Energy efficiency (i.e., the ratio of output of performance to input of energy) in office buildings can reduce energy costs and CO2 emissions, but there are barriers to widespread adoption of energy efficient solutions in offices because they are often perceived as a potential threat to perceived comfort, well-being, and performance of office users. However, the links between offices' energy efficiency and users' performance and well-being through their moderators are neither necessary nor empirically confirmed.

Cooperation between public and private sector has achieved a remarkable widespread, in the Italian context, over the last two decades. Nevertheless, the increasing difficulty in accessing the capital market and the rising cost of funding sources, both noticeable over the past few years, led to a slowdown of Public–Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives. Meanwhile, the community is expressing new needs to be satisfied, such as the conversion of brownfields, the recovery of housing stock dating back to former times, as well as the refurbishment of public offices or schools.

The economics of energy efficiency programmes have been subject to considerable academic debate lasting well over three decades now. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by reviewing the costs and benefits of a specific type of policy+ instrument that recently gained significant traction in Europe – Energy Efficiency Obligations - EEOs. Following the introduction of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive in 2012 the number of EEOs in Europe has grown from five schemes to now 16 EEOs in operation or planned across the EU.