilities. It decides how (in principle) energy issues relate to the corebusiness of the organization, and whether it is seen as a simple cost, arisk, an investment, a public relations concern, or some combination ofthe above. It decides which employees (if any) have direct responsi-bility for monitoring, managing, and reducing energy use. It may alsodecide how much energy data to gather, to reveal, and to whom.Individual employees without specific energy responsibilities mayhave some ability to influence organizational energy actions by takingon additional responsibilities – such as being a “champion” for energy– or by reacting appropriately to organizational cues to use theirworkplaces “correctly.” They can also ignore, change, or subvert suchexhortations by amending spaces to suit their tastes and comfortlevels.

4.2. Targeting the organization and/or individual

The discussion above leads to a second purpose of examiningthese frameworks in tandem, which is to introduce a questionabout the relationship between “organizational” and “individual”levels of analysis for energy programs. Should they be separateefforts, or integrated? If they are connected, how tightly are theycoupled, and in what ways?

Not surprisingly, programs that integrate technical and behavioralstrategies have greater levels of savings than programs that concen-trate solely on behaviour. Bin (2012) studied five different workplaceenergy reduction programs and found that a comprehensive projecttargeting sustainability in the workplace through technical andbehavioral strategies resulted in a 74% savings in carbon emissions.In contrast two “behavior-only” programs that aimed to create a“culture of conservation” resulted in a 5% electricity savings in onecase and a 4.2% energy savings in the other. Importantly, the behaviorsaddressed in these projects were at the individual employee level.Upper management in all of the organizations made public pledges toreduce energy use, but only in one project did senior managementactually participate in meetings and serve on committees to thinkabout energy use. This proactive organization happened to BC Hydro,for which energy is already a core part of the business.

These results might tempt the reader to forget about behaviorsand focus on technologies. Since proactive employee behaviorsonly provide savings on the order of 4 or 5%, and programs thatinclude technologies can save much more, is it even worthwhile toaddress how employees use the spaces and technologiesaround them?

It is appealing to believe it is possible to draw clear distinctionsbetween technology adoption, organizational culture, and occu-pant behavior. However, in reality, these boundaries are blurred.Technologies are not adopted in a vacuum; they are generally“adopted” at the organizational level (e.g., someone in the man-agement company decides to upgrade the HVAC equipment). Buttechnological adoption is in itself a behavior, because technologiesdon′t actually adopt themselves (except in engineering–economicmodels). So the relationship between technology adoption andorganizational culture may be iterative and ongoing in oneorganization, or it may be fixed and static in another, but thesetwo factors are definitely intertwined.

Similarly, occupant behavior shapes and is shaped by organiza-tional culture. For example, the kind of person who gets on well at ablue chip firmwhere the partners play golf and drink martinis mightnot fit in as well at an internet startup where employees are morelikely to play World of Warcraft and drink Red Bull. Workplacecultures are, to a greater or lesser extent, co-constructed over time

Table 2A “building communities” view of 3Cs and behavioral research.

3Cs

Analyticallevel

Concern (factorsthat shapeattention toenergy)

Conditions (factors that shapewhere energy actions occur)

Capacity (factors that moderateabilities to take energy actions)

Building communities(grey area, neitherorganizational norindividual)

OrganizationLegislativerequirements,leases

Building retrofit opportunities, thermostatsetpoints, standard operational hours,provision of space & equipment

Energy management structure; job titles& responsibilities; feedback & dataavailability; granularity of data

Workstyles Clothing choices, (e.g., “casual Fridays”),activities outside “normal” hours

Peer pressure & social practices;workgroup dynamics

IndividualAttitudes, beliefs,habits, values

Use of task lights, computers, auxiliaryheating/cooling devices; extra plug loads;operation of blinds/windows

Presence or absence of champions;expertise & understanding of systems;interest in and ability to act on feedback

K.B. Janda / Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–5552

by both organizations and employees. It stands to reason that energypractices and technology uses may also be co-constructed in asimilar fashion. Some examples are given in the next two sections.

4.3. Grey areas: Between, around, and beyond organizations andindividuals

The third purpose of overlaying the 3Cs and behavioralresearch strands is to demonstrate that there is a grey areabetween the organizational and behavioral levels of analysis thatis (a) not well understood in the energy arena, and (b) capable ofaffecting the interrelationship of organizational aims and indivi-dual actions.

Consider, for example, the complex interrelationship of thermalcomfort, clothing, and work practices. In many cases, employeeschoose what is appropriate garb for the work that they do, basedupon established social practices as well as some measure of personalpreference. A businessman may know he is expected to wear a tie,long-sleeved shirt, and a jacket to an important meeting, even thoughit is a hot day and he will be uncomfortable outside. The individualmight prefer to wear shorts and a T-shirt, but he knows everyone elsein the meeting will be wearing a business suit and his boss will expecthim to dress appropriately. Importantly, the location where themeeting will be held will be air-conditioned to account for thecomfort of the people wearing suit jackets, ties, and trousers. This isbusiness as usual, and most “behavior” programs operate within theparameters established by common practices, rather than attemptingto question or change them.

Recognizing that common practices have energy implications,and thinking about steps to change them, is a grey area in theliterature. A string of mutually co-constructed practices that affectthe way work occurs is very difficult to change through a programaimed at exclusively either technical, or organizational, or beha-vioral energy efficiency actions. Some initial work has been doneexploring user experience in relation to workplace context andculture (Brown et al., 2010), but this work is reflective of theexisting situation rather than change-oriented.

4.4. A building communities approach

Instead of focusing on technologies or organizations or employees,a “building communities” approach simultaneously addresses allthree of these analytical levels. This multi-level approach cultivatesunderstanding of these levels, as well as enabling a glimpse of theissues between and beyond them. As targets for carbon emissionreductions ratchet up from capturing “low-hanging fruit” to achieving“zero-carbon”, interstitial and underlying social issues may becomemore important than originally thought. Like reducing standby losses,they may require further attention and, eventually, offer additionalopportunities for reducing energy use and improving building per-formance and occupant satisfaction.

Take, for example, the case of building uses outside of “normal”operating hours. Employees working late or on weekends, orholding events after hours can affect the expected energy profileof a building. These uses may be officially sanctioned. “Flex time,”for example, is a popular program in some organizations thatallows workers shift their working hours to better accommodatetheir personal needs. Sometimes, however, these non-“nine tofive” building uses are separate and additional to normal work. Forexample, a high profile low-energy green college building with alovely atrium turned out to be an attractive location to hostconcerts, formal dinners (with catering), conferences, workshops,and even a wedding. The initial occupancy schedule, used in thebuilding′s energy model, included only the building′s official andnormal functions: as classrooms and offices (Pless and Torcellini,2004). The additional (non-modeled) usages, particularly of the

building′s atrium, increased the building′s energy consumptionand its social benefits. Musicians liked its acoustics; the collegeenjoyed treating potential donors to dinner in a famous space; andit was lovely enough to serve as a non-denominational backdropfor a couple to pledge their eternal love. Organizations may notexplicitly condone such practices, or they may foster them, but it isimportant to recognize that buildings may serve a larger numberof people in different ways than an energy perspective usuallyincorporates.

The relationship that develops between the building and itscommunity of users is a topic of interest in environmental designresearch (e.g., EDRA, 2012) but curiously, not in energy research.How could or should these non-work or beyond-work buildinguses be incorporated in building models, planned for in organiza-tional strategies, and handled in terms of design? Could thisinterest in using a building for non-work purposes be fosteredand channeled into higher levels of user engagement? If energyresearchers understood how different combinations of people andorganisations use spaces, could they help these buildings performbetter instead of worse? The next section considers whether theterm “social potential” could help the energy efficiency field movein this direction.

4.5. Toward social potential

To understand what the “social potential” of the built environ-ment could be, it is useful to reflect on the terms commonly usedto define technical energy efficiency opportunities and how theyare constructed.

The term “technical potential” is often used to denote the “bestcase” energy efficiency scenario. For decades, the concept of technicalpotential has been a fundamental tool for the energy efficiencyindustry in planning and defending the industry′s role (Shove, 1998).It is based on engineering and economic calculations which areperformed “without concern for the probability of successful imple-mentation.” (Rosenfeld et al., 1993, p. 50) A technical potential scenarioassumes that the energy efficiency technologies under considerationare appropriate for all building configurations, infinitely available at orbelow the cost considered, and have no economic, social, psychologi-cal risks that would dissuade consumers or organisations fromadopting them (Shama, 1983, p. 154).

Social potential is envisaged as a different energy efficiencyscenario objective that serves as an important counterpoint totechnical potential. Both forms of technical and social potentialprovide valuable conceptual functions by defining an envelope ofopportunity in an ideal world that only loosely approximates thereal one. What is important in both scenarios is the content anddirection of the envelope of opportunity, as these orient theanalytical and practical activities of policymakers, analysts, andothers dedicated to moving toward that goal. Whereas technicalpotential starts with technical opportunities and largely eitherignores or holds social conditions constant; social potential invitesflexibility and advancement in the social realm while holdingcurrent technical opportunities relatively constant. This wouldroughly equate to the “state of the shelf”, with a focus onimplementing solutions we already have rather than developingnew and wonderful widgets.

The term “social potential” offers an admittedly idealistic notionof a world where social organization is optimised for energyperformance. This is not to say that a socially-optimized world isany more probable or better than a technologically optimized one,but it would be different. A socially-optimized energy world might,for instance, foster vernacular architectural styles rather than inter-national ones; value energy sufficiency; and model buildings as theyare used in practice instead of as the sum of their physical parts.Although a social potential concept is idealized, it is important to

K.B. Janda / Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–55 53

remember that the technical potential approach is also idealized.Building science has made many advances and is an importantcomponent of our understanding of the world around us, but it canalso create vexing conundrums in an attempt to correct or evenremove the variations that people introduce by using buildings.Recent work on the “prebound effect” for example shows that thecalculations used to rate housing in Germany, the Netherlands,Belgium, and the UK consistently overestimate the amount of energythat dwellings actually use (Sunikka-blank and Galvin, 2012). Theidealizations embedded in technical potential scenarios are familiar,but they are not necessarily true.

Although it may be difficult to change established social anddefault business practices in particular ways, it is not impossible. Or,more specifically, it is not impossible if the transition strategyaddresses the underlying social patterns and relationships that shapethese practices. The Japanese “Cool Biz” program, for example, aimedto reduce air conditioning loads by changing social expectationsaround appropriate clothing for business meetings (Shove andWalker, 2012). Ministers modeled short sleeves and eschewed ties,and thermostats were set to a new norm of 28 1C. In 2011, theJapanese government introduced “Super Cool Biz”, which includedideas like extending the summer vacation by a week, shifting to awork day that starts earlier, and even wearing untucked polo shirtsto work (Shinn, 2011). Is there more room for change in this greyarea, where organizations and employees shape and are shaped bycommon practices and workstyles, that are to some extent betweenand beyond them?

5. Summary and conclusions

Previous research has recognized that organizational factors andindividual actions affect the ability of the non-domestic sector toengage with energy efficiency strategies. This paper has argued thatimproving energy efficiency in commercial buildings – both tenantedand owner-occupied – requires an interdisciplinary ‘whole systems’understanding of ‘community-based’ practices. The ownership, man-agement, and occupation of commercial properties are often dividedbetween different entities which need to work together for the fullsavings to be achieved. The ability to create environmental synergiesacross property fleets and within individual buildings is the key; thefactors at the organizational level that promote or inhibit the greateruptake of energy saving technologies and practices, as well as thedivision of responsibilities surrounding decisions to enact change areareas on which new research needs to concentrate. Many organiza-tions are now global players, and although there may be specificlocalized environmental challenges and policies, the opportunity forlearning through shared experiences and communities of practice isan international one.

Previous research in the field of commercial property has neitherbeen able to address how new technologies can be and are deployedin practice to improve energy performance, nor to analyse the socio-technical frameworks that underpin these measures in sufficientdetail. Therefore, there is an urgent need for new research to under-stand how organizations develop and implement company-wideenvironmental policies so that energy management is practiced notonly within specific physical spaces but across a geographically diverseportfolio of properties. This also provides opportunities for sharedlearning. This paper, along with Axon et al., 2012, argues that a“building communities” approach will be helpful in pursuing this goal.

Beyond how we investigate and understand the relationshipbetween individuals, organizations, and energy efficiency adoption,the paper suggests that a different way of conceptualizing thisrelationship may also be important. The concept of “social potential”was introduced as a counterpoint to the idea of “technical potential”which has inspired decades of energy efficiency research. Alternate

views of future realities – like social potential – may be necessary inrealizing the changes needed to minimize and adapt to the impact ofclimate change, as well as encouraging innovations in socially andorganizationally defined areas not currently addressed by the frame-works currently in use. Space limitations prohibit a full discussion ofthese ideas, but the authors have suggested elsewhere that a focuson citizen science (Moezzi and Janda, 2013) and conceptualizingchange from the middle out (Parag and Janda, 2010; Janda and Parag,2013) might be two useful areas to pursue in the future.

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of the ideas in this paper were presented in2012 at the International Energy Efficiency in Commercial Build-ings Conference (Frankfurt, Germany), at a workshop on EnergyEfficiency for a More Sustainable World (Sao Miguel, Portugal),and as a poster at the the Behavior, Energy, and Climate Changeconference (Sacramento, USA). The authors would like to thankthe conference participants, reviewers, and editors for their com-ments and suggestions. This work has been supported by the UKEnergy Research Centre under its Demand Theme (http://www.ukerc.ac.uk). UKERC is funded by the UK Research Councils' EnergyProgramme through grant NE/G007748/1.

References

Axon, C.J., Bright, S.J., Dixon, T.J., Janda, K.B., Kolokotroni, M., 2012. Buildingcommunities: reducing energy use in tenanted commercial property. BuildingResearch & Information 40, 461–472.

Biggart, N.W., Lutzenhiser, L., 2007. Economic sociology and the social problem ofenergy inefficiency. American Behavioral Scientist 50, 1070–1087.

Bin, S., 2012. Greening Work Styles: An Analysis of Energy Behavior Programs in theWorkplace. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington DC.

Brown, Z., Cole, R.J., Robinson, J., Dowlatabadi, H., 2010. Evaluating user experiencein green buildings in relation to workplace culture and context. Facilities 28,225–238.

Bukarica, V., Robić, S., 2013. Implementing energy efficiency policy in Croatia:stakeholder interactions for closing the gap. Energy Policy.

Carbon Trust, 2009. Building the Future, Today. Carbon Trust, London.Carney, S., Whitmarsh, L., Nicholson-cole, S.A., Shackley, S., 2009. A dynamic

typology of stakeholder engagement within climate change research. TyndallCentre for Climate Change Research.

Cebon, P.B., 1992. Twixt cup and lip: organizational behavior, technical prediction,and conservation practice. Energy Policy 20, 802–814.

Cole, R.J., 2011. Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental change. BuildingResearch & Information 39, 431–435.

Cooremans, C., 2011. Make it strategic! financial investment logic is not enough.Energy Efficiency 4, 473–492.

Cooremans, C., 2012. Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics ofinvestments matter? Energy Efficiency 5, 497–518.

CSE, ECI. 2012. What are the factors influencing energy behaviours and decision-making in the non-domestic sector? A Rapid Evidence Assessment prepared bythe Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) and the Environmental ChangeInstitute (ECI) for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, London.

Cushman, M., Venters, W., Cornford, T., Mitev, N., 2002. Understanding Sustain-ability as Knowledge Practice. London School of Economics, London.

DCLG, 2009. Zero Carbon for New Non-Domestic Buildings: Consultation. Depart-ment of Communities and Local Government, London.

Decanio, S.J., 1993. Barriers within firms to energy-efficient investments. EnergyPolicy 21, 906–914.

Decanio, S.J., Watkins, W.E., 1998. Investment in energy efficiency: do thecharacteristics of firms matter? The Review of Economics and Statistics.

Dixon, T., Ennis-reynolds, G., Roberts, C., Sims, S., 2009. Is there a demand forsustainable offices? An analysis of UK business occupier moves (2006–2008).Journal of Property Research 26, 61–85.

EDRA. 2012. About EDRA [Online]. Environmental Design Research Association.Available: http://www.edra.org/content/about-edra [Accessed December 22012].

Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., Quigley, J., 2009. Why do companies rent green? Real propertyand corporate social responsibility. Energy Policy and Economics. University ofCalifornia Energy Institute, Berkeley.

European Commission 2011. Energy Efficiency Plan 2011. Communication 109.Communication ed. Brussels, Belgium.

Fuerst, F. Mcallister, P., 2008. Does it Pay to be Green? Connecting Economic andEnvironmental Performance in Commercial Real Estate Markets.

K.B. Janda / Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–5554

Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration pro-cesses: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31,1257–1274.

Hauge, A.L., Thomsen, J. Berker, T. User evaluations of energy efficient buildings—literature review and further research. In: Zero Emission Buildings—Proceed-ings of Renewable Energy Conference 2010, 2010 Trondheim, Norway.

Hinnells, M., Bright, S., Langley, A., Woodford, L., Schiellerup, P., Bosteels, T., 2008.The greening of commercial leases. Journal of Property Investment & Finance26, 541–551.

Hoffman, A.J., Henn, R., 2008. Overcoming the social and psychological barriers togreen building. Organization & Environment 21, 390–419.

Janda, K.B., 2011. Buildings don′t use energy: people do. Architectural ScienceReview 54, 15–22.

Janda, K.B., Parag, Y., 2013. A middle-out approach for improving energy perfor-mance in buildings. Building Research & Information 41, 39–50.

Janda, K.B., Payne, C., Kunkle, R. Lutzenhiser, L. What Organizations Did (and Didn′t)Do: Three Factors that Shaped Conservation Responses to California′s 2001‘Crisis’. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 2002 Summer Study,2002 Asilomar, CA. ACEEE, 8.117–8.128.

Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E. Perlman, J. 2003. The Costs and FinancialBenefits of Green Buildings: A Report to Californiaís Sustainable Building TaskForce. Capital E, Washington DC.

Kok, N., Eichholtz, P., Bauer, R., Peneda, P., 2010. Environmental Performance: AGlobal Perspective on Commercial Real Estate. Maastricht: European Centre forCorporate Engagement. Maastricht University School of Business andEconomics.

Langley, A. Hopkinson, L. 2009. Greening the Commercial Property Sector: A Guidefor Developing and Implementing Best Practice through the UK LeasingProcess: Good Practice Guide. Cardiff: Welsh School of Architecture.

Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lenoir, A., Cory, S., Donn, M. Garde, F. Users’ behavior and energy performances ofnet zero energy buildings. In: 12th Conference of International BuildingPerformance Simulation Association, 14–16 November 2011 Sydney, Australia.

Levine, M., Ürge-vorsatz, D., Blok, K., Geng, L., Harvey, D., Lang, S., Levermore, G.,Mehlwana, A.M., Mirasgedis, S., Novikova, A., Rilling, J. Yoshino, H., 2007.Residential and commercial buildings. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R.,Dave, R. Meyer, L.A. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution ofWorking Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA:Cambridge University Press.

Lutzenhiser, L., 1993. Social and behavioral aspects of energy use. Annual Review ofEnergy and the Environment 18, 247–289.

Lutzenhiser, L., 1994. Why Isn′t the Housing Stock More Efficient?: OrganizationalNetworks and Technology Transfer. ACEEE 1994 Summer Study on EnergyEfficiency in Buildings, 1994 Asilomar, CA. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, 1.109–1.118.

Lutzenhiser, L., Janda, K.B., Kunkle, R., Payne, C., 2002. Understanding the Responseof Commercial and Institutional Organizations to the California Energy CrisisSacramento. California Energy Commission, CA.

March, J.G., 1988. Decisions and Organizations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Moezzi, M. Janda, K.B., 2013. Redirecting Research About Energy and People: From

“if Only” to “Social Potential”. ECEEE Summer Study, 3–8 June 2013 2013Presqu'île de Giens, France. European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Nelson, A., 2008. Globalization and Global Trends in Green Real Estate Investment.RREEF Research, San Francisco, CA.

Newell, G., 2008. The strategic significance of environmental sustainability byAustralian-listed property trusts. Journal of Property Investment & Finance 26,522–540.

Parag, Y., Janda, K.B., 2010. Midstream and Sideways: Considering a Middle-OutApproach to Changing Energy Demand. Energy Transitions in an Interdepen-dent World. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. (February 25-26, 2010).

Perrow, C., 1970. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View. Tavistock Publica-tions, London.

Petersen, J.E., Shunturov, V., Janda, K.B., Platt, G., Weinberger, K., 2007. Dormitoryresidents reduce electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visualfeedback and incentives. International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation 8, 16–33.

Pivo, G., 2008. Responsible property investment criteria developed using the DelphiMethod. Building Research & Information 36, 20–36.

Pivo, G., Mcnamara, P., 2005. Responsible property investing. International RealEstate Review 8, 128–143.

Pless, S.D., Torcellini, P.A., 2004. Energy Performance Evaluation of an EducationalFacility: The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies. OberlinCollege, Oberlin, Ohio. NREL/TP-550-33180. National Renewable Energy Labora-tory: Golden, CO.

Rosenfeld, A., Atkinson, C., Koomey, J., Meier, A., Mowris, R.J., Price, L., 1993.Conserved energy supply curves for U.S. buildings. Contemporary Policy Issues11, 45–68.

Ruikar, K., Koskela, L., Sexton, M., 2009. Communities of practice in constructioncase study organisations. Construction Innovation 9, 434–448.

Schein, E.H., 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco.

Seth, S. 2011. Energy Efficiency Initiatives in Commercial Buildings [Online].Washington DC: Global Cool Cities Alliance. Available: ⟨http://www.globalcoolcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Seth-Presentation.pdf⟩ [Accessed July15, 2013 2013].

Shama, A., 1983. Energy conservation in US buildings: solving the high potential/low adoption paradox from a behavioral perspective. Energy Policy 11,148–167.

Shinn, C.H. 2011. ‘Super Cool Biz’ Springs Sales Boost [Online]. Available: ⟨http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/08/16/super-cool-biz-springs-sales-boost/⟩[Accessed April 13 2012].

Shove, E., 1998. Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technologytransfer and energy in buildings. Energy Policy 26, 1105–1112.

Shove, E. Walker, G. 2012. Diversity and Transition: Conceptualising the Productionof Cooled Space in Everyday Life [Online]. Available: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/shove/…/cooling Shove Walker.pdf [Accessed December 12 2012].

Socolow, R., 1978. Saving Energy in the Home: Princeton′s Experiments at TwinRivers. Ballinger, Cambridge.

Sunikka-blank, M., Galvin, R., 2012. Introducing the prebound effect: the gapbetween performance and actual energy consumption. Building Research &Information 40, 260–273.

Tiedemann, K., Sulyma, I., Sahota, R. Habart, J., 2008. Behavior and Potential EnergySavings in Business Establishments. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiencyin Buildings, August 17–22, 2008 2008 Asilomar, CA. American Council for anEnergy-Efficient Economy, 7:327–335.

Urge-vorsatz, D., Eyre, N., Graham, P., Harvey, L.D.D., Hertwich, E., Kornevall, C.,Majumdar, M., Mcmahon, J., Mirasgedis, S., Murakami, S., Novikova, A., Janda, K.B., 2011. Knowledge module 10: energy end use: buildings, The Global EnergyAssessment (GEA). IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.

Zboralski, K., Gemunden, H.G., 2006. The impact of communities of practice. In:Coakes, E., Clarke, S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice inInformation Knowledge and Management. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.

K.B. Janda / Energy Policy 67 (2014) 48–55 55