Energy savings at home and work : behavioural interventions to tackle the energy crisis.
Date: 2023-09-25
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: consumer behaviour, energy consumption, energy crisis, energy saving, household consumption, housing, public awareness campaign, research report, workplace

JRC TECHNICAL REPORT 

Energy savings at home and work 

Behavioural interventions to tackle the energy crisis 

Blasco, A., Alt, M., Gangl, K. 

2023 

ISSN 1831-9424 

 EUR 31593 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
This publication is a Technical 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 contents of this publication do not 
necessarily reflect the position or opinion 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. For information on the methodology and 
quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users 
should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the 
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or 
area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Andrea Blasco 
Address: European Commission, JRC, Directorate S, Unit S.1, Brussels Belgium 
Email: andrea.blasco@ec.europa.eu 

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC133518 

EUR 31593 EN 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-05662-2  

ISSN 1831-9424  

doi:10.2760/407488   

KJ-NA-31-593-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023 

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 
2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is 
authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be sought directly from 
the copyright holders.  

How to cite this report: Blasco, A., Alt, M. and Gangl, K., Energy savings at home and work, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/407488, JRC133518.  

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.

Energy Savings at Home and Work:
Behavioural Interventions to Tackle
the Energy Crisis

September 21, 2023

This publication was authored by Marius Alt1, Andrea Blasco1, and Katharina Gangl2,3

1European Commission, Joint Research Centre
2Institute for Advanced Studies, Behavioural Economics Research Group
3University of Vienna, Faculty of Psychology

1

1

2

3

4

6
9
.
9
.
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 11

12
. 13
. 13
. 14
. 14

15
. 16
. 17
. 17
. 18
. 18
. 19
. 19

20

23

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Executive summary

Policy Recommendations

1 Introduction

2 Saving energy at home

.

2.1 Interventions to Save Energy at Home .

.
2.1.1 Information Nudges and Energy Labels .
.
2.1.2 Energy One-stop Shops
.
.
2.1.3 Individual Feedback and Goal Setting .
.
2.1.4 Intrinsic Motivations and Social Norms
.
.
2.1.5 Warnings and Fact-checking .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3 Saving energy at work

3.1 Interventions in the Workplace .
.
.

.
.
3.1.1 Feedback .
3.1.2 Rewards .
.
3.1.3 Defaults and Automation .

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

4 Spillovers and Peer E昀昀ects
4.1 Evidence of spillovers .
4.2 Leveraging Spillovers .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
4.2.1 Habit formation .
.
.
.
4.2.2 Identity .
4.2.3 Commitment to the cause .
.
4.2.4 Moral licensing .
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

4.3 Peer e昀昀ects .

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

References

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

i

List of Figures

1

Infographic from the “Playing My Part” information campaign launched by
.
.
the IEA and European Commission .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

7

List of Tables

1
2
3

Intereventions promoting energy conservation at home .
.
Interventions promoting energy conservation at work .
.
.
Categories of Spillovers and Peer E昀昀ects .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
9
. 13
. 16

ii

Abstract

Energy crises and concerns about climate change call for a decisive shift in our daily be-
haviour at home and work. However, formulating public policies encouraging and facilitat-
ing this change presents considerable challenges. One such challenge is understanding the
behavioural factors in昀氀uencing energy consumption in residential and workplace settings
and designing interventions that e昀昀ectively leverage these factors across di昀昀erent envi-
ronments. This report reviews the academic literature discussing interventions to foster
energy savings and the potential to help policymakers curtail energy consumption in an en-
ergy crisis. The analysis highlights the main similarities and di昀昀erences between promoting
energy savings at home and work, such as di昀昀erences in 昀椀nancial incentives, awareness,
cognitive barriers, free-riding problems, and peer interactions. It also spotlights the con-
ditions under which interventions targeting one context could have an impact, ‘spillover’,
in another setting. The analysis provides recommendations for policies that encourage
energy savings at home and work while o昀昀ering strategies to incorporate and promote
positive spillovers, such as promoting habits, a green identity, and peer in昀氀uence.

Acknowledgements

We thank Nives Della Valle for her thoughtful comments and early contributions to this
technical report. The report also bene昀椀ted from comments from Paolo Bertoldi, Emanuele
Ciriolo, Marion Dupoux, and Colin Kuehnhanss.

1

Executive summary

1. Behavioural interventions o昀昀er timely and cost-e昀昀ective solutions during energy
crises. They can be swiftly deployed by governments and have the potential to
reduce energy consumption in the short term while promoting long-term energy-
saving habits and culture.

2. The e昀昀ectiveness of behavioural interventions is in昀氀uenced by various factors,
including intrinsic motivation, skills, habits, and contextual factors such as the
availability of energy-e昀케cient products. To maximize impact, policymakers
should consider a range of tailored interventions and combine multiple strate-
gies to address energy consumption e昀昀ectively.

3. Policy spillovers play a signi昀椀cant role in energy conservation. Policymakers
should promote policies that generate positive spillover e昀昀ects, enabling energy-
e昀케cient behaviours to transfer across di昀昀erent contexts. They should also min-
imize negative spillovers, such as rebound e昀昀ects, that can undermine policy
e昀昀ectiveness.

4. Evaluation of behavioural interventions in energy conservation requires a com-
prehensive framework. Current assessment methods risk underestimating the
overall e昀昀ect of information nudging on energy consumption. A better evalua-
tion framework is needed to accurately measure the impact of interventions and
guide policy design.

5. Further research is necessary to understand the e昀昀ectiveness of behavioural
interventions in the workplace setting. Work settings present more complexity
and barriers to data collection compared to residential settings. Identifying the
most e昀昀ective strategies for promoting energy savings in the workplace will con-
tribute to a comprehensive approach to tackling energy consumption.

2

Policy Recommendations

1. Tailored Behavioral Interventions: Implement a range of behavioural interven-
tions tailored to speci昀椀c individuals and contexts to maximize their impact on
energy consumption.

2. Promote Positive Policy Spillovers: Foster policies that generate positive spillover
e昀昀ects, enabling the transfer of energy-e昀케cient behaviours across di昀昀erent con-
texts while minimizing negative spillovers.

3. Research in Workplace Settings: Conduct further research to understand the
e昀昀ectiveness of behavioural interventions in workplace settings and identify the
most e昀昀ective strategies for promoting energy savings.

4. Improved Framework for Policy Evaluation: Develop a comprehensive frame-
work for evaluating the e昀昀ectiveness of energy-saving policies across di昀昀erent
contexts, considering contextual factors to design targeted interventions.

3

1 Introduction

An increasing global energy demand, geopolitical instabilities, and the challenges of transi-
tioning to clean energy sources may amplify the likelihood of energy crises. Energy crises
are complex phenomena that demand urgent action on both systemic and individual lev-
els. For example, the 2022 energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine urged many
countries1 to implement swift measures to lower their reliance on Russian natural gas,
achieve signi昀椀cant energy savings quickly, and safeguard citizens and businesses from en-
ergy shortages and increased costs.

For policymakers facing an energy crisis, behavioural interventions represent an appeal-
ing solution to quickly and e昀昀ectively promote signi昀椀cant energy savings while minimising
disruptions to everyday lives. These behavioural approaches, which include information
provision, non-monetary incentives, social norms, and social interactions, encourage vol-
untary energy savings by tapping into human behaviour, in昀氀uencing individuals’ and com-
munities’ choices, habits, and preferences rather than imposing unpopular and restrictive
limitations.

A large body of research has found various applications of behavioural interventions to
foster energy savings, from the early studies in the 1980s (Shama 1983, 1983; Coltrane,
Archer, and Aronson 1986) to more recent ones (Allcott and Mullainathan 2010; Allcott
and Rogers 2014; Nisa et al. 2019). However, there is little discussion of the peculiarities
of using these tools during energy crises. This report aims to 昀椀ll this gap by exploring
the potential of behavioural interventions to mitigate the adverse e昀昀ects of energy crises,
examining their e昀昀ectiveness, scalability, and long-term impact on energy conservation.

One key question in this report is to what extent behavioural interventions should target
residential or commercial/public buildings. Estimating the potential impact of a policy that
integrates both contexts can be challenging. In the EU, for example, while residential build-
ings account for a larger share of 昀椀nal energy consumption (households for 28% and com-
mercial/public services for 14%, according to Eurostat, Simpli昀椀ed energy balances2), o昀케ce
spaces have a 41% higher energy consumption per square meter than private households,
according to the Odyssee database on energy consumption of buildings3. Therefore, of-
昀椀ce space interventions could have a relatively more signi昀椀cant impact, even though they
account for a smaller share of the total energy consumption. At the same time, the net
e昀昀ect will ultimately depend on how individuals will respond and internalise the bene昀椀ts
of energy savings at home versus in the workplace, which is unclear.

Another critical point is the possibility that the e昀昀ects of one policy targeting a speci昀椀c con-
text can in昀氀uence or “spill over” to another. For example, a strategy harnessing intrinsic
motivations encouraging people to take energy-saving actions at home can also increase
the likelihood of these individuals replicating the same environmentally-friendly actions at
their workplace. Likewise, implementing a policy that cultivates a culture of energy sav-

1https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00969-9
2https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NRG_BAL_S/default/table?lang=en
3http://www.indicators.odyssee-mure.eu/

4

ings at work can e昀昀ectively translate into consistently adopting energy-saving practices at
home. Despite these phenomena being frequent and a growing interest in the academic
literature, policymakers do not pay proper attention to the role of spillovers, and they sel-
dom explicitly promote positive spillovers into energy-saving policy.

This report addresses these issues by reviewing the academic literature on interventions
fostering energy conservation at home and in the workplace, examining how people re-
sponded, and discussing the need for tailored approaches to maximise e昀昀ectiveness in
both contexts. Our analysis highlights that behavioural interventions can signi昀椀cantly gen-
erate energy savings at home and work despite many di昀昀erences in how people consume
energy in both contexts and people’s tendency to internalise the bene昀椀ts of energy sav-
ings better at home.
It also discusses a few simple ideas to leverage spillovers, such as
promoting habits, green identity, and peer in昀氀uence. It further highlights the complexities
that spillover e昀昀ects can introduce when assessing the e昀昀ectiveness of policies through ex-
ante and impact evaluations. For instance, an approach that incentivises energy savings
at home may inadvertently lead to increased energy waste in the workplace, resulting in
unclear net e昀昀ects on overall energy consumption.

This report proceeds as follows. First, it discusses the academic literature and scienti昀椀c
evidence on the e昀昀ectiveness of policy interventions speci昀椀cally targeting energy savings
among households (Section 2) and those aimed at in昀氀uencing behaviours within the work-
place (Section 3). Subsequently, it explores possible spillover e昀昀ects between the two
spheres and how to integrate actions targeting residential or workplace behaviours into
uniform policy interventions (Section 4). The last section concludes the report and pro-
vides several policy recommendations.

5

2 Saving energy at home

Behavioural interventions to promote energy conservation at home have a long history,
dating back to the 昀椀rst global energy crisis in the 1970s (Craig and McCann 1978). These
interventions encompass a wide range of targets. They can encourage households to adopt
small behavioural changes, improve their homes, and invest in clean energy sources.

Figure 1 illustrates the encouraging small behavioural changes approach with the “Playing
My Part” information campaign launched by the European Commission in collaboration
with the International Energy Agency (IEA) to tackle the energy crisis following Russia’s in-
vasion of Ukraine. This information campaign identi昀椀ed nine simple steps citizens can take
to “save money, reduce reliance on Russian energy, support Ukraine, and help the planet.”
According to IEA estimates4, EU households could make signi昀椀cant savings by following
these recommendations (over EUR 450 per year) while helping the EU reduce oil consump-
tion by 220 million barrels annually and save 17 billion cubic meters of gas.

According to the Bruegel’s Database of National Energy Response to the Energy Crisis5,
several EU countries launched similar information campaigns with energy-saving tips and
guidelines for households, including the “One Step Lower” campaign6 in Finland, the “I Have
an Impact” in Belgium, the “Saving at Home” in Greece, and “Mission11”7 in Austria.

To accelerate energy-e昀케cient investments, policymakers can use 昀椀scal incentives to make
people replace old electric appliances with energy-e昀케cient new ones, renovate their build-
ings, or invest in alternative energy sources, such as solar panels. However, research shows
that behavioural approaches complement these interventions and that economic incen-
tives alone are insu昀케cient in many cases (Ja昀昀e and Stavins 1994) to convince people to
change behaviour.

An illustrative example is the “Solarize” program, which successfully leveraged social inter-
actions and nudges to increase the adoption of photovoltaic panels in US cities8.

It is crucial to emphasize that during an energy crisis, individuals tend to voluntarily de-
crease their energy consumption at home in anticipation of higher energy bills. This sit-
uation leads them to actively seek ways to modify their energy usage and seek methods
to lower their energy consumption to reduce their bills. Consequently, behavioural inter-
ventions are particularly appealing in a crisis as they help lowering barriers to accessing
this information. However, it’s worth noting that government interventions aimed at sta-
bilizing energy prices, while necessary to provide relief to vulnerable households, may in-
advertently diminish the incentive for individuals to prioritize energy savings. Moreover,
a large body of research shows that people tend to stick to their consumption patterns,
despite economic gains from change, a situation also known as the Energy Paradox (Ja昀昀e
and Stavins 1994). Therefore, energy-saving tips or information campaigns alone may not

4https://www.iea.org/reports/playing-my-part
5https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/national-energy-policy-responses-energy-crisis
6https://www.astettaalemmas.fi
7https://mission11.at
8https://resources.environment.yale.edu/gillingham/GillinghamBollinger_SocialLearningPV.pdf

6

Figure 1: Infographic from the “Playing My Part” information campaign launched by the IEA
and European Commission

7

be su昀케cient to achieve the socially-desired levels of energy conservation.

Box 2.1: Classical explanations for the Energy Paradox

These are the classical economic explanations of why people tend to stick to their
energy consumption patterns, despite economic gains from changing behaviour, ac-
cording to Ja昀昀e and Stavins (1994).

• Information barriers Individuals face multiple barriers in accessing or absorb-
ing information. For example, a representative survey of Dutch households
shows that only about half of respondents are aware of their monthly charges
for energy consumption, and only 40% understand the correct trade-o昀昀 be-
tween di昀昀erent investment decisions in energy equipment (Brounen, Kok, and
Quigley 2013).

• Time discounting Investments in energy e昀케ciency and, to some extent, sig-
ni昀椀cant behavioural changes involve individual costs. These costs are typically
immediate (i.e., installation expenses), o昀昀ering only delayed rewards (i.e., lower
electricity bills). However, if households heavily discount the future, they would
rather spend their time or money elsewhere today.

• Heterogeneity in consumption. Households are widely heterogeneous con-
cerning their energy consumption patterns. Thus, even if a technology (or be-
haviour) is pro昀椀table on average, it may remain unattractive for a large portion
of the population.

Classical explanations for this paradox (see the Box) assume that individuals would make
optimal decisions if they had more information about costs and bene昀椀ts or if the market
o昀昀ered them more personalised solutions to save energy. However, much psychology and
behavioural economics evidence have challenged these assumptions because people do
not typically make optimal decisions if under the best conditions. On the contrary, indi-
viduals often act as if they were predictably “irrational” or biased. Here, we provide two
examples of such behaviours.

• Time-inconsistent preferences. People often delay or postpone action despite
This
knowing there will be negative consequences, a form of procrastination.
phenomenon is known as inconsistent time preferences, where people make
choices today that are inconsistent with their future well-being and preferences. For
example, people prefer to keep their heating systems at high levels to stay warm
and comfortable, but they systematically regret their decision when they receive a
high energy bill. For example, a recent study based on a survey with an experimental
design shows that people who exhibited time-inconsistent preferences also tended
to over-consume energy at home (Werthschulte and Löschel 2021).

• Loss aversion. Another example is that, when making energy decisions, individuals
may 昀椀nd it too costly to deviate from their current energy consumption patterns or
“status quo” because it involves giving up their current comfortable lifestyle, which
they have become accustomed to. Therefore, they may resist making changes, even

8

if the potential rewards are signi昀椀cant, due to the fear of loss. This phenomenon is
known as loss aversion, where people fear losses more than they seek equivalent
gains. A recent study, based on a large-scale survey of EU citizens, shows that indi-
viduals who are loss averse are less likely to invest in energy-e昀케cient appliances or
retro昀椀t measures (Schleich et al. 2019).

2.1 Interventions to Save Energy at Home

The reasons for the Energy Paradox remain open, and the behavioural factors in昀氀uencing
households’ energy decisions are still a topic of intense study. So, in this report, we take a
more practical approach by exploring di昀昀erent interventions found to be successful in the
academic literature. This will help us understand the challenges and e昀昀ectiveness of other
solutions. Table 1 summarises the interventions discussed below.

Intervention

De昀椀nition

Information nudges

Energy-saving tips or energy-e昀케ciency information through
energy labels.

One-stop shops

Feedback & goals

Agencies to guide citizens and businesses through the entire
process of energy renovation.

Personalized information about energy consumption to
make it more visible to consumers. Personalized feedback
can also be used for goal setting.

Social comparisons

Providing information about energy consumption by peers
to activate social norms of energy conservation.

Warnings & fact-checking Warning people against misinformation about climate

change, the risks of nuclear power, etc.

Table 1: Intereventions promoting energy conservation at home

2.1.1 Information Nudges and Energy Labels

Information Nudges is a term to describe policies sending households energy-saving tips or
rules of thumb to induce desired energy consumption choices or rectify behavioural biases.
These messages are displayed via electricity bills, postcards, emails, and other media. Ex-
tensive literature shows that Information Nudges e昀昀ectively promote energy savings Craig
and McCann (1978); Ruokamo et al. (2022); DellaValle and Sareen (2020); Caballero and
Della Valle (2021). However, multiple factors in昀氀uence the e昀昀ectiveness of such measures,
including the credibility of the source (Craig and McCann 1978), the delivery method, and
the target groups. At the same time, the impact on energy consumption is of modest size.
A recent meta-analysis based on 52 studies between 2005 and 2020 (Buckley 2020) shows
that the average e昀昀ect of Information Nudges ranges between 2% and 4%. Despite the
modest e昀昀ect size, they are typically inexpensive and easy to deploy and the associated
cost-e昀昀ectiveness prompts their use.

Energy Labels are another form of information nudging to intuitively convey a technology’s

9

or commodity’s energy e昀케ciency properties. Extensive evidence has proven their e昀昀ec-
tiveness in various settings, like energy-e昀케cient electric appliances (Dyer and Maronick
1988; DellaValle and Zubaryeva 2019) and residential buildings (Taranu and Verbeeck 2018;
Brounen and Kok 2011) tend to promote investments in long-term energy savings. One
common explanation for the e昀케cacy of energy labels is that they provide easy-to-grasp in-
formation and make the long-term impact of energy expenses more salient, thus helping
households to overcome time-inconsistent decision patterns.

2.1.2 Energy One-stop Shops

One-stop shops are agencies that aim to o昀昀er integrated solutions and customer-centric
services that simplify the decisional process for the renovation of residential buildings. In-
deed, increasing the e昀케ciency of residential buildings through renovations is challenging.
It involves a cumbersome and lengthy process in a fragmented market that might discour-
age consumers. Interventions promoting one-stop shops can bridge the fragmented de-
mand and supply of the renovation value chain. These shops guide citizens and businesses
through the renovation journey, from start to 昀椀nish, and help them overcome hurdles they
would otherwise face alone. One-stop shops are relatively new, and so far, 63 case studies
have been identi昀椀ed and analysed in Europe (Bertoldi et al. 2021) providing early evidence
of their e昀昀ectiveness.

2.1.3 Individual Feedback and Goal Setting

Personalised feedback promotes energy savings by informing households of their energy
consumption. There is widespread evidence of their e昀昀ectiveness, as outlined in several
comprehensive reviews (Abrahamse et al. 2005; Andor and Fels 2018). Personalised feed-
back aims to make energy consumption more “visible” to consumers. Electric companies
typically send feedback via periodic email or monthly electricity bills. Sometimes, con-
sumers can receive real-time feedback to adjust their energy consumption to price changes
during the day or avoid peaks using smart meters (Aydin, Brounen, and Kok 2018). How-
ever, as technology progresses and new ways of communication emerge, more work is
needed on designing individual feedback to optimise e昀昀ectiveness in a fast-changing envi-
ronment.

Setting speci昀椀c household energy consumption goals is another critical application of in-
dividual feedback. A recent meta-analysis of studies that combine feedback with goal set-
tings shows that this combination consistently reduces the energy consumption of private
households (Andor and Fels 2018). Yet, the e昀昀ect sizes can vary considerably, suggesting
that contextual factors in昀氀uence the success of policy implementation.

2.1.4 Intrinsic Motivations and Social Norms

In addition to providing information in an easily understandable manner to consumers, be-
havioural interventions can impact energy savings by targeting individuals’ inner (intrinsic)

10

motivation to save energy. For example, interventions can appeal to individuals’ environ-
mental values or willingness to adhere to well-established social norms. These interven-
tions assume that people are intrinsically motivated to save energy and will respond to so-
licitations without personal bene昀椀ts or 昀椀nancial incentives (Van der Linden 2015). One spe-
ci昀椀c example of behavioural interventions that use the power of social norms consists of
providing individuals with information about how much energy is used by peers or socially
approved energy consumption levels, thus supplying social comparisons and norms. Since
many individuals care about conforming, this information motivates them to change their
energy consumption. Extensive literature has shown the e昀昀ectiveness of this approach in
promoting energy savings (Allcott 2011; Caballero and Della Valle 2021).

2.1.5 Warnings and Fact-checking

Misinformation is an obstacle to energy savings and environmentally conscious behaviours,
like other informational barriers. For example, studies have shown widespread energy mis-
information about politicised topics such as the causes of global climate change (Oreskes
2004; Farrell, McConnell, and Brulle 2019), and fake news underplaying the concerns about
climate change can negatively in昀氀uence people’s perception of the problem and their will-
ingness to invest in energy-e昀케cient technology. Similarly, misinformation about energy
use could also a昀昀ect long-term policies of supply diversi昀椀cation, for example, by giving cit-
izens a wrong idea of the risks of nuclear power (Ho et al. 2018, 2022; Ho and Kristiansen
2019).

Behavioural interventions, such as warnings and fact-checking, o昀昀er a promising approach
to “inoculate” public attitudes against the spread of misinformation about energy policies.
For example, an experimental survey shows that warning people about politically moti-
vated attempts to spread misinformation is an e昀昀ective way to 昀椀ght the spread of misin-
formation on climate change (Van der Linden 2015). However, more work is needed to
understand what works against misinformation.

11

3 Saving energy at work

We now focus on interventions stimulating behavioural change at work. Current policies
overlook the importance of human actions and potential energy savings from improved
building operations in commercial or industrial settings. However, the evidence suggests
a signi昀椀cant potential for savings. A case study on o昀케ce buildings in the US shows that em-
ployee behaviour signi昀椀cantly impacts the energy consumption of commercial buildings
and estimates a potential 21% reduction in energy use through simple changes in human
operations (Azar and Menassa 2014). Another case study comparing o昀케ce vs home en-
ergy consumption choices observed a strong relationship between behaviours in the two
environments, with actions at home in昀氀uencing actions at work and vice versa, with a ten-
dency of people to take more energy conservation actions at home than at work (Lin and
Azar 2019).

Weak incentives and limited control over energy choices are common explanations for peo-
ple taking fewer energy conservation actions in the workplace. People are better o昀昀 in
warm rather than cold o昀케ces, using air-conditioning in the summer, and they may feel
less of a personal connection with energy wastes, such as forgetting to turn o昀昀 the o昀케ce
lights or computer when leaving, than at home. Additionally, they may have no direct con-
trol over the building’s centralised energy systems, even when motivated to save energy.
The occupants’ limited control over energy consumption could be desirable in an energy
crisis, and such centralised systems can be a powerful tool for facility managers to oversee
the buildings and generate energy savings. However, these systems may lack the 昀氀exibility
to accommodate the needs of building occupants and result in suboptimal outcomes.

Personal rewards, organisational support and addressing intrinsic motivations are e昀昀ec-
tive strategies to address these problems and achieve energy savings at work. Rewards
are used, for example, by transportation companies that reward drivers with cash bonuses
or vouchers for consuming less fuel than predetermined levels (Schall and Mohnen 2017).
However, such individual compensation schemes depend on the organisation’s ability to
track individual energy consumption consistently and reliably. Surveys suggest that or-
ganisations can support energy savings by creating more opportunities, assigning clear
responsibilities, and reserving time for energy conservation actions (Li et al. 2019). Addi-
tionally, addressing employees’ intrinsic motivations to save energy, such as environmental
concerns, warm-glow feelings or concerns for the organisation’s mission and image, might
increase employees’ energy saving (Leygue, Ferguson, and Spence 2017).

12

Box 3.1: Key points for energy savings at work

•

•

Policy interventions can focus on changing employee behaviour or encouraging
management to invest in energy-e昀케cient technologies.
Employee behaviour signi昀椀cantly impacts energy consumption in commercial
buildings, with lower energy conservation at work than at home.

• Weak incentives and lack of direct control over energy consumption contribute

•

•

to lower energy conservation at work.
Personal rewards, organisational support, and addressing intrinsic motivations
can be e昀昀ective strategies for achieving energy savings at work.
Further research is needed to understand the drivers of energy use in the work-
place, but various interventions have been tested.

3.1 Interventions in the Workplace

The factors in昀氀uencing energy conservation in the workplace still need to be better under-
stood. Large-scale empirical studies that account for the vast heterogeneity of organisa-
tions and behaviours are missing. Despite this limitation, several policy interventions have
been tested to change energy-use behaviour in the workplace (Staddon et al. 2016). For
convenience, we group these interventions into three main categories: feedback, rewards,
and defaults or automation, as illustrated in Table 2. This section discusses the empirical
evidence on the e昀昀ectiveness of di昀昀erent interventions in each category. Key takeaways
are in Box 3.2.

Intervention

De昀椀nition

Feedback

Rewards

Targeted feedback (hints, suggestions, performance,
etc.) to enable individuals to re昀氀ect and adapt their
behaviour.

Increase motivation by awarding people monetary or
non-monetary rewards

Defaults & automation Exploits the tendency of people to generally accept the

default option in a speci昀椀c situation.

Table 2: Interventions promoting energy conservation at work

3.1.1 Feedback

Field experiments evaluated the e昀昀ectiveness of comparative feedback. For example, Car-
rico and Reimer (2011) show that comparative feedback on energy consumption (based
on di昀昀erent o昀케ce buildings) achieved 7% and 4% energy savings, respectively, compared
to an increase in energy consumption associated with sending informative postcards. Re-
markably, such comparative feedback appears e昀昀ective in widely di昀昀erent settings, even in
the industrial sector, a metallurgical company as in Siero et al. (1996), and there is evidence
of long-term e昀昀ects after removing the comparative feedback (Kamilaris et al. 2015).

13

Comparative feedback in the workplace can also help coordination and decision-making,
such as when using air-conditioning and ventilation in shared spaces or when energy con-
sumption requires some form of consensus among employees. For example, in one no-
table 昀椀eld experiment (Murakami et al. 2007), employees could submit their preferences
on air conditioning use in real-time with an algorithm providing individual feedback on air
conditioning preferences coupled with energy-saving information. The results showed that
the algorithm recommendations promoted coordination and produced signi昀椀cant energy
savings.

3.1.2 Rewards

Several studies have shown that non-monetary rewards, including vouchers, public social
reward points (Handgraaf, De Jeude, and Appelt 2013), serious games (Orland et al. 2014)
or the possibility of winning a competition, can reduce energy consumption. For example,
a study testing the promotion of energy saving based on points engaged about 60% of
employees, leading to a substantial reduction in energy consumption (Kuntz, Shukla, and
Bensch 2012).

In a serious game called “Energy Chickens”, energy saving measured through plug-in sen-
sors earned participants eggs with which they could purchase accessories in a virtual farm.
The intervention led to signi昀椀cant energy savings; however, the e昀昀ects did not seem to last
beyond the duration of the game (Orland et al. 2014). Similarly, a large-scale competition
involving small material rewards among 500 Italian bank branches also reduced energy
consumption (Fanghella, D’Adda, and Tavoni 2022).

3.1.3 Defaults and Automation

Introducing defaults and automation can signi昀椀cantly impact energy saving (Staddon et al.
2016). Advanced power strips which automatically switch o昀昀 computer screens or non-
essential circuits can save up to 20% of energy consumption (Sheppy et al. 2014). Also,
automatically reducing heating at the end of a workday or before weekends is a promising
technological solution to energy over-consumption. However, setting the correct tempera-
ture or reasonable defaults is challenging. In one 昀椀eld experiment, researchers found that
lowering the default room temperature by 1 or 2 degrees in o昀케ces could increase energy
consumption as the occupants are more likely to overrule the defaults (Brown et al. 2013).

Another issue is how defaults could create a di昀昀erential impact among employees. In re-
sponse to the current energy crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many local and
national governments defaulted 19 degrees in public buildings to save gas consumption.
However, while studies on the e昀昀ectiveness of this default are rare, anecdotal evidence
suggests that this decision may negatively a昀昀ect workers with special needs and ignores
individual perceptions of temperature and comfort.

14

Box 3.2: Interventions in the workplace

•

•

•

Factors in昀氀uencing workplace energy conservation need better understanding,
and large-scale empirical studies are lacking.
Tested policy interventions for energy conservation can be categorised into feed-
back, rewards, and defaults/automation.
Comparative feedback on energy consumption has been found e昀昀ective in dif-
ferent settings, including the industrial sector, and can lead to long-term energy
savings.

• Non-monetary rewards, such as vouchers, social reward points, or participation

•

•

in competitions, have been shown to reduce energy consumption.
Serious games with virtual rewards have also e昀昀ectively promoted energy-saving
behaviour.
Introducing defaults and automation, such as advanced power strips or auto-
matic temperature adjustments, can signi昀椀cantly impact energy savings.

• However, default settings may have a di昀昀erential impact among employees, and
considerations should be made for workers with special needs and individual per-
ceptions of temperature and comfort.

4 Spillovers and Peer E昀昀ects

Policies promoting energy conservation at home and work are strongly interlinked, despite
being often treated separately. The concept of “spillover” is often used to describe this
connection, as it refers to the e昀昀ects of policy interventions on multiple non-targeted be-
haviours.

Spillovers can be positive or negative depending on whether the e昀昀ects on the non-
targeted behaviours are in the direction of the desired change. For example, a policy
that positively a昀昀ects the targeted behaviour may still produce a net negative result if the
adverse e昀昀ects on o昀昀-target behaviours o昀昀set the positive ones.

One critical step in formulating policies fostering energy savings is identifying areas or situ-
ations where spillovers may arise. Analysis of the academic literature by Nilsson and others
(2017) suggests classifying spillovers into four categories: behavioural, temporal, contextual,
and social (or peer e昀昀ects). These categories are summarised in Table 3.

Behavioural Spillovers occur when one behavioural intervention a昀昀ects non-targeted be-
haviours. For instance, a policy that reduces household electricity consumption by increas-
ing individuals’ environmental concerns may also impact their inclination towards recycling,
eco-driving, and other pro-environmental behaviours. Temporal Spillovers occur when a
behavioural intervention’s e昀昀ect at one time in昀氀uences the same behaviour in the future.
For example, educating children about energy conservation can impact their present be-
haviour and actions later in life. Contextual Spillovers arise when the e昀昀ect of a behavioural
intervention transfers from one context to another. For instance, interventions encourag-

15

ing energy savings at home may also promote energy conservation at the workplace. Fi-
nally, Social Spillovers involve the in昀氀uence of others’ choices on individual decisions. For
instance, informing school children about the signi昀椀cance of energy savings at school can
also impact the energy consumption of their family and friends by transmitting the infor-
mation.

Individual Spillovers

Behavioural Conducting behaviour A in昀氀uences the probability of

conducting behaviour B.

Temporal

Conducting behaviour A at time T in昀氀uences the prob-
ability of conducting behaviour A at time T+1.

Contextual

Conducting behaviour A in context 1 in昀氀uences the
probability of conducting behaviour A in context 2.

Social Spillovers

Peer E昀昀ects One person conducting behaviour A in昀氀uences the
probability of conducting behaviour A by another per-
son.

Table 3: Categories of Spillovers and Peer E昀昀ects

4.1 Evidence of spillovers

Multiple studies have investigated spillovers in the context of energy conservation. A meta-
analysis of 22 experimental studies provides evidence of signi昀椀cant behavioural spillovers
(Maki et al. 2019). One example of spillover observed is the “rebound e昀昀ect,” which refers
to an increase in consumption after an investment in energy-e昀케cient equipment. This ef-
fect may happen when the initial energy savings of the equipment may lead to increased
consumption, which can ultimately negate the energy savings achieved through the invest-
ment (Aydin, Kok, and Brounen 2017).

A large-scale survey of Norwegian households found evidence of temporal spillovers in en-
ergy retro昀椀tting behaviour (Egner and Klöckner 2021). Speci昀椀cally, households who com-
pleted energy retro昀椀ts once were more likely to retro昀椀t their homes again three years later,
even after controlling for individual demographic di昀昀erences. These 昀椀ndings suggest that
the initial retro昀椀tting behaviour had a positive spillover e昀昀ect, leading to continued interest
and commitment to energy e昀케ciency over time. This association has been further tested in
laboratory experiments, which have con昀椀rmed a positive temporal spillover (Alt and Gallier
2022).

Evidence on contextual spillovers in energy consumption is lacking, although surveys found
a strong positive association between energy consumption at home and work (Littleford,
Ryley, and Firth 2014; Lin and Azar 2019). In the somewhat related context of food waste,
a quasi-experimental study shows that e昀昀orts to reduce food waste in the workplace are
associated with food-saving actions at home Wang et al. (2021), consistent with a positive
spillover from the workplace to the household.

16

The evidence of social spillovers is also conspicuous. Research has shown that solar cell
deployment becomes more likely if the neighbours have installed this technology on their
roofs (Bale et al. 2013). This 昀椀nding suggests that one individual or household’s actions
can in昀氀uence others’ behaviour in their social network or neighbourhood, leading to a rip-
ple e昀昀ect of energy conservation behaviour. By leveraging the power of social spillovers
and designing strategies that promote visible and conspicuous displays of energy-saving
behaviours, it may be possible to increase the adoption of clean energy technologies and
promote sustainable behaviours more broadly.

Overall, spillovers in energy conservation have multiple implications for policy design and
evaluation. On the one hand, it complicates the ex-ante cost-bene昀椀t analysis and ex-post
impact assessment of energy-conservation policies, as discussed by Galizzi and others
(2019).
If a policy intervention generates spillovers, ignoring these spillovers puts policy-
makers at risk of underestimating or overestimating the actual impact of one intervention.
At the same time, estimating possible spillovers in ex-ante and ex-post evaluations is gen-
erally complicated, and more research is needed to provide an easy-to-use framework for
policy evaluation.

Box 4.1: Spillovers

•

•

•

•

Energy conservation policies at home and work are interconnected through
spillovers, which refer to the e昀昀ects of policy interventions on non-targeted be-
haviours.
Spillovers can be positive or negative, impacting the overall e昀昀ectiveness of a
policy.
Types of spillovers include behavioural,
spillovers, each with its characteristics and implications.
Evidence shows the existence of spillovers in energy conservation, such as re-
bound e昀昀ects, temporal spillovers in retro昀椀tting behaviour, contextual spillovers
in food waste reduction, and social spillovers in the adoption of clean energy tech-
nologies.

temporal, contextual, and social

• Understanding and leveraging spillovers can enhance policy design and evalua-
tion, with strategies like promoting habit formation, fostering a green identity, en-
couraging commitment, addressing moral licensing, and leveraging peer e昀昀ects.

4.2 Leveraging Spillovers

Regarding policy design, more research is needed to understand how policymakers can
leverage spillovers to enhance energy-saving interventions. While the discussion continues,
we examine key levers widely studied in the literature, as discussed below.

4.2.1 Habit formation

Social psychologists de昀椀ne a habit as a settled routine or regular tendency triggered by
exposure to the same environmental cues, for example, turning o昀昀 the lights when no

17

It follows that once an energy-saving behaviour becomes an estab-
one is using them.
lished habit, it does not need nor require speci昀椀c incentives or motivations to be triggered,
which makes habit formation a particularly appealing objective for policies, as discussed
elsewhere (Broek, Walker, and Klöckner 2019).

Various studies examined interventions encouraging e昀케cient energy-consumption habits
showing evidence that policies that stimulate habit formation are e昀昀ective. For example,
Ito et al. (2018) randomly assigned households to a dynamic pricing scheme encouraging
good energy conservation habits. Results show that this approach produced signi昀椀cant en-
ergy savings, most of which were through habit formation as the treatment e昀昀ect persisted
even after the intervention had ceased. This study underscores a more general idea sug-
gesting that habit formation could explain why one-shot behavioural interventions gener-
ate results on energy conservation that continue over time (Allcott and Rogers 2014; Jessoe
and Rapson 2014).

4.2.2 Identity

One way to leverage contextual spillovers is through interventions encouraging people to
adopt a green identity. If people consider themselves environmentalists, as this notion is
part of their identity, they will show consistent pro-environmental behaviours in multiple
contexts.

Although the evidence on these spillovers is limited, a survey of the UK public shows
that people who self-identify as environmentalists tend to maintain pro-environmental
behaviour in multiple contexts (Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010). Moreover, some studies
have tested di昀昀erent interventions to foster individuals’ environmental identity. These
studies have shown that using cues from past pro-environmental behaviour and feedback
to label a person as an environmentalist can e昀昀ectively stimulate a pro-environmental
identity (Geng, Sarkis, and Bleischwitz 2019; Gleue et al. 2022; Fanghella, d’Adda, and
Tavoni 2019). Consequently, these cues to people’s environmental identity could be used
to stimulate energy conservation behaviour at work and at home.

4.2.3 Commitment to the cause

Fostering people’s commitment to pro-environmental behaviour, such as promoting
pledges or speci昀椀c demonstrative actions, can generate positive contextual spillovers.
By inclining in costly or e昀昀ortful behaviour for the environment’s sake, people send a
signal of being committed to a pro-environmental goal. As a consequence, subsequent
pro-environmental actions in other contexts become more likely. Furthermore, individual
commitments are highly linked to the establishment of an environmental identity to which
the respective actions positively contribute. For example, Gneezy et al. (2012) shows that
people are more likely to behave consistently with their self-perception of being prosocial
when they engage in costly prosocial acts. Consequently, commitments in pledges and
actions can act as a “foot in the door”, helping people to focus on a speci昀椀c goal or
objective. This suggests a viable strategy to promote energy conservation behaviour via

18

pledges, whereby energy providers could encourage consumers to set a goal or make a
pledge to save energy in the upcoming year.

4.2.4 Moral licensing

Contextual spillovers can also be harmful to energy conservation. For example, a policy
that targets household energy savings may succeed in reducing energy consumption at
home but inadvertently increase energy consumption at work, with an overall e昀昀ect that
could vary from positive to negative. One frequent explanation for negative spillovers im-
plicates the concept of “moral licensing,” which describes a situation in which past good
deeds will lower the probability of engaging in future good behaviours (Merritt, E昀昀ron, and
Monin 2010). Moral licensing is part of a more general theory of moral balancing (Funder
and Colvin 1991; Monin and Miller 2001), which describes how past actions could a昀昀ect the
probability of engaging in future behaviours, either good/moral or wrong/immoral.

Several studies have examined moral licensing in various settings to assess the magnitude
of these e昀昀ects. For instance, a meta-analysis of 91 state-of-the-art experiments shows the
e昀昀ect size of moral licensing can be considerable (Blanken, Van De Ven, and Zeelenberg
2015). However, we need more studies focused on the e昀昀ects of moral licensing on energy
consumption. Considering energy conservation as a moral behaviour, conservation e昀昀orts
could be prone to the reasoning of moral balancing/licensing and thereby threatening the
achieved energy reduction by consuming energy more in other contexts.

How moral licensing relates to policies is still a largely unexplored topic. However, using an
experiment in the context of charitable donations, a recent study shows that interventions
o昀昀ering monetary incentives to adopt pro-environmental behaviours could back昀椀re and
amplify the adverse e昀昀ects of moral licensing (Alt and Gallier 2022). One possible explana-
tion is that a “monetary mindset” induces individuals to rationalize behaviours di昀昀erently
when o昀昀ered cash incentives or moral suasion, as discussed in another related study (Ito,
Ida, and Tanaka 2018). Combinations of monetary incentives with commitment devices or
norm interventions could counteract such negative spillovers, as they foster consistency
within a newly adapted behaviour, as discussed in various studies (Royer, Stehr, and Syd-
nor 2015; Alt and Gallier 2022).

4.3 Peer e昀昀ects

Policies can in昀氀uence social dynamics, such as peer e昀昀ects, to trigger savings in energy
consumption. For example, one intervention could target a subset of households in each
neighbourhood, and the intervention’s e昀昀ects could spread to other households. This dif-
fusion could happen organically, through word of mouth or there might be elements of the
policies that foster spreading information, such as referral programs.

The mechanisms behind peer e昀昀ects are manifold. They can be driven by a person’s desire
to comply with the behaviour of others, which is perceived as an implicit social norm. Social
preferences, such as inequality aversion. If others act, people may feel the need to act as

19

well. But also social learning by observing what others are doing.

The experimental literature on peer e昀昀ects is vast, and the size of peer e昀昀ects can vary
considerably across di昀昀erent contexts. Recent studies have explored various approaches
to promote energy savings in the work environment (Nye and Hargreaves 2010) and among
households (Wolske, Gillingham, and Schultz 2020). However, integrating interventions
with peer e昀昀ects across di昀昀erent settings remains challenging, primarily because social
dynamics and interactions vary substantially across di昀昀erent contexts (e.g., in the o昀케ce
and at home).

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

Behavioural interventions have great potential to support policymakers during energy
crises. And the analysis of the relevant academic literature discussed in this report
provides several recommendations, summarized in Box 5.1.

One key advantage is their timeliness. Unlike long-term structural measures, governments
can deploy many behavioural interventions swiftly and economically. Based on our exam-
ination, information campaigns, comparative feedback, and addressing intrinsic motiva-
tions can reduce energy consumption in the short term and across various settings. They
can also contribute to achieving long-term objectives by promoting habits and a culture
of energy saving and e昀케ciency. Nevertheless, the e昀昀ect size of these interventions varies
and is sometimes small. Therefore, these measures may be inadequate as standalone to
address energy crises.

Our analysis highlights how multiple factors in昀氀uence the e昀昀ectiveness of behavioural in-
terventions. Key aspects include people’s intrinsic motivation, skills, current habits, and
contextual factors such as the availability of energy-e昀케cient products and services. The so-
cial norms surrounding energy use in a particular setting are also important drivers. There-
fore, our analysis suggests that policymakers should consider a range of behavioural inter-
ventions. Such interventions must be tailored to speci昀椀c groups of individuals and adapt
to di昀昀erent contexts to maximise their impact on energy consumption. One way to im-
plement this diversi昀椀ed approach is to combine multiple interventions, such as providing
feedback on energy use and setting energy-saving goals; on this topic, see, for example, Alt
et al. (2022).

Another critical aspect of this report is the role of policy spillovers. We provide compelling
evidence of policy spillovers in energy conservation. Consequently, policymakers should
promote policies that generate positive policy spillovers, such as promoting habits that can
be transferred from one context to another or leveraging individual social networks to fos-
ter the adoption of energy-e昀케cient behaviours. At the same time, they should minimise the
risk of negative spillovers, like generating “rebound” e昀昀ects, that will harm the net impact
of a policy. However, it is challenging to identify speci昀椀c positive and negative spillovers
due to the absence of a comprehensive framework to guide this process.

20

In addition, the conspicuous evidence of policy spillovers in energy conservation raises
more than one question about the evaluation of policies. Looking back at how the e昀昀ec-
tiveness of many behavioural approaches has been assessed, our work suggests a con-
siderable risk of underestimating the overall e昀昀ect of information nudging on energy con-
sumption.

This report focused on two critical settings, the home and workplace, which account for
about half of the 昀椀nal energy consumption in the EU. However, we found that home set-
tings are more studied and better understood than work settings. Homes are often more
accessible and less complex for researchers to study, as they typically involve fewer people
and fewer variables to control for. Conversely, work settings usually apply more complex
social and organisational structures and several barriers to data collection, making these
settings more challenging to study. Therefore, more research is needed to understand
what interventions work and why in this setting.

Overall, this report helps identify several needs to improve the e昀昀ectiveness of energy-
saving interventions. First, more research is needed to understand better the impact of
behavioural interventions in the workplace setting, which needs to be better understood
than those in the residential environment. This research should identify which interven-
tions are most e昀昀ective in promoting energy savings in the workplace and why.

Secondly, there is a need to explicitly test spillovers from energy-saving choices at home
to the workplace and vice versa. Many employees spend a signi昀椀cant amount of time at
work, and their energy use at home may in昀氀uence their choices in the workplace. At the
same time, the di昀昀usion of remote working practices has transformed some of the time
spent at work into work done at home, with profound implications for energy consumption
spillovers that are still unclear. By understanding how these spillovers occur, policymakers
can design more e昀昀ective interventions that exploit these dynamics.

Finally, our report identi昀椀es a need for a better framework for evaluating the e昀昀ectiveness
of energy-saving policies across di昀昀erent contexts. Di昀昀erent workplaces may have di昀昀er-
ent energy-saving needs, and policies that work well in one context may need adjusting
in another. A better framework for evaluating policy e昀昀ectiveness should consider these
contextual factors and help policymakers design more e昀昀ective interventions tailored to
speci昀椀c contexts.

21

Box 5.1: Key policy recommendations

• Tailored Behavioral Interventions: Consider a range of behavioral interven-
tions tailored to speci昀椀c individuals and contexts to maximize impact on energy
consumption.

• Promote Positive Policy Spillovers: Foster policies that generate positive
spillover e昀昀ects, encouraging the transfer of energy-e昀케cient behaviors across
di昀昀erent contexts while minimizing negative spillovers.

• Research in Workplace Settings: Conduct further research to understand the
e昀昀ectiveness of behavioral interventions in workplace settings, identifying the
most e昀昀ective strategies for promoting energy savings.

• Improved Framework for Policy Evaluation: Develop a comprehensive
framework for evaluating the e昀昀ectiveness of energy-saving policies across
di昀昀erent contexts, considering contextual factors to design targeted interven-
tions.

22

References

Abrahamse, Wokje, Linda Steg, Charles Vlek, and Talib Rothengatter. 2005. “A Review of In-
tervention Studies Aimed at Household Energy Conservation.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 25 (3): 273–91.

Allcott, Hunt. 2011. “Social Norms and Energy Conservation.” Journal of Public Economics

95 (9-10): 1082–95.

Allcott, Hunt, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2010. “Behavior and Energy Policy.” Science 327

(5970): 1204–5.

Allcott, Hunt, and Todd Rogers. 2014. “The Short-Run and Long-Run E昀昀ects of Behavioral
Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation.” American Economic
Review 104 (10): 3003–37.

Alt, Marius, Hendrik Bruns, Nives DellaValle, and Ingrida Murauskaite-Bull. 2022.

“Syn-
ergies of Interventions to Tackle Climate Change-a Meta-Analysis.” Available at SSRN
4305865.

Alt, Marius, and Carlo Gallier. 2022. “Incentives and Intertemporal Behavioral Spillovers: A
Two-Period Experiment on Charitable Giving.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organiza-
tion 200: 959–72.

Andor, Mark A, and Katja M Fels. 2018. “Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation–
a Systematic Review of Non-Price Interventions and Their Causal E昀昀ects.” Ecological
Economics 148: 178–210.

Aydin, Erdal, Dirk Brounen, and Nils Kok. 2018. “Information Provision and Energy Con-

sumption: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Energy Economics 71: 403–10.

Aydin, Erdal, Nils Kok, and Dirk Brounen. 2017. “Energy E昀케ciency and Household Behavior:
The Rebound E昀昀ect in the Residential Sector.” The RAND Journal of Economics 48 (3): 749–
82.

Azar, Elie, and Carol C Menassa. 2014. “A Comprehensive Framework to Quantify Energy
Savings Potential from Improved Operations of Commercial Building Stocks.” Energy
Policy 67: 459–72.

Bale, Catherine SE, Nicholas J McCullen, Timothy J Foxon, Alastair M Rucklidge, and William
F Gale. 2013. “Harnessing Social Networks for Promoting Adoption of Energy Technolo-
gies in the Domestic Sector.” Energy Policy 63: 833–44.

Bertoldi, Paolo, Benigna Boza-Kiss, Nives Della Valle, and Marina Economidou. 2021. “The
Role of One-Stop Shops in Energy Renovation-a Comparative Analysis of OSSs Cases in
Europe.” Energy and Buildings 250: 111273.

Blanken, Irene, Niels Van De Ven, and Marcel Zeelenberg. 2015. “A Meta-Analytic Review

of Moral Licensing.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (4): 540–58.

Broek, Karlijn L van den, Ian Walker, and Christian A Klöckner. 2019. “Drivers of Energy
Saving Behaviour: The Relative In昀氀uence of Intentional, Normative, Situational and Ha-
bitual Processes.” Energy Policy 132: 811–19.

Brounen, Dirk, and Nils Kok. 2011. “On the Economics of Energy Labels in the Housing

Market.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 62 (2): 166–79.

Brounen, Dirk, Nils Kok, and John M Quigley. 2013. “Energy Literacy, Awareness, and Con-

23

servation Behavior of Residential Households.” Energy Economics 38: 42–50.

Brown, Zachary, Nick Johnstone, Ivan Haščič, Laura Vong, and Francis Barascud. 2013.
“Testing the E昀昀ect of Defaults on the Thermostat Settings of OECD Employees.” Energy
Economics 39: 128–34.

Buckley, Penelope. 2020. “Prices, Information and Nudges for Residential Electricity Con-

servation: A Meta-Analysis.” Ecological Economics 172: 106635.

Caballero, Nicolas, and Nives Della Valle. 2021. “Tackling Energy Poverty Through Behav-
ioral Change: A Pilot Study on Social Comparison Interventions in Social Housing Dis-
tricts.” Article. FRONTIERS IN SUSTAINABLE CITIES 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2020.60
1095.

Carrico, Amanda R, and Manuel Riemer. 2011. “Motivating Energy Conservation in the
Workplace: An Evaluation of the Use of Group-Level Feedback and Peer Education.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (1): 1–13.

Coltrane, Scott, Dane Archer, and Elliot Aronson. 1986. “The Social-Psychological Founda-
tions of Successful Energy Conservation Programmes.” Energy Policy 14 (2): 133–48.
Craig, C Samuel, and John M McCann. 1978. “Assessing Communication E昀昀ects on Energy

Conservation.” Journal of Consumer Research 5 (2): 82–88.

DellaValle, Nives, and Siddharth Sareen. 2020. “Nudging and Boosting for Equity? Towards
a Behavioural Economics of Energy Justice.” Energy Research & Social Science 68: 101589.
DellaValle, Nives, and Alyona Zubaryeva. 2019. “Can We Hope for a Collective Shift in Elec-
tric Vehicle Adoption? Testing Salience and Norm-Based Interventions in South Tyrol,
Italy.” Energy Research & Social Science 55: 46–61.

Dyer, Robert F, and Thomas J Maronick. 1988. “An Evaluation of Consumer Awareness
and Use of Energy Labels in the Purchase of Major Appliances: A Longitudinal Analysis.”
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 7 (1): 83–97.

Egner, Lars Even, and Christian A Klöckner. 2021. “Temporal Spillover of Private Housing
Energy Retro昀椀tting: Distribution of Home Energy Retro昀椀ts and Implications for Subsidy
Policies.” Energy Policy 157: 112451.

Fanghella, Valeria, Giovanna d’Adda, and Massimo Tavoni. 2019. “On the Use of Nudges to

A昀昀ect Spillovers in Environmental Behaviors.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 61.

Fanghella, Valeria, Giovanna D’Adda, and Massimo Tavoni. 2022. “Evaluating the Impact of
Technological Renovation and Competition on Energy Consumption in the Workplace.”
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 102662.

Farrell, Justin, Kathryn McConnell, and Robert Brulle. 2019. “Evidence-Based Strategies to

Combat Scienti昀椀c Misinformation.” Nature Climate Change 9 (3): 191–95.

Funder, David C, and C Randall Colvin. 1991. “Explorations in Behavioral Consistency: Prop-
erties of Persons, Situations, and Behaviors.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
60 (5): 773.

Galizzi, Matteo M, and Lorraine Whitmarsh. 2019. “How to Measure Behavioral Spillovers:

A Methodological Review and Checklist.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 342.

Geng, Yong, Joseph Sarkis, and Raimund Bleischwitz. 2019. “How to Globalize the Circular

Economy.” Nature Publishing Group.

Gleue, Marvin, Sören Harrs, Christoph Feldhaus, and Andreas Löschel. 2022. “Identity and

24

Voluntary E昀昀orts for Climate Protection.” Available at SSRN 4068486.

Gneezy, Ayelet, Alex Imas, Amber Brown, Leif D Nelson, and Michael I Norton. 2012. “Pay-
ing to Be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior.” Management Science 58 (1):
179–87.

Handgraaf, Michel JJ, Margriet A Van Lidth De Jeude, and Kirstin C Appelt. 2013. “Public
Praise Vs. Private Pay: E昀昀ects of Rewards on Energy Conservation in the Workplace.”
Ecological Economics 86: 86–92.

Ho, Shirley S, Agnes SF Chuah, Nuri Kim, and Edson C Tandoc Jr. 2022. “Fake News, Real
Risks: How Online Discussion and Sources of Fact-Check In昀氀uence Public Risk Percep-
tions Toward Nuclear Energy.” Risk Analysis.

Ho, Shirley S, and Silje Kristiansen. 2019. “Environmental Debates over Nuclear Energy:
Media, Communication, and the Public.” Environmental Communication. Taylor & Fran-
cis.

Ho, Shirley S, Jiemin Looi, Agnes SF Chuah, Alisius D Leong, and Natalie Pang. 2018. “‘I
Can Live with Nuclear Energy If…’: Exploring Public Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in
Singapore.” Energy Policy 120: 436–47.

Ito, Koichiro, Takanori Ida, and Makoto Tanaka. 2018. “Moral Suasion and Economic Incen-
tives: Field Experimental Evidence from Energy Demand.” American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy 10 (1): 240–67.

Ja昀昀e, Adam B, and Robert N Stavins. 1994. “The Energy Paradox and the Di昀昀usion of Con-

servation Technology.” Resource and Energy Economics 16 (2): 91–122.

Jessoe, Katrina, and David Rapson. 2014. “Knowledge Is (Less) Power: Experimental Evi-

dence from Residential Energy Use.” American Economic Review 104 (4): 1417–38.

Kamilaris, Andreas, Jodi Neovino, Sekhar Kondepudi, and Balaji Kalluri. 2015. “A Case Study
on the Individual Energy Use of Personal Computers in an O昀케ce Setting and Assessment
of Various Feedback Types Toward Energy Savings.” Energy and Buildings 104: 73–86.
Kuntz, Kathy, Rajan Shukla, and Ingo Bensch. 2012. “How Many Points for That? A Game-
Based Approach to Environmental Sustainability.” Proceedings of the American Council
for an Energy-E昀케cient Economy Summer Study on Energy E昀케ciency in Buildings 7: 126–37.
Leygue, Caroline, Eamonn Ferguson, and Alexa Spence. 2017. “Saving Energy in the Work-

place: Why, and for Whom?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 53: 50–62.

Li, Da, Xiaojing Xu, Chien-fei Chen, and Carol Menassa. 2019.

“Understanding Energy-
Saving Behaviors in the American Workplace: A Uni昀椀ed Theory of Motivation, Oppor-
tunity, and Ability.” Energy Research & Social Science 51: 198–209.

Lin, Min, and Elie Azar. 2019. “Mixing Work and Leisure? Energy Conservation Actions
and Spillovers Between Building Occupants at Work and at Home in the UAE.” Energy
Research & Social Science 47: 215–23.

Littleford, Clare, Tim J Ryley, and Steven K Firth. 2014. “Context, Control and the Spillover
of Energy Use Behaviours Between O昀케ce and Home Settings.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 40: 157–66.

Maki, Alexander, Amanda R Carrico, Kaitlin T Raimi, Heather Barnes Truelove, Brandon
Araujo, and Kam Leung Yeung. 2019. “Meta-Analysis of Pro-Environmental Behaviour
Spillover.” Nature Sustainability 2 (4): 307–15.

25

Merritt, Anna C, Daniel A E昀昀ron, and Benoı̂ t Monin. 2010. “Moral Self-Licensing: When
Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4 (5): 344–
57.

Monin, Benoit, and Dale T Miller. 2001. “Moral Credentials and the Expression of Prejudice.”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (1): 33.

Murakami, Yoshifumi, Masaaki Terano, Kana Mizutani, Masayuki Harada, and Satoru Kuno.
2007. “Field Experiments on Energy Consumption and Thermal Comfort in the O昀케ce
Environment Controlled by Occupants’ Requirements from PC Terminal.” Building and
Environment 42 (12): 4022–27.

Nilsson, Andreas, Magnus Bergquist, and Wesley P Schultz. 2017. “Spillover E昀昀ects in Envi-
ronmental Behaviors, Across Time and Context: A Review and Research Agenda.” Envi-
ronmental Education Research 23 (4): 573–89.

Nisa, Claudia F, Jocelyn J Bélanger, Birga M Schumpe, and Daiane G Faller. 2019. “Meta-
Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Testing Behavioural Interventions to Promote
Household Action on Climate Change.” Nature Communications 10 (1): 4545.

Nye, Michael, and Tom Hargreaves. 2010. “Exploring the Social Dynamics of Proenviron-
mental Behavior Change: A Comparative Study of Intervention Processes at Home and
Work.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14 (1): 137–49.

Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. “The Scienti昀椀c Consensus on Climate Change.” Science 306 (5702):

1686–86.

Orland, Brian, Nilam Ram, Dean Lang, Kevin Houser, Nate Kling, and Michael Coccia. 2014.
“Saving Energy in an O昀케ce Environment: A Serious Game Intervention.” Energy and
Buildings 74: 43–52.

Royer, Heather, Mark Stehr, and Justin Sydnor. 2015. “Incentives, Commitments, and Habit
Formation in Exercise: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Workers at a Fortune-500
Company.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 7 (3): 51–84.

Ruokamo, Enni, Teemu Merilainen, Santtu Karhinen, Jouni Raiha, Paivi Suur-Uski, Leila Ti-
monen, and Rauli Svento. 2022. “The E昀昀ect of Information Nudges on Energy Saving:
Observations from a Randomized Field Experiment in Finland.” Article. Energy Policy
161 (February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112731.

Schall, Dominik L, and Alwine Mohnen. 2017. “Incentivizing Energy-E昀케cient Behavior at
Work: An Empirical Investigation Using a Natural Field Experiment on Eco-Driving.” Ap-
plied Energy 185: 1757–68.

Schleich, Joachim, Xavier Gassmann, Thomas Meissner, and Corinne Faure. 2019. “A Large-
Scale Test of the E昀昀ects of Time Discounting, Risk Aversion, Loss Aversion, and Present
Bias on Household Adoption of Energy-E昀케cient Technologies.” Energy Economics 80:
377–93.

Shama, Avraham. 1983. “Energy Conservation in US Buildings: Solving the High Poten-
tial/Low Adoption Paradox from a Behavioural Perspective.” Energy Policy 11 (2): 148–
67.

Sheppy, Michael, I Metzger, D Cutler, G Holland, and A Hanada. 2014. “Reducing Plug Loads
in O昀케ce Spaces: Hawaii and Guam Energy Improvement Technology Demonstration
Project.” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States).

26

Siero, Frans W, Arnold B Bakker, Gerda B Dekker, and Marcel TC Van Den Burg. 1996.
“Changing Organizational Energy Consumption Behaviour Through Comparative Feed-
back.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 16 (3): 235–46.

Staddon, Sam C, Chandrika Cycil, Murray Goulden, Caroline Leygue, and Alexa Spence.
2016. “Intervening to Change Behaviour and Save Energy in the Workplace: A System-
atic Review of Available Evidence.” Energy Research & Social Science 17: 30–51.

Taranu, Victoria, and Griet Verbeeck. 2018. “A Closer Look into the European Energy Perfor-
mance Certi昀椀cates Under the Lenses of Behavioural Insights—a Comparative Analysis.”
Energy E昀케ciency 11 (7): 1745–61.

Van der Linden, Sander. 2015. “The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change
Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model.” Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy 41: 112–24.

Wang, Feiyang, Ganga Shreedhar, Matteo Galizzi, and Susana Mourato. 2021. “A Take-
Home Message: Spillovers from Workplace Food Waste Campaigns to the Home.”
Werthschulte, Madeline, and Andreas Löschel. 2021. “On the Role of Present Bias and
Biased Price Beliefs in Household Energy Consumption.” Journal of Environmental Eco-
nomics and Management 109: 102500.

Whitmarsh, Lorraine, and Sa昀昀ron O’Neill. 2010.

“Green Identity, Green Living? The
Role of Pro-Environmental Self-Identity in Determining Consistency Across Diverse
Pro-Environmental Behaviours.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (3): 305–14.
Wolske, Kimberly S, Kenneth T Gillingham, and P Schultz. 2020. “Peer In昀氀uence on House-

hold Energy Behaviours.” Nature Energy 5 (3): 202–12.

27

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

Ñ by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

Ñ at the following standard number: +32 22999696, 

Ñ via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information  about  the  European  Union  in  all  the  official  languages  of  the  EU  is  available  on  the  Europa  website  (european-
union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You  can  view  or  order  EU  publications  at  op.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  can  be  obtained  by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex 
(eur-lex.europa.eu). 

Open data from the EU 

The  portal  data.europa.eu  provides  access  to  open  datasets  from  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and  agencies.  These  can  be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of 
datasets from European countries.