Chapter 3 discusses the
implementation of EU regulations in the Nordic countries, focusing on the status of key directives and initiatives, including the EED, EPBD,
Renewable Energy Directive (RED),
Ecodesign Directive,
Energy Labelling Framework Regulation,
Fit for 55, and
EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). While the Faroe Islands are not part of the EU, Norway and Iceland follow EU regulations through the European Economic Area (EEA). As EU members, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden directly implement these directives. The implementation of the original EPBD and EED has led to several success stories across the Nordic countries. In Denmark, the EPBD resulted in the creation of a comprehensive database for energy certification data, projecting a 28% reduction in heat demand by 2050. Finland successfully integrated the EPBD through stakeholder collaboration, promoting energy-efficient construction and renovation. Norway has prepared for stricter energy performance requirements with passive house standards and industry collaboration. Sweden has introduced an application programming interface (API) to give businesses easy access to energy performance certificate (EPC) data, supporting green mortgages. In terms of the EED, Denmark has implemented an energy efficiency obligation scheme, Finland has used voluntary agreements to promote energy efficiency, and Sweden has launched a programme to enhance energy efficiency among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Chapter 4 presents the
current policy instruments for energy efficiency across the Nordic countries. The most effective policy strategy integrates informational, regulatory, and financial instruments with voluntary measures, where the latter drive innovation and the former help scale energy efficiency efforts. In the
building sector, the Nordic countries promote energy efficiency through informational tools such as advisory services (e.g. Denmark’s SparEnergi.dk, Finland’s Motiva Oy, and Norway’s Enova) and specialised centres (e.g. in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden). All Nordic countries have regulations setting minimum energy efficiency requirements for new and renovated buildings. Energy labelling systems are common in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Iceland has regulation supporting heating costs, while the Faroe Islands require heat pump systems and installer approvals. Moreover, financial incentives such as grants and subsidies are provided, for instance, for energy-efficient renovations, heat pump installations, and renewable energy transitions. Tax incentives and green financing options are available in most countries. Voluntary initiatives include energy standards (e.g. Norway’s passive house criteria) and environmental certifications such as BREEAM and LEED. In the
industry sector, informational tools including guides and consulting services are provided by entities such as Denmark’s SparEnergi.dk, Finland’s Motiva Oy, Iceland’s Energy Centre, and Sweden’s Energy Agency. Energy audits for large companies are mandatory in most Nordic countries to identify energy-saving opportunities. Financial support includes grants, loans, and green financing options (e.g. Sweden’s Climate Leap programme for emissions-reduction and Iceland’s National Energy Fund for renewable energy projects). Voluntary initiatives such as ISO 50001 are widely used to promote better energy management practices. Additionally, Sweden, Finland, and Norway also have industrial transition strategies and programmes including Roadmaps for Fossil-Free Competitiveness in Sweden and Green Industrial Initiative in Norway. The Faroe Islands focus on green transition within business networks aligned with the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Chapter 5 outlines selected
energy efficiency measures across the Nordic region, showcasing their
energy saving potential or effect. In the
building sector, Denmark could reduce heating demand by 10.1 TWh/year through building renovations focused on better insulation and heating systems. In Finland, improving energy efficiency in the existing building stock is expected to reduce heating energy consumption by 8 terawatt-hour (TWh)/year by 2050, while building regulations could save 13 TWh/year by 2030. In Iceland, annual energy savings of 0.4 TWh are achievable in commercial services and households. In Norway, energy efficiency measures in buildings could save 24 TWh/year, with heat pumps saving up to 8 TWh/year. In Sweden, smarter heating and insulation could result in savings of 19 TWh/year by 2030, with major contributions from single-family homes (8 TWh) and multi-dwelling units (8 TWh). In the
industry sector, Denmark could reduce thermal energy use by 7% and electricity use by 17% through more efficient processes such as drying and distillation. In Finland, waste heat recovery could save 35 TWh/year, including 15 TWh/year from industrial plants, supported by combined heat and power (CHP) systems generating 70% of the district heating. In Iceland, industrial waste heat recovery could save 0.357 TWh/year, with 0.112 TWh from the aluminium industry. In Norway, waste heat recovery could save 20 TWh/year, with 6 TWh from easily accessible heat sources (100–250°C). In Sweden, industry efficiency improvements could save 15 TWh/year by 2030 while waste heat recovery and CHP systems could provide a combined savings potential of up to 34 TWh/year. Finally, energy savings from Ecodesign and Energy Labelling in the Nordics are projected to be significant by 2030, with Sweden leading at 51.01 TWh/year in primary energy savings, followed by Finland at 41.58 TWh/year, Norway at 35.50 TWh/year, Denmark at 27.52 TWh, and Iceland at 1.93 TWh/year.
Chapter 6 discusses the
best practices in energy efficiency across the building and industrial sectors in Nordic countries. In this study, the assessment criteria for energy efficiency measures in Nordic countries focus on energy saving impact and the level of spread. The best practices, identified through analysis of state-of-the-art reviews and expert consultations, achieve both high energy-saving effects and widespread adoption, while the good practices vary in these attributes. In the
building sector, common
best practices across most Nordic countries include highly insulated and airtight building envelopes, energy-efficient windows, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, energy-efficient appliances and lighting, and heat pumps for heating. These practices are underpinned by stringent building codes in most countries alongside successful initiatives such as energy efficiency agreements in Finland and incentives for energy measures in households in Norway.
Good practices across Nordic countries include district heating systems (in Finland, Sweden and Denmark) and building energy labelling, along with various subsidy schemes that support energy-efficiency in buildings as in Denmark and Iceland, and technology procurement groups in Sweden, which advance energy-efficient solutions. In the
industry sector, the common
best practices include combined heat and power systems, waste heat recovery, energy management systems, and mandatory energy audits for large enterprises. These measures are reinforced by financial incentives and regulations, such as energy taxes in Denmark and environmental permit requirements in Finland. Norway and Sweden provide financial support for energy-efficient technologies, while Iceland supports geothermal projects.
Good practices include industrial process electrification; energy audits models and advice programmes as in Finland; and industry-specific networks and centres to promote energy savings, such as Denmark’s Centre for Energy Savings in Enterprises and Sweden’s energy efficiency networks for SMEs. Additionally, public funding initiatives such as Iceland’s Energy Fund and Norway’s energy and environmental tax system also represent notable good practices.
Chapter 6 also presents a selection of
exemplary programmes and policies, focusing on energy efficiency and climate change mitigation in the building and industry sectors of the Nordic countries. The initiatives were chosen through a thorough review of historical policies and successful measures from the Mure database and consultations with experts in each country. Each initiative was assessed based on several key criteria, including energy savings, broader impacts, cost-effectiveness, level of spread, implementation barriers, and success factors. The initiatives presented here cover a wide range of energy efficiency strategies across various sectors. In the
building sector, Denmark’s
window energy labelling informs consumers on window energy performance and its
minimum requirement targets ensure energy savings for both new and existing buildings. Finland’s
Property and Building Sector Energy Efficiency Agreement is a voluntary initiative promoting energy efficiency, while the
promotion of heat pumps encourages the use of energy-efficient heating solutions. Norway’s
programme for passive houses and low-energy houses incentivizes energy-efficient building construction, and the
programme for best available technology (BAT) in existing buildings promotes advanced energy-saving technologies. Sweden’s
LÅGAN focuses on buildings with very low energy use, while the
Halve More campaign raises awareness on energy-saving behaviours. Finally, Iceland’s
subsidy for heat pumps and geothermal district heating systems provides financial support for renewable heating systems in buildings. In the
industry sector, successful voluntary initiatives include Finland’s
Energy Efficiency Agreement for Industries and Sweden’s
programme for energy efficiency in energy intensive industry, both of which encourage energy-saving commitments. Furthermore, Finland’s
Energy Audit Programme and Sweden’s
energy efficiency networks for SMEs help industries identify and implement energy-saving measures. Financial incentives, such as
Energy Fund for industrial energy conversion projects in Iceland and
subsidy scheme for renewable energy use in production processes in Denmark, help industries adopt renewable and energy-efficient technologies. Denmark’s
energy saving scheme for energy companies had binding energy efficiency targets for the companies and was implemented by voluntary agreements, while Norway’s
programme for climate and energy initiatives for industry and
support for the introduction of energy management further promote energy savings and improved energy management. These assessed initiatives share common
success factors, including strong stakeholder collaboration, alignment with regulations, financial incentives, and effective technical support. Monitoring and reporting mechanisms have also enhanced the accountability and results.
Key obstacles encountered during the implementation of the assessed initiatives include high upfront costs, technological complexity, limited expertise, and resistance to change. Additionally, administrative burdens and difficulties in quantifying energy savings or cost-effectiveness have further challenged broader adoption.
Chapter 7 presents the
exemplary projects from the Nordic countries and provides valuable insights into the diverse approaches being taken to enhance energy efficiency across buildings and industries. For instance, the
Powerhouse Kjørbo project in Norway,
Blå Jungfrun in Sweden, and the
Drangar project in Iceland demonstrate how existing buildings can be transformed through energy-positive design, passive house standards, and sustainable renovation techniques. For the industry sector, the
Kalundborg Eco-Industrial Park in Denmark and
Händelö Eco-Industrial Park in Sweden showcase the potential of industrial symbiosis to improve resource efficiency and reduce emissions. Meanwhile, projects such as
Nordkalk in Finland illustrate how companies can integrate heat recovery and renewable energy to enhance production efficiency and minimize environmental footprints.
Chapter 8 assesses the
transferability of energy efficiency initiatives across the Nordic countries. The results are based on a workshop where a group of Nordic experts discussed how a set of energy efficiency initiatives can be effectively implemented in diverse settings. In the
building sector, initiatives such as
minimum requirement targets for energy saving for new and existing buildings in Denmark and
Halve More campaign in Sweden were rated as highly adaptable initiatives. Denmark’s regulatory framework, which involves setting minimum requirements for energy savings 5 to 10 years ahead, has proven effective. Meanwhile, Sweden’s public engagement campaign has successfully reduced household energy consumption through behavioural changes. Additionally, its
LÅGAN programme for low-energy buildings is a proven model for achieving energy savings and is considered to be easily replicable in different climates. Finally, Finland’s
promotion of heat pumps, rated as having medium-high scalability, integrates well with existing energy policies, although system design and installation are key to its success.
In the industry sector, several initiatives demonstrate strong potential for replication across the region. Denmark’s energy-saving scheme for energy companies, rated with the highest transferability potential, is highly scalable and has been successfully adopted in several EU countries. This scheme has proven particularly successful in SMEs, though it may be considered expensive and labour-intensive in some countries such as Finland. Norway’s support for the introduction of energy management is also considered as highly transferable, particularly due to its alignment with the EED, which mandates energy management for large industrial consumers. This initiative has shown substantial cost-effectiveness and could also benefit SMEs. Sweden’s energy efficiency networks for SMEs were also graded with high scalability, as it fosters collaboration and knowledge-sharing among SMEs to improve energy efficiency. The initiative’s replicability across industries makes it a promising model for broader adoption.
The primary factors which can hinder transferability of successful energy efficiency initiatives across Nordic countries, as discussed during the workshop, include concerns about effectiveness, technological constraints, misalignment with national policy priorities, industry-specific needs, and challenges related to implementation and monitoring. Countries may also find certain initiatives redundant or difficult to apply due to existing advancements, regulatory frameworks, or infrastructure limitations.
Chapter 9 examines the
barriers to energy efficiency implementation in Nordic countries based on a questionnaire targeting consumers, businesses, and industry professionals. Despite technological advances and policy incentives, there is a significant gap between the potential and the actual energy savings, partly due to psychological and behavioural barriers. The findings show moderate to high awareness of regulations among the participants, with some regional differences. Barriers such as financial limitations and short-term priorities have hindered the adoption of energy-efficient practices have hindered the adoption of energy-efficient practices. The respondents suggested stricter regulations and financial incentives along with communication strategies to overcome these challenges. While the incentive schemes are generally appreciated, improvements, particularly aligning support across government levels, are needed. Suggestions for enhancing these schemes include increasing funding, simplifying processes, and introducing performance-based incentives.
Chapter 9 also presents the main findings from a
web-panel survey that was conducted in the six countries to analyse the
energy behaviour of households before, during, and after the energy crisis of 2021–2023. The survey covers implemented short-, medium-, and long-term energy efficiency measures during this period, encompassing socio-demographic profiles, attitudes, motivations, and intentions concerning energy consumption and efficiency measures. During the energy crisis, households implemented acute measures. Norwegian respondents reported changes in their showering habits, shifting appliance usage to different hours, and adjusting home temperatures. In Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, there was a significant shift in appliance use to off-peak hours with lower electricity prices as well as widespread temperature adjustments. The Faroe Islands and Iceland were less affected from the energy crisis and exhibited minimal behavioural changes. For medium- and long-term measures, the respondents reported primarily investing in energy-efficient appliances. This accounts for all three periods, before, during, and after the crisis. In terms of future measures, the respondents showed growing interest in implementing energy monitoring systems and consulting energy experts. Most of them also expressed a willingness to continue their efforts despite perceiving the impact as small or moderate. Furthermore, the survey applied a stated preferences method to capture the nuances in the choice of future energy saving measures. The results showed that the investment support level influenced the respondents’ choices only in Norway and Sweden, implying that subsidy schemes, which exist or have existed in several of the Nordic countries, did not seem to have a large impact on the investment decisions. The results further suggest that the investment cost is an important attribute in decision-making for the respondents in Iceland, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Moreover, a bias was found among the respondents in Sweden and Finland towards choosing ‘installing energy-efficient windows’ and ‘using an energy monitoring system’, respectively, which implies a cultural or contextual bias in the choice of measures. While the overall sample exhibited limited interest in subsidy schemes, subgroups with higher education and middle-aged respondents appeared more inclined to value financial support.