Behavioural insights applied to policy application to specific policy issues and collaboration at EU level : workshop report.
Date: 2017-03-06
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: administrative reform, behavioural sciences, consumer behaviour, consumer protection, employment policy, environmental policy, fiscal policy, health policy, public sector, research report

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy  
Application to specific policy issues and 
collaboration at EU level 
Workshop Report 

Joint
Research
Centre

1.0

This publication is a Conference and Workshop report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the 
European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based 
scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does 
not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor 
any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of 
this publication.

JRC Science Hub
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

JRC101966

EUR 28504

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-66277-5 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/267723 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

© European Union, 2016

The reuse of the document is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the original 
meaning or message of the texts are not distorted. The European Commission shall not be held 
liable for any consequences stemming from the reuse.

How to cite this report: François J. DESSART, Joana SOUSA LOURENÇO, Sara RAFAEL ALMEIDA, 
Emanuele CIRIOLO, Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy - Application to specific policy issues 
and collaboration at EU level , EUR 28504, doi:10.2760/267723

All images © European Union 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.

Context, objectives, participants and agenda .................................................................................................. 3

1.1. 

Context ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 

1.2.  Workshop objectives............................................................................................................................................ 3 

1.3. 

Participants and agenda ................................................................................................................................... 3 

2.

Applying behavioural insights to specific policy issues .............................................................................. 3

2.1. 

Consumer protection (general) ...................................................................................................................... 5 

2.2. 

Consumer protection (financial) ................................................................................................................... 7 

2.3. 

Employment ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 

2.4. 

Environment .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 

2.5. 

Health ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

2.6. 

Public sector modernisation and reform .............................................................................................. 14 

2.7. 

Taxation ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 

3.

4.

Improving the effectiveness of policies using behavioural insights ................................................ 17

Cooperating at EU level for behavioural policies ........................................................................................ 17

5. Workshop evaluation and future work ............................................................................................................. 19

6.

Annexes .............................................................................................................................................................................. 20

6.1. 

List of organisations represented at the workshop ........................................................................ 20 

6.2. 

Agenda ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 

6.3. 

Policy card: template ........................................................................................................................................ 22 

2 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

1.  Context, objectives, participants and agenda 

1.1.

  Context 

On 22 February 2016, the Foresight and Behavioural Insights Unit – of the European Commission's Joint 
Research Centre – published the "Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy: European Report 2016" (BIAP 2016). 
The  report  provides  a  twofold  overview  of  (1)  behavioural  initiatives  in  different  policy  areas  and  (2) 
institutional developments regarding the policy application of  behavioural insights in Europe. Furthermore, it 
is  complemented  by  country  specific  information1  made  available  through  a  set  of  dynamic  Country 
Overviews.  The  report  was  presented  at  a  launch  event.  Comments  about  the  report  from  speakers  at  this 
event can be found in this short video.  

1.2.

  Workshop objectives 

In  the  context  of  the  publication  of  BIAP  2016,  the  Foresight  and  Behavioural  Insights  Unit  hosted  a 
workshop in Brussels on 23 February 2016 gathering government representatives from European countries, 
as well as staff from the European Commission and the OECD. 

The two main objectives of the workshop were the following: 

1.  To examine a variety of policy issues from a behavioural perspective. 

Specifically, the workshop served as an opportunity to explore how behavioural approaches can be 
used to tackle policy issues in the areas of consumer protection, employment, environment, health, 
public sector modernisation and reform, and taxation. 

2.  To explore ways to strengthen cooperation at EU level on the application of behavioural insights 

to policy. 

In pursuing these two main objectives, the workshop also allowed for the possibility for Member States 
to share their knowledge, experiences and best practices in the application of behavioural insights to policy, 
thereby raising awareness and levelling knowledge in this field. 

1.3.

  Participants and agenda 

A total of 56 participants attended the workshop, which included 34 government representatives from 
20 European countries (EU Member States and Norway), 20 civil servants from seven European Commission 
Directorate-Generals,  and  2  OECD  staff  members.  A  complete  list  of  organisations  represented  at  the 
workshop can be found in the annexes (Section 6.1). 

The workshop  consisted of a one full-day discussion and  was structured around the above-mentioned 

objectives. Please refer to the annexes (Section 6.2) for the full agenda. 

2.  Applying behavioural insights to specific policy issues 

The  first  hands-on  session  focused  on  the  application  of  behavioural  insights  to  the  following  seven 
policy  areas:  consumer  protection  (general),  consumer  protection  (financial),  employment,  environment, 
health, public sector modernisation and reform, and taxation. 

1 We expect to be able to update these country overviews on a regular basis and, to contribute to this goal, 
we  invite  you  to  provide  us  with  your  input  about  the  developments  in  your  country  with  regards  to  the 
application of behavioural insights to policy. 

3 

                                                        
 
Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

At  each  table,  the  facilitator  introduced  3-4  policy  issues  containing  a  behavioural  element,  i.e.,  an 
aspect of a policy problem where human behaviour is central, either because behavioural change is the main 
objective  of  a  policy  initiative  or  because  people's  response  to  this  intervention  will  determine  its  success 
(Van Bavel, Herrmann, Esposito, & Proestakis, 2013). A set of possible policy issues were identified prior to 
the workshop through an  online survey sent to  non-Commission participants and through insights from the 
report BIAP 2016. At each table, participants briefly discussed the suggested policy issues and selected one 
to be analysed from a behavioural perspective. The list of selected policy issues is presented below: 

Policy area 

Policy issue 

Consumer protection (general) 

Consumer protection (financial) 

Employment 

Environment 

Health 

How to encourage consumers to use Alternative and Online 
Dispute Resolution procedures? 

How to improve consumers’ understanding of the risk/reward 
profile of financial products? 

How to apply behavioural insights to recruitment and have more 
inclusive work environments? 

How to incentivise consumers to dispose of products in a more 
environmentally-friendly way? 

How to tackle obesity? 

Public sector modernisation and reform 

How to encourage staff to embrace changes in administrative 
procedures? 

Taxation 

How to increase tax compliance? 

After selecting the policy issue, participants at each table followed the proposed methodology detailed 

in a template policy card (see annex in Section 6.3) that consisted of several sequential steps: 

 What is the current picture of the policy issue?.



Is there a "behavioural element" explaining the policy issue?

 What are the behavioural levers (vs. standard tools) available to tackle the policy issue?

 How can the behavioural levers be tested and practically adopted?

 What are the pitfalls to avoid when incorporating behavioural insights to this policy? How should the

results of behavioural trials be communicated to the public?

The results of the discussions around each policy issue2 are presented in the next sections. 

2 We would like to warmly thank our colleagues from the Joint Research Centre – Jonas Fooken (Unit I.2.), 
Benedikt Herrmann (Unit I.2.), Eugenia Polizzi Di Sorrentino (Unit I.2.), and René van Bavel (Unit J.3.) – for their 
valuable support at their respective table discussions and for writing up their results. 

4 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

2.1.

  Consumer protection (general) 

Policy issue: how to encourage consumers to use Alternative and Online Dispute 
Resolution procedures? 

1. What is the current picture of the 
policy issue? 

 

Law procedures usually take a long time, are 
expensive and have uncertain outcomes. 
Consumer welfare is generally low in law 
procedures: in most cases the outcome is 
more favourable to traders. Thus, there is a 
need for a swift resolution of consumer 
disputes and for reaching good outcomes at 
less cost. 

  On 21 May 2013, the European legislator 
adopted a regulation on Online Dispute 
Resolution (ODR) and a directive on 
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), 
complemented in 2015 by an Implementing 
Regulation on consumer ODR. 

  Access to ADR is ensured no matter what 

product or service is purchased (only disputes 
regarding health and higher education are 
excluded), whether the product or service was 
purchased online or offline and whether the 
trader is established in the consumer’s 
Member State or in another Member State. 

 

In the European Union, ADR/ODR procedures 
can take different forms and can have 
different names, e.g., arbitration, mediation, 
ombudsmen, complaints boards. 

  Denmark applied behavioural insights to test 

ADR implementation with an eye to increasing 
non-litigation and to decreasing the 
Administration's supervision of consumer 
disputes. The explanation of the intervention 
can be found in Step 4. 

2. Is there a "behavioural element" 
explaining the policy issue? 

The legislation on ADR and ODR allows consumers 
and traders (the target population) to resolve their 
disputes without going to court, in an easy, fast 
and inexpensive way (the desired outcome). 
Nevertheless, the use of ADR/ODR procedures is 
still not widespread. Several behavioural elements 
were identified to account for this: 

 

Little awareness about ADR/ODR 
procedures and about consumer rights: 
consumers in particular have little awareness 
about ADR/ODR agreements. 

  Hyperbolic discounting: people tend to be 
short-sighted when making decisions, 

5 

overvaluing immediate costs or benefits 
against future ones. The present costs (time 
and money) of filling a complaint might be 
perceived as too high compared to a future 
outcome, that can be either positive or 
negative. 

 

Loss aversion: the preference for avoiding 
loss (the likelihood of a negative outcome of 
the dispute) is widely considered to be greater 
than the preference for gain. 

  Complexity of administrative and legal 

procedures: resolving a problem or dispute is 
often a multistep process that requires 
consumers and traders to enquire through 
several channels. These steps create built-in 
barriers leading to increased inertia and 
reducing the likelihood that consumers or 
traders will be able and willing to follow 
through with their complaint until they are 
fully satisfied. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs. 
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

The provision of general information about 
ADR/ODR procedures is not sufficient to 
encourage their use. For each behavioural 
element, a possible lever can be identified: 

  On little awareness about ADR/ODR 

procedures and about consumer rights: 
education (e.g., in the workplace, schools) 
and targeted information campaigns may be 
helpful. 

  On hyperbolic discounting: if 

consumers/traders are provided with a 
structure of the steps to take and with 
advice (including management of 
expectations and use of commitment 
devices), present costs can be mitigated 
against potential future negative outcomes. 

  On loss aversion: salience and framing can 
help via, e.g., the use of positive messages 
such as "most consumers/traders solve their 
disputes in less than 6 months". 

  On complexity of administrative and legal 
procedures: providing standardised and 
simple information about the ADR/ODR 
process would help consumers and traders 
navigate and use them.  

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 



There is also the possibility of using ADR/ODR
procedures as the default mechanism to
address consumer disputes, hence nudging
consumers and traders to deal with disputes
in a more informal way and thereby
decreasing the number of unnecessary court
cases.

4. How can the behavioural levers be
tested and practically adopted? 

The Danish Competition and Consumer Authority 
applied behavioural sciences in the 
implementation of ADR. A randomised controlled 
trial was conducted with a sample of 400 
consumers to test different ways of framing 
complaint forms: 







a structured overview of the complaint, to
make it easier for consumers to reach an
agreement;
information and guidance on the steps to
take, including clear deadlines such as "the
consumer has 40 days to approach the trader
with the complaint";
the logo of the Danish Competition and
Consumer Authority.

The Authority also gave consumers a realistic 
overview of the complexity (time, effort) of law 
procedures and used positive messages to 
communicate with and motivate consumers 
throughout the process ("most ADR cases are 
solved by the consumer without any need for the 
involvement of a court"). 

Cases were tracked for a year. The new form lead 
to positive outcomes which informed the 
implementation of the ADR Directive in Denmark. 
Nowadays, in Denmark 80% of consumer disputes 
are solved without the need for court procedures. 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

The simplification and efficiency of dispute 
resolution procedures can lead to a change in 
the employment landscape. For instance, it can 
result in a rise in more specialised job types or in 
job cuts in justice due to a likely decrease in court 
procedures. 

Communication strategy with the public: 

a. focusing on outcomes and in "easy
procedures" is more effective than delivering 
overly detailed explanations of technical aspects. 

b. concerns around transparency: an early
involvement of legal, communication, and 
business experts will lead to greater coordination, 
information sharing and sense of ownership of 
the initiative. 

6 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

2.2.

  Consumer protection (financial) 

Policy issue: how to improve consumers’ understanding of the risk/reward profile of 
financial products? 

that certain, highly risky or complex investment 
decisions can only be made by individuals who 
have been tested on their general understanding 
of the structure of financial products. Individuals 
could also be incentivised into such a license by 
their peer network.  

Another approach would be to require "cooling-
off" periods before certain financial investments 
can be finalised. 

Also a more transparent communication of 
risks in an investment may be helpful. 

4. How can the behavioural levers be 
tested and practically adopted? 

Behavioural approaches, but also other ones, are 
continuously being tested by the local regulators 
across Europe. There is no one-fits-all approach, 
but this approach provides some natural 
"experimentation" across states. Exchanging 
results and evaluations from these country 
experiences is therefore helpful. 

Some regulators also collaborate with 
academics. However, this approach does not 
appear suitable for all countries.  

A significant behavioural focus can be created by 
hiring graduates with knowledge in behavioural 
economics. The UK is an example for this. Cross-
country comparisons then lead to a pull-effect for 
other countries. 

1. What is the current picture of the 
policy issue? 

Consumers of financial products (i.e., small 
individual investors) often have a limited or 
insufficient knowledge about the risk profile of 
their investments. 

This can be as basic as not knowing about the 
correlation between risk and return, i.e., the higher 
the return, the higher the riskiness of an 
investment.  

In the end it is consumers' decision what to invest 
in. However, they should be provided with correct 
information by suppliers of financial products. 
And they may have to be protected against their 
own mistakes. 

2. Is there a "behavioural element" 
explaining the policy issue? 

Lack of understanding is a basic problem but not 
a core "behavioural" element. However, the lack of 
financial literacy is often exacerbated by 
behavioural elements. These include: 

 

the complexity of products and limits to 
cognitive capabilities of investors; 

  overconfidence in investment decisions, 
including the mistake of attributing one's 
successful investments to one's own ability 
while actually being random; 

 

time inconsistency. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs. 
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

Some of the solutions may address the general 
problem of limited knowledge as well as the 
behavioural issues. 

For example, financial training could bring 
improvements. Clearly, the question is how to get 
people to attend a training course. The easiest 
way would be to approach schools, as it was done 
in Poland. For older adults training-for-reward 
schemes might be useful. Rewards could include 
lottery tickets, as they may be particularly 
appealing to individuals with skewed probability 
perceptions.  

Another option could be an increased use of 
"financial driver's licenses". These would imply 

7 

 
Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

Investors want to make investment choices. The 
regulator should therefore try to avoid 
interfering too much, even if it is well-intended. 
The consumer should make the decisions s/he 
thinks are best. Any nudges should be open, 
hence manipulation of consumer choices has to 
work even when telling consumers that they are 
being  incentivized in a given direction, as they 
need to agree with it. 

There is no real difference to other policies in 
terms of communication, except that it needs to 
be more open than others. However, there are no 
objectively correct or mistaken choices; therefore 
freedom of choice needs to prevail. The regulator 
does not want to be the culprit of unsuccessful 
investment choices. 

8 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

2.3.

  Employment 

Policy issue: how to apply behavioural insights to recruitment and have more inclusive 
work environments? 

1. What is the current picture of the
policy issue? 

Recruitment is an area particularly ripe for the 
application of behavioural insights. Large 
corporations have a polished human resources 
department, and are perhaps better equipped to 
deal with challenges requiring a behavioural 
approach. This is not necessarily the case with 
small companies. The following two challenges 
have been identified. 

First, very small companies, or micro-enterprises, 
often have great growth potential. However, there 
appears to be a barrier for entrepreneurs to hire 
their first employee, even in cases where they 
have the financial resources to do so and where it 
would clearly be to their benefit. This is the so-
called "recruitment challenge of micro-
enterprises".  

Second, the inequalities seen in society (i.e., fewer 
opportunities for women, ethnic minorities, the 
disabled, etc.) are replicated in the workforce. 
These members of society do not have equal 
access to the labour force and find themselves 
disadvantaged. The same applies to the long-term 
unemployed, who find it difficult to re-enter the 
labour force. This issue can be called the 
"diversity challenge". 

2. Is there a "behavioural element"
explaining the policy issue? 

Yes, there is definitely a behavioural element to 
both these challenges: 





For the recruitment challenge of micro-
enterprises, administrative burden might
discourage entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs
might be unfamiliar with the process which
may seem daunting to them, and as a result
they may choose to continue with the staff
arrangement they already have in place.

For the diversity challenge, it is well known
that people have a better attitude toward
those who are similar to them, and this bias
carries over to recruitment processes. So,
presumably, employers will tend to favour
people who remind them of themselves and
tend to undervalue people who are different.
Also, there is a negative perception of the
long-term unemployed, which harms their
prospects of being employed.
Employers are risk averse. Employing

someone is a huge risk and employers tend to 
play it safe and go with what they are 
already familiar with. Employers are probably 
biased without knowing it, and are probably 
driven more by a fear of the unknown than 
anything else. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs.
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

The possible standard solutions are: 





For the recruitment challenge of micro-
enterprises, tax breaks for hiring new people
could be applied to first-time employers. Also,
lowering the minimum wage is a traditional
policy measure used to increase employment.

For the diversity challenge, official or
unofficial quotas are traditional policy
solutions. These quotas can be applied to the
workforce or to the selection panels doing the
recruiting.

The possible behavioural levers are: 



For the recruitment challenge of micro-
enterprises, Sunstein's mantra of "simplify"
could be applied. Hiring a new employee could

9 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 



simply be made extremely easy and user-
friendly. 

For the diversity challenge, one could
highlight success stories from other
companies, which could be told from the
perspective of the employer who took a
chance on someone who was different from
him or her and who proved to produce
excellent work. This sort of initiative would
allow prospective employers to empathise
with what they are seeing and could harness
the persuasive role of social norms.
One cannot expect to change the profile of
people who get employed unless we
challenge some existing values. For
example, competition and assertiveness
(traditionally considered 'masculine' traits)
are highly valued traits in the workforce. But
they can be pernicious, by e.g., undermining
collaboration and teamwork. Thus, unless
these values are changed and other values
are emphasized, employers will always end
up hiring the same type of people.

4. How can the behavioural levers be
tested and practically adopted? 

Regarding  the  recruitment  challenge, an  option  is 
to  run  online  randomised  control  trials  by 
presenting different ways of processing online all 
the  government  paperwork  required  for  hiring  an 
employee (e.g., tax, social security, etc.). Based on 
results,  the  online  processing  method  that  works 
best  could  be  identified  and  this  technique  could 
then be tested in a country or region. 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

Regarding pitfalls: 



For the recruitment challenge of micro-
enterprises, there is an ethical concern if
you provide differentiated ways of processing
the paperwork as part of a randomised
controlled trial. Companies that get access to
the 'bad' one may complain and feel
discriminated, as they do not have access to



the best government service available. One 
could avoid this by taking the existing 
administrative procedures for recruitment as 
the control condition and implementing two 
alternative methods as the experimental 
treatments. 

For the diversity challenge, the main
challenge lies in measuring the outcomes.
How can the success of an initiative be
assessed if there is no counterfactual? Also,
even if there were such counterfactual (e.g.,
by isolating some companies receiving a
treatment from others), which dependent
variable (e.g., number of hires of ethnic
minorities or women) should be used to
measure success? This issue is sensitive and
brings about a number of problems. For
example, if a company with predominantly
female recruiters hires a woman, is this a
success or a failure? To overcome this, one
needs to capture many measures rather
than relying on a single one.

Regarding a communication strategy: 





Communication of the results of behavioural
experiments should be quite targeted to
micro-enterprises. Individualised approaches
by governments or industry organisations
might be enough to get the communication
message across. Companies can be easily
accessed as they have to be registered. When
communicating to the larger public, however,
the results of the randomised controlled trial
can be advertised and show the effectiveness
of simplification.

One can capitalise on "employer branding",
whereby companies that are inclusive and
diverse can advertise themselves as 'good
employers' and attract the best talent. This
may be particularly relevant for millennials,
who most likely have a different set of
priorities when choosing a job than older
generations - valuing things such as
flexibility, good working environment and the
possibility to learn something more than
simply money. The communication strategy
would attempt to sell the idea to companies
that if they become more diverse, they will
benefit by attracting the best talent.

10 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

2.4.

  Environment 

Policy issue: how to incentivise consumers to dispose of products in a more 
environmentally-friendly way? 

1. What is the current picture of the
policy issue? 

Resource depletion is a major issue for the 
environment and it is crucial that citizens dispose 
of waste in an environmentally-friendly way. From 
a circular economy perspective, the very concept 
of waste is to be refused, as waste should be 
considered as a resource through reuse and 
recycling following a closed loop. 

Different actors can contribute to 
environmentally-friendly waste disposal, such as 
households, national and local governments, 
businesses and the waste management industry. 
However, behavioural insights are likely to be 
more relevant at the household level.  

2. Is there a "behavioural element"
explaining the policy issue? 

Households are influenced by a number of 
behavioural elements because behavioural 
change is the main objective of policies directed 
towards environmentally-friendly waste disposal: 





Knowledge about environmental issues:
some citizens may be myopic about the
future consequences of environmental
depletion; others may deny the problem
altogether.

Ease, effort, availability and knowledge
about waste sorting: some urban myths
exist regarding the way waste should be
sorted and how it is taken care of by public
authorities; there is some confusion regarding
how waste should be separated, especially
since rules vary between countries, regions
and even municipalities; people may perceive
that waste sorting is too complicated or too
demanding.

 Motivation: some citizens may have little
intrinsic motivations to sort waste, for
instance, because they perceive that they

11 

have no personal responsibility in dealing with 
these environmental issues, because they 
perceive their personal contribution as 
insignificant, or because there is little or no 
monetary incentive. Households may also 
have little social motivation to participate in 
environmentally-friendly waste sorting, since 
this private behaviour is not socially visible 
and thus not rewarded by social recognition 
nor subjected to social disapproval. 



Inertia: changing households' behaviour and
promoting a change in the way people sort
their garbage is difficult, because people are
by default reluctant to change.

There is no silver bullet, no one-size-fits-all 
solution. All behavioural elements should thus be 
dealt with to tackle this multi-factor problem. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs.
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

For each behavioural element, a possible lever 
was identified: 





Knowledge about the environmental issues:
education at school is fundamental, as kids
can subsequently inform their parents about
the severity of environmental issues and
possibly instruct them on how best to take
action.

Ease, effort, availability and knowledge about
waste sorting: education, again, can be used
to spread knowledge about the guidelines for
waste separation via children; citizens should
be better informed about how separate
waste is used by recycling partners; waste
sorting should be made user-friendly
through intuitive colour coding for separate
waste bins; the kitchen industry should play a
role during the design process in allowing
sufficient space for different bins;
municipalities can increase the ease of
waste sorting by promoting door-to-door
separate waste collection and sending
reminders about these to citizens, as evidence
shows that SMS reminders seem to increase
recyclable waste disposal; sorting guidelines
and colour coding should also be
standardized across the EU to ensure a
homogeneous understanding.

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

 Motivation: it is possible to increase citizens'
intrinsic motivations to participate in waste
sorting by sending them (individual or
collective) feedback about their "waste
sorting performance"; this symbolic reward
can bring a positive sense of recognition to
those who participate in the waste sorting
system; this feedback could also be made
public within neighbourhoods so as to
increase the visibility of this private
behaviour.



To tackle inertia, a self—regulatory strategy
can be used, which applies in response to a
future event, and puts the focus on when,
where and how a given behavioural change is
attainable. It is called implementation
intention and is already used in helping the
unemployed back to work.

4. How can the behavioural levers be
tested and practically adopted? 

To adopt the behavioural approach, ex-post 
testing should use open big data in collaboration 

with local garbage collection and recycling firms 
and local governmental authorities. 

Ex-ante testing can occur through randomised 
controlled trials testing the different possible 
interventions, first at neighbourhood level before 
scaling up the intervention. 

This testing should follow a review of the 
scientific evidence. 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

The identified likely pitfalls of using behavioural 
insights to incentivise environmentally-friendly 
waste disposal are: 









Policy-makers' resistance to change;

Potential conflicts of interest of garbage
recycling and garbage collection companies,
because, for instance, some of them may be
paid based on the weight of residual – non-
recyclable – waste;

Lack of individual data, for example
regarding households' performance in
correctly sorting waste;

Knowledge gap between national or regional
behavioural insights team, as well as between
local authorities and businesses dealing with
waste management.

12 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

2.5.

  Health 

Policy issue: how to tackle obesity? 

1. What is the current picture of the
policy issue? 

Obesity is a well-defined issue in the political 
agenda of the EU. This epidemic has a 
considerable impact on healthcare, both in 
terms of cost and resources. Determinants can be 
found in the market structure, in the socio-
economic environment as well as in the 
educational system. 

From a policy perspective, the combat against 
obesity is inherently complex, as it involves many 
different stakeholders at different levels of 
operation (transnational, national and lower 
levels), who have to decide among many diverse 
interventions (soft vs. hard regulation). 

2. Is there a "behavioural element"
explaining the policy issue? 

Obesity is characterised by a strong behavioural 
component. Policy-makers are interested in 
achieving a behaviour change, ultimately driving 
citizens towards making healthier diet and 
lifestyle choices.  

Moreover, as humans (and consumers), we are 
subject to many different behavioural biases 
that pose a constraint between our willingness to 
live a healthier lifestyle and our actual behaviour 
(e.g., attitude-behaviour gap, procrastination, 
impulsivity). Consumers may also have difficulties 
in choosing healthy food due to limits in their 
cognitive abilities: because they are bombarded 
with product labelling and advertising, it is not 
always easy to see and treat the nutritional 
information of food. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs.
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

Default effects may work well in the context of 
increasing healthier diet and lifestyle choices in 
the consumer domain (e.g., by making the 
healthiest choice the default choice). Social 
norms may also prove efficient in steering 
consumers toward healthy food. 

Choice architecture strategies that promote the 
availability and accessibility of healthier choices 
(e.g., decreasing size of plates, reducing the 
saliency of unhealthy options) also go in this 
direction, along with redesigning nutritional 
labelling to take into account cognitive overload 
constraints (e.g., traffic lights labels) as well as 
reformulation of standards (packaging, size of 
portions). 

The adoption of a behavioural approach is not a 
“silver bullet”: a combination of both soft 
regulation (e.g., behavioural interventions, 
stakeholder- and member state discussion 
platforms) and hard regulation (e.g., sugar and fat 
taxes, subsidies for healthy food) may be the 
most effective way to tackle the problem of 
obesity. 

4. How can the behavioural levers be
tested and practically adopted? 

As policy-makers, building partnerships with 
academia allows the application of existing 
knowledge to real policy issues without too much 
burden (both in terms of capacity and resources). 
Testing the scalability of interventions would 
be strongly advised, as would envisaging the use 
of robust tools to test the effectiveness of such 
interventions. 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

Discussion platforms (e.g., platform for Action 
on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; High level 
group for Nutrition and Physical activity) and 
other communication strategies are important 
tools to share information among different 
stakeholders and member states regarding both 
successes and failures of in-place interventions. 

13 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

2.6.

  Public sector modernisation and reform 

Policy issue: how to encourage staff to embrace changes in administrative procedures? 

1. What is the current picture of the
policy issue? 

Organisational change is meant to bring 
improvements to existing processes, but often 
triggers resistance from employees. A number of 
factors were identified as contributing to the 
staff's potential reluctance to administrative 
changes: current incentive structure (e.g., threat 
of losing economic privileges or power), (low) 
value of the operational staff feedback, personal 
characteristics (e.g., age, skill level), and current 
staff workload (a change is likely to increase 
workload, which may be especially perceived as 
negative in cases where resources are limited). 

Additionally, the following aspects were deemed 
most relevant to get staff to embrace 
administrative changes: clear problem definition 
and diagnosis, explicit goals, and finally staff 
involvement at all stages in order to get their buy-
in. 

2. Is there a "behavioural element"
explaining the policy issue? 

A number of behavioural elements can be 
identified within this policy issue: 







Lack of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: some staff may have little
motivation to embrace change, for instance,
because they may perceive their personal
contribution as insignificant, or because they
may fear that it will threaten their comfort
(e.g., potentially significant time investment
and cognitive effort needed to learn new
things/methods), or their job security/benefits.
Staff may also have little social motivation to
participate in administrative change since this
private behaviour may not be immediately
visible at an organisational level and thus
rewarded by social recognition.
Finally, when the majority of staff is not keen
to embrace change, peer pressure can further
have a negative effect on motivation.

Existing organisational culture, such as an
existing "tradition" of decisions usually taken
by division heads, rather than through an
open, co-design approach with staff.

"What You See Is All There Is" ("WYSIATI",
as introduced by D. Kahneman): failure to
consider complexity and tendency to refer to
a limited number of examples as
representative of the issue, which can result

14 





in the false assumption that a future change 
will mirror a past one. 

Inertia: changing behaviour and promoting a
change is difficult, due to established habits
and because people are by default reluctant
to change.

Intention-behaviour gap: some staff may
agree that change is important and may be
willing to contribute, but in the end, only a
few may actually act upon this intention.

Participants agreed that there was no silver bullet, 
no one-size-fits-all solution. All behavioural 
elements should thus be considered when tackling 
this multi-factor problem. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs.
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

For each behavioural element, a possible lever can 
be used to promote staff's acceptance of change 
in administrative procedures. 









On motivation, it is possible to increase staff
motivation to embrace change by setting
"commitment contracts" establishing clear
goals, along with the potential negative
consequences of failing to meet the contract,
and by providing them with regular
feedback used as a symbolic reward leading
to a positive sense of recognition.

At the level of organisational structure,
participants stressed the importance of
involving staff and of co-designing changes
with them. This is linked with the so-called
"IKEA effect", which results in increased value
attributed to something when the individual is
involved in its creation through his or her
effort. This was also seen as important to
understand what the right incentives for staff
might be. Additionally, if the changes affect
users of public services, it is important to
involve them, e.g. by gathering their feedback
on the old vs. revised procedures.

On WYSIATI, regular communication (e.g.,
strategy meetings twice a month) is
important to avoid misunderstanding.

On inertia, there is the possibility of aligning
administrative changes to other ongoing
changes, because individuals may be more
receptive to change this way.

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

  On the intention-behaviour gap, a structured 

reward programme might be effective at 
promoting change. 

Measuring the rate of adoption of the new 
practices over time is also important to be able to 
evaluate the success of the intervention. 

4. How can the behavioural levers be 
tested and practically adopted? 

Ex-ante testing can occur through randomised 
controlled trials to test the effect of the 
intervention, possibly at a department level, 
before scaling up the intervention. Testing should 
be preceded by a review of the available 
research evidence. Beyond randomised 
controlled trials, using a combination of 
approaches (e.g., ethnography, before/after 
surveys, etc.) may also prove beneficial. 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when 
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

Partial adoption can play a negative role: when 
the majority of staff is not keen to embrace 
change, peer pressure can downplay others' 
motivation. 

Additionally, buy-in from the leadership is very 
important so that an open, co-design approach 
with staff can effectively take place. 

15 

 
Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

characteristics of the tax payer in addressing 
and providing support, the more one can 
expect voluntary tax compliance. 

4. How can the behavioural levers be
tested and practically adopted? 

Introducing new approaches for increasing tax 
compliance or modifying existing measures should 
be combined with a very diligent pre-testing. If a 
change or new measure unexpectedly reduces tax 
compliance, it could end up being very costly for 
the state. Therefore any kind of pre-testing is 
highly recommendable. 

As randomised field trials are usually not an 
option due to the obligation of non-discriminatory 
treatment of citizens and taxes as guaranteed in 
national constitutions, most of the pre-testing has 
to rely on tools like focus groups, personal 
interviews or large scale surveys on how 
changes or new measures are perceived by 
citizens. 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

The most important element of voluntary tax 
compliance is positive reciprocity of the 
citizens: the more the state is perceived as a 
public good, the more people will voluntarily 
comply with taxes. 

Behavioural interventions can only work provided 
that there is a positive perception of the state. 
If the state faces a negative perception by 
citizens, this would have to be the first issue to be 
tackled. Transparency on budget spending can  
help increase the positive perception of the state, 
but only to a certain extent. 

. 

2.7.

  Taxation 

Policy issue: how to increase tax 
compliance? 

1. What is the current picture of the
policy issue? 

To a certain extent, all EU Member States face the 
issue of tax evasion by businesses and citizens. 
Public authorities all over Europe are searching for 
possibilities to increase tax compliance. Ideas 
inspired by behavioural sciences might help. For 
instance, there seems to be scope for more 
voluntary tax compliance through increased 
transparency.  

All stages of the policy cycle can benefit from 
the application of behavioural insights to increase 
tax compliance: design, details of implementation, 
often lack of evaluation, and details of 
enforcement. 

2. Is there a "behavioural element"
explaining the policy issue? 

Certainly, there are a number of "behavioural 
elements" regarding tax compliance. 

Relying on threat of enforcement alone might 
produce suboptimal outcomes, as control is costly 
and too much of it risks hindering citizen trust in 
the state and voluntary tax compliance. 

Increasing voluntary tax compliance is about 
changing the perception of taxes and about 
changes in citizens' attitudes towards taxes. 
The more positive feelings about their state, 
the more citizens will be willing to comply. 
Perceptions and attitudes are subject to potential 
changes triggered by insights from behavioural 
sciences. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs.
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

There is no standard solution. Each country, with 
its own institutional structure and legal system, 
would have to search for a tailored approach. 

However, there are two major behavioural aspects 
- simplicity and personal information – that 
should lead to more voluntary tax compliance 
wherever it is applied: 





The simpler the legal framework and
administrative procedures, the more likely
people are to be compliant.

The more tailored the approach of tax
administration to the individual

16 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

3. Improving the effectiveness of policies using behavioural insights

At  the  start  of  the  afternoon  session,  Baudouin  Regout,  from the  European  Commission's  Secretariat-
General,  delivered  a  presentation  on  “Improving  the  effectiveness  of  polices  across  the  EU:  the  case  of 
behavioural  insights.”  The  Secretariat-General  is  responsible  for  the  Commission's  Better  Regulation 
Agenda, which calls for evidence-based policy-making with the objective of delivering more effective policies 
and  transparency  in  the  EU  decision-making  process.  The  Better  Regulation  Agenda  is  supported  by  a 
"toolbox,"  which  recognises  the  potential  of  behavioural  insights  for  supporting  more  effective, 
evidenced-based  policy-making  throughout  the  different  stages  of  the  policy  process  (i.e.,  conception, 
implementation, evaluation, and enforcement). For instance, the toolbox recommends using behavioural trials 
to compare different policy options and tailor policy remedies before implementation. 

4. Cooperating at EU level for behavioural policies

In  the  last  session,  participants  of  the  workshop  examined  how  cooperation  at  EU  level  in  using 
behavioural  sciences  could  help  support  better  anticipation,  formulation,  implementation  and  evaluation  of 
policies.  During  this  hands-on  session,  participants  worked  in  small  groups  discussing  one  of  the  following 
three  topics:  (1)  access  to  relevant  information,  (2)  cooperation  with  other  Member  States,  and  (3) 
collaboration with research institutions. Before the actual discussion, participants filled in a survey designed 
to capture their views on these issues. 

Access to relevant information 

There  are  four  pieces  of  information  that  Member  States  need  in  order  to  efficiently  use  behavioural 

insights for policy. In decreasing order of importance, they are the following: 

 Evidence of the outcomes of behavioural trials and behavioural policies.

The key piece of information that Member States need is existing evidence regarding the results of
actual behavioural policies or of behavioural trials (e.g., lab experiments, randomised controlled
trials) conducted in other Member States. Access to unexpected results and null results (i.e.,
interventions that have no significant effect) is considered as important as access to positive results.
Information on sample sizes and magnitude of the effect is also important in order to assess the
quality of this evidence. The rationale for the need to access such data is to avoid the duplication of
efforts and to promote more effective interventions by preventing certain pitfalls.

 Methodologies.

Member States are also interested in knowing the precise methodology that others have used to
carry out behavioural experiments, with the purpose of furthering their own knowledge or replicating
a given experiment to assess the robustness of effects in their own cultural setting.

 Findings from scientific behavioural research.

 Datasets.

According to the survey among workshop participants, Member States vary greatly in terms of access 
to this information.  According to the workshop  participants, the European Commission has a  role to play in 
this  as  the  above-mentioned  information  is  often  scattered  and  only  available  in  national  languages.  The 
European Commission could help bringing together this information in a user-friendly format. An online 
platform  where  officials  in  Member  States  would  be  able  to  upload  and  regularly  update  planned 
experiments, ongoing experiments and policy interventions seems appropriate. 

Cooperation between Member States 

The survey showed that the majority of Member States have never collaborated with other governments 
in  applying  behavioural  insights  to  policy,  although  there  was  a  strong  agreement  with  the  idea  that  such 

17 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

partnership would be beneficial. According to the respondents, the top 3 policy areas that could benefit 
most from this would be health, environment, and employment. 

Besides exchanging experiences, methodologies and results regarding the application of behavioural 
insights to policy (see previous section), some Member States are also keen to move to a  more structured 
type  of  cooperation.  In  particular,  there  is  interest  in  collaborating  through  joint  studies  across  various 
Member States. Beyond their collaborative value, joint studies can also contribute to sharing costs. 

In terms of identifying relevant partners among Member States, they depend on the specific policy area 
for which behavioural insights are envisaged. A survey could regularly ask all Member States to list all their 
envisaged behavioural interventions. On the long run, this type of survey could allow building a community of 
practice of Member States with similar interests. Local governments are potential partners to work with given 
their closeness to implementation and operational savviness. 

To these ends, participants considered that the European Commission could play a decisive role in three 

ways: 

 By mapping the different actors involved in applying behavioural insights to policy, it can help

Member States spot the most appropriate partner.



It can bring the different Member States around the table, for instance through workshops,
both generic and policy-specific, and both offline and online.  Networking is indeed important to get
to know the different actors and to start levelling the very uneven expertise in behavioural insights
across Member States. According to the survey, workshop participants strongly agreed with this
connecting role for the European Commission.

 Finally, the European Commission could have an added value in bringing Member States together to
collaborate in research projects applying behavioural insights to policy. Environmental policies,
health policies and single market policies are areas where cooperation at EU level seems most
relevant (according to the survey and the discussions), given that these policies should not be limited
to the borders of national states.

Collaboration with research institutions 

All  workshop  attendees  who  participated  in  the  survey  agreed  that  they  would  benefit  from  further 
collaboration between public administrations and  academic researchers, which  could result in a win-win 
situation. 

On  the  one  hand,  researchers  in  the  academic  community  are  very  interested  in  using  public  data  as 
long  as  they  can  publish  the  findings,  as  this  type  of  real,  often  high-quality  data  can  bring  significant 
contributions to the literature. 

On  the  other  hand,  public  administrations  can  enhance  the  efficiency  of  evidence-based  policies  by 
taking  advantage  of  the  rigorous  methods  and  appropriate  theories  used  in  academic  research. 
Officials should get involved  in the design of the research in 
order  to  avoid  purely  scientific  findings  not  well  attuned  to  the 
needs  of  policy-makers.  This  would  further  allow  a  smoother 
adoption  of  the  results  of  the  behavioural  findings  to  actually 
inform  policy.  A  centralised  government  unit  dedicated  to 
behavioural  insights  would  be  useful  to  secure  a  systematic 
long-term collaboration with research institutions, as it would 
allow  a  good  level  of  expertise  from  the  government  side,  a 
common  language  and  a  single  entry  point  of  contact  for 
academic researchers. 

Identifying  relevant  partners  in  the  academic  community 
can be difficult. By running a preliminary review of the literature 
in behavioural sciences relevant to the policy topic at stake, it is 

18 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

possible to identify external scientific experts. However, not all academics have an interest in contributing to 
policy. One  possible  suggestion to ease this identification  process  would be the inclusion on pages such as 
ResearchGate.net  of  a  box  for  researchers  to  tick  if  they  are  interested  in  applying  their  findings  to  policy. 
Second, the creation of an annual prize for the best research in behavioural sciences applied to policy could 
also contribute to this process. Students in behavioural sciences may also constitute valuable partners given 
their usual keen interest in policy issues. 

There  is  no  specific  policy  area  that  would  benefit  from  collaboration  between  public  administrations 
and research  institutions.  However,  policy  issues  that  are  subject  to  very  divergent  views  would  benefit 
from the objective insights of academic researchers. 

The European Commission has a definite role to play in raising awareness among policy-makers about 
the  benefits  of  collaborating  with  research  institutions  to  use  behavioural  insights.  To  do  so,  it  can  set  the 
example by establishing partnerships with research institutions to carry out behavioural research applied to 
policy, for instance through its Horizon 2020 Framework Programme. 

5. Workshop evaluation and future work

 The feedback gathered from the participants was very positive, with almost everyone  (92%) agreeing 
that  the  workshop  had  been  useful  to  generate  new  insights  and  new  perspectives  and  everyone  (100%) 
agreeing  that  it  was  a  useful  way  to  foster collaboration  across  services.  Overall, the  workshop  experience 
was seen as "very good" (43%), "good" (48%) or "average" (9%) by participants. Specifically, the fact that the 
workshop brought together policy-makers working or interested in behavioural insights from the Commission 
as  well  as  from  Members  States  was  also  seen  as  very  positive.  Avenues  to  enhance  future  workshops 
include involving academics and featuring more concrete examples in the policy issues proposed for analysis. 

As to proposals for the future, these included: 

 hosting policy-specific workshops to allow more in-depth exchanges on specific issues;

 providing training on concrete methodological and conceptual issues (e.g., randomised controlled

trials and other methods, ex-ante testing and ex-post evaluations, etc.);



fostering a network approach for continuous learning by establishing a regular event or creating a
platform to allow Member States to share their experiences, studies and results (see Section 4 for
more details).

19 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

6. Annexes

6.1.

  List of organisations represented at the workshop 

Governments 

Country 
Austria 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Finland 
Finland 
France 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Greece 
Hungary 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 
Netherlands 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Portugal 
Spain 
Sweden 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
United Kingdom 

Organisation 
Federal Ministry of Families and Youth 
National Revenue Agency 
Tax Department 
Ministry of Finance 
Prime Minister's Office 
Prime Minister's Office 
General Secretariat for Modernization of Public Action 
Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy 
Federal Chancellery 
Ministry of Economy 
Ministry of Finance 
Ministry for National Economy 
National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition 
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform 
National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange 
Regional Council of Lazio 
Consumer Rights Protection Centre 
Consumer Rights Protection Authority 
Authority for Consumers and Markets 
Ministry of Economic Affairs 
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment 
Ministry of Health 
Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation 
Ministry of Finance 
Ministry of Economy 
Ministry of Health 
Ministry of Finance and Public Administration 
Consumer Agency 
Government Offices 
Department for Business Innovation and Skills 
Financial Conduct Authority 

European Commission and OECD 

European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 

European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
European Commission 
OECD 
OECD 

Directorate-General (DG) 
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 
DG Environment 
DG  Financial  Stability,  Financial  Services  and  Capital  Markets 
Union 
DG Joint Research Centre 
DG Justice and Consumers 
DG Taxation and Customs Union 
Secretariat-General 
Directorate Public Governance and Territorial Development 
Environment Directorate 

20 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

6.2.

  Agenda 

08:30 – 09:00 

Welcome coffee and tea 

09:00 – 09:10 

Welcome address and setting-the-scene of the workshop 
Xavier Troussard, Foresight and Behavioural Insights Unit, Joint Research Centre 

09:10 – 09:45 

Icebreaker 

09:45 – 11:15 

How can behavioural insights be applied to specific policy issues? (hands-on session) 

11:15 – 11:45 

Coffee and tea break 

11:45 – 12:45 

How can behavioural insights be applied to specific policy issues: conclusions 

12:45 – 14:00 

Lunch 

14:00 – 14:30 

The effectiveness of policies across the EU: the case of behavioural insights 
Baudouin Regout, Secretariat General of the European Commission 

14:30 – 15:45 

Cooperation at EU level for behavioural policies (hands-on session) 

15:45 – 16:00 

Coffee and tea break 

16:00 – 16:30 

Cooperation at EU level for behavioural policies: conclusions 

16:30 – 16:45 

Closing remarks 
Xavier Troussard, Foresight and Behavioural Insights Unit, Joint Research Centre 

21 

Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy – Workshop Report – February 2016 

6.3.

  Policy card: template 

POLICY ISSUE

_________________________ 

_________________________ 

_________________________ 

_________________________ 

1. What is the current picture of the
policy issue? 

a. Provide a snapshot of the policy issue, possibly
mentioning the main determinants of the current 
situation in the different European countries. 
Identify the target population and the desired 
outcome. 

b. Identify where the issue lies in the policy-
making process: design, implementation, 
evaluation, enforcement. 

2. Is there a "behavioural element"
explaining the policy issue? 

Identify whether there is a "behavioural element" 
for the policy issue, which applies if any of the 
following conditions is fulfilled: 

  behavioural change is the main objective of 

the policy 

  people's behavioural response affects the 

 

effectiveness of a given policy 
the key decision-makers involved in the 
policy-making process are subject to 
behavioural biases. 

3. What are the behavioural levers (vs.
standard tools) available to tackle the 
policy issue? 

Beyond standard solutions, identify a behavioural 
lever for each of the behavioural elements of the 
policy issue. 

For example, if gamblers are overconfident (i.e., 
element), one may consider encouraging self-
commitment strategies (i.e., lever); if consumers 
are sensitive to social pressure but are not energy 
savvy (i.e., element), one may consider using 
social norms to encourage energy savings (i.e., 
lever). 

4. How can the behavioural levers be
tested and practically adopted? 

Choose the appropriate methodology for testing 
the proposed behavioural levers. 

Identify constraints (e.g., time, resources, capacity) 
and consider possible partnerships (e.g., with 
public, private, academic institutions) for testing 
and adopting the behavioural levers. 

5. What are the pitfalls to avoid when
incorporating behavioural insights to 
this policy? How should the results of 
behavioural trials be communicated to 
the public? 

a. Consider the actual policy-making process and
how behavioural evidence may inform an 
intervention for this policy issue. Identify the likely 
pitfalls and possible ways to avoid or overcome 
them. 

b. Consider a communication strategy to ensure
citizen engagement and transparency in the use 
of the behavioural approach. 

22 

cover.pdf   2   08/02/2016   15:56:12

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

K
J
-
N
A
-
2
8
5
0
4
-
E
N
-
N

EU
POLICY LAB

Contact

For more information email
JRC-DDG-02-FBIU@ec.europa.eu
or call +32 229-58650

Joint
Research
Centre

DOI:10.2760/267723
ISBN 978-92-79-66277-5

1.0