The Innovative Nature of Selected Polish Companies in the Energy Sector Compared to the Use of Renewable Energy Sources from a Financial and an Investor’s Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Identification of the relationship between innovation and the level of use of renewable resources and the assessments of investors in a developing economy;
- In-depth empirical studies of the use of RESs and the scope of innovation, carried out from the individual companies’ perspectives;
- Assessment of the scale of innovation in the context of the companies’ financial reports;
- Analysis of the impact of changes in national resource policies on innovation and the use of RESs in energy companies in the developing economy.
2. Studies of the Literature
2.1. Innovation in the Energy Sector from a Macro Perspective
2.2. Innovation in the Energy Sector from a Micro Perspective
3. Materials and Methods
- Tauron SA is one of the leading energy corporations in Poland, covering 18% of the territory of Poland. It is the largest distributor in the country and the second-largest electricity seller and producer. The basic areas of the group’s activities that create the energy value chain are hard coal mining, and the production, distribution, and sale of electricity and heat. The majority share of the Treasury is 30.06% [78].
- PGE SA is a vertically integrated entity, participating in the entire electricity value chain. It is one of the biggest electricity sector companies in Poland. The Group is involved in lignite extraction, the production of electric energy out of fossil fuels (lignite, hard coal, and natural gas) and from renewable energy sources (waterpower plants, wind farms, and biomass), and the distribution and sale of electric energy to end customers. The majority share of the Treasury is 60.86% [79].
- Enea SA is a vertically integrated structure that covers five basic areas of the energy market with its activity: electricity and heat energy production (e.g., Kozienice Power Station and Połaniec Power Station), trade in electricity, the distribution of electricity, the distribution of heat, and the mining and enriching of hard coal (Lubelski Węgiel Bogdanka). The group provides energy for 2.5 million customers, and the distribution grid covers 1/5 of the area of Poland. The majority share of the Treasury is 52.29%. [80].
4. Findings
4.1. Innovative Nature of Selected Polish Companies in the Energy Sector Compared to the Use of Renewable Energy Sources from a Financial Perspective
4.2. Innovative Nature of Selected Polish Companies in the Energy Sector Compared to the Useof Renewable Energy Sources from an Investment Perspective
5. Discussion
- Ensuring unchanging (stable in time) resource policy in the energy sector, paying particular attention to the need to increase the share of RESs in energy production;
- Implementing the adopted strategy of the use of RESs, including the financial aid instruments for private investors and institutions consistently;
- Commitment of all government institutions to the green transformation process, as highlighted by, inter alia, Heard et al. (2022) [44];
- Monitoring and supporting energy companies in their innovative activities and the use of RESs, including making their strategies more consistent with the national resource policy;
- Creating a legal and organizational framework to ensure the increased use of RESs [37].
6. Conclusions
- The share of RESs in the total energy production in the analyzed companies increased from ca. 1% to more than 15% in the analyzed period, which indicates slow progress of the green transformation. Nonetheless, a tendency for the growth of the share of RESs in total energy production was observed in the analyzed companies.
- Changes of the share of RESs in energy production were strongly affected by political decisions, which reduced the value of RESs and hampered the growth rate. When faced with changing energy policy and the prioritization of energy security at the expense of decarbonation, state-owned energy companies find it difficult to increase the share of RESs in total energy production.
- The highest capital commitment to innovation, expressed by the share of intangible assets in the total assets, was found for Tauron SA. This is also a company with the highest share of RESs in energy production.
- In Enea SA and PGE SA, the share of intangible assets was lower than in Tauron SA, similar to the share of RESs in production, which indicates the interdependency of a capital commitment to innovation with the green transformation scope.
- Changes in intangible assets reflecting a commitment to innovation display positive correlations with the use of RESs in energy production, meaning that innovation and energy transformation go hand in hand.
- The predominant factor in the intangible assets of the analyzed companies was the resultant innovation dimension in the form of software, patents, and licenses.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Anghelache, C.; Anghel, M.G.; Iacob, Ș.V.; Pârțachi, I.; Rădulescu, I.G.; Brezoi, A.G. Analysis of the Situation of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption in the European Union. Energies 2023, 16, 1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, F.; Felgueiras, C.; Smitkova, M.; Caetano, N. Analysis of Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption and Environmental Impacts in European Countries. Energies 2019, 12, 964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinina, O.; Kirsanova, N.; Nevskaya, M. Circular Economy Models in Industry: Developing a Conceptual Framework. Energies 2022, 15, 9376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponomarenko, T.; Marinina, O.; Nevskaya, M.; Kuryakova, K. Developing Corporate Sustainability Assessment Methods for Oil and Gas Companies. Economies 2021, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, S. Strategic Analysis of the Renewable Electricity Transition: Power to the World without Carbon Emissions? Energies 2023, 16, 6183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siontorou, C.G. Fair Development Transition of Lignite Areas: Key Challenges and Sustainability Prospects. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cotta, B.; Domorenok, E. Catching up with the European Union’s recovery and resilience agenda: Green transition reforms in the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan. Contemp. Ital. Politics 2022, 14, 424–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, D. Just Transitions/Design for Transitions: Preliminary Notes on a Design Politics for a Green New Deal. Capital. Nat. Social. 2020, 31, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, P.; Abouarghoub, W.; Pettit, S.; Beresford, A. A socio-technical transitions perspective for assessing future sustainability following the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2020, 16, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasten, C.; Santamarina, J.C. Energy and quality of life. Energy Policy 2012, 49, 468–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brugger, H.; Eichhammer, W.; Mikova, N.; Dönitz, E. Energy Efficiency Vision 2050: How will new societal trends influence future energy demand in the European countries? Energy Policy 2012, 152, 112216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Chen, T.; Yin, Y. Energy Consumption and Quality of Life: Energy Efficiency Index. Energy Procedia 2016, 88, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalska-Styczeń, A.; Owczarek, T.; Siwy, J.; Sojda, A.; Wolny, M. Analysis of Business Customers’ Energy Consumption Data Registered by Trading Companies in Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 5129. [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]
- Wolniak, R.; Skotnicka-Zasadzień, B. Development of Photovoltaic Energy in EU Countries as an Alternative to Fossil Fuels. Energies 2022, 15, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iancu, I.A.; Hendrick, P.; Micu, D.D.; Cirstea, S.D. The Demand for Energy Imports from Non-Renewable Resources in EU-27 Economy. Energies 2023, 16, 5177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristia, K.; Rabbi, M.F. Exploring the Synergy of Renewable Energy in the Circular Economy Framework: A Bibliometric Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahedi, R. Feasibility study for designing and building a zero-energy house in new cities. Sol. Energy 2022, 240, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahedi, R. Development of a New Simulation Model for the Reservoir Hydropower Generation. Water Resour. Manag. 2022, 36, 2241–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izanloo, M.; Aslani, A.; Zahedi, R. Development of a Machine learning assessment method for renewable energy investment decision making. Appl. Energy 2022, 327, 120096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konopelko, A.; Kostecka-Tomaszewska, L.; Czerewacz-Filipowicz, K. Rethinking EU Countries’ Energy Security Policy Resulting from the Ongoing Energy Crisis: Polish and German Standpoints. Energies 2023, 16, 5132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strojny, J.; Krakowiak-Bal, A.; Knaga, J.; Kacorzyk, P. Energy Security: A Conceptual Overview. Energies 2023, 16, 5042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zdonek, I.; Tokarski, S.; Mularczyk, A.; Turek, M. Evaluation of the Program Subsidizing Prosumer Photovoltaic Sources in Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dat, M.N.; Trung, K.D.; Minh, P.V.; Van, C.D.; Tran, Q.T.; Ngoc, T.N. Assessment of Energy Efficiency Using an Energy Monitoring System: A Case Study of a Major Energy-Consuming Enterprise in Vietnam. Energies 2023, 16, 5214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenc, S.; Leśniak, T.; Kustra, A.; Sierpińska, M. Evolution of Business Models of Mining and Energy Sector Companies according to Current Market Trends. Energies 2023, 16, 5212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bigioi, A.D.; Bigioi, C.E. Governance and Performance in Romanian Energy Companies. Energies 2023, 16, 5041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherepovitsyn, A.; Kazanin, A.; Rutenko, E. Strategic Priorities for Green Diversification of Oil and Gas Companies. Energies 2023, 16, 4985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alghassab, M. A Computational Case Study on Sustainable Energy Transition in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Energies 2023, 16, 5133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arler, F.; Sperling, K.; Borch, K. Landscape Democracy and the Implementation of Renewable Energy Facilities. Energies 2023, 16, 4997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhakiyev, N.; Khamzina, A.; Zhakiyeva, S.; De Miglio, R.; Bakdolotov, A.; Cosmi, C. Optimization Modelling of the Decarbonization Scenario of the Total Energy System of Kazakhstan until 2060. Energies 2023, 16, 5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bublyk, M.; Kowalska-Styczeń, A.; Lytvyn, V.; Vysotska, V. The Ukrainian Economy Transformation into the Circular Based on Fuzzy-Logic Cluster Analysis. Energies 2021, 14, 5951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nevskaya, M.A.; Raikhlin, S.M.; Vinogradova, V.V.; Belyaev, V.V.; Khaikin, M.M. A Study of Factors Affecting National Energy Efficiency. Energies 2023, 16, 5170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mularczyk, A.; Zdonek, I.; Turek, M.; Tokarski, S. Intentions to Use Prosumer Photovoltaic Technology in Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 6300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zdonek, I.; Mularczyk, A.; Turek, M.; Tokarski, S. Perception of Prosumer Photovoltaic Technology in Poland: Usability, Ease of Use, Attitudes, and Purchase Intentions. Energies 2023, 16, 4674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenc, S.; Kustra, A. Distributing Enterprise Value to Stakeholders in the Range of Sustainable Development on the Basis of the Energy Industry in Poland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kustra, A.; Lorenc, S. Financial Balance Analysis of Geothermal Companies in Poland Based on Managerial Cash Flows. Energies 2021, 14, 7885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Styk, K.; Bogacz, P. A Method for Stakeholder Mapping in Connection with the Implementation of a Development Project. Energies 2022, 15, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kęsek, M.; Bogacz, P.; Migza, M. Study on the Usefulness of Lean Management Tools and Techniques in Coal Mines in Poland. Energies 2023, 16, 7240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogacz, P.; Cieślik, Ł.; Osowski, D.; Kochaj, P. Analysis of the Scope for Reducing the Level of Energy Consumption of Crew Transport in an Underground Mining Plant Using a Conveyor Belt System Mining Plant. Energies 2022, 15, 7691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Ge, A. New energy technology innovation and sustainable economic development in the complex scientific environment. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 4214–4223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drago, C.; Gatto, A. Policy, regulation effectiveness, and sustainability in the energy sector: A worldwide interval-based composite indicator. Energy Policy 2022, 167, 112889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Napolitano, L.; Sbardella, A.; Consoli, D.; Barbieri, N.; Perruchas, F. Green innovation and income inequality: A complex system analysis. Structual Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2022, 63, 224–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alemayehu, A.G.; Gebreeyesus, A.; Palladino, G.; Setti, M. Behavioral precursors in the innovation-decision process: The case of bioenergy in Ethiopia. Energy Strategy Rev. 2020, 30, 100499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalak, A.; Wolniak, R. The innovativeness of the country and the renewables and non-renewables in the Energy mix on the example of European Union. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khazaee, M.; Zahedi, R.; Faryadras, R.; Ahmadi, A. Potential assessment of renewable energy resources and their power plant capacities in Iran. Glob. J. Ecol. 2022, 7, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Jun, S.-P.; Lee, C. Does demand-side innovation policy drive lock-in? Global evidence from solar energy in 155 countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 89, 102539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, K.A.; Tang, T.; Hittinger, E. Innovation in complementary energy technologies from renewable energy policies. Renew. Energy 2023, 209, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norouzi, F.; Hoppe, T.; Kamp, L.M.; Manktelow, C.; Bauer, P. Diagnosis of the implementation of smart grid innovation in The Netherlands and corrective actions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 175, 113185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Temmes, A.; Heiskanen, E.; Matschoss, K.; Lovio, R. Mobilising mainstream finance for a future clean energy transition: The case of Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solarin, S.A.; Bello, M.O.; Tiwari, A.K. The impact of technological innovation on renewable energy production: Accounting for the roles of economic and environmental factors using a method of moments quantile regression. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldieri, L.; Gatto, A.; Vinci, C.P. Is there any room for renewable energy innovation in developing and transition economies? Data envelopment analysis of energy behaviour and resilience data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 186, 106587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Z. Assessing the impact of renewable energy investment, green technology innovation, and industrialization on sustainable development: A case study of China. Renew. Energy 2023, 205, 772–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raghutla, C.; Chittedi, K.R. The effect of technological innovation and clean energy consumption on carbon neutrality in top clean energy-consuming countries: A panel estimation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2023, 47, 101091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Abbasi, K.R.; Hussain, K.; Abuhussain, M.A.; Aldersoni, A.; Alvarado, R. Importance of institutional quality and technological innovation to achieve sustainable energy goal: Fresh policy insights. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023, 8, 100325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzikuć, M.; Gorączkowska, J.; Piwowar, A.; Dzikuć, M.; Smoleński, R.; Kułyk, P. The analysis of the innovative potential of the energy sector and low-carbon development: A case study for Poland. Energy Strategy Rev. 2021, 38, 100769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heard, B.R.; Kerxhalli-KleinField, M.; Holmes, K.J. Beyond A single stimulus: How to leverage the federal government to advance clean energy innovation? iScience 2022, 25, 104366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, W.; Liu, J. Artificial Intelligence and emerging digital technologies in the energy sector. Appl. Energy 2021, 303, 117615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quest, H.; Cauz, M.; Heymann, F.; Rod, C.; Perret, L.; Ballif, C.; Virtuani, A.; Wyrsch, N. A 3D indicator for guiding AI applications in the energy sector. Energy AI 2022, 9, 100167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shabalov, M.Y.; Zhukovskiy, Y.L.; Buldysko, A.D.; Gil, B.; Starshaia, V.V. The influence of technological changes in energy efficiency on the infrastructure deterioration in the energy sector. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 2664–2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andoni, M.; Robu, V.; Flynn, D.; Abram, S.; Geach, D.; Jenkins, D.; McCallum, P.; Peacock, A. Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 100, 143–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polas, M.R.H.; Kabir, A.I.; Sohel-Uz-Zaman, A.S.M.; Karim, R.; Tabash, M.I. Blockchain Technology as a Game Changer for Green Innovation: Green Entrepreneurship as a Roadmap to Green Economic Sustainability in Peru. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, V.; Sircar, A.; Bist, N.; Solanki, K.; Yadav, K. Accelerating the renewable energy sector through Industry 4.0: Optimization opportunities in the digital revolution. Int. J. Innov. Stud. 2023, 7, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wittmayer, J.M.; Hielscher, S.; Fraaije, M.; Avelino, F.; Rogge, K. A typology for unpacking the diversity of social innovation in energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 88, 102513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slee, B. Social innovation in community energy in Scotland: Institutional form and sustainability outcomes. Glob. Transit. 2020, 2, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matschoss, K.; Mikkonen, I.; Gynther, L.; Koukoufikis, G.; Uihlein, A.; Murauskaite-Bull, I. Drawing policy insights from social innovation cases in the energy field. Energy Policy 2022, 161, 112728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dall-Orsoletta, A.; Romero, F.; Ferreira, P. Open and collaborative innovation for the energy transition: An exploratory study. Technol. Soc. 2022, 69, 101955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudnik, O.; Vasiljeva, M.; Kuznetsov, N.; Podzorova, M.; Nikolaeva, I.; Vatutina, L.; Khomenko, E.; Ivleva, M. Trends, Impacts, and Prospects for Implementing Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Energy Industry: The Implication of Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duong, K.D.; Huynh, T.N.; Nguyen, D.V.; Le, H.T.P. How innovation and ownership concentration affect the financial sustainability of energy enterprises: Evidence from a transition economy. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.L.; Shen, T.; Zhang, X.; Chen, H.H. The role of innovation investment and executive incentive on financial sustainability in tech-capital-labor intensive energy company: Moderate effect. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 2667–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Häggmark, T.; Elofsson, K. The drivers of private and public eco-innovations in six large countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 364, 132628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, L.L.J.; Huijben, J.C.C.M.; Boxstael, A.; Romme, A.G.L. Barriers and drivers for technology commercialization by SMEs in the Dutch sustainable energy sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 112, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seraji, M.A.N.; Ranjbar, Z.; Keshavarzzadeh, M.; Mousavi, S.; Zahedi, R. Biomass and solar energy in buildings, energetic dark greenhouse, an economic approach analysis. Therm. Sci. Eng. 2023, 6, 2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmié, M.; Boehm, J.; Friedrich, J.; Parida, V.; Wincent, J.; Kahlert, J.; Gassmann, O.; Sjödin, D. Startups versus incumbents in ‘green’ industry transformations: A comparative study of business model archetypes in the electrical power sector. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 96, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nawrocki, T.L.; Jonek-Kowalska, I. Innovativeness in energy companies in developing economies: Determinants, evaluation and comparative analysis using the example of Poland. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoicka, C.E.; Zhao, Y.; McMaster, M.-L.; Das, R.R. Diffusion of demand-side low-carbon innovations and socio-technical energy system change. Renew. Sustain. Energy Transit. 2022, 2, 100034. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, R.; Fu, Y. Technological progress effects on energy efficiency from the perspective of technological innovation and technology introduction: An empirical study of Guangdong, China. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cader, J.; Koneczna, R.; Smol, M. Corporate social responsibility as a significant factor of competitive advantage—A case study of energy companies in Poland. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 7989–8001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Available online: https://www.money.pl/gielda/spolki-gpw/pltaurn00011,o_firmie.html (accessed on 30 July 2023).
- Available online: https://www.money.pl/gielda/spolki-gpw/plpger000010,o_firmie.html (accessed on 30 July 2023).
- Available online: https://www.money.pl/gielda/spolki-gpw/plenea000013,o_firmie.html (accessed on 30 July 2023).
- Jonek-Kowalska, I. Consolidation as a risk management method in the lifecycle of a mining company: A novel methodological approach and evidence from the coal industry in Poland. Resour. Policy 2018, 60, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stake, R.; Visse, M. Case Study Research. International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonek-Kowalska, I. Multi-criteria evaluation of the effectiveness of energy policy in Central and Eastern European countries in a long-term perspective. Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 44, 100973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonek-Kowalska, I.; Nawrocki, T.L. Holistic fuzzy evaluation of operational risk in polish mining enterprises in a long-term and sectoral research perspective. Resour. Policy 2019, 63, 101464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stage | Description | Methods | Justification |
---|---|---|---|
Studies of the literature | Studies devoted to works dealing with energy innovations from the perspective of the whole sector and of the individual energy companies using international publication databases. | Studies of the literature based on international scientific databases. | This stage identified the research gap and existing study findings in the analyzed area. |
Innovations and RESs: a financial perspective |
| [%] (1) | Identifying the scope of using renewable energy sources and joining the green transformation. |
| [%] (2) | Identification of the effects of innovative activities. | |
total assets—the representation of the worth of everything a company owns; | |||
intangible assets—rights suitable for economic exploitation (patents, copyright, franchises, goodwill, trademarks, trade names, etc.) | |||
| Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient: | Determining the relationship between the use of renewable energy sources and the innovativeness of the surveyed enterprises. | |
(3) | |||
cov (x,y)—x and y covariance; and | |||
sx, sy—x and y standard deviations. | |||
The assumed significance level is p = 0.05. | |||
The sources of data were financial statements. | |||
Innovations and RESs: an investor’s perspective | Studies of the ties between innovation and RES energy production with an appraisal of the analyzed companies by stock exchange investors and the owners and general profitability. | At that stage, the following financial analysis indicators were used: | Assessment of the impact of the use of renewable energy in production on the perception of enterprises by investors. |
(4) | |||
documenting the overvaluation (P/BV > 1) or undervaluation (P/BV < 1) of the company. | Assessment of the impact of the use of renewable energy in production on the rate of return for owners. | ||
(5) | |||
illustrating the rate of return for the company owners:. | Assessment of the impact of the use of renewable energy in production on the efficiency of the company. | ||
(6) | |||
illustrating the assets’ ability to generate financial profit. | |||
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to identify the correlation between the above indices and the share of RESs in production (the significance level was adopted as p = 0.05): | |||
(7) | |||
cov (x,y)—x and y covariance; and | |||
sx, sy—x and y standard deviations. | |||
The source of data for this stage was stock exchange listings and information included in the Profit and Loss Account and stock quotes. |
Components | Enea SA | |||||||||||
Years | ||||||||||||
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
R&D expenses | 0.12% | 0.87% | 0.83% | 0.65% | 0.55% | 0.55% | 0.69% | 0.70% | 1.16% | 1.12% | 1.77% | 1.68% |
Goodwill | 18.72% | 38.76% | 36.97% | 44.40% | 32.23% | 27.42% | 24.92% | 24.48% | 25.35% | 24.34% | 23.61% | 22.42% |
Computer software, licenses, and patents | 71.93% | 52.72% | 54.29% | 47.42% | 58.49% | 59.74% | 61.54% | 62.83% | 68.98% | 70.20% | 70.48% | 71.96% |
Easement title | 0.00% | 1.59% | 3.01% | 4.43% | 4.62% | 5.50% | 6.67% | 7.62% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Perpetual usufruct title to land | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Relations with customers | 6.31% | 4.14% | 3.95% | 3.10% | 2.25% | 1.91% | 1.74% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Geological information | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.86% | 4.88% | 4.44% | 4.36% | 4.52% | 4.34% | 4.15% | 3.94% |
Certificate exchange agreements | 1.54% | 1.01% | 0.96% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Coal supply agreements | 1.39% | 0.91% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Guarantees of energy origin | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Rights to CO2 emissions | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Other | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Components | PGE SA | |||||||||||
Years | ||||||||||||
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
R&D expenses | 2.53% | 1.77% | 1.58% | 1.52% | 1.29% | 1.36% | 1.13% | 1.05% | 1.35% | 1.20% | 1.11% | 0.94% |
Goodwill | 1.74% | 22.46% | 25.37% | 22.90% | 19.43% | 0.68% | 11.80% | 10.93% | 13.14% | 13.61% | 17.61% | 16.27% |
Computer software, licenses, and patents | 67.24% | 49.79% | 41.26% | 42.51% | 44.36% | 54.49% | 43.30% | 45.53% | 60.64% | 61.31% | 58.65% | 57.84% |
Easement title | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Perpetual usufruct title to land | 0.00% | 0.00% | 5.53% | 5.12% | 4.82% | 5.58% | 21.59% | 20.20% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Relations with customers | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Geological information | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Certificate exchange agreements | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Coal supply agreements | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Guarantees of energy origin | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Rights to CO2 emissions | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Other | 28.49% | 25.98% | 26.25% | 27.94% | 30.10% | 37.89% | 22.18% | 22.30% | 24.87% | 23.88% | 22.62% | 24.94% |
Total | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
Components | Tauron SA | |||||||||||
Years | ||||||||||||
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
R&D expenses | 0.61% | 0.47% | 0.28% | 0.24% | 0.36% | 0.32% | 0.35% | 0.33% | 0.78% | 0.83% | 1.25% | 1.09% |
Goodwill | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Computer software, licenses, and patents | 38.10% | 41.97% | 26.27% | 24.38% | 34.80% | 35.76% | 35.62% | 40.56% | 71.81% | 72.71% | 77.06% | 73.11% |
Easement title | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Perpetual usufruct title to land | 34.12% | 30.04% | 56.17% | 40.51% | 49.69% | 46.06% | 42.74% | 40.47% | 1.36% | 1.22% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Relations with customers | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Geological information | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Certificate exchange agreements | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Coal supply agreements | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Guarantees of energy origin | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.40% | 10.64% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Rights to CO2 emissions | 13.46% | 11.66% | 2.39% | 13.60% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Other | 13.71% | 15.86% | 13.48% | 10.63% | 15.15% | 17.86% | 21.28% | 18.64% | 26.05% | 25.24% | 21.68% | 25.80% |
Total | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
Enterprise | Years | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |
P/BV | ||||||||||||
Tauron SA | 0.56 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.20 |
PGE SA | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 0.64 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.16 | 0.28 | 0.37 | 0.25 |
Enea SA | 0.73 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 0.58 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.21 |
ROA | ||||||||||||
Tauron SA | 5.31% | 5.77% | 4.94% | 4.46% | −5.01% | 1.80% | 4.12% | 0.90% | 0.56% | −2.02% | 1.32% | 1.97% |
PGE SA | 5.97% | 5.84% | 6.58% | 6.37% | −4.74% | 4.32% | 4.28% | 2.33% | −4.38% | 0.84% | 4.90% | 3.62% |
Enea SA | 5.08% | 4.73% | 4.43% | 5.46% | −0.76% | 3.77% | 4.53% | 2.96% | 3.62% | −4.68% | 5.27% | 0.68% |
ROE | ||||||||||||
Tauron SA | 8.02% | 9.27% | 7.69% | 6.60% | −10.03% | 2.26% | 7.80% | 1.11% | −0.06% | −13.60% | 2.24% | −7.80% |
PGE SA | 12.57% | 8.80% | 9.26% | 8.24% | −7.37% | 6.20% | 5.93% | 3.15% | −8.26% | 0.34% | 8.50% | 6.27% |
Enea SA | 7.71% | 5.67% | 6.61% | 7.62% | −3.23% | 6.69% | 8.55% | 4.84% | 2.47% | −15.02% | 12.50% | 0.72% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Jonek-Kowalska, I.; Rupacz, S. The Innovative Nature of Selected Polish Companies in the Energy Sector Compared to the Use of Renewable Energy Sources from a Financial and an Investor’s Perspective. Resources 2023, 12, 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12120147
Jonek-Kowalska I, Rupacz S. The Innovative Nature of Selected Polish Companies in the Energy Sector Compared to the Use of Renewable Energy Sources from a Financial and an Investor’s Perspective. Resources. 2023; 12(12):147. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12120147
Chicago/Turabian StyleJonek-Kowalska, Izabela, and Sara Rupacz. 2023. "The Innovative Nature of Selected Polish Companies in the Energy Sector Compared to the Use of Renewable Energy Sources from a Financial and an Investor’s Perspective" Resources 12, no. 12: 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12120147
APA StyleJonek-Kowalska, I., & Rupacz, S. (2023). The Innovative Nature of Selected Polish Companies in the Energy Sector Compared to the Use of Renewable Energy Sources from a Financial and an Investor’s Perspective. Resources, 12(12), 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12120147