10. Conclusions

• Energy efficiency commitment: Nordic countries are committed to achieving ambitious energy efficiency and climate goals by setting national targets for reducing energy consumption, increasing the use of renewable energy, and achieving carbon neutrality. All Nordic countries, except the Faroe Islands, align their national objectives, policies, and regulations with European Union (EU) directives and initiatives, such as the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), Energy Perfromance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), and EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS).
• Targeted strategies for building and industry sectors: Each country has implemented tailored energy efficiency measures and policies to address the unique challenges and opportunities in the building and industry sectors, which are influenced by differences in climate, geography, demo­graphy, building practices, and industrial landscapes across the Nordic countries.
• Building-sector initiatives: Efforts include reducing building energy consumption, transitioning to renewable heating, and upgrading existing building stock through long-term renovation strategies, supported by regulatory frameworks and financial incentives.

• Industry-sector challenges: The diversity and complexity of the industrial sector pose challenges in establishing uniform energy efficiency targets across the region. Tailored strategies are essential for different industries, emphasising decarbonisation, electrification, and renewable energy integration across the Nordic countries.
• Policy instruments: A combination of informational, regulatory, financial, and voluntary instruments is used to enhance energy efficiency. While there are common approaches across the region, such as advisory services, building codes, tax incentives, subsidies, and environmental certifications, each country tailors these instruments to its specific national context and priorities, reflecting both similarities and differences in their strategies.
• Energy savings impact: Assessing energy savings from efficiency measures is complex, with differences between energy-saving potential (ideal savings) and energy-saving effect (real-world outcomes). Factors such as climate conditions, measure interactions, and rebound effects must be considered to understand the actual impact of energy efficiency initiatives.

• Best practices in energy efficiency: In the building sector, key measures include highly insulated building envelopes, energy-efficient windows, heat pumps, and energy-efficient appliances and lighting, supported by strict building codes and incentives. In the industry sector, best practices include combined heat and power, waste heat recovery, and energy management, reinforced by mandatory audits and financial incentives.
• Exemplary initiatives: These initiatives demonstrate the effectiveness of combining regulatory measures, financial incentives, and collaboration, leading to energy savings and climate change mitigation. In the building sector, key examples include Denmark’s minimum requirement targets, Finland’s energy efficiency agreements, Norway’s passive houses pro­gramme, Iceland’s heat pump subsidies, and Sweden’s LÅGAN programme. In industry, Denmark’s energy-savings scheme, Finland’s subsidised energy audits, Iceland’s incentives for energy conversion projects, Norway’s climate and energy initiatives programme, and Sweden’s programme for energy efficiency in energy intensive industry promote energy savings and technology adoption.
• Success factors: The main success factors for energy efficiency and climate change mitigation initiatives include clear regulatory requirements, financial support mechanisms that offset initial investment costs, and strong collaboration among government, industry, and consumers. Additionally, effective communication and education, along with robust monitoring systems to track progress and outcomes, play a crucial role in ensuring widespread adoption and sustained impact.
• Barriers to implementation and adoption: Key barriers include high upfront costs, the need for specialised expertise, resistance to change, and admini­strative challenges in managing large-scale programmes. Further­more, insufficient data on the costs and benefits of initiatives, along with fluc­tua­ting market conditions, may deter investment in energy efficiency measures.

• Effectiveness of initiatives: Many of the examined initiatives are effective, but some are becoming outdated due to rapid advancements in existing technologies, policies, practices, or all of them. This highlights the need to focus on proven initiatives that maximise resource efficiency while also redefining future targets to stay aligned with emerging technologies.
• Regulatory and market fit: Successful energy efficiency initiatives must align closely with national building codes and regulatory frameworks. Initiatives that fit well with national policy objectives are more likely to be accepted and effectively integrated across various sectors. Moreover, the design of policy and financial instruments should be harmonised with existing incentives.
• Technological and infrastructure constraints: Countries may face technological or infrastructural limitations that hinder the feasibility of certain initiatives. Adapting initiatives to local technological capabilities and infrastructure is key to their success.
• Industry-specific needs: Some initiatives may not be applicable or beneficial to specific industries. Customising initiatives to fit industry-specific operational practices and energy consumption patterns enhances their chances of successful implementation and greater energy savings.
• Collaboration and knowledge exchange: Sharing experiences, best practices, and innovations among Nordic countries can prevent duplication of efforts and accelerate the adoption of successful measures. This collaborative approach helps identify effective solutions, address common challenges, and tailor initiatives to local needs.

• Barriers to energy efficiency: A moderate to high level of awareness of natio­nal and EU regulations can be observed among industry professionals, which is essential for fostering compliance and encouraging energy efficiency adop­tion. However, significant barriers persist, including financial constraints, competing project priorities, and a focus on short-term goals over long-term savings, which hinder the broader implementation of energy-efficient measures. Combining stronger regulations, targeted financial incentives, and simplified administrative processes could reduce these barriers and encourage long-term energy-efficient behaviour.
• Incentive scheme improvements: Existing government incentives are considered effective but could be improved by simplifying application processes, increasing funding, and offering performance-based incentives. Aligning policies across government levels and tailoring them to market needs would enhance their impact and encourage broader participation.
• Communication and engagement: Public awareness campaigns and effective communication strategies, such as showcasing successful case studies, can help overcome psychological barriers and promote energy-efficient practices. Engaging stakeholders early and fostering collaboration across sectors ensures that policies and incentives address the diverse needs and challenges within the building and industry sectors.
• Price peaks trigger acute measures: During the energy crisis, households implemented acute measures such as temperature adjustments. Vulnerable groups, especially in Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, should, thus, be given extra attention during periods of high electricity prices and low temperatures.
• Good habits are lasting habits: Most respondents expressed a willingness to continue their efforts despite perceiving the impact as small or moderate.
• Lack of one-size-fits-all solutions: The survey shows differences in responses between age groups and education levels. Respondents show a growing interest in implementing energy monitoring systems and consulting energy experts. These are measures that can more easily be adapted to individual users.
• Subsidies may support those who would invest regardless: The stated preference survey shows that subsidy levels did not have a large impact on investment decisions. Investment costs and the potential to save energy are more important attributes. Furthermore, the survey results show that in Sweden and Finland, respondents have inherited preferences and would choose specific measures regardless of the values of investment costs, energy savings, and subsidies.