Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Contribution to Periodical (1819)
- Part of a Book (1464)
- Report (1458)
- Peer-Reviewed Article (822)
- Working Paper (628)
- Conference Object (410)
- Book (189)
- Doctoral Thesis (105)
- Master Thesis (38)
- Periodical Part (17)
Language
Division
Integrated systems analysis
(2007)
Power sector decarbonisation : metastudy ; WP 2.2 quantitative analysis of existing EU-wide studies
(2012)
Im Forschungsprojekt "Landscaping" untersuchte das Wuppertal Institut die für Nordrhein-Westfalen aus heutiger Sicht denkbaren Technologieansätze, die dafür nötigen politischen Rahmenbedingungen sowie mögliche Innovationen entlang der Wertschöpfungsketten. Bestandteil des Berichts sind Steckbriefe, in denen die möglichen Technologien für treibhausgasneutrale Industrieprozesse samt offener Forschungsfragen und Infrastrukturbedarfe dargestellt sind. Das Projekt entstand im Auftrag des Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Innovation, Digitalisierung und Energie des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.
The Digital Product Passport (DPP) is a concept of a policy instrument particularly pushed by policy circles to contribute to a circular economy. The preliminary design of the DPP is supposed to have product-related information compiled mainly by manufactures and, thus, to provide the basis for more circular products. Given the lack of scientific debate on the DPP, this study seeks to work out design options of the DPP and how these options might benefit stakeholders in a product's value chain. In so doing, we introduce the concept of the DPP and, then, describe the existing regime of regulated and voluntary product information tools focusing on the role of stakeholders. These initial results are reflected in an actor-centered analysis on potential advantages gained through the DPP. Data is generated through desk research and a stakeholder workshop. In particular, by having explored the role the DPP for different actors, we find substantial demand for further research on a variety of issues, for instance, on how to reduce red tape and increase incentives for manufacturers to deliver certain information and on how or through what data collection tool (e.g., database) relevant data can be compiled and how such data is provided to which stakeholder group. We call upon other researchers to close the research gaps explored in this paper also to provide better policy direction on the DPP.
In order to calculate the financial return of energy efficiency measures, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven tool for investors. Generally, however, most CBAs for investors have a narrow focus, which is - simply speaking - on investment costs compared with energy cost savings over the life span of the investment. This only provides part of the full picture. Ideally, a comprehensive or extended CBA would take additional benefits as well as additional costs into account. The objective of this paper is to reflect upon integrating into a CBA two important cost components: transaction costs and energy efficiency services - and how they interact. Even though this concept has not been carried out to the knowledge of the authors, we even go a step further to try to apply this idea. In so doing, we carried out a meta-analysis on relevant literature and existing data and interviewed a limited number of energy experts with comprehensive experience in carrying out energy services. Even though data is hardly available, we succeeded in constructing three real-world cases and applied an extended CBA making use of information gathered on transaction costs and energy services costs. We were able to show that, despite these additional cost components, the energy efficiency measures are economically viable. Quantitative data was not available on how energy services reduce transaction costs; more information on this aspect could render our results even more positive. Even though empirical and conceptual research must intensify efforts to design an even more comprehensive CBA, these first-of-its-kind findings can counterargue those that believe energy efficiency is not worth it (in monetary terms) due to transaction costs or energy services costs. In fact, this is good news for energy efficiency and for those that seek to make use of our findings to argue in favor of taking up energy efficiency investments in businesses.
