Energy Efficiency and Environmental Friendliness of Production as Factors of Consumer Value of Goods and Image of the Enterprise

  • I. V. Ershova
  • N. V. Dukmasova
  • M. A. Prilutskaya
Part of the Innovation and Discovery in Russian Science and Engineering book series (IDRSE)


Nowadays, environmental safety and resource saving are important parts of public consciousness. The consumer value of goods is traditionally considered as a ratio of the consumer received benefits and the buying costs. However, environmental properties and energy efficiency of production are seldom considered as parts of consumer value, in contradistinction to functional, economic, and service benefits. The paper contains a methodical approach to assessment of influence of an environmental management system on the consumer value of goods and image of the producer.

The paper reveals the role of environmental safety and energy saving in a choice of Russian consumers, volatility of indicators, and their share in the consumer value of goods. The dependence of the changes in sales volumes of machine-building and metallurgical enterprises from receiving and the subsequent confirmation of the ecological certificate herein are analyzed. The authors’ conclusion is that in the current situation in Russia, environmental friendliness and energy efficiency are not considered by consumers as a part of value. Consequently, enterprises are not interested in investments in environmental safety and energy saving. Considering the image component in calculation of the economic effect of activities in the field of energy saving and environment protection is proposed as one of the ways to solve the outlined problem.


Environmentally friendly goods Energy saving Consumer value Environmental management Image of the enterprise 


  1. 1.
    Shchegolev, V.V.: Methods of the industrial output consumer value assessment. Sci. Tech. Sheets SPBGPU. 3(99), 68–76 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heijnen, P.: Informative advertising by an environmental group. J. Econ./Zeitschrift fur Nationalekonomie. 3, 249–272 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National standard of GOST R ISO 140402010 of the Russian Federation “Ecological management. Assessment of life cycle. Principles and structure”.
  4. 4.
    Ariwa, E., Okeke, O.J.-Р.: Green technology and corporate sustainability in developing economies. In: Proceedings – 6th International Symposium on Parallel Computing in Electrical Engineering, PARELEC 2011, pp. 153–160 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyarinov, A.Y., Magaril, E.R.: Improvement of scientific and methodical bases of the production ecological costs compensation economic mechanism formation, UGTU-UPI. Economy Manag. Ser. 5, 96–106 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yermolaeva, P.O.: Ecological culture of the Russian and American students. Sociol. Res. 12, 12–19 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anufriyev, V.P., Lobanov, V.: We head for energy efficiency. Energostyle. 3(28), 18–24 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Russian Federal State Statistics Service,
  9. 9.
    The State Program of the Russian Federation Energy Conservation and Increase of Energy Effectiveness until the Year 2020,
  10. 10.
    Dukmasova, N.V., Yershov, I.V.: Methodical approaches to definition of the ecological management system introduction economic effect. Messenger URFU. 6, 34–39 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vershkov L.V., Groshev, V.L., Gavrilov V.V.: Prevented Environmental Damage Identification Methodology (main editor Chair of the State Committee for Environmental Protection Danilov-Danilyan, V.I), [in Russian]. State Committee for Environmental Protection, Moscow (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. V. Ershova
    • 1
  • N. V. Dukmasova
    • 2
  • M. A. Prilutskaya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Business and ManagementUral Federal UniversityYekaterinburgRussia
  2. 2.Department of Environmental EconomicsUral Federal UniversityYekaterinburgRussia

Personalised recommendations