sustainability
ArticleHave Sustainable Development Goal Depictions Functioned asa Nudge for the Younger Generation before and during the
COVID-19 Outbreak?
Takuro Uehara *and Ryo Sakurai
College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka 567-8570, Japan; ryo223sak@gmail.com* Correspondence: takuro@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp; Tel.: +81-72-665-2080



Citation: Uehara, T.; Sakurai, R.

Abstract: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their corresponding logos have become
ubiquitous in Japan. While not legally binding, they allow us to choose how to contribute or not to
the SDGs. Considering that SDGs share characteristics with nudges, we investigated whether SDGs,
with their term and logos, have functioned as a nudge before and during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Using Japan as a case study, we analyzed newspaper articles to explore how the term SDGs has
spread before and during the outbreak. We also conducted a questionnaire among college students(n = 421) to explore how exposure to the term or its logos has steered the behavior of the younger
generation toward SDGs. Our analysis revealed that the use of the term in newspaper articles has
rapidly increased and spread across newspaper sections, whereas the COVID-19 outbreak has slowed
its spread. The results showed that 68.9% of the respondents were familiar with the term or logos.
Of these, 25.4% had changed their behavior toward SDGs. Surprisingly, COVID-19 has had a rather
positive influence as a catalyst in that more respondents have overall become more proactive or
maintained previous behaviors (28.3%). This indicates that COVID-19 may be an opportunity tomake a shift toward a more sustainable society.

Have Sustainable Development Goal
Depictions Functioned as a Nudge for
the Younger Generation before andKeywords: SDGs; nudge; content analysis; COVID-19; sustainable development goals; college students

during the COVID-19 Outbreak?
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041672

1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Marc A. Rosen
and Emanuele Cannizzaro
Received: 7 January 2021
Accepted: 1 February 2021
Published: 4 February 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.

Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations (UN)General Assembly in September 2015 are an integral part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development [1]. The abbreviation “SDGs” and their logos are ubiquitous in Japan. SDGs
are promoted by government entities at the local and national levels, as well as by otherentities. Citizens place SDGs logo badges on business suits. Trains wrapped with adverts
promoting SDGs are in operation. The mass media covers stories on how we can change
our behavior to be consistent with the SDGs. Companies promote their support for SDGs
on their websites and with their products. Therefore, we assume that college students inJapan are well-exposed to SDGs. Whether they notice them and change their behavior
accordingly must be investigated. For these reasons, we aimed to discover if the SDG term
and logos can function as a nudge for steering people’s behavior toward SDGs.
A number of studies have focused on impact assessments of SDGs toward sustainable
development. As SDGs comprise goals, targets, and indicators, major studies have assessed
the progress toward sustainable development by employing a variety of indicators relevantto the SDGs [2–4]. Schmidt-Traub et al. [5] revealed that their SDG index was correlatedwith other key indicators for sustainable development, including per capita gross domestic
product, the Human Development Index, and subjective well-being. As SDGs essentiallyembrace trade-offs [6], some studies combine SDG indicators with other methods tocapture the interdependencies [7]. Other studies link SDGs to sustainable development
by employing other methods. Costanza et al. [8] proposed an approach that combines

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041672

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

2 of 18

SDGs with a Sustainable Wellbeing Index (SWI) using a system dynamics model. Thisapproach reflects and synthesizes the non-linear dynamic interdependencies of SDGs
and assesses the overall progress of sustainable development using a system dynamics
model [8]. However, to our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the impact of
the SDG term and their logos as a nudge.
A nudge is a term used in behavioral economics to describe a public or private intervention that alters human behavior in particular directions, but allows them to act
without forbidding options or significantly changing material incentives [9–11]. While
nudges are hardly new and are built into the fabric of human society, they are a recent
trend in evidence-based policymaking, drawing insights from behavioral economics as a
substitute or addition to more coercive approaches, such as command and control regulations [10,12–14]. Nudges play a large role in the United States in multiple areas, including
environmental protection [14]. The Ministry of the Environment of Japan launched the
Behavioral Sciences Team to promote nudges [15]. Nudges have caught the attention of policymakers and researchers for practical and philosophical reasons, rendering them a novel
approach. Their benefits are that they often have large effects with low costs and they preserve both human agency and freedom of choice [9]. In other words, to qualify as a nudge,
it must be cost effective and easy to avoid, but not mandatory [10]. For example, simply
adding information to a consumer’s monthly bills contributes to energy savings ranging
from 2% to 6% [16]. In addition, a wide range of actors can nudge from governments tobusinesses to individuals, in contrast to command and control regulations [10].
Nudges can take various forms. They can be one of two types according to their
purpose: assisting individuals to make choices that are in their own best interest (e.g.,saving more for retirement), referred to as “type 1 nudges,” or steering an individual’s
behavior to achieve a desired collective end (e.g., encouraging environmentally friendly
practices), referred to as “type 2 nudges” [10]. According to their level of intrusion, nudges
can be divided into five types: information dissemination (e.g., government campaigns),
governmentally mandated information dissemination (e.g., calorie labels), setting default
rules (e.g., defaulting air travelers into the payment of carbon offsets), manipulation (e.g.,
subliminal advertising), and other mandates [17]. Nudges may change behavior by helping
people counteract a variety of biases and heuristics (rules of thumb) or inform them in theabsence of bias (i.e., they may lack information in the first place) [9,18]. For example, there
may be attempts to counteract a present bias by encouraging people to pay attention to
long-term consequences [9]. Nudges are considered appropriate or needed when decisions“are difficult and rare, for which they do not get prompt feedback, and when they havetrouble translating aspects of the situation into terms that they can easily understand” [11].
SDGs share their characteristics with nudges in four aspects. First, while SDGs are
grounded in international law, they are neither legally binding nor intended to grant immediate legal force to the goals [19,20]. Therefore, people and organizations can decide howmuch they contribute toward the goals. In other words, while they are indeed encouraged
to contribute to SDGs, people are not directed as to what to do. While our society has
not remained on track for all goals, likely due to this non-binding structure [2,21], they
provide an opportunity to function as a nudge. Second, SDGs involve issues that are highly
complex; moreover, it may be difficult to receive prompt feedback for actions. With 17 goals,
169 targets, and 231 indicators proposed, SDGs involve complex interconnections [8]. Furthermore, we cannot often assume that individual actions aggregate up to system-levelsustainability [22]. In other words, what individuals contribute toward sustainability does
not necessarily lead to a sustainable society. As sustainability involves long-term and wideranging system change, it takes time to witness improvements caused by our behavioral
changes. Third, SDGs can be a type 2 nudge with the level of intrusion of information
campaigns steering an individual’s behavior to achieve a desired collective end [10,17].
Fourth, contrary to command and control regulations, various actors (government, businesses, and individuals) have promoted SDGs in various forms. The UN Secretary-Generalcalled on all sectors of society to take part in this challenge [1]. For example, a survey

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

3 of 18

revealed that 24.4% of businesses in Japan are implementing or willing to contribute to
SDGs [23]. Some not only implement, but also enlighten their customers. For example,
a train company decorated its trains with SDGs as part of an information campaign [24].
There are media feature articles that propose how the Japanese can contribute to SDGs,
along with a reflection on indigenous culture [25].
The recent outbreak of COVID-19 has led us to pose an additional question: How
does the outbreak impact behaviors toward SDGs? Can this be an opportunity to change
or is it a risk to achieving SDGs? This may be an opportunity, as claimed by the United
Nations: “Leveraging this moment of crisis, when usual policies and social norms havebeen disrupted, bold steps can steer the world back on track toward the Sustainable
Development Goals. This is the time for change, for a profound systemic shift to a moresustainable economy that works for both people and the planet” [26]. During periods ofturmoil, SDGs can be at risk because policies deemed non-essential may be postponed [27].
Businesses and individuals may also be busy adapting to the current situation, leaving
little room to pay attention to SDGs.
The purpose of this study was to assess if SDGs, as a term or logo, have functioned asa nudge or a choice architecture before and during the COVID-19 crisis. While there havebeen studies examining the use of nudges to achieve SDGs [28,29], to our knowledge, thisis the first study on how the SDG term or logos nudge people to change their behaviors tocontribute to achieving SDGs. As SDGs are a proper noun, i.e., not a common noun, suchas “sustainability,” they may be more noticeable to the public. Logos related to SDGs arealso often used to promote SDGs. Therefore, they can nudge people, such as the functionof eco-labels, although they have not always been successful [30,31]. Given its potential
impacts on sustainability goals, investigating the impact of COVID-19 is an urgent need;however, few studies have reported on this.
We pose three research questions to assess if the SDG term and its logos function
as nudges.
Research question 1: How much have SDGs permeated Japanese society?
Research question 2: By how much do SDGs reach and influence younger generations inJapan via its term and logos?
Research question 3: How has COVID-19 impacted the spread of SDGs and the attitudes ofyounger generations toward SDGs in Japan?
To answer these questions, we reviewed the news coverage of SDGs in a major newspaper and assessed the attitudes of college students toward SDGs in Japan. Newspapers area type of major mass media that can reach a broad range of people and reflect on and shapepublic discourse [32,33]. The media stores memories, maps where we are and who we are,and provides materials to guide us into the future [33]. There are various theories andmodels for mass media effects, such as the classic stimulus–response model [33]. While they
have traditionally been published in print, most newspapers are now also published on
their official websites or provided via portal websites. The younger generation, includingcollege students, are critical in establishing a shift toward a sustainable society. They are
mature enough to learn and ready to steer, if they wish, their behavior or career path to bea leader, policy maker, scientist, consumer, researcher, or an entrepreneur who contributes
to the attainment of SDGs [34].
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 addresses the materials
and methods used for the study. Section 3 reports and discusses the results. Section 4
concludes this paper.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Content Analysis
We used the Yomiuri Database Service (https://database.yomiuri.co.jp/rekishikan/(accessed on 3 February 2021)) to search for articles that included the abbreviated term
“SDGs” in the main text or title from January 2015 through June 2020. The database
covers news articles that appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun, one of the most subscribedSustainability 2021, 13, 1672

4 of 18

to newspapers in Japan. Eight million papers are sold every day, covering 13.57% of thehouseholds in Japan [28]. The Yomiuri Shimbun website has 138.84 million page views
per month, accessed with computers, tablets, and mobile phones by a wide range indemography, including the ages of college students [35]. Furthermore, articles are also readon portal websites, such as Yahoo! Japan News (https://news.yahoo.co.jp/ (accessed on 3
February 2021)).
We counted the number of articles including the term “SDGs” over a period of timeand also according to article type. We also explored in what context SDGs were used.
We used K-H Coder 2 (https://khcoder.net/en/ (accessed on 3 February 2021)) to countthe terms. The results were translated into English and visualized using a word cloud(https://www.wordclouds.com (accessed on 3 February 2021)). Furthermore, we read all of
the articles and coded them into 17 SDGs to explore the frequency of each goal mentioned.
To maintain the reliability of the coding, we coded them and corrected them after throughmultiple verifications.
2.2. Questionnaire Surveys
We conducted a two-round questionnaire (see Supplementary Information for thesurvey forms). Similar to the Delphi method, i.e., an iterative process of data collection
using a questionnaire [36], the second-round survey was designed based on the first-roundsurvey results for the same participants. The participants were presented with the firstround survey results when responding to the second-round survey. We chose this approach
because the additional information can significantly change the answers respondents,
especially given the unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19; they may not be sure how
they should behave while the opinions of other participants may be informative. Prior
to the surveys, we conducted pretests to check for errors and verify the accuracy andconsistency of the questions with college students who did not participate in the main
surveys, modifying the surveys accordingly. The first and second rounds were conducted
online from June 4 to June 10 and July 30 to August 5 in 2020, respectively. The data wereanalyzed using STATA (IC16.1 https://www.stata.com (accessed on 3 February 2021)).
2.2.1. Participants
The participants were 421 college students registered for an introductory course onsocial survey analysis in the spring semester of 2020 in the College of Policy Science at auniversity in Japan. All first-year students in the college were registered for the course.
While it is mandatory for them to participate in surveys as part of grading, it was theirchoice whether their answers were included in the analysis. We emphasized that how
they answer the questions would not affect their grades. Students who agreed to use theiranswers for this research signed an informed consent form.
2.2.2. First-Round Questionnaire
The first-round questionnaire comprised 19 questions divided into four sections:the attributes of the respondents, recognition of SDGs, behavioral changes caused byrecognizing SDGs, and the impact of COVID-19 on their interest and behavior regarding
SDGs. The logos were presented in the questionnaire. We included questions to create index
variables for trust and a general concern about sustainability (Table 1). Among the various
factors influencing the approval of nudges (e.g., gender, age, political attitudes, types ofnudge, and its resonance with the interests and values of individuals), Sunstein et al. [9]recently confirmed the correlation between trust in public institutions and the approvalof nudges. As SDGs can be promoted not only by public institutions, but also by otherinstitutions, we included trust in municipalities, the government, and the United Nations,as well as private companies and non-governmental organizations (NPOs/NGOs). We used
a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = “do not trust at all” to 7 = “completely trust.” Variables forconcern about sustainability were based on the variables developed by Grunert et al. [37].
As their variables were focused on the food industry, we modified them and createdSustainability 2021, 13, 1672

5 of 18

thirteen more general and suitable variables for SDGs. Following Grunert et al. [37], weused a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = “only slightly concerned” to 7 = “extremely concerned.”
The scale reliability of the indices was checked using Cronbach’s alpha [38].
Table 1. Items used to construct an index variable for concerns about sustainability.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Child labor
Logging of the rainforest
Starvation and malnutrition around the world
Pesticides in food production
Poor treatment of animals in food production
Environmental destruction due to economic activities
Food wastage
Overuse of natural resources
Poor working conditions and low wages in economic activities
Single-use or unrecyclable packaging and containers
Amount of packaging used
Carbon dioxide emissions associated with economic activities
Energy consumption associated with economic activities

The recognition of SDGs comprised two questions: whether they had heard of SDGs
or seen an SDG logo. We used a 4-point Likert scale from 1 = “very often” to 4 = “notat all.”Behavioral changes due to the recognition of SDGs is key to assessing whether SDGs
function as a nudge. We asked the respondents if they had changed their behavior becauseof this recognition. The respondents who changed their behavior were asked to elaborateon what changes they had made in an open-ended question. We categorized them into
seventeen SDGs and counted the frequencies. We also asked the respondents withoutchanges to their behaviors why SDGs did not function as a nudge for them. As the survey
was conducted after the COVID-19 outbreak, we emphasized that these questions were inreference to the period before COVID-19.
To measure the impact of COVID-19 on their interest and behavior regarding SDGs,
we asked them how the outbreak changed their interest and behavior regarding SDGs on a
5-point scale. To explore the reasons behind their choice, we used an open-ended question,
which we coded and cross-checked.
2.2.3. Second-Round Questionnaire
The second-round questionnaire was designed after reflecting on the results of thefirst-round questionnaire in relation to COVID-19. The second-round was conducted
approximately two months after the first-round. The questionnaire asked the respondents’intention to change their behavior in response to other students’ views on SDGs and
COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has yielded changes to young people’s behavior,
impacting SDGs both positively and negatively. For example, increases in people using
disposable masks and throwing them away has led to littering in rivers and oceans, butthere has also been decreased carbon emissions and reduced air pollution [39,40]. We
expected that the respondents lacked information regarding COVID-19, such that they
were unsure of how to behave regarding SDGs in this type of crisis. The respondents’
perceptions may change with new information, including peer and group information [41].
Following the Delphi method [36], in the second-round questionnaire, we provided the
respondents with the behavioral changes in their peers and their opinions on SDGs and
COVID-19, which were reported in the first-round questionnaire. We shared summarized
information and open-ended answers in verbatim text.

lowing the Delphi method [36], in the second-round questionnaire, we provided the respondents with the behavioral changes in their peers and their opinions on SDGs andSustainability 2021, COVID-19,
13, 1672
which were reported in the first-round questionnaire. We shared summarized
information and open-ended answers in verbatim text.

6 of 18

3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Permeation 3.1.
of SDGs
into JapaneseSociety
before andduring
COVID-19(RQ.1
and 3) (RQ.1 and 3)
Permeationof SDGs
into JapaneseSociety
beforeand during
COVID-19
From the Yomiuri
databaseservice,
we retrieved
articlesthe term
From
the Yomiuri
databaseservice,734
wenewsretrieved
734including
news articles
including the term
“SDGs” from January
2020. WeJune
did 2020.
not haveaccessthe accessmain textof main text of 23“SDGs” 2015
fromthroughJanuary June2015 throughWe didnotto
haveto the23 out of the 734
becausethey
were notelectronic
form. The form.
occur-The occurrence
outarticlesof the 734
articlesbecausetheyavailable
were notin
available
in electronic
rence of 734 articles
significant
because there
were
only
25 articles
includedtheof 734 isarticles
is significant
becausethere
were
only 25that
articlesthat included
the term
term “MDGS,”“MDGS,”
i.e., Millennium
Development
Goals,
inthesame
database
up
to
June
2020;
i.e., Millennium Development Goals, in the same database up to June 2020; this
this demonstrated
the prevalenceof the term
Figure1 shows
few that
articlesdemonstrated
the prevalence
ofSDGs.
the term
SDGs.
Figure that
1 shows
fewinarticles included
cluded the termat the beginningof the period
this increased
the“SDGs”
term “SDGs”
at the beginningof the (2015);
periodhowever,(2015); however,this increased fromfrom around the
middle2017 until
February2020. The2020.
numberarticlesofbegan
to beganinaroundtheofmiddleof 2017
until February
Theofnumberarticlesto increase
crease because because
the Japanese
MinisterMinisterof Foreign
Affairs participatedin a ministerial
conthe Japaneseof Foreign
Affairs participatedin a ministerial
conference
ference on SDGs
betweenJuly 17 Julyand 17
19,and2017,
the UN.
The
COVID-19
outbreak,onheldSDGsheld between
19,at2017,at theUN.
The COVID-19
outbreak, which
the
media
began
to
more
intensely
cover
at
the
beginningofFebruary
2020,
which the media began to more intensely cover at the beginning of February 2020, ap- appeared tolower
the public’s
interest
in SDGs.
However,instead,there
werearticlespeared to lower
the public’s
interest
in SDGs.
However,instead,there
werearticlesthatthat mentioned
both
COVID-19
SDGs.
For example,
articlesreported
the cancellation or
mentioned both
COVID-19
and andSDGs.
For example,
some somearticlesreportedon theoncancelpostponingof SDG-related(e.g., articles
on February
22, March
13, and May 21,
lation or postponingof SDG-related
eventsevents(e.g., articles
on February
22, March
13, andMoreover,an article
on June2, 2020reportedas partof SDG-related activities, aMay 21, 2020). 2020).
Moreover,an article
on June2, 2020reported
that,that,as partof SDG-related
museumhad
hadpreparedprepared SDG badges
to to
show
appreciation
to healthcare
workers
activities, a museum
badgesandandposters
postersshow
appreciation
tofighting
COVID-19.
This
indicates
that
the
COVID-19
outbreakledtoadecrease
and ahealthcare workers fighting COVID-19. This indicates that the COVID-19 outbreak led tochangeinmedia
citations
of
SDGs,
as
well
as
our
focus
on
SDGs.
a decrease and a change in media citations of SDGs, as well as our focus on SDGs.

Figure1. Theof articlesthe
includingthe term“SDGs” (Sustainable
Development
Goals)
Figure 1. The
numberof numberarticles including
term “SDGs”(Sustainable
Development
Goals) from
August 2015 to Junefrom
August both2015SDGs
to June2020.
Articles areincludingboth SDGs and COVID-19 are in orange.
2020. Articles
includingand
COVID-19
in orange.

Tablelists howarticlesare spreadsections allor categories;
Table 2 lists how
the2articles
arethespreadacrosssectionsacrossor categories;
categories all categories
exceptsection.
for the One
sportsOne of theinterestingis athat
there was a significant
except for the sports
ofsection.
the interestingfindings
is thatfindings
there wassignificant
numberof articles
in the“regional”
Thereoffering
were events offering
increase in theincrease
number in
ofthe
articlesin the“regional”
section.
There section.
were events
people theto learnabout
SDGs2019,(e.g.,and
13 May2019, and2019).
20 November 2019).
people the opportunity
toopportunity
learn about SDGs
(e.g.,
13 May20 November
part ofand
theirpoliciesand some
established
Municipalities Municipalities
adopted SDGs adopted
as part ofSDGs
theiraspoliciessomeestablisheda section
for a section forthepromotion
of
SDGs
in
their
office(e.g.,
29
May
2019
and
6
August2019).
the promotion of SDGs in their office (e.g., 29 May 2019 and 6 August 2019). The Japanese The Japanese
government
promotedSDGs
by selecting“SDG[42].
future cities” [42].
government promoted
SDGs
by selecting“SDG
future cities”

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

7 of 18

Table 2. The number of articles by newspaper section or category.
Year

Term *

2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2019
2019
2020

2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st

Total by section

TV Program/Entertainment

Sport

Front

International

Regional

Politics

1
1

1

4
2
3
6

1

1
5
3

3
7

4
9
37
47
80
132
154

2

9

16

13

464

10

Culture/Households/
Environment/
Education

Society

EconomyGeneralCommentary/
FeatureTotal by
Year

1
1
3
1
3
6
7
11
15

5
7
4
9
25
54
72
120
183
255

48

734

1
2

Year

Term

2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2019
2019
2020

2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st

4
2
1
13
10
33

2
6
5
4
16

5
3
8
5
18

3
4
1
3
7
4
2
3
8
2

Total by section

63

33

39

37

2
3
1
1
2
1

* 1st half: January to June; 2nd half: July to December.

Figure 2 shows the number of articles by SDGs. The goals were unevenly mentioned.
A total of 33.2% of the articles (236 out of 711 valid articles) did not mention any goal,indicating that the articles assumed that readers were aware of SDGs or provided them witha brief description of SDGs without mentioning specific goals. The goals were mentioned
1243 times in total. There were two primary pathways that the goals were mentioned:
either listed as an example to explain SDGs or addressed as a focused topic in an article.
“Goal 1: No Poverty” (174 articles) was often mentioned as an example of an SDG (e.g.,August 2017). This may be because it is the first goal mentioned and is easy for readers tounderstand. “GOAL 13: Climate Action” (132 articles) was already a well-known serious
issue. “GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities” (128 articles) was often cited as
the Japanese government promoted “SDGs future cities” [42]. “GOAL 12: Responsible
Consumption and Production” (108 articles) is a familiar topic for readers; for example,
it includes recycling. “GOAL 14: Life Below Water” (104 articles) and “GOAL 15: Lifeon Land” (94 articles) often jointly appeared as environmental protection. The unevenfrequencies of the goals mentioned appeared to reflect which topics are familiar or thosethat have a focus in Japanese society.

Sustainability
Sustainability
2021,
13,
xx FOR
Sustainability2021,
2021,13,
13,1672
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEWREVIEW

888of
of
19
of18
19

Figure2.
Thenumberofarticles
by
SDG.
Some
articlesmentioned
multiple
goals
(n
711
articles).
FigureFigure2.
2. TheThe number
number ofof articles
articlesby
bySDG.
SDG.Some
Somearticles
articlesmentioned
mentionedmultiple
multiplegoals
goals(n(n=== 711
711 articles).
articles).

FigureFigure 33 isis aa word
word cloud
cloud where
where thethe size
size ofof thethe term
term isisproportional
proportional toto thethe frequency
frequencyofof thethe term
term appearing
appearing inin thethe articles
articles thatthat included
included thethe term
term “SDGs.”“SDGs.” There
There areare several
severalinteresting
interestingpoints
pointsworth
worthmentioning.
mentioning. First,
First, “Company”“Company”appeared
appeared638
638times,
times,indicating
indicatingthe
thecompanies
companies involved
involved inin SDGs.
SDGs. ForFor example,
example, aa bankbankcancansimultaneously
simultaneouslysupport
supportbusinessbusiness
growthcontribute to
toSDGs.
SDGs.“Region”“Region”
appearedtimes,
indicating
SDGs
growth and contributeappeared
615615times,
indicating
thatthat
SDGs
perpermeatedthecommunity
andregionallevels.
As
previously
mentioned,
municipalities
meated the community and regional levels. As previously mentioned, municipalities andandprefectural
governments
adoptedpromoted
SDGs.
prefectural
governments
havehavealsoalso
adoptedandandpromoted
SDGs.

FigureFigure
3.
Word
cloud
for
the
words
that
appeared
with
the
term
“SDGs”
innewspaper
articles.
Figure3.
3. WordWordcloudcloudforforthethewords
wordsthat
thatappeared
appearedwith
withthethetermterm“SDGs”“SDGs”ininnewspaper
newspaperarticles.
articles.

3.2. Influence of SDGs on Japanese Youth before and during COVID-19 (RQ.2 and 3)
3.2. Influence of SDGs on Japanese Youth before and during COVID-19 (RQ.2 and 3)
Among the 421 college students registered for an introductory course on social survey
Among the 421 college students registered for an introductory course on social suranalysis, 405 students answered the two rounds and agreed to use their answers forvey analysis, 405 students answered the two rounds and agreed to use their answers forresearch. Table 3 lists the characteristics of the participants. The gender ratio was similar
research. Table 3 lists the characteristics of the participants. The gender ratio was similar
to that of the college. As the course is for first-year students who were automaticallySustainability 2021, 13, 1672

9 of 18

registered by the office, most respondents were first-year students; therefore, this study
was biased toward them. While 48.9% had access to newspaper articles, the rest did not,indicating a limitation for our analysis of the spread of SDGs via the newspaper articles
mentioned in the previous section. As expected, younger generations often read newspaper
articles on smartphones (45.9%), not on paper (28.7%).
Table 3. Characteristics of the survey participants.
%
GenderMale
Female

61.6
38.4

Year
1st
2nd
3rd
4th and above
Frequency of reading newspaper articles
Every day
Almost every day
Sometimes
BarelyNot at all
Media to read newspaper articles (multiple answer)
Radio
Newspaper
Magazine
PC
TabletMobile/Smartphone
Others

90.4
7.7
0.5
1.5
7.4
8.9
32.6
28.6
22.5
0.8
28.7
0.3
17.5
6.2
45.9
0.6

3.2.1. Exposure to SDGs and Resulting Behavioral Changes before COVID-19
The respondents were well exposed to the SDGs. As listed in Table 4, more than 60%of the respondents had been exposed to SDGs for at least some period (67% had heard of
SDGs and 64% had seen the logo). This exposure is greater than that of a survey targetedat Japanese citizens aged from 20 to 60, among which 39% of the respondents (n = 519)
had heard of SDGs [35]. The results of international surveys on SDGs have revealed thatbetween 28 and 45% of people have heard of SDGs and, consistent with our survey, youth
tend to have a higher level of SDG awareness than the average [43].
Table 4. Exposure to SDG term and logos.
I Have Heard of SDGs.

I Have Seen the SDG Logos.

Freq.

Percent

Freq.

Percent

1. Very often
2. Sometimes
3. Rarely
4. Not at all

117
153
43
92

29%
38%
11%
23%

131
130
73
71

32%
32%
18%
18%

Total

405

100%

405

100%

As the experiences of hearing the term and seeing its logos are highly correlated(0.7357, p < 0.000), we generated a composite variable labeled “exposure to SDGs” bytaking their mean value to explore the factors affecting the respondents’ decisions tochange their behaviors.
Table 5 lists the behavioral changes due to exposure to SDGs. We asked the respondents, “When you learned about SDGs, did you change your behavior in any way?” Thus,

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

10 of 18

this was a self-reported behavioral change. Out of the 279 respondents who had heard of
SDGs and/or seen the SDGs logos, 25.4% had changed their behaviors.
Table 5. Behavioral changes due to exposure to SDGs.
Freq.

Percent

1. Made behavioral changes
2. Made no changes

71
208

25.4%
74.6%

Total

279

100%

Therefore, the question is whether 25.4% is relatively large and meaningful; in otherwords, can SDGs be qualified as a nudge in terms of their influence to steer people’s
behavior toward a sustainable society while still allowing them to make their own choices.
There have been international surveys on the approval/disapproval of nudges as a policy
tool, reporting that approval ranges from 14% to 90% [14,17]. Based on this, 25.4% is in thelower range. However, this requires careful interpretation. First, whether people approvea nudge is one thing; whether the nudge is effective is another. Second, as approval is
not the same as people’s actual behavioral change, but only their willingness to accept theuse of nudges, the corresponding behavioral changes may be lower. For example, the link
between pro-environmental attitudes and behavior is not always clear [44]. Willingness topay for environmental changes, as measured by the contingent valuation method, has beenreported to be higher than the actual payment [45–47].
Using an open-ended question, we asked the respondents what changes they had
made and categorized them into seventeen SDGs. The results show that 47% of the
behavioral changes related to Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production. This isreasonable because Goal 12 is relatively easy for respondents who are college-aged students.
Figure 4 shows the behavioral changes that the respondents made after their exposure to
SDGs. For example, one answered “When I go to a convenience store or a supermarket, I
try to carry my own shopping bag so that I avoid getting a plastic shopping bag as much as
possible.” Overall, there does not appear to be a clear correlation between the frequency of
SDGs mentioned in the news articles and the respondents’ behavioral changes, as shownin Figure 4. As a direct source of information for their behavioral changes, some mentioned
news articles, such that there may be some correlation. Therefore, while the content analysisof news articles is still valid for revealing how SDGs have permeated Japanese society, theweak association is the limitation in this study to explain how the media has changed their
behaviors. Future studies must critically analyze broader information sources, including
tv programs, social network services (SNS), and education on sustainable development(ESD) [48]. Our survey revealed that ESD is quite influential as some of the respondents
mentioned that learning about SDGs in class was the direct source of information that
motivated them to change their behaviors. As shown in Figure 4, what people can do isrelatively limited (e.g., younger generations in this case). Those providing ESD should
place more significance on the goals that are important in their context.
We asked the respondents who did not make any changes (74.6% as lists in Table 5)for their reasons, which are listed in Table 6. Thirty percent said that the information
conveyed by SDGs was not convincing enough to change their behavior. Twenty-eightpercent answered that SDGs are not simple enough to understand.

Sustainability
2021,
13, REVIEW
1672
tainability 2021,
13, x FORPEER

11 of 19

11 of 18

Figure 4. Thebehavioral
respondents’behavioral
due to totheirexposure
to SDGs within comparison
withof SDGs
Figure 4. The respondents’changesdue to changes
their exposure
SDGs
in comparison
the frequency
thenews
frequency
of nSDGs
the news articles.
n is the number
occurrences
mentioned in thearticles.
is thementioned
number ofinoccurrencesin the questionnaire
andofnews
articles. in the questionnaire and news articles.
Table 6. Reasons for not making any behavioral changes (multiple answers).

We asked the respondents who did not make any changes (74.6% as lists in Table 5)
Reasonpercent said that the information conFreq.
%
for their reasons, which are listed in Table 6. Thirty
veyed by SDGs1.wasnotconvincing
enoughtochangetheirbehavior.
Twenty-eightperEven after I heard of SDGs, I was not convinced to change my behavior.
82
30%
cent answered that SDGs are not2.simple
enoughto understand.
I did notreally understand
SDGs.
75
28%
3. I did not really think making the changes was a good idea.
4. Even
if I making
made changes,
I would changes
not gain (multiple
anything answers).
from it (money or benefits).
Table 6. Reasonsfor not
any behavioral
5. It was too hard to make changes (in terms of time and/or money).
ReasonFreq.
%
6. Other

4
18
29
61

1%
7%
11%
23%

1. Even after I heard of SDGs, I was not convinced
Total to change my82
30% 269 100%
behavior.
2. I did not really understand SDGs.
75
28%
Table 7 lists the logit model used to explore the predictors of behavioral change. The
3. I did not
reallythink
makingthechanges
was
a
good
idea.
4
dependent variable was 1 if a respondent made changes and 0 if not; the1%
respondents who
4. Evenanswered
if I made changes,
would
gainaboutanythingfromit 6) were excluded to focus on thethat theyI did
notnotknow
SDGs(Table18
7%(moneyor onbenefits).
impact that SDGs
havebehaviors. The results show that females and seniors (2nd year
5. It wastooabove)hard toterms theirof timeand/or In the pro-environmental behavior
andaremakemorechanges
likely to(inchangebehaviors.
29
11%
money).
literature, while somestudies support gender differences and ages [41,47], this is not always
6. Other many current studies on pro-sustainability
61
23%
the case [49]. Furthermore,
behaviors involve
more than pro-environmental
behaviors. They are sometimes
but
Total
269used interchangeably,100%
not identically, as the former embraces more than the environment. Although their focus
attitudes
towardpublicsupport
SDGs, notofbehavioral
Table 7was
listsonthe
logit modelusedto explore
theforpredictors
behavioralchanges,
change. Guan
The et al. [50]
that
male,
cohorts,
betterand
educated
werewhomore likely todependent foundvariablewas
1 if ayounger
respondent
madeandchanges
0 if not;respondents
the respondents
supportOurfindings
were
not(Tableconsistent
withexcluded
their resultsin thaton
ourresults show
answered that
theySDGs.
did not
know
about
SDGs
6) wereto focusthethatfemalestudents
aremorelikelytosupport
SDGs.
Owing
to
the
negligible
impact that SDGs have on behaviors. The results show that females and seniors (2nd year literature,studiesthesebehaviors.
predictors
The frequencyof newspaper
and above)further
are morelikely explaining
to change their
In arethe needed.
pro-environmental
behavior
readingisnotstatisticallysignificant.
Concerns
oversustainability
andexposure
literature, while some studies support gender differences and ages [41,47], this is not al- to SDGs
are[49].
statisticallysignificant.
latteris consistent
with Guan et behaviors
al. [50], whoways the case
Furthermore,
many The
current
studies
on pro-sustainability
in- found thatknowledge
on
SDGs
is
associatedwithsupport
for
SDGs.
Trust
in
organizations
volve more than pro-environmental behaviors. They are sometimes used interchangeably, was notstatisticallywasmorenot consistent
with international
surveys[14,17]. Other
but not identically,as significant,the former whichembracesthan the environment.
Although
their
than
the
possibility
that
trust
has
nothingtodowithbehavioral
changes,thismay
focus was on attitudes toward public support for SDGs, not behavioral changes, Guan et be due toal. [50] found that male, younger cohorts, and better educated respondents were more

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

12 of 18

contextual differences. The current study is about Japan, which was not included in thosesurveys and also includes organizations other than the government that promote SDGs.
Table 7. Logit model to explain the predictors that influenced respondents’ behavioral changes due to exposure to SDGs.
Variable

Description

Coefficient

Std. Err.

t-Statp-Value

GenderYear
Newspaper read
Sustainability
Trust
Exposure to SDGs
Constant

1: Male, 2: Female
1: 1st year, . . . , 5: 5th or above year
1: Everyday, . . . , 5: Not at all
Index variable, 1: Least concerned, . . . , 7: Most concerned
Index variable, 1: No trust, . . . , 7: Perfect trust
Index variable, 1: very often, . . . , 4: Not at all

0.951
0.589
0.073
0.042
0.029
−1.287−4.796

0.319
0.274
0.140
0.013
0.034
0.136
1.522

2.98
2.15
0.52
3.17
0.84
−4.72
−3.15

***
**

N
Log-likelihood
Pseudo R2

***
***
***

278
−127.121
0.195* p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

3.2.2. Impact of COVID-19 on Interest, Behavior, and Behavioral Intention
Given the unprecedented challenges posed by COVID-19, understanding how COVID19 impacts people’s interest, behavior, and behavioral intention is critical. To be more
specific, when people are facing COVID-19, do SDGs still function as a nudge?
Table 8 lists how the respondents’ interests, behaviors, and behavioral intentions
changed after the COVID-19 outbreak. The survey of behavioral intention in the second
round is discussed later.
Table 8. Impact of COVID-19 on respondents’ interests, behaviors, and behavioral intentions for respondents who hadchanged and did not change their behavior before COVID-19.

Interest *Behavioral
changedue toexposure
to SDGs

Yes
No
Total

Fisher’s exact test

Behavioral Intention after
Listening to Other
Respondents’ Opinions ***Behavior **Up

Unchanged

Down

Up

Unchanged

Down

Up

Unchanged

Down

33
46%
58
28%
91
33%

34
48%
144
70%
178
64%

4
6%
3
1%
7
3%

17
24%
13
6%
30
11%

48
68%
186
91%
234
85%

6
8%
6
3%
12
4%

66
93%
170
84%
236
86%

5
7%
32
16%
37
14%

0
0%
1
0%
1
0%

0.001

<0.001

0.11* up (increased significantly and increased); down (decreased and decreased significantly); ** up (very proactive and proactive); down (lessproactive and almost no actions anymore); *** up (more proactive and proactive); and down (less proactive and much less proactive).

In contrast to concerns over the negative impacts of COVID-19 on SDGs [21] and some
reports regarding the negative impacts of COVID-19 on the environment (e.g., discarding
masks and gloves into the ocean [40]), the results show that most respondents who were
exposed to SDGs maintained or even strengthened their interest (64 and 33%, respectively)
and behavior (85 and 11%, respectively). This is an encouraging finding for the United
Nations that claims COVID-19 is an unprecedented wake-up call and a real opportunity tomake a profound systematic shift to a more sustainable economy [26].
The impacts on interest and behavior were different between respondents who hadchanged their behavior with exposure to SDGs and others who did not, at statisticallysignificant levels (Fisher’s exact tests: p = 0.001 and <0.001 for interest and behavior,respectively). In other words, the respondents with whom nudging by SDGs worked
before COVID-19 had more of a proactive change than those who were not nudged. This

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

spondent answered, “I saw an article in the newspaper that COVID-19 slowed economic
activities for a short period of time, easily resulting in achieving some percentage of thetarget CO2 reduction and increasing plastic waste.” “Increased concern about society ingeneral” includes, for example, “I wanted to do something that would be useful to society.” Another respondent said, “I felt that it was necessary to take action on the SDGs so
13 of 18that I can continue my normal life in the future.”
Respondents whose interest and behavior did not change appear to comprise twogroups: those who lacked the understanding of how to deal with SDGs under COVID-19(e.g.,“Theisrelationship
COVID-19
is notclear,”“Didn’tengaged
know enough
SDGs,”
difference
reasonable withbecausepeople who
hadpreviously
in SDGsabout
shouldhave
and“Didn’tknow what
to do”)and the other who maintained their interest and behavior
a stronger
association
with
SDGs.
identical
that before
COVID-19.
understandably
confusedbut
withrespectto
The tofinding
showinga rather People
positiveare
influence
was unexpected,
thereasons
theright theactionswith anasunprecedented
weanswers
hypotherevealed
logic whenbehindfaced
the finding,shown in Figuresituation.
5a–d. WeTherefore,grouped thetosizedthat peoplequestion
can learnother in suchofasimilar
situation.
the open-ended
tofromcounteachthe frequencies
answers.

Figure(a) ReasonsReasons thatthat respondents
respondents raised(b) ReasonsReasons forfor maintaining
maintaining
Figure 5.
5. (a)
raised their
their interest
interest inin SDGs
SDGs under
under COVID-19
COVID-19 (n(n == 139).
139). (b)their(c) Reasons
their interest
interest inin SDGs
SDGs under
under COVID-19
COVID-19 (n(n == 205).
205). (c)Reasons forfor adapting
adapting their
their behaviors
behaviors with
with respect
respect toto SDGs
SDGs under
under
COVID-19 (n == 35). (d) Reasons for maintaining their behaviors with respect to SDGs under COVID-19 (n = 270).

For respondents
strengthened
theirinformalinterest andbehavior,from
COVID-19
prime
Perceptions
can whochangeeven throughinformation
peers was[41].aTo
testopportunity,
as theirclaimedby theUnited[26]. There
were andthreebehavior,primary collected
reasons for
this,we shared
peers’
reasons
forNations
their changes
in interest
instrengthening
theirinterestandbehavior:“Knowing
theimpactof
COVID-19on
SDGs,”
the first-round survey. Then, in the second-round survey, we asked the respondents to“Increased
concernabout
societyintheir
general,”and (i.e.,“Lifebehavioral
has changed.”
One respondent
answer if they
would
like tochangebehavior
intention).
As listed inanswered,“I
sawanarticleinthenewspaper
that
COVID-19
slowedeconomic
activities
Table 8, both groups (i.e., those who changed their behavior due to exposure to SDGs
and
for
a
short
periodoftime,easilyresultinginachievingsomepercentage
ofthetargetthose who did not) had a strong intention to behave more proactively (93% and 84%,
reCO2 reduction
increasing
plastic waste.”“Increased
concernabout societyrespondents
in general”
spectively),
andandthere
was no statisticallysignificant
difference.
Furthermore,
includes, for example, “I wanted to do something that would be useful to society.” Another
respondent said, “I felt that it was necessary to take action on the SDGs so that I cancontinue my normal life in the future.”
Respondents whose interest and behavior did not change appear to comprise twogroups: those who lacked the understanding of how to deal with SDGs under COVID-19(e.g., “The relationship with COVID-19 is not clear,” “Didn’t know enough about SDGs,”and “Didn’t know what to do”) and the other who maintained their interest and behavior
identical to that before COVID-19. People are understandably confused with respect to theright actions when faced with an unprecedented situation. Therefore, we hypothesizedthat people can learn from each other in such a situation.
Perceptions can change even through informal information from peers [41]. To test
this, we shared their peers’ reasons for their changes in interest and behavior, collectedin the first-round survey. Then, in the second-round survey, we asked the respondents
to answer if they would like to change their behavior (i.e., behavioral intention). As
listed in Table 8, both groups (i.e., those who changed their behavior due to exposure to
SDGs and those who did not) had a strong intention to behave more proactively (93%Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

14 of 18
15 of 19

and 84%, respectively), and there was no statistically significant difference. Furthermore,
answered that their peers’ opinions were very helpful (21.9%) or somewhat helpful
respondents answered that their peers’ opinions were very helpful (21.9%) or somewhat(55.5%), as listed in Table 9, indicating the importance that the opinions of peers have
helpful (55.5%), as listed in Table 9, indicating the importance that the opinions of peers
under such unprecedented circumstances.
have under such unprecedented circumstances.
Table 9. Helpfulness of peers’ opinions in determining behavioral intention.
Table 9. Helpfulness of peers’ opinions in determining behavioral intention.
Freq.

1. Yes, their opinions were very helpful.
1. Yes, theiropinions
very helpful.
60
2. Yes, theirwere
opinions
were somewhat helpful.
2. Yes, their opinions were somewhat helpful.
152
3. Cannot say either way.
3. Cannot say either way.
44
4.
No,
their
were not very helpful.
4. No, their opinions wereopinions
not very helpful.
14
5. No, their opinions
wereopinions
not helpful
at all.
4
5. No, theirwere
not helpful at all.
Total
Total
274

Freq.
%
%
60
21.9%
21.9% 55.5%
152
55.5%
44
16.1%
16.1%
14
5.1% 5.1%
41.5% 1.5%274
100% 100%

Following these results, did SDGs function as a nudge? Figure 6 summarizes ourFollowing these results, did SDGs function as a nudge? Figure 6 summarizes our
findings. Among the respondents who were exposed to the term SDGs or their logos
findings. Among the respondents who were exposed to the term SDGs or their logos(68.9%), 25.4% changed their behaviors (i.e., were nudged) toward SDGs. The COVID-19(68.9%), 25.4% changed their behaviors (i.e., were nudged) toward SDGs. The COVID-19
outbreak impacted some of them positively or negatively. Interestingly, after the COVIDoutbreak impacted some of them positively or negatively. Interestingly, after the COVID-19
19 outbreak,numberrespondents
whochangedtheir
theirbehaviors
behaviorsslightly
slightlyincreased
increased
outbreak,thethenumberof of
respondents
whochangedfrom 25.4%
25.4% (71)(71) toto 28.3%
28.3% (79).
(79). However,
However,owing
owingtotothe
thelimited
limitedsample
samplesize,
size,this
thisdifference
difference
from
may
not
be
conclusive.
It
is
also
interesting
that
some
respondents
who
did
not
changemay not be conclusive. It is also interesting that some respondents who did not change
theirbehavior
beforethe
COVID-19
outbreakchangedtheirbehavior
after,
indicatingthat
their behavior before the COVID-19 outbreak changed their behavior after, indicating that
COVID-19
acted
asa
catalyst
to
make
SDGs
act
as
a
nudge.
Although
COVID-19
isan
COVID-19 acted as a catalyst to make SDGs act as a nudge. Although COVID-19 is anexternal shock
shock that
SDGs,
there
is an
externalthat cannot
cannot be
beimplemented
implementedby
bypolicymakers
policymakerstotopromote
promote
SDGs,
there
is
important
implicationforpolicymakers.
Asknowingtheimportanceofcaringaboutsocian important implication for policymakers. As knowing the importance of caring about
ety strengthenedsomerespondents’interestandandbehavior
regardingSDGs,measuresthat
societystrengthenedsomerespondents’interest
behavior
regardingSDGs,measureseducatepeopleontakingcare
ofsocietyingeneral(inadditiontoteaching
SDGs)
can
be
that educate people on taking care of society in general (in addition to teaching SDGs) caneffective.
be effective.

Figure6.
6. Summary
Summarydiagram
diagramfor
forthethepercentages
percentagesofofrespondents
respondents
nudgedSDGs
beforeafter
Figurenudgedbyby
SDGs
beforeandandafter
thethe COVID-19
outbreak.
arrowsand down)
indicate
behavioral
changes
COVID-19
outbreak.
The Thelargelarge
bluebluearrows(up, (up,right,right,
and down)
indicate
behavioral
changes(very(very proactive
and proactive,
no change,
less proactive,
andno
almostnoanymore,actions anymore,
respecproactive
and proactive,
no change,
less proactive,
and almost
actions
respectively).
The
tively). The respondents in the red-dashed circles are speculated to have been nudged.
respondents in the red-dashed circles are speculated to have been nudged.

4. Conclusions
At present, SDGs and their logos appear to be ubiquitous in Japanese society. As theyshare certain characteristics with the concept of nudges, SDGs can qualify as a nudge. For

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

15 of 18

4. Conclusions
At present, SDGs and their logos appear to be ubiquitous in Japanese society. As theyshare certain characteristics with the concept of nudges, SDGs can qualify as a nudge. For
example, SDGs are not legally binding, involve highly complex issues, and are difficult toreceive prompt feedback for actions. This is consistent with the type 2 nudge based on thelevel of intrusion of information campaigns, steering individuals’ behavior to achieve adesired collective end [10,17], and promotion by various actors. To our knowledge, this is
the first study to investigate whether SDGs can be qualified as a nudge. This study focusedon whether SDGs and their logos steer respondents’ behavior toward achieving SDGs
without forcing them to do so.
The content analysis of newspaper articles revealed that the number of articles including SDGs had increased rapidly up to the COVID-19 outbreak, which tempered the
spread of SDGs in the newspaper. Permeation was notable given that while there were 734
articles that included SDGs, there were only 25 articles that included MDGs, a predecessor
to SDGs. The topic has spread from the general section to others, such as the regional, culture, household, environment, and education sections. Goals were not equally addressed,
but were biased toward Goals 1 (no poverty), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12(responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate action), 14 (life below water), and15 (life on land). The word cloud (Figure 3) showed that “company” and “region” areoften mentioned in these articles. As they appear to have reflected policies and activities
implemented in Japan, they can be a proxy for the permeation of SDGs in Japan.
More than half of the respondents, college students, had heard of SDGs or seen
the logos, which was higher than surveys in other countries. Although there are no
definite criteria for the degree of behavioral changes that can be qualified as a nudge interms of its efficacy, exposure to SDGs via the terms and logos certainly influenced some
respondents’ behavior (25.4%). This indicates that information campaigns to increase therecognition of SDGs can be an effective policy measure. Behavioral changes related to Goal
12 (responsible consumption and production) (47%) were prominent. The relationshipbetween what behaviors students adopted and what was mentioned in the newspapers
was not clear, indicating a need for further media analysis including other media (e.g.,
TV programs and SNS). Contrary to the international survey by Sunstein et al. [14], trust
in organizations was not a predictor for supporting SDGs as a nudge. As Japan was notincluded in their survey, it would be interesting to perform research directly comparablewith their results. Overall, the COVID-19 outbreak served to raise students’ interest andstimulate their behavioral changes. A recent survey in Japan supports this finding; 43%of the respondents (including ages from 18 to 69 years old) answered that the COVID-19
outbreak allowed them to make positive changes regarding their awareness and behavior
on environmental issues [51]. Therefore, this can be a turning point for the government tofurther promote SDGs as asserted by the UN [26]. Our study also revealed that perceptions
and behavioral intentions significantly changed in the second-round survey in whichpeers’ opinions were shared. Under unprecedented circumstances, such as the COVID-19
outbreak, sharing peers’ opinions can change young people’s perceptions and behavior.
In addition to ESD, sharing peers’ opinions can expedite making the COVID-19 outbreakan opportunity to shift toward a more sustainable society. Hartley et al. [41] assert theimportance of informal peer and group influence for changes to public perceptions.
This study has several limitations. First, Japan may be a unique case, as the recognition of SDGs was higher than other countries [43]. An international survey exploring
the possibility of SDGs as a nudge has not yet be completed. Similar research in othercountries would allow us to elicit further understanding of the uniqueness and similarities
of how SDGs have permeated different cultures before and during COVID-19. As Sunstein
et al. [14] revealed, there should be cultural differences in how a nudge acts. Second, thesurvey was conducted with college students in a single college, which is a limitation on
the generalization of the findings. Research including a broader sample has yet to becompleted. Third, while our content analysis was focused on newspapers, investigating

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

16 of 18

emerging media, such as SNS, and social media, such as Twitter [52] is as important. Whilethe content analysis of the newspaper articles was meaningful to show how information
about SDGs spreads, it may not be sufficient to analyze how the younger generations
are influenced by SDGs and their logos, as newspapers were not the primary source ofnudging in our study. This indicates that there should be other influential sources worth investigating. Furthermore, investigating multiple media sources together is critical, such as
newspapers, magazines, television programs, and emerging media, as well as ESD. Fourth,although respondents indicated good behavioral intentions after their peers’ opinions
were shared, there may be a gap between intentions and actual behavioral changes [53].
Therefore, studies on behavior using, for example, laboratory and field observations, areneeded [54]. Finally, our study did not reveal the cost effectiveness of promoting SDGs
(e.g., in terms of the monetary costs or administrative efforts required [10]). While it isimportant to investigate this, the evaluation of SDGs does not fit the conventional costbenefit analysis [55]. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of SDGs as a nudge may require an
innovative approach in future research.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1
050/13/4/1672/s1, Questionnaire survey form: Data used to produce the figures and logit model(Table 7).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.U. and R.S.; methodology, T.U.; software, T.U. and R.S.;
validation, R.S.; data curation, T.U.; writing—original draft preparation, T.U.; writing—review andediting, R.S.; visualization, T.U.; supervision, T.U.; project administration, T.U.; funding acquisition,
T.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded by The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (grant number
18H03432).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due
to the guidelines by the university the authors belong to.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.
Data Availability Statement: Data used to produce the figures and logit model (Table 7) are provided
as supplementary information.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the students for their participation in the survey.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Allen, C.; Reid, M.; Thwaites, J.; Glover, R.; Kestin, T. Assessing national progress and priorities for the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs): Experience from Australia. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 15, 521–538. [CrossRef]
Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M.; Jato-Espino, D.; Castro-Fresno, D. Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate
framework to measure the progress of the 2030 Agenda? Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 663–671. [CrossRef]
Xu, Z.; Chau, S.N.; Chen, X.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Dietz, T.; Wang, J.; Winkler, J.A.; Fan, F.; Huang, B.; et al. Assessing progress towards
sustainable development over space and time. Nature 2020, 577, 74–78. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C.; Teksoz, K.; Durand-Delacre, D.; Sachs, J.D. National baselines for the Sustainable Development
Goals assessed in the SDG Index and Dashboards. Nat. Geosci. 2017, 10, 547–555. [CrossRef]
Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Brock, R.C.; Balfour, N.; Brown, C.; Burgess, N.D.; Guth, M.K.; Ingram, D.J.; Lane, R.; Martin, J.G.C.; Wicander,S.; et al. Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: The role of environment–human linkages.
Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1573–1584. [CrossRef]
Collste, D.; Pedercini, M.; Cornell, S.E. Policy coherence to achieve the SDGs: Using integrated simulation models to assess
effective policies. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 921–931. [CrossRef]
Costanza, R.; Daly, L.; Fioramonti, L.; Giovannini, E.; Kubiszewski, I.; Mortensen, L.F.; Pickett, K.E.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; De Vogli,
R.; Wilkinson, R. Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Ecol. Econ. 2016, 130, 350–355. [CrossRef]
Sunstein, C.R. Nudges, Agency, and Abstraction: A Reply to Critics. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 2015, 6, 511–529. [CrossRef]
Kosters, M.; Van der Heijden, J. From mechanism to virtue: Evaluating Nudge theory. Evaluation 2015, 21, 276–291. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.

42.
43.
44.

45.

17 of 18

Thaler, R.H.; Sunstein, C.R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness; Yale University Press: London, UK,2008.
Codagnone, C.; Veltri, G.A.; Bogliacino, F.; Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F.; Gaskell, G.; Ivchenko, A.; Ortoleva, P.; Mureddu, F. Labels as
nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels. Econ. Polit. 2016, 33, 403–432. [CrossRef]
OECD Behavioural Insights. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/behavioural-insights.htm (accessed on 17 January 2020).
Sunstein, C.R.; Reisch, L.A.; Kaiser, M. Trusting nudges? Lessons from an international survey. J. Eur. Public Policy 2019, 26,1417–1443. [CrossRef]
Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan. About the Japanese Version of Nudge Unit. Available online: http://www.env.go.jp/earth/ondanka/nudge.html (accessed on 17 February 2020).
Myers, E.; Souza, M. Social comparison nudges without monetary incentives: Evidence from home energy reports. J. Environ.
Econ. Manag. 2020, 101, 102315. [CrossRef]
Reisch, L.A.; Sunstein, C.R. Do Europeans like nudges? Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2016, 11, 310–325. [CrossRef]
van Kleef, E.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Methodological Challenges of Research in Nudging. In Methods in Consumer Research; Ares, G.,
Varela, P., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; Volume 1, Chapter 13; pp. 329–349. ISBN 978-0-08-102089-0.
Biermann, F.; Kanie, N.; Kim, R.E. Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 26–31. [CrossRef]
Teichman, D.; Zamir, E. Nudge Goes International. Eur. J. Int. Law 2019, 30, 1263–1279. [CrossRef]
The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020; The United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
Anderies, J.M.; Folke, C.; Walker, B.; Ostrom, E. Aligning Key Concepts for Global Change Policy: Robustness, Resilience, andSustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 1–16. [CrossRef]
Survey of Corporate Attitudes Regarding SDGs; Teikoku Databank: Tokyo, Japan, 2020.
SDGs Training Handbook; Hankyu Hanshin Holdings: Osaka, Japan, 2019.
Frau SDGs. Available online: https://gendai.ismedia.jp/list/genre/sdgs (accessed on 24 August 2020).
The United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals: Our Framework for COVID-19 Recovery. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sdgs-framework-for-covid-19-recovery/ (accessed on 25 August 2020).
Weible, C.M.; Nohrstedt, D.; Cairney, P.; Carter, D.P.; Crow, D.A.; Durnová, A.P.; Heikkila, T.; Ingold, K.; McConnell, A.; Stone, D.
COVID-19 and the policy sciences: Initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sci. 2020, 53, 225–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Park, T.; Barker, J. Nudging Diet Change for Health and Sustainability. Sight Life 2020, 34, 57–61.
Ramani, S.V.; Parihar, R.; Sen, S. On nudging MNE toward SDG1: A policy perspective. In Multinational Enterprises and Sustainable
Development; Emerald Publishing Limited: Melbourne, Australia, 2017; pp. 89–129. ISBN 1787431649.
Gössling, S.; Buckley, R. Carbon labels in tourism: Persuasive communication? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 358–369. [CrossRef]
Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Alfaro, J.A.; Mejía-Villa, A.; Ormazabal, M. ECO-labels as a multidimensional research topic: Trends andopportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 806–818. [CrossRef]
Lehotský, L.; Černoch, F.; Osička, J.; Ocelík, P. When climate change is missing: Media discourse on coal mining in the Czech
Republic. Energy Policy 2019, 129, 774–786. [CrossRef]
McQuail, D. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; ISBN 1849202923.
Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting proenvironmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61,
130–138. [CrossRef]
Yomiuri Shimbun Media Data 2020; The Yomiuri Shimbun: Tokyo, Japan, 2019.
De Loë, R.C.; Melnychuk, N.; Murray, D.; Plummer, R. Advancing the state of policy Delphi practice: A systematic review
evaluating methodological evolution, innovation, and opportunities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 104, 78–88. [CrossRef]
Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food
Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [CrossRef]
Field, A.; Miles, J.; Field, Z. Discovering Statistics Using R; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012.
Lade, S. Is COVID-19 Good for Sustainability? Available online: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/
2020-06-17-is-covid-19-good-for-sustainability.html (accessed on 26 June 2020).
The United Nations. Five Things You Should Know about Disposable Masks and Plastic Pollution. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/07/1069151 (accessed on 15 August 2020).
Hartley, B.L.; Pahl, S.; Veiga, J.; Vlachogianni, T.; Vasconcelos, L.; Maes, T.; Doyle, T.; d’Arcy Metcalfe, R.; Öztürk, A.A.; Di Berardo,M.; et al. Exploring public views on marine litter in Europe: Perceived causes, consequences and pathways to change. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 2018, 133, 945–955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
About Selection of SDGs Future Cities; Cabinet Office Government of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2018.
What People Know and Think About the Sustainable Development Goals; OECD: Paris, France, 2017.
Zsóka, Á.; Szerényi, Z.M.; Széchy, A.; Kocsis, T. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes,
consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. J. Clean. Prod.
2013, 48, 126–138. [CrossRef]
Bohm, P. Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1972, 3, 111–130. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1672

46.
47.
48.

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

18 of 18

List, J.A.; Gallet, C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ.
Resour. Econ. 2001, 20, 241–254. [CrossRef]
Uehara, T.; Ynacay-Nye, A. How water bottle refill stations contribute to campus sustainability: A case study in Japan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3074. [CrossRef]
Mulà, I.; Tilbury, D.; Ryan, A.; Mader, M.; Dlouhá, J.; Mader, C.; Benayas, J.; Dlouhý, J.; Alba, D. Catalysing Change in Higher
Education for Sustainable Development: A review of professional development initiatives for university educators. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 2017, 18, 798–820. [CrossRef]
Gifford, R. Environmental Psychology Matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 541–579. [CrossRef]
Guan, T.; Meng, K.; Liu, W.; Xue, L. Public attitudes toward sustainable development goals: Evidence from five Chinese cities.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5793. [CrossRef]
The Asahi Glass Foundation. Survey of Japanese Environmental Crisis Awareness. Available online: https://www.af-info.or.jp/
ed_clock/jpsense_result.html (accessed on 23 January 2021).
Kopke, K.; Black, J.; Dozier, A. Stepping out of the ivory tower for Ocean Literacy. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 60. [CrossRef]
Webb, T.L.; Sheeran, P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental
evidence. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 132, 249. [CrossRef]
Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 92–100.
[CrossRef]
Boardman, A.E.; Greenberg, D.H.; Vining, A.R.; Weimer, D.L. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; ISBN 1108694802.