Figure 2
The table shows 6 columns and 9 rows. Row 1 contains the column headers and is as follows. Column 1: Suppliers’ challenges. Column 2: n equals 12. Column 3: Percentage asterisk. Column 4: Customers’ perceptions. Column 5: n equals 12. Column 6: Percentage asterisk. The row-wise data presented in the table is as follows: Row 2: Suppliers’ challenges: Unhealthy competition (For example, low entry barriers); n equals 12: 7; Percentage asterisk: 58.3; Customers’ perceptions: Supporting the global sustainable trend (For example, reduced emissions, environmentally friendly); n equals 12: 10; and Percentage asterisk: 83.3. Row 3: Suppliers’ challenges: Inefficiencies in supply management (For example, delays in shipment); n equals 12: 7; Percentage asterisk: 58.3; Customers’ perceptions: Achieving financial benefits (For example, saving in operational costs); n equals 12: 9; and Percentage asterisk: 75.0. Row 4: Suppliers’ challenges: Unclear government policies, paperwork (For example, decision-making is too dependent on officials’ input); n equals 12: 7; Percentage asterisk: 58.3; Customers’ perceptions: Meeting basic needs in various areas (For example, using the right energy type in the right location at the right time); n equals 12: 9; and Percentage asterisk: 75.0. Row 5: Suppliers’ challenges: Scarcity of quality personnel (For example, skilled technicians); n equals 12: 6; Percentage asterisk: 50.0; Customers’ perceptions: Enhancement of the company’s profile or image (For example, branding); n equals 12: 4; and Percentage asterisk: 33.3. Row 6: Suppliers’ challenges: Limited local supply chain (For example, lack of components, poor power transmission system); n equals 12: 5; Percentage asterisk: 41.7; Customers’ perceptions: Smoothness in conducting operations (For example, consistency or reliability of products or services); n equals 12: 3; and Percentage asterisk: 25.0. Row 7: Suppliers’ challenges: Limited knowledge transfer within the organisation (For example, documentation, training); n equals 12: 3; Percentage asterisk: 25.0; Customers’ perceptions: The ability to have access to quality partners (For example, investors); n equals 12: 3; and Percentage asterisk: 25.0. Row 8: Suppliers’ challenges: Limited interest in sustainability among local companies; n equals 12: 3; Percentage asterisk: 25.0; Customers’ perceptions: To align with corporate socially responsible principles (For example, a better living environment); n equals 12: 3; and Percentage asterisk: 25.0. Row 9: Suppliers’ challenges: Low commitment among staff (For example, upgrading skills, continuity in the organisation); n equals 12: 2; Percentage asterisk: 16.7; Customers’ perceptions: Long product lifespan with simple maintenance; n equals 12: 2; and Percentage asterisk: 16.7. A note below the table reads: Asterisk: Some percentages were rounded off. An upward arrow from this table points to a horizontally structured flowchart. The flowchart is organised into three vertical conceptual sections titled “Challenges in providing value-for-money - Supply side”, “Overarching dimensions”, and “Perceptions of value-for-money - Demand side”. The “Challenges in providing value-for-money - Supply side” section contains four vertically stacked boxes. The first box is labeled “Unhealthy competition ellipsis”, “Scarcity of quality personnel ellipsis”, and “Limited interest ellipsis”. A right-pointing arrow from this box points to a box labeled “Complexities in industry or external settings”. From “Complexities in industry or external settings”, a right-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Outward woes” in “Overarching dimensions”. The second box in “Challenges in providing value-for-money - Supply side” is labeled “Inefficiencies in supply ellipsis”, and “Limited local supply chain ellipsis”. A right-pointing arrow from this box points to a box labeled “Supply side-specific limitations”. From “Supply side-specific limitations”, a right-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Distribution woes” in “Overarching dimensions”. The third box in “Challenges in providing value-for-money - Supply side” is labeled “Unclear government policies ellipsis”. A right-pointing arrow from this box points to a box labeled “The complex policy environment”. From “The complex policy environment”, a right-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Bureaucratic woes” in “Overarching dimensions”. The fourth box in “Challenges in providing value-for-money - Supply side” is labeled “Limited knowledge transfer ellipsis”, and “Low commitment (staff) ellipsis”. A right-pointing arrow from this box points to a box labeled “Lack of company-led initiative”. From “Lack of company-led initiative”, a right-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Inwardly caused woes” in “Overarching dimensions”. In the “Perceptions of value-for-money - Demand side” section, there are 3 vertically stacked boxes. The top box in “Perceptions of value-for-money - Demand side” is labeled “Achieving financial benefits ellipsis”, “Meeting basic needs ellipsis”, “Smoothness in conducting ellipsis”, and “Long product lifespan ellipsis”. From this box, a left-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Renewable energy as a core strategy”. A left-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Operational priority” in “Overarching dimensions”. The second box in “Perceptions of value-for-money - Demand side” is labeled “Supporting the global sustainable ellipsis”, “Enhancement of the company’s ellipsis”, and “To align with corporate socially ellipsis”. From this box, a left-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Renewable energy adoption as a core value”. A left-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “Value recognition” in “Overarching dimensions”. The third box in “Perceptions of value-for-money - Demand side” is labeled “The ability to have access to ellipsis”. From this box, a left-pointing arrow points to a box labeled “The significance of building relationships”. A left-pointing arrow from this box points to a box labeled “Reaching out” in “Overarching dimensions”.Suppliers' challenges in providing value-for-money and customers' perceptions on value-for-money. (*) Some percentages were rounded off. Source: Authors' own work