Opportunities and Insights for Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption by Households and Organizations

Abstract

Realizing the ambitious commitments of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21) will require new ways of meeting human needs previously met by burning fossil fuels. Technological developments will be critical, but so will accelerated adoption of promising low-emission technologies and practices. National commitments will be more achievable if interventions take into account key psychological, social, cultural and organizational factors that influence energy choices, along with factors of an infrastructural, technical and economic nature. Broader engagement of social and behavioural science is needed to identify promising opportunities for reducing fossil fuel consumption. Here we discuss opportunities for change in households and organizations, primarily at short and intermediate timescales, and identify opportunities that have been underused in much of energy policy. Based on this survey, we suggest design principles for interventions by governments and other organizations, and identify areas of emphasis for future social science and interdisciplinary research.

Full text

NATURE ENERGY | VOL 1 | MAY 2016 | www.nature.com/natureenergy 1
In Paris in December 2015, 195 nations made ambitious commit-
ments to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Meeting those
commitments will require new ways to meet needs previously sat-
ised through burning fossil fuels, and will require changes to be
implemented rapidly. It will require technological change and the
development of new lower-emission and lower-consumption energy
sources. But it will also require social change to aid the adoption of
these technologies and to implement energy-saving practices.
Many policy approaches for reducing fossil fuel consumption
(FFC) emphasize technology development, regulation, nancial
incentives and information provision. ese are useful approaches,
but they are likely to fall far short of what is truly achievable if they
neglect additional insights from social and behavioural sciences.
Such insights help to explain a large ‘energy eciency gap’1 com-
monly found between policy expectations based on analyses of
technical feasibility and monetary cost, and actually experienced
energy use. For example, a retrospective study2 conrmed a 1990
US forecast that only half of the potential for cost-eective energy
eciency improvements would be realized over the next 20years.
Research is beginning to explain why energy-saving technologies
and practices, and renewable energy technologies, are not quickly
adopted by those who would benet, why regulations rarely pro-
duce full compliance, and why the targets of nancial incentives
oen fail to take actions that would produce the services they want
at the lowest long-run cost to them3–5.
Analysts continue to debate over the precise magnitude of the
energy eciency gap, its causes and ways to reduce it. It is clear,
however, that factors other than straightforward economic ration-
ality can make large dierences in the rate at which the gap can be
closed. Meeting the Paris commitments will require understanding
the practices and decision-making processes of individual, household
and organizational energy users, and the entities that inuence their
Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel
consumption by households and organizations
Paul C. Stern1,2,3*, Kathryn B. Janda4, Marilyn A. Brown5, Linda Steg6, Edward L. Vine7
and Loren Lutzenhiser8
Realizing the ambitious commitments of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21) will require new ways of meeting human
needs previously met by burning fossil fuels. Technological developments will be critical, but so will accelerated adoption of
promising low-emission technologies and practices. National commitments will be more achievable if interventions take into
account key psychological, social, cultural and organizational factors that influence energy choices, along with factors of an
infrastructural, technical and economic nature. Broader engagement of social and behavioural science is needed to identify
promising opportunities for reducing fossil fuel consumption. Here we discuss opportunities for change in households and
organizations, primarily at short and intermediate timescales, and identify opportunities that have been underused in much of
energy policy. Based on this survey, we suggest design principles for interventions by governments and other organizations,
and identify areas of emphasis for future social science and interdisciplinary research.
behaviour. Such behaviour is shaped in important ways by factors not
captured by the simplifying assumptions of ‘rational’ choice.
Opportunities to reduce FFC exist at multiple social scales and at
temporal scales from the momentary to the generational (Table1).
Moreover, change can be initiated not only by governments but
also by individuals, households, prot-making organizations, com-
munities, trade associations and other non-governmental actors6–9.
Generally, changes at the grandest social and temporal scales have
the greatest potential for lowering FFC but the weakest base of
scientic understanding.
In this Review, we focus on some barriers and opportunities at
the levels of households and organizations at timescales up to the
intermediate, which roughly correspond to the replacement time
for worn-out or obsolete energy-using equipment.We emphasize
opportunities that can be realized at any constant state of technol-
ogy, regulation and price, and we suggest some design principles
for interventions. In addition, we consider social processes oper-
ating at longer timescales that condition and constrain near-term
outcomes. We have not attempted to summarize all the relevant
social scientic insights that could be applied to these domains. e
boundaries of this Review are hard to dene in disciplinary terms
because the problem and the relevant research communities are
inter disciplinary. It is fair to say, however, that we draw most heavily
on research grounded in certain subelds of psychology, sociology,
economics and organizational studies.
Reducing fossil fuel consumption by household actions
Households can signicantly inuence anthropogenic climate
change in their roles as direct and indirect users of fossil fuels, as well
as through actions as citizens and within organizations4,10,11. In the
United States and Europe, about one-third of total energy use and
carbon emissions results from direct household energy use12–14. It has
1National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington DC 20001, USA. 2Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Høgskoleringen 1, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. 3Social and Environmental Research Institute, PO Box 1487, 01060 Northampton, Massachusetts,
USA. 4Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. 5School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA. 6University of Groningen, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Grote Kruisstraat 2/I,
9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands. 7Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Building 90-2128, Berkeley, California 94720, USA. 8Toulan School of Urban
Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA. *e-mail: pstern@nas.edu
REVIEW ARTICLE
PUBLISHED: 6 MAY 2016 | ARTICLE NUMBER: 16043 | DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.43

2 NATURE ENERGY | VOL 1 | MAY 2016 | www.nature.com/natureenergy
been estimated that direct FFC by US households can be reduced
by 20% in a decade with conventional technology if the most eec-
tive proven non-regulatory interventions are implemented13. Similar
potential is likely in other high-income countries15. is can be
accomplished in part by short-term actions such as reducing usage
of energy-consuming equipment (for example reducing heating and
cooling levels, appliance use or motorized travel), and matching
energy demand to available supply of renewable energy carriers10,13.
In the decadal time frame, the main potential lies in changes in
durable household technology, such as adoption of energy-ecient
appliances, home heating and cooling systems, and vehicles, as well
as improving home weatherproong (for example insulation). e
potential reduction is even greater with adoption of emerging tech-
nologies for energy eciency and use of renewable energy, including
solar photovoltaics, wind energy and associated technology such as
electric vehicles powered by renewable electricity sources.
Reducing household direct FFC. e most promising targets are
actions that have high impact when considering both technical
potential (that is, the amount the action reduces carbon emissions)
and behavioural plasticity (the number of households that can be
induced to act13). Greater emission reductions can generally be
realized by the adoption of household equipment with lower FFC
than by reducing usage — more than three times as much, by one
estimate13. However, consumers generally incorrectly assume that
most savings can be realized by changing usage10,16.
Behavioural scientists have found that many non-nancial inu-
ences aect household energy use, including identity and status
considerations10; perceived social norms17; and values, particularly
those that reect concern for other humans and environmental
quality18–20. Such factors may inuence both use and adoption of
energy-consuming technologies and renewable energy sources10.
Values and environmental self-identity can strengthen awareness
of energy issues and the environmental consequences of house-
hold actions, create feelings of moral obligation to help to reduce
energy problems10,21,22 and provide intrinsic rewards for actions that
reduce FFC23. Targeting such motivational factors may be a cost-
eective approach to reductions of FFC with many households. In
fact, several social inuence strategies targeting such non-nancial
factors have been found to be eective in reducing FFC, although
eects were mainly observed over short time periods and through
altered use of existing household equipment24. Strategies that make
use of face-to-face interactions, including community approaches,
commitment strategies, eliciting implementation intentions and
Table 1 | Changes to reduce fossil fuel consumption at various social and temporal scales.
Social scales and roles Temporal scales
Short-term (moments to days;
for example changing usage of
energy-consuming equipment)
Intermediate (weeks to decades; for example
adopting equipment with lower FFC)
Long-term (generational, societal
transformation)
Households as energy
consumers.
Alter indoor temperature.
Turn off lights and appliances not in use.
Drive more smoothly.
Share transportation.
Shift to lower-FFC transport modes.
Replace appliances, HVAC (heating, ventilation and
air conditioning) systems and motor vehicles with
energy-efficient models.
Insulate homes.
Adopt photovoltaic systems.
Choose small, efficient housing units, with proximity
to public transit, shopping and work, when relocating.
Demographic transition to lower
birth rates.
Multi-generational households.
Household
consumption affecting
FFC in supply chains.
Purchase low-carbon-footprint foods
and services.
Purchase low-carbon-footprint durable products. Reverse preferences for large,
suburban homes, large cars and
distant holidays as expression of
well-being.
Organizations as
energy consumers.
Induce employees to reduce energy
use (for instance, in offices, minimize
use of task lights, computers, auxiliary
heating/cooling devices).
Reduce motorized business travel (for
example by using video conferencing).
Assign staff ‘energy champion’
responsibilities.
Manage production systems in
response to real-time price signals.
Make reducing FFC a strategic part of core business
operations.
Replace lighting and HVAC systems, equipment and
motor vehicles with energy-efficient models.
When relocating, rent or procure low FFC buildings.
Adopt photovoltaic systems.
Change work styles to accommodate a broader range
of thermal conditions (for example, Japan’s Super
Cool Biz programme91).
Change core business offerings
to align with climate challenges
(for example BP’s short-lived
‘beyond petroleum’ experiment89,
or Interface Carpet’s goal of carbon
neutrality90).
Organizations as
providers of goods
and services.
Find lower-footprint supply sources.
Inform customers on how to use
products and services offered in an
energy-efficient way.
Reduce FFC in the production chain.
Make reducing FFC a strategic part of core business
offerings.
Support and train staff in systems thinking and
sustainability.
Redesign products for lower energy requirements.
Elect to manufacture, market and service low-FFC
products.
Develop lower-carbon industry-
wide standards (for instance,
carbon labelling schemes for
suppliers).
Large-scale social
systems.
Improve crisis responses to power
outages and fuel shortages.
Adopt policies to encourage and assist lower-FFC
actions in households and organizations.
Create institutions and norms for lower-FFC actions
in groups of organizations.
Improve public transport system.
Design communities to make non-
motorized travel easier.
Change norms for socially
desirable housing, vehicle types,
workstyles and work practices.
Actions located in different sections of the table are often affected by quite different factors. Here we emphasize actions by households and organizations at short and intermediate timescales.
REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE ENERGY DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.43

NATURE ENERGY | VOL 1 | MAY 2016 | www.nature.com/natureenergy 3
providing social models of desired action, have been particularly
eective24. Feedback on energy use can also be eective to promote
reductions in FFC, especially when provided frequently so that peo-
ple can link it to their behaviour25,26. Interventions are more eective
when they are tailored to the target population25,27.
Research on household adoption of low-FFC equipment has been
more limited28. Financial incentives have been a favoured policy in
this domain. Although they are important for promoting change,
they are not a panacea29, nor are they the only important inuence on
action. Households’ responses to identical incentives for improving
home energy eciency vary by a factor of ten or more, depending
on how incentive programmes are implemented15. e wide varia-
tion in responses to identical nancial incentives is associated with
non-nancial aspects of policy implementation, such as marketing
strategies, consumer trust in organizations sponsoring incentive
programmes and the level of cognitive eort required for consum-
ers to receive the incentives30. Moderate nancial incentives may be
perceived as not worth the eort and may inhibit further reductions
of FFC by inhibiting ‘spill-over’ to other behaviours29. Incentives
oen underperform expectations when such motivational aspects
are neglected14,30.
Our examination of the available research indicates that the fol-
lowing design principles are embodied in the most eective policies
and programmes at the household level: they (1) focus on actions
with high potential impact, considering both technical potential
and behavioural plasticity; (2) identify and address the key factors,
many of them non-nancial, inhibiting and promoting the target
behaviours in particular populations; (3) attend to programme mar-
keting; (4) provide credible and targeted information at points of
decision; (5) make behavioural change and programme participa-
tion simple; (6) provide for quality assurance for the programme
and the technologies to be adopted; and (7) rigorously evaluate the
programme to provide credible estimates of its impact and to decide
where improvements can be made14,28,31. In our view, principles 2,
5 and 6 are particularly important and frequently overlooked in
government-driven energy eciency programmes. A compatible
list of principles, with an additional emphasis on community par-
ticipation, has been proposed for sustainable energy development
in developing countries32.
e above are general statements. However, signicant equity
concerns may arise in energy policies33, and opportunities for reduc-
ing FFC dier across locations and among socioeconomic groups34.
ere is active controversy over the extent to which consumers rein-
vest the economic benets of energy eciency in additional energy
consumption — what are called rebound eects. Estimated net
reductions in FFC vary across populations and measurement tech-
niques, so rebound estimates need to come with caveats. A recent
broad literature review of micro- and macro-economic evidence35
concluded that although estimates of rebound are dependent on
methodological choices, the available research does not support
claims that energy eciency gains will be reversed by the rebound
eect. Hence, the fact that potential exists for signicant household
energy savings is not in dispute.
Indirect household inuences on FFC. e energy requirements of
the production, transportation and disposal of food, goods and ser-
vices for households amount to about half of total household energy
use in Europe36, but ways to reduce this indirect FFC have received
limited attention. Indeed, consumers are oen largely unaware of
their indirect energy use37. Households might be able to reduce this
indirect FFC signicantly by changing purchasing behaviours, if given
credible and readily usable information on the ‘carbon footprints’ of
consumer products38. e potential for providing such ‘carbon label-
ling’ information, however, is greater with some product classes than
others because supply chains are not always readily traceable39,40, and
eective means of providing the information need development.
Reducing fossil fuel consumption by organizational action
Research on organizational factors aecting FFC is relatively
scarce41–44. Yet, organizations (including industrial and commer-
cial rms, government agencies and other non-prots) account for
60% of energy use worldwide45 and have considerable potential for
reducing FFC46,47. e relative scarcity of such research probably
reects disparities in available data48 and the diculty of general-
izing across a diverse population of organizations that varies greatly
in size, function, scope and interest in FFC reduction42. Although
knowledge across this varied domain is limited, we draw some ten-
tative inferences and point to some promising directions for future
work. Following previous work42,49, this section addresses organiza-
tions as both direct consumers of fossil fuels and as facilitators of
FFC reductions by others.
Organizations as consumers. Research on organizational energy
consumption indicates that there are important opportunities for
reducing FFC by adoption of dierent technologies and opera-
tional practices50. Many prot-making organizations empha-
size increasing revenue and meeting regulatory requirements
over reducing costs by consuming less energy51,52. Case studies
suggest that FFC can be reduced by linking strategic objectives
(such as longer-term protability) to operational value (such as
short-term savings)53,54.
Another opportunity lies in addressing the limited in-house
energy expertise that is common even amongst major energy users55,
and particularly in small rms56,57. Business alliances have shown
considerable promise in helping small businesses operate more
sustainably58. Initiatives by larger rms are beginning to make a
dierence7. Firms are starting to pursue continuous energy manage-
ment in a variety of ways, including through a voluntary ‘energy
manage ment’ standard (ISO 50001)59. Labelling programmes such
as the Carbon Disclosure Project provide third-party verication of
actions, enabling investors and customers to provide reputational
rewards for low FFC60.
Split incentives — where one party bears the costs of invest-
ing in lower FFC but another reaps the rewards — are pervasive
both within and across organizations51, aecting up to 90% of the
energy used in many major markets61. For example, design and
purchase decisions by building developers and owners aect ten-
ants’ energy bills. In several countries, local governments have
begun mandating that commercial building owners disclose their
energy bills, and this is motivating building owners to invest in
energy eciency by making building energy performance more
visible to tenants, landlords and investors48,62–64. New ‘green’ leasing
agreements in Australia, the United Kingdom and other countries
are enabling landlords and tenants to meet environmental tar-
gets cooperatively by sharing performance goals, energy data and
upgrade costs65,66.
Empowering building operators can result in 5–30% reductions
in FFC67. Further opportunities exist for reducing FFC by engaging
individual employees to change work practices.
Information technologies and social media oer new oppor-
tunities to expand energy information and engage employees68,69.
Promising opportunities exist to motivate work groups at dierent
levels within and across organizations43,70,71.
On the basis of our reading of the literature, we have identi-
ed the following general conclusions and design principles for
interventions to reduce FFC by organizations: (1) focus interven-
tions on the key inuences that guide the actions of specic target
organizations; (2) consider inuences that come from both internal
organizational factors (such as size, business strategy and stang)
and inter- organizational relationships (such as market supply-chain
relationships); and (3) use regulatory requirements and other oppor-
tunities to make energy performance information more public and
thus enable reduction of split incentives.
REVIEW ARTICLE
NATURE ENERGY DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.43

4 NATURE ENERGY | VOL 1 | MAY 2016 | www.nature.com/natureenergy
Organizations as facilitators for reducing FFC. Additional oppor-
tunities exist because organizations and organizational networks
can inuence FFC by households and other organizations by design-
ing, manufacturing and marketing clean energy supply alternatives
and high-eciency buildings, vehicles, equipment and devices72.
Research is exploring how organizations serve as ‘middle actors’ in
energy systems by enabling FFC reduction upstream (for example
in policy), downstream (for example by clients) and sideways (for
example by other middle actors)8,9.
Organizational network analysis shows how the provision
of goods and services and associated FFC involve relationships
among organizations. A building, for example, forms part of a value
chain73 that connects design rms, project developers, nanciers,
owner/investors, real-estate service providers, contractors, building
operators and occupants. Research on insulation, housing and com-
mercial buildings shows that networks of professional and indus-
trial organizations inuence the extent to which low-FFC strategies
manifest in the building design and construction process8,74–77.
Similarly, lighting and appliance manufacturers and other organiza-
tions constrain the choices of ultimate energy users49,72. ese rela-
tionships suggest opportunities for government action to develop,
facilitate and require the adoption of high-eciency equipment78,
and also highlight the possibilities for key organizations in value
chains to inuence entire chains49,70.
Outlook
Behavioural and social insights going beyond simple assump-
tions of rational economic decision-making make possible signi-
cant reductions in FFC by households and organizations at short
to intermediate temporal scales (see Table1)7,13. In the household
sector, reductions of at least 20% are reasonably achievable with
well-established technologies in a decade in some high-income
countries13,15; even greater reductions are possible through adoption
of renewable energy sources and related technologies. e potential
for reducing FFC by organizations and through changes in value
chains and provider networks may be even greater, but, because of
a limited research base and the great variety among organizations,
has not been quantied.
Some signicant barriers and opportunities for reducing FFC
apply both to households and many organizations, so deserve spe-
cial attention. Some involve ‘energy invisibility’3, in which the high-
impact activities and the most promising opportunities for reducing
FFC, including those involving embodied energy, are not imme-
diately evident to energy users at both levels. If consumers must
identify these for themselves, the required eort is oen prohibi-
tive. Both governmental and private actors can help entire classes of
consumers nd high-payo opportunities, for example with carbon
labelling and energy auditing eorts. ey can also help in imple-
menting the design principles of quality assurance and rigorous
evaluation. However, research will be needed to: (1) identify actions
with high practical potential (taking into account both technical
potential and behavioural plasticity) for particular types of deci-
sion-makers; (2) identify the factors that can assist those actions;
(3) develop and validate indicators of FFC, including that embodied
in products and services, to better inform choices; and (4) identify
eective synergies of eorts by multiple actors.is research will
require collaboration among scientists from multiple disciplines
within and beyond social science and integration of their insights.
Social scientists in particular will need to turn more attention from
testing existing theories to understanding the choices oering the
greatest potential FFC reductions for particular subgroups of house-
holds and organizations, based on their particular psychological,
social, cultural and technical characteristics and environments.
Realizing the ambitious Paris commitments will also require
change at larger social and longer temporal scales (see Table 1).
Although the knowledge base here is limited, some general guidance
is available5,7,41,70,79. On longer timescales, the greatest opportunities
are likely to lie in technological innovations, social movements, and
infrastructural and cultural changes that drive actions on shorter
timescales and aect multiple social scales. To realize long-term
global goals, it will be crucial to engage the full range of the social
and economic sciences along with natural sciences, engineering and
planning, and to integrate insights about households and organiza-
tions with insights about the social, cultural, political and economic
processes that shape human choices and behaviour at all scales.
Promising work, primarily in Europe, on ‘social practices’80 has
been studying how the habits and choices of individuals and groups
are strongly shaped by cultural beliefs and large-scale social actors
that help to create the needs that are now met by FFC. Key insights
from this work concern the nuanced interplay of actors across time
and scales of social organization and indicate that achieving change
in large-scale systems of production and consumption can ben-
et from lessons drawn from changes in the past. Applications of
insights from recent European ‘socio-technical transitions’81 stud-
ies may help shape future transitions to much lower FFC levels.
Also, macro-scale sociological and anthropological work on energy
use and diverse consumer lifestyles82 and workstyles70, the inu-
ences of cultural and demographic changes on FFC over time83, the
social and equity impacts of energy policies84, and experience with
interventions for energy eciency through market transformation
involving supply chains within the United States85 can all be applied
to accelerating longer-term social and technological changes to
reduce FFC. We have not examined the broad array of macro-scale
theory and research in detail because of the shorter-term focus of
this paper. Going forward, it will be important to draw widely on
relevant work across scales and social science disciplines, as well as
fostering conversations between researchers and policymakers, to
navigate the tension between the desire for general solutions and the
specics of social context86.
Careful and rigorous evaluation of interventions is important for
understanding, quantifying and achieving their full potential87, and
will enhance fundamental understanding24 and improve allocation
of resources, but action need not be postponed. Strategies, such as
community-based approaches, exist for identifying realistic inter-
ventions for reducing FFC even in the absence of precise evidence
from evaluations88. Governments, communities and organizations
must be willing to innovate further and use experimental design to
nd out what does and does not work.
We note that most research so far has been conducted in industri-
alized countries. Dierent opportunities and barriers may dominate
in developing countries, where research is needed to understand
opportunities to advance well-being without following the fossil-
fuel-intensive development paths worn by current high-income
countries. Finding alternative development paths will require the
integration of technological, economic, social and cultural sciences.
Received 14 September 2015; accepted 15 March 2016;
published 6 May 2016
References
1. Hirst, E. & Brown, M. Closing the eciency gap: barriers to the ecient use of
energy. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 3, 267–281 (1990).
2. Brown, M.A. & Wang, Y. Green Savings: How Policies and Markets Drive Energy
Eciency (Praeger, 2015).
3. National Research Council Energy Use: e Human Dimension (eds Stern, P.C.
& Aronson, E.) (Freeman, 1984).
4. Stern, P.C. Individual and household interactions with energy systems:
towardintegrated understanding. Energy Res. Social Sci. 1, 41–48 (2014).
5. Keohane, R.O. & Victor, D. G. Cooperation and discord in global climate
policy. Nature Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2937 (2016).
6. McKenzie-Mohr, D. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to
Community-Based Social Marketing (New Society, 2013).
7. Vandenbergh, M.P. & Gilligan, J.M. Beyond gridlock. Columb. J.Environ. Law
40, 217–359 (2015).
REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE ENERGY DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.43

NATURE ENERGY | VOL 1 | MAY 2016 | www.nature.com/natureenergy 5
8. Janda, K.B. & Parag, Y. A middle-out approach for improving energy
performance in buildings. Building Res. Inform. 41, 39–50 (2013).
9. Parag, Y. & Janda, K.B. More than ller: middle actors and socio-technical
change in the energy system from the ‘middle-out’. Energy Res. Social Sci.
3,102–112 (2014).
10. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G. & van der Wer, E. Understanding the human
dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Front. Psychol. 6, 805 (2015).
11. Ruepert, A.M., Steg, L. & Keizer, K. in e Psychology of Green Organizations
(eds Robertson, J.L. & Barling, J.) 33–57 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).
12. Bertoldi, P., Hirl, B. & Labanca, N. Energy Eciency Status Report Luxemburg
(Publication Oce of the European Union, 2012).
13. Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C. & Vandenbergh, M.P.
Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon
emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).
14. Vandenbergh, M.P., Stern, P.C., Gardner, G.T., Dietz, T. & Gilligan, J.M.
Implementing the behavioral wedge: designing and adopting eective carbon
emissions reduction programs. Environ. Law Reporter 40, 10547–10552 (2010).
15. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
(eds Edenhofer, O. etal.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
16. Attari, S.Z., DeKay, M.L., Davidson, C.I. & De Bruin, W.B. Public
perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
107, 16054–16059 (2010).
17. Nolan, J.M., Schultz, P.W., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. & Griskevicius,V.
Normative social inuence is underdetected. Pers. Social Psychol. Bull.
34, 913–923 (2008).
18. Dietz, T. in Oxford Handbook of Values (eds Brosch, T. & Sander, D.) 329–349
(Oxford Univ. Press, in the press).
19. Steg, L. & De Groot, J.I.M. in e Oxford Handbook of Environmental and
Conservation Psychology (ed. Clayton, S.D.) 81–92 (Oxford Univ. Press,2012).
20. Asensio, O.I. & Delmas, M.A. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E510–E515 (2015).
21. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T.D., Guagnano, G.A. & Kalof, L.
Avalue-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of
environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81 (1999).
22. van der Wer, E., Steg, L. & Keizer, K. It is a moral issue: the relationship
between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and
pro-environmental behaviour. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1258–1265 (2013).
23. Tauk, D., Bolderdijk, J.W. & Steg, L. Acting green elicits a literal warm glow.
Nature Clim. Change 5, 37–40 (2015).
24. Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. Social inuence approaches to encourage resource
conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1773–1785 (2013).
25. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. & Rothengatter, T. A review of intervention
studies aimed at household energy conservation. J.Environ. Psychol.
25, 273–291 (2005).
26. Darby, S. e Eectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption. Review for
the Department of Energy, Food, and Rural Aairs (DEFRA) (Environmental
Change Institute, 2006).
27. Vine, E. & Jones, C.M. A Review of Energy Reduction Competitions. What Have
We Learned? (California Public Utilities Commission, 2015).
28. Kastner, I. & Stern, P.C. Examining the decision-making processes
behind household energy investments: a review. Energy Res. Social Sci.
10, 72–89 (2015).
29. Bolderdijk, J.W. & Steg, L. in Handbook of Research on Sustainable
Consumption (eds ogersen, J. & Reisch, L.) 328–342 (Edward Elgar, 2015).
30. Stern, P.C. et al. e eectiveness of incentives for residential energy
conservation. Evaluat. Rev. 10, 147–176 (1986).
31. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative
review and research agenda. J.Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317 (2009).
32. Sovacool, B.K. A qualitative factor analysis of renewable energy and
Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) in the Asia-Pacic. Energy Policy
59, 393–403 (2013).
33. Bouzarovski, S. & Petrova, S. A global perspective on domestic energy
deprivation: overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary.
Energy Res. Social Sci. 10, 31–40 (2015).
34. Lutzenhiser, L. & Hackett, B. Social stratication and environmental
degradation: understanding household CO2 production. Social Probl.
40, 50–73 (1993).
35. Gillingham, K., Rapson, D. & Wagner, G. e rebound eect and energy
eciency policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10, 66–88 (2016).
36. Kok, R., Benders, R.M.J. & Moll, H.C. Measuring the environmental load of
household consumption using some methods based on input–output energy
analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy
34,2744–2761 (2006).
37. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. & Rothengatter, T. e eect of tailored
information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use,
energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. J.Environ. Psychol.
27,265–276 (2007).
38. Cohen, M.A. & Vandenbergh, M.P. e potential role of carbon labeling in a
green economy. Energy Econ. 34, S53–S63 (2012).
39. Shewmake, S., Cohen, M.A., Stern, P.C. & Vandenbergh, M.P. in Handbook on
Research in Sustainable Consumption (eds Reisch, L. & ogersen, J.) 285–299
(Edward Elgar, 2015).
40. Steen-Olsen, K. & Hertwich, E.G. Handbook on Research in Sustainable
Consumption (eds Reisch, L. & ogersen, J.) 131–144 (Edward Elgar, 2015).
41. Moezzi, M. & Janda, K.B. From ‘if only’ to ‘social potential’ in schemes to
reduce building energy use. Energy Res. Social Sci. 1, 30–40 (2014).
42. Taylor, M. & Janda, K.B. New directions for energy and behaviour: whither
organizational research? ECEEE Summer Study 2243–2253 (European Council
for an Energy-Ecient Economy, 2015).
43. Deline, M.B. Energizing organizational research: advancing the energy eld
with group concepts and theories. Energy Res. Social Sci. 8, 207–221 (2015).
44. Andrews, R.N.L. & Johnson, E. Energy use, behavioral change, and business
organizations: reviewing recent ndings and proposing a future research
agenda. Energy Res. Social Sci. 11, 195–208 (2016).
45. International Energy Outlook (EIA, 2013).
46. Lovins, A.B. & Rocky Mountain Institute Reinventing Fire: Bold Business
Solutions for the New Energy Era (Chelsea Green, 2011).
47. Cagno, E., Worrell, E., Trianni, A. & Pugliese, G. A novel approach for barriers
to industrial energy eciency. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 290–308 (2013).
48. Strachan, M.E., Janda, K.B. & McKeown, B. Change from within? Carbon
management in commercial real estate. ECEEE Summer Study 101–111
(European Council for an Energy-Ecient Economy, 2015).
49. Brown, M.A. & Kim, G. in Handbook of Manufacturing Industries in
the World Economy (eds Bryson, J.R., Clark, J. & Vanchan, V.) 121–146
(EdwardElgar,2015).
50. CSE/ECI What are the Factors Inuencing Energy Behaviours and
Decision-making in the Non-domestic Sector? A Rapid Evidence Assessment
(UKDepartment of Energy and Climate Change, 2012).
51. Brown, M.A., Chandler, J., Lapsa, M.V. & Sovacool, B.K. Carbon Lock-
in: Barriers to Deploying Climate Change Mitigation Technologies Report
No. ORNL/TM-2007/124 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2007; revised
January2008).
52. Reinaud, J. & Goldberg, A. e Boardroom Perspective: How Does Energy
Eciency Policy Inuence Decision Making in Industry? (IEA, 2011).
53. Cooremans, C. Make it strategic! Financial investment logic is not enough.
Energy Ec. 4, 473–492 (2011).
54. Lunt, P.A.V., Ball, P.D. & Kaladgew, S. Integrating energy eciency into
industrial strategy: a case study from the European aerospace sector.
Procedia CIRP 26, 241–246 (2015).
55. Powercut Britain: Are the Lights About to Go Out for UK Business? A Power
Eciency Sponsored Major Energy Users’ Council Report (Major Energy
Users’ Council and Power Eciency, 2013).
56. Janda, K.B., Bottrill, C. & Layberry, R. Learning from the ‘data poor’: energy
management in understudied organizations. J.Property Investm. Finance
32,424–442 (2014).
57. Payne, C. Utility bill comprehension in the commercial and industrial sector:
results of eld research. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Eciency in Buildings
8.271–8.280 (American Council for an Energy Ecient Economy, 2000).
58. Prakash, A. & Potoski, M. e Voluntary Environmentalists: Green Clubs,
ISO 14001, and Voluntary Environmental Regulations (Cambridge Univ.
Press,2006).
59. EERE ISO 50001 Energy Management Standard http://energy.gov/eere/amo/iso-
50001-energy-management-standard (accessed 18 August 2015).
60. Matiso, D.C., Noonan, D.S. & O’Brien, J.J. Convergence in environmental
reporting: assessing the Carbon Disclosure Project. Business Strategy Environ.
22, 285–305 (2013).
61. Prindle, W.R. et al. Quantifying the Eects of Market Failures in the End-use of
Energy. ACEEE Report Number E071 (IEA, 2007).
62. Cox, M., Brown, M. & Xiaojing, S. Energy benchmarking of commercial
buildings: a low-cost pathway toward urban sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett.
8,035018 (2013).
63. NMR Group & Optimal Energy. Statewide Benchmarking Process Evaluation
(California Public Utilities Commission, 2012).
64. Ciochetti, B. & McGowan, M. Energy eciency improvements: do they pay?
J.Sust. Real Estate 2, 305–333 (2010).
65. Roussac, A.C. & Bright, S. Improving environmental performance
through innovative commercial leasing: an Australian case study.
Int. J.Law Built Environ. 4, 6–22 (2012).
66. Janda, K.B., Bright, S., Patrick, J., Wilkinson, S. & Dixon, T. e evolution of
green leases: towards inter-organizational environmental governance. Building
Res. Inform. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1142811 (2016).
67. Moezzi, M., Hammer, C., Goins, J. & Meier, A. Behavioral Strategies to Reduce
the Gap between Potential and Actual Savings in Commercial Buildings Contract
Number 09–327 (Air Resources Board, 2014).
REVIEW ARTICLE
NATURE ENERGY DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.43

6 NATURE ENERGY | VOL 1 | MAY 2016 | www.nature.com/natureenergy
68. Bull, R., Lemon, M., Everitt, D. & Stuart, G. Moving beyond feedback: energy
behaviour and local engagement in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Social Sci.
8, 32–40 (2015).
69. Bedwell, B. et al. Apportioning energy consumption in the workplace: a
review of issues in using metering data to motivate sta to save energy.
Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 26, 1196–1211 (2014).
70. Janda, K.B. Building communities and social potential: between and beyond
organisations and individuals in commercial properties. Energy Policy
67, 48–55 (2014).
71. Axon, C.J., Bright, S., Dixon, T., Janda, K.B. & Kolokotroni, M. Building
communities: reducing energy use in tenanted commercial property.
BuildingRes. Inform. 40, 461–472 (2012).
72. Blumstein, C. & Taylor, M. Rethinking the energy-eciency gap: producers,
intermediaries, and innovation. (Energy Institute at Haas, 2013);
http://go.nature.com/lrqySU
73. Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance (Simon and Schuster, 2008).
74. Lovins, A.B. Energy-Ecient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities.
Strategic Issues Paper (E Source, 1992).
75. Guy, S. & Shove, E. A Sociology of Energy, Buildings, and the Environment
(Routledge, 2000).
76. Lutzenhiser, L., Biggart, N.W., Kunkle, R., Beamish, T. & Burr, T. Market
Structure and Energy Eciency: e Case of New Commercial Buildings
(California Institute for Energy Eciency, 2001).
77. Biggart, N.W. & Lutzenhiser, L. Economic sociology and the social problem of
energy ineciency. Am. Behav. Sci. 50, 1070–1087 (2007).
78. de Almeida, E.L.F. Energy eciency and the limits of market forces:
the example of the electric motor market in France. Energy Policy
26, 643–653 (1998).
79. Stern, P.C. Design principles for global commons: natural resources and
emerging technologies. Int. J.Commons 5, 213–232 (2011).
80. Shove, E., Pantzar, M. & Watson, M. e Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday
Life and How It Changes (Sage, 2012).
81. Geels, F.W. Processes and patterns in transitions and system
innovations: Rening the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective.
Technol. Forecast. Social Change 72, 681–696 (2005).
82. Eyre, N., Anable, J., Brand, C., Layberry, R. & Strachan, N. in Energy 2050.
Making the Transition to a Secure Low Carbon Energy System (eds Skea, J.,
Ekins, P. & Winskel, M.) 258–293 (Earthscan, 2011).
83. Grubler, A. et al. in Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future
(edsJohansson, T.B. et al.) 99–150 (IIASA, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
84. Boardman, B. Fixing Fuel Poverty: Challenges and Solutions (Earthscan, 2009).
85. Blumstein, C., Goldstone, S. & Lutzenhiser, L. A theory-based approach to
market transformation. Energy Policy 28, 137–144 (2000).
86. Janda, K.B., Wilson, C., Bartiaux, F. & Moezzi, M. in Global Energy: Issues,
Potentials and Policy Implications (eds Ekins, P., Bradshaw, M. & Watson, J.)
163–188 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).
87. Vine, E., Sullivan, M., Lutzenhiser, L., Blumstein, C. & Miller, B.
Experimentation and the evaluation of energy eciency programs. EnergyEc.
7, 627–640 (2014).
88. Wong-Parodi, G., Krisnamurti, T., Davis, A., Schwartz, D. & Fischho, B.
Adecision science approach for integrating social science in climate and energy
solutions Nature Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2917 (2016).
89. Nocera, J. Green logo, but BP is old oil. New York Times (12 August 2006).
90. Cool programs at Interface oset emissions. Environmental Building News
(1October 2003); http://go.nature.com/PV7UTT
91. Shinn, C. H. ‘Super Cool Biz’ springs sales boost. e Wall Street Journal
(16August 2011); http://go.nature.com/p1JDB4
Acknowledgements
e views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not of the US National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, nor of the UK Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council. Portions of this work have been supported by UK
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant EP/L024557/1.
Additional information
Reprints and permissions information is available online at www.nature.com/reprints.
Correspondence should be addressed to P.C.S.
Competing interests
e authors declare no competing nancial interests.
REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE ENERGY DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.43