Energy Efficiency in the Industry 4.0 Era: Attributes of Teal Organisations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Evolutionary Goals and Industry 4.0
2.2. Self-Managed and Corporate Culture
2.3. Wholeness and Organisations’ Structure
2.4. Teal Organisations, Industry 4.0, and Energy Efficiency
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Participants and Procedures
3.2. Data Analysis
- Energy security—estimates the efficiency of the country’s energy policy, reliability, and resilience of the energy infrastructure;
- Energy equity—estimates the equal access to affordable energy resources;
- Environmental sustainability—estimates the capacity to avoid and overcome the negative anthropogenic impact and climate changes [66].
4. Results
- The company priorities in the investments in modern technologies (IT1)—the value is in the interval from 3.95 to 4.81 depending on country;
- The members of the team have the ability to self-management (CC4)—the value is in the interval from 3.30 to 4.05;
- The employees participate in shaping transformations in the company (OC6)—the value is in the interval from 2.40 to 3.17.
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Transforming our Economy and Societies. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal_en (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Romero, A.M.; Uruburu, Á.; Jain, A.; Ruiz, M.A.; Muñoz, C.G. The path towards evolutionary—Teal organizations: A relationship trigger on collaborative platforms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurki, S.; Wilenius, M. Trust makes this organisation unique. Eur. J. Futur. Res. 2016, 4, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chigrin, O.; Pimonenko, T. The ways of corporate sector firms financing for sustainability of performance. Int. J. Ecol. Dev. 2014, 29, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Jack, R. Building teal organizations with servant leadership? In Practicing Servant Leadership; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 187–207. [Google Scholar]
- Laloux, F. Reinventing Organisations; Uitgeverij LannooCampus Nederland: Leuven, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kamo, J.; Phillips, F. The evolutionary organization as a complex adaptive system. In Innovation in Technology Management. In Proceedings of the The Key to Global Leadership, PICMET ‘97, Portland, OR, USA, 31 July 1997; pp. 325–330. [Google Scholar]
- Lipkova, L.; Braga, D. Measuring commercialisation success of innovations in the EU. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2016, 4, 15–30. [Google Scholar]
- Pająk, K.; Kvilinskyi, O.; Fasiecka, O.; Miskiewicz, R. Energy security in regional policy in Wielkopolska region of Poland. Econ. Environ. 2017, 2, 122–138. [Google Scholar]
- Lyulyov, O.; Pimonenko, T.; Kwilinski, A.; Us, Y. The heterogeneous effect of democracy, economic and political globalisation on renewable energy. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2021; Volume 250, p. 03006. [Google Scholar]
- Chygryn, O.; Lyulyov, O.; Pimonenko, T.; Mlaabdal, S. Efficiency of oil-production: The role of institutional factors. Eng. Manag. Prod. Serv. 2020, 12, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyulyov, O.; Pimonenko, T.; Kwilinski, A.; Dzwigol, H.; Dzwigol-Barosz, M.; Pavlyk, V.; Barosz, P. The impact of the government policy on the energy efficient gap: The evidence from Ukraine. Energies 2021, 14, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azam, M.; Khan, A.Q. Testing the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis: A comparative empirical study for low, lower middle, upper middle and high income countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 63, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-mulali, U.; Fereidouni, H.G.; Lee, J.Y.; Sab, C.N.B.C. Examining the bi-directional long run relationship between renewable energy consumption and GDP growth. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 22, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apergis, N.; Payne, J.E. Renewable energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 656–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niebel, T. ICT and economic growth—Comparing developing, emerging and developed countries. World Dev. 2018, 104, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ishida, H. The effect of ICT development on economic growth and energy consumption in Japan. Telemat. Inform. 2015, 32, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.; Baloch, M.A.; Saud, S.; Fatima, T. The effect of ICT on CO2 emissions in emerging economies: Does the level of income matters? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 22850–22860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shabani, Z.D.; Shahnazi, R. Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, information and communications technology, and gross domestic product in Iranian economic sectors: A panel causality analysis. Energy 2019, 169, 1064–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahbaz, M.; Raghutla, C.; Song, M.; Zameer, H.; Jiao, Z. Public-private partnerships investment in energy as new determinant of CO2 emissions: The role of technological innovations in China. Energy Econ. 2020, 86, 104664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pan, X.; Uddin, K.; Han, C.; Pan, X. Dynamics of financial development, trade openness, technological innovation and energy intensity: Evidence from Bangladesh. Energy 2019, 171, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miśkiewicz, R. Efficiency of electricity production technology from post-process gas heat: Ecological, economic and social benefits. Energies 2020, 13, 6106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miśkiewicz, R. The impact of innovation and information technology on greenhouse gas emissions: A case of the visegrád countries. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saługa, P.W.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Miśkiewicz, R.; Chłąd, M. Cost of equity of coal-fired power generation projects in poland: Its importance for the management of decision-making process. Energies 2020, 13, 4833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petroye, O.; Lyulyov, O.; Lytvynchuk, I.; Paida, Y.; Pakhomov, V. Effects of information security and innovations on country’s image: Governance Aspect. Int. J. Saf. Secur. Eng. 2020, 10, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolniak, R.; Saniuk, S.; Grabowska, S.; Gajdzik, B. Identification of energy efficiency trends in the context of the development of industry 4.0 Using the polish steel sector as an example. Energies 2020, 13, 2867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nota, G.; Nota, F.; Peluso, D.; Lazo, A.T. Energy efficiency in industry 4.0: The case of batch production processes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meeus, M.T.; Oerlemans, L.A. Firm behaviour and innovative performance: An empirical exploration of the selection—Adaptation debate. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arakji, R.Y.; Lang, K.R. Adoption and diffusion of business practice innovations: An evolutionary analysis. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2010, 15, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borowski, P. Digitization, digital twins, blockchain, and industry 4.0 as elements of management process in enterprises in the energy sector. Energies 2021, 14, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Кwilinski, A. Implementation of blockchain technology in accounting sphere. Acad. Account. Financ. Stud. J. 2019, 23, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Miskiewicz, R. Knowledge and innovation 4.0 today’s electromobility. In Sustainability, Technology and Innovation 4.0; Makieła, Z., Stuss, M.M., Borowiecki, R., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 256–275. [Google Scholar]
- Rzepka, A.; Miśkiewicz, R.; Prachowski, J. Development opportunities and challenges for organizations striving for teal in economy 4.0 on the basis of research. In Self-Management, Entrepreneurial Culture, and Economy 4.0: A Contemporary Approach to Organizational Theory Development; Rzepka, A., Olesiński, Z., Jędrych, E., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 217–236. [Google Scholar]
- Kunkel, S.; Matthess, M. Digital transformation and environmental sustainability in industry: Putting expectations in Asian and African policies into perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maris, G.; Flouros, F. The green deal, national energy and climate plans in Europe: Member States’ compliance and strategies. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masharsky, A.; Azarenkova, G.; Oryekhova, K.; Yavorsky, S. Anti-crisis financial management on energy enterprises as a precondition of innovative conversion of the energy industry: Case of Ukraine. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2018, 3, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sokolovska, A.; Zatonatska, T.; Stavytskyy, A.; Lyulyov, O.; Giedraitis, V. The impact of globalization and international tax competition on tax policies. Res. World Econ. 2020, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butko, M. Innovations in human resources management in Eurointegration conditions: Case for Ukrainian agro-industrial complex. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2019, 2, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tkachenko, V.; Kwilinski, A.; Klymchuk, M.; Tkachenko, I. The economic-mathematical development of buildings construction model optimization on the basis of digital economy. Manag. Syst. Prod. Eng. 2019, 27, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gallo, P.; Mihalcova, B.; Vegsoova, O.; Dzurov-Vargova, T.; Busova, N. Innovative trends in human resources management: Evidence for the health care system. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2019, 2, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousef, D.A. Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000, 15, 6–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andriopoulos, C. Determinants of organisational creativity: A literature review. Manag. Decis. 2001, 39, 834–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Košičiarová, I.; Kádeková, Z.; Štarchoň, P. Leadership and motivation as important aspects of the international company’s corporate culture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muisyo, P.K.; Qin, S.; Ho, T.H.; Julius, M.M. The effect of green HRM practices on green competitive advantage of manufacturing firms. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pimonenko, T.; Prokopenko, O.; Dado, J. Net zero house: EU experience in ukrainian conditions. Int. J. Ecol. Econ. Stat. 2017, 38, 46–57. [Google Scholar]
- Maldonado, T.; Vera, D.; Ramos, N. How humble is your company culture? And why does it matter? Bus. Horizons 2018, 61, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simetinger, F.; Zhang, Z. Deriving secondary traits of industry 4.0: A comparative analysis of significant maturity models. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2020, 37, 663–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, K.-W.; Yu, M.-C.; Leu, J.-S. A neuroevolution strategy using multi-agent incorporated hierarchical ensemble model. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, Kyoto, Japan, 15–19 July 2018; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 171–172. [Google Scholar]
- Fombrun, C.J.; Wally, S. Structuring small firms for rapid growth. J. Bus. Ventur. 1989, 4, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cimini, C.; Boffelli, A.; Lagorio, A.; Kalchschmidt, M.; Pinto, R. How do industry 4.0 technologies influence organisational change? An empirical analysis of Italian SMEs. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 32, 695–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustapa, I.R.; Malak, S.S.D.A. Employing organizational capacity components in enhancing corporate performance. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2019, 7, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, H.; Kim, W.; Park, K.S. The Effect of structural changes in the organizational form of business groups: Evidence from Korea. Asia Pac. J. Financ. Stud. 2012, 41, 286–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gokus, O. The moderating roles of company structure and external environment on market orientation and business strategy types. Acad. Mark. Stud. J. 2015, 19, 190–209. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, L.-Q.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chiu, R.K. The role of corporate culture in the process of strategic human resource management: Evidence from Chinese enterprises. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 47, 777–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busse, R. Corporate culture, organizational change and meaning at work-linking human resources with business ethics. Hum. Syst. Manag. 2014, 33, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benešová, A.; Basl, J.; Tupa, J.; Steiner, F. Design of a business readiness model to realise a green industry 4.0 company. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2021, 34, 920–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritzsche, K.; Niehoff, S.; Beier, G. Industry 4.0 and climate change—Exploring the science-policy gap. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, M.; Sinha, A.; Hu, K.; Shah, M.I. Impact of technological innovation on energy efficiency in industry 4.0 era: Moderation of shadow economy in sustainable development. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 164, 120521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, S.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yang, H.; Lv, J.; Ren, S. Data-driven sustainable intelligent manufacturing based on demand response for energy-intensive industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 123155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyulyov, O.; Vakulenko, I.; Pimonenko, T.; Kwilinski, A.; Dzwigol, H.; Dzwigol-Barosz, M. Comprehensive assessment of smart grids: Is There a universal approach? Energies 2021, 14, 3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Us, Y.; Pimonenko, T.; Lyulyov, O. Energy efficiency profiles in developing the free-carbon economy: On the example of Ukraine and the V4 countries. Polityka Energetyczna Energy Policy J. 2020, 23, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prokopenko, O.; Cebula, J.; Chayen, S.; Pimonenko, T. Wind energy in israel, poland and ukraine: Features and opportu-nities. Int. J. Ecology Dev. 2017, 32, 98–107. [Google Scholar]
- Cebula, J.; Chygryn, O.; Chayen, S.V.; Pimonenko, T. Biogas as an alternative energy source in Ukraine and Israel: Current issues and benefits. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2018, 21, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junker, H.; Domann, C. Towards industry 4.0 in corporate energy management. Ecosyst. Sustain. Dev. XI 2017, 1, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- The World Bank (IBRD). Data Bank. 2019. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- World Energy Council. Available online: https://www.worldenergy.org/publications (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Usman, A.; Ozturk, I.; Hassan, A.; Zafar, S.M.; Ullah, S. The effect of ICT on energy consumption and economic growth in South Asian economies: An empirical analysis. Telemat. Inform. 2021, 58, 101537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ongdash, A.O.; Omirtay, A.D.; Bayetova, M.T.; Ongdashuly, E. Economic growth modeling for the Republic of Kazakhstan based on the higher energy efficiency level. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | Total Number of Companies | Respondents | Workers | Top Management | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Number | Share in the Total Number | ||||
Poland | 8 | 71 | 0.18 | 48 | 23 |
Ukraine | 8 | 71 | 0.18 | 46 | 25 |
Georgia | 7 | 78 | 0.20 | 55 | 23 |
Slovakia | 9 | 93 | 0.24 | 65 | 28 |
Romania | 8 | 80 | 0.20 | 53 | 27 |
Variables | Dimensions | Mean | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sl | Ukr | Gr | Pl | Ro | ||
Innovations and technologies (IT) | The company priorities the investments in modern technologies (IT1) | 4.81 | 3.98 | 3.95 | 4.22 | 4.43 |
The company ensures that all processes carried out in the company are innovative (IT2) | 4.20 | 3.44 | 3.41 | 3.71 | 3.88 | |
The employees have tools at their disposal that use modern technologies (IT3) | 4.02 | 3.33 | 3.32 | 3.65 | 3.81 | |
The employees could learn and develop (IT4) | 4.28 | 3.49 | 3.45 | 3.77 | 3.94 | |
The employees could constantly develop professionally (IT5) | 4.19 | 3.41 | 3.39 | 3.71 | 3.88 | |
The company gives open space for creative and innovative activities (IT6) | 4.42 | 3.61 | 3.57 | 3.87 | 4.04 | |
Cronbach alpha | 0.77 | |||||
Corporate culture (CC) | The company relationships are based on teamwork (CC1) | 3.00 | 2.54 | 2.56 | 2.85 | 2.93 |
The employees know the company’s goals and try to achieve a common goal (CC2) | 3.06 | 2.54 | 2.50 | 2.80 | 2.96 | |
Competition has been replaced by partnership and cooperation (CC3) | 2.80 | 2.45 | 2.53 | 2.79 | 2.87 | |
The members of the team have the ability of self-management (CC4) | 4.05 | 3.31 | 3.30 | 3.63 | 3.79 | |
All company activities are transparent (CC5) | 3.16 | 2.56 | 2.53 | 2.78 | 2.89 | |
The actions of the employees are based on mutual trust (CC6) | 3.06 | 2.49 | 2.48 | 2.76 | 2.85 | |
Cronbach alpha | 0.75 | |||||
Organisational culture (OC) | The company has a decentralised structure (OC1) | 3.06 | 2.49 | 2.49 | 2.80 | 2.90 |
The company structure is flat and horizontal (OC2) | 3.13 | 2.56 | 2.54 | 2.80 | 2.92 | |
There is no hierarchy of positions in the company (OC3) | 3.10 | 2.66 | 2.70 | 2.99 | 3.10 | |
All employees of the company are equal, regardless of experience, seniority, or positions held (OC4) | 2.74 | 2.47 | 2.53 | 2.77 | 2.83 | |
In the company, no one gives orders to anyone because everyone knows their tasks and responsibilities (OC5) | 2.94 | 2.54 | 2.55 | 2.84 | 2.96 | |
The employees participate in shaping changes in the company (OC6) | 3.17 | 2.44 | 2.40 | 2.79 | 2.85 | |
Cronbach alpha | 0.73 |
Dimensions | Friedman Test | Paired-Sample t-Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
p-Value | t Value | p-Value | ||
Innovations and technologies/The company prioritises the investments in modern technologies | 83.23 | 0.00 * | 3.22 | 0.000 * |
Corporate culture/The members of the team have the ability to self-management | 30.18 | 0.00 * | 3.01 | 0.003 * |
Organisational structure/The employees participate in shaping transformations in the company | 98.43 | 0.00 * | 4.05 | 0.002 * |
IT1 | IT2 | IT3 | IT4 | IT5 | IT6 | CC1 | CC2 | CC3 | CC4 | CC5 | CC6 | OC1 | OC2 | OC3 | OC4 | OC5 | OC6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IT1 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||||
IT2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||||
IT3 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||||
IT4 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||
IT5 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 1.00 | |||||||||||||
IT6 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
CC1 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 1.00 | |||||||||||
CC2 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.79 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
CC3 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.83 | 0.97 | 1.00 | |||||||||
CC4 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 1.00 | ||||||||
CC5 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 1.00 | |||||||
CC6 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 1.00 | ||||||
OC1 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.98 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 1.00 | |||||
OC2 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 1.00 | ||||
OC3 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 1.00 | |||
OC4 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.95 | 1.00 | ||
OC5 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.89 | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 1.00 | |
OC6 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 1.00 |
Eigenvalues | |||||||||||
Number | Value | Difference | Proportion | Cumulative Value | Cumulative Proportion | ||||||
1 | 16.266 | 15.204 | 0.904 | 16.266 | 0.904 | ||||||
2 | 1.062 | 0.808 | 0.059 | 17.329 | 0.963 | ||||||
3 | 0.254 | 0.090 | 0.014 | 17.583 | 0.977 | ||||||
Eigenvectors (loadings): | |||||||||||
Variable | PC 1 | PC 2 | PC 3 | Variable | PC 1 | PC 2 | PC 3 | Variable | PC 1 | PC 2 | PC 3 |
IT1 | 0.245 | −0.172 | 0.096 | CC1 | 0.239 | 0.248 | 0.004 | OC1 | 0.241 | 0.149 | −0.125 |
IT2 | 0.243 | −0.173 | 0.123 | CC2 | 0.229 | −0.346 | −0.076 | OC2 | 0.242 | 0.072 | −0.228 |
IT3 | 0.243 | −0.085 | 0.230 | CC3 | 0.235 | −0.277 | 0.208 | OC3 | 0.234 | 0.268 | 0.253 |
IT4 | 0.243 | −0.185 | 0.096 | CC4 | 0.240 | −0.111 | 0.162 | OC4 | 0.207 | 0.506 | 0.155 |
IT5 | 0.244 | −0.130 | 0.111 | CC5 | 0.242 | −0.012 | −0.300 | OC5 | 0.205 | 0.441 | 0.230 |
IT6 | 0.241 | −0.219 | 0.042 | CC6 | 0.241 | 0.103 | −0.309 | OC6 | 0.225 | 0.057 | −0.656 |
Countries | Innovations and Technologies | Corporate Culture | Organisational Culture | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | TS | p-Value | Mean | SD | TS | p-Value | Mean | SD | TS | p-Value | |
Poland | 4.21 | 1.10 | 27.44 | 0.00 | 3.62 | 0.95 | 24.31 | 0.00 | 3.02 | 0.76 | 17.02 | 0.00 |
Ukraine | 3.45 | 0.57 | 2.96 | 0.46 | 2.52 | 0.38 | ||||||
Georgia | 3.42 | 0.50 | 2.96 | 0.46 | 2.54 | 0.48 | ||||||
Slovakia | 3.74 | 0.68 | 3.26 | 0.61 | 2.83 | 0.55 | ||||||
Romania | 3.91 | 0.74 | 3.39 | 0.64 | 2.92 | 0.59 | ||||||
Bartlett’s test for equal variances | chi2 = 102.35 Prob > chi2 = 0.00 | chi2 = 74.96 Prob > chi2 = 0.00 | chi2 = 45.29 Prob > chi2 = 0.00 |
Hypothesis | Coef. | Std. Err. | t-Statistic | Prob. |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.013 | 0.020 | 3.180 | 0.004 * | |
ICT | −0.472 | 0.763 | −0.620 | 0.542 |
0.007 | 0.003 | 2.490 | 0.021 ** | |
2.767 | 1.343 | 2.060 | 0.051 *** | |
4.532 | 2.583 | 1.750 | 0.093 *** | |
5.677 | 2.302 | 2.470 | 0.022 ** | |
1.121 | 1.066 | 1.050 | 0.304 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Miśkiewicz, R.; Rzepka, A.; Borowiecki, R.; Olesińki, Z. Energy Efficiency in the Industry 4.0 Era: Attributes of Teal Organisations. Energies 2021, 14, 6776. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206776
Miśkiewicz R, Rzepka A, Borowiecki R, Olesińki Z. Energy Efficiency in the Industry 4.0 Era: Attributes of Teal Organisations. Energies. 2021; 14(20):6776. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206776
Chicago/Turabian StyleMiśkiewicz, Radosław, Agnieszka Rzepka, Ryszard Borowiecki, and Zbigniew Olesińki. 2021. "Energy Efficiency in the Industry 4.0 Era: Attributes of Teal Organisations" Energies 14, no. 20: 6776. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206776
APA StyleMiśkiewicz, R., Rzepka, A., Borowiecki, R., & Olesińki, Z. (2021). Energy Efficiency in the Industry 4.0 Era: Attributes of Teal Organisations. Energies, 14(20), 6776. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206776