By Mike Umiker, Managing Director, Energy Efficiency Movement
Cost has long been the default answer when organisations are asked what holds them back on energy efficiency initiatives. And by the numbers, it still is. According to the Energy Efficiency Movement’s ‘Energy Efficiency Investment Report 2026′, 43 per cent of senior decision-makers cite it as their primary barrier. That figure is hard to argue with.
But here is what that figure doesn’t tell you: two years ago, it was 53 per cent. That ten-point drop proves that organisations are increasingly running the numbers on inaction, and finding it harder to justify. Energy price volatility has a way of sharpening priorities. When the cost of standing still becomes visible, the case for investment becomes easier to make.
Earlier this year, that shift in thinking was visible at the IEA’s 11th Annual Global Conference on Energy Efficiency, during the CEO Roundtable, co-led by the Energy Efficiency Movement. Centred on the theme ‘Energy efficiency is the primary driver to energy security and competitiveness’, a clear message emerged across the two days: energy efficiency has moved well beyond its climate credentials. Senior leaders at the conference were clear that it is now a strategic lever for business and economic resilience.
So if cost is declining as a barrier, why isn’t progress accelerating to match?
The answer lies beneath the surface of that single statistic. And it is more complex, more structural, and considerably harder to address through financing alone.
The barriers you don’t see in the headline
When we asked 2,000 senior decision-makers across energy-intensive industries what prevents them from moving forward on energy efficiency, cost came first. But the answers that followed painted a different picture.
Setting operational disruption concerns aside, 31 per cent report a lack of specialist resource to implement projects. Twenty-nine per cent identify workforce resistance to new technology. Another 29 per cent cite a digital skills gap. And nearly a quarter – 23 per cent – say they cannot build a credible internal business case in the first place.
Individually, none of these figures matches cost. But read them together and they tell a more complete story than a funding shortfall alone. They describe organisations that, even with capital available, may lack the internal capacity to use it effectively.
This is the implementation gap, and it does not respond to the same interventions as a financial constraint.
Investment without capability stalls
Eighty-one per cent of organisations say better access to financing or government incentives would increase their energy efficiency investment. Financial mechanisms matter, and that insight should not be dismissed. They reduce upfront barriers, improve project viability, and help organisations move forward with investments they have already identified and scoped.
But the journey to execution goes beyond securing funding. It requires the internal expertise to identify and scope projects, the capability to construct a credible business case, and the change management skills that investment inevitably triggers. When a third of organisations lack the specialist resource to implement projects once funded – and nearly a quarter cannot construct the internal case needed to secure approval – every sign points to a bottleneck that is organisational, not financial.
Company size shapes exposure and capacity
Smaller companies face a compounded version of this challenge. With fewer financial reserves to absorb energy price volatility, the cost-of-inaction calculation becomes more pressing. They are also more likely to lack the internal capability to act without external support. In short, the risk is higher and the resources to manage it are thinner.
Across the industry, ambition is not in short supply. What’s often missing is translating that ambition into delivered outcomes. More than half of organisations overall – 53 per cent – say they need external support across four or more areas.
Two levers, working together
Real progress depends on financial support and capability-building advancing together, each one reinforcing the other. What that response requires is becoming clearer.
Policymakers need to strengthen incentive frameworks and reduce the complexity of accessing support. Financial institutions need to develop funding solutions that match the investment horizons energy efficiency projects require. Industry needs to share knowledge of what works in practice, while moving from fragmented, decentralised efforts towards a more coordinated, systems-based approach. This can strengthen the business case for energy efficiency and build the internal capability needed to deploy solutions at scale.
That conversation continued in Montreal, where the importance of knowledge sharing, workforce development, and public-private collaboration emerged as consistent themes. SMEs, in particular, were highlighted as a group that stands to gain significantly from efficiency improvements, but only if the right support frameworks are in place to help them act. The Montreal Collaboration Framework, announced at the conference, turns that consensus into a practical model: industry drives implementation, finance unlocks investment, and policy creates the stable conditions where both can act with confidence.
Industry bodies and knowledge networks have a particular role to play here – convening expertise, enabling training, and ensuring that the organisations that need guidance most are not left to navigate the implementation challenge alone. Financial incentives must be complemented by clear, accessible, and actionable guidance. Less than half of organisations say they have all the information they need from governments and/or third parties. For many, that gap is what stands between intention and action.
Both levers in parallel
Targeted financing reduces the upfront cost barrier that still affects over 40 per cent of organisations. But structural constraints – skills gaps, implementation shortfalls, insufficient data, an inability to make the internal case – require a different kind of response. One built around technical expertise, knowledge transfer, and the organisational capacity to turn approved investment into sustained outcomes.
Organisations that treat these as sequential – secure the funding, build the capability later – may find themselves ready to invest long before they are ready to deliver.
The conditions for acceleration are in place. Energy price volatility has sharpened the urgency. Financial mechanisms are available and being expanded. What the data now asks us to focus on is the layer beneath: the human and organisational infrastructure that determines whether investment translates into results, or stalls somewhere between approval and delivery.
The conditions for progress are strengthening. Now, realising that progress fully will require financial support and capability-building to advance together.
This article first appeared in the Q3 2026 edition of Industrial News magazine. Click here to read the magazine.
