Table of contents
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58248/HS111
Overview
According to research from the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformation, reaching net zero by 2050 will require individual behaviour change, particularly when it comes to aviation, diet and energy use.[1]
The government’s 2023 Powering Up Britain: Net Zero Growth Plan referred to low carbon choices as ‘green choices’, and described them as public and businesses choosing green products, services, and goods.[2] The plan sets out six principles regarding policies to facilitate green choices. Both the Climate Change Committee and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee have recommended that government strategies should incorporate greater societal and behavioural change policies and guidance.[3][4]
Contributors to the horizon scan identified managing consumer behaviour and habits to help achieve net zero as a topic of importance for parliament over the next five years. Change in consumer behaviour could result in approximately 60% of required emission reductions to reach net zero.[5] Behaviour change will be needed from the wealthiest in society, who according to Oxfam typically lead higher-carbon lifestyles.[6]
Incorporating behavioural science principles into policy levers is a well-established method of encouraging desired behaviours. Common examples of policies aiming to influence behaviour include subsidies, regulation and information campaigns (see below).
However, others suggest deliberative public engagement approaches, such as the UK Climate Change Assembly,[7] may be needed to determine which pro-environmental policies are acceptable.[8] Repeated public engagement is seen as key to achieve a just transition as different groups will need different support to enable their green choices (PN 706).
Researchers debate the extent to which individuals should be responsible for making green choices as opposed to the regulatory and physical environment facilitating them, or whether markets, businesses and governments should be the main actors responsible for driving action. They highlight the need for different actions based on the context and the different ways individuals act as consumers, citizens, and within organisations and groups. Health, time, comfort and status can strongly influence individual decisions while finance and regulation are typically stronger motivations for organisations (PN 714).
Opportunities and Challenges
Research has shown that managing consumer behaviour and habits is complex. It suggests that many factors can influence behaviour such as personal values, public engagement, deliberative democracy and knowledge.[9][10] The Government’s Behavioural Insights Team recommends making behaviours Easy, Attractive, Social and Timely (EAST), to maximise the effectiveness of policies aiming to influence behaviour.[11] Applying these insights and tools could help policymakers to design effective and low-cost policy solutions which compliment more traditional policy levers to manage consumer behaviour.
Some of the factors thought to influence consumer behaviour, are listed below with examples:
- Defaults: Evidence suggests that customers can be three times more likely to drink plant-based milk when it is placed as the default option in café[12] Similar results have been found with meat alternatives.[13]
- Financial incentives: Germany’s deposit return scheme, which enables customers to claim back container costs if they return them to shops, has reportedly led to a 98% return rate for single-use drink containers.[14] Carbon pricing schemes, which charge emitters for the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions they are responsible for, have been found to be effective, reducing emissions by 5% to 21%.[15][16][17][18] Depending on how carbon pricing is implemented, it can have a direct or indirect impact on consumers, such as consumption taxes on fuels or flying.[19][20]
- Physical infrastructure: Investments into new walking and cycling routes across the UK between 2009 – 2013, under the Connect2 scheme, saw a reported 52% increase in the number cyclists and 38% increase in the number of pedestrians.[21]
- Messaging: Effective communication requires careful framing, clarity and positivity. For example, demonstrating community care and economic and technological development co-benefits may increase pro-environment behavioural intentions.[22][23] Research suggests trusted messengers who are relatable to consumers can influence consumer behaviour (PN 719).[24][25][26][27][28][29]
- Social and cultural norms: People are more likely to make sustainable purchases if they think others are doing the same.[30] For example, studies show that household energy usage decreased when people believed their neighbours were also consuming less power.[31][32][33][34] In addition, research suggests that the rise in people identifying as vegan, from 0.5 million people in 2016 to 3.5 million people in 2018, can in part be associated to the launch of Veganuary in 2014, demonstrating how quickly social norms can change.[35][36]
- Barriers to action: Pro-environmental values do not always translate into action. This issue, known as the intention-implementation gap,[37] is thought to arise due to financial, physical and social barriers to action. For example, research suggests there are benefits in community engagement in urban waterway conservation including collective responsibility for individual behaviours such as littering,[38] but difficulties arise in practical implementation due to real-world risks, costs or experiences.[39] Stakeholders suggest that this gap between intention and action is also affected by changing habitual behaviours, and people tend to focus on the immediate impacts of their actions instead of the future impacts.[40][41][42][43]
- Combining interventions: Some researchers state that behaviour ‘nudging’, a basic form of behaviour intervention that gently influences default choices without forcing change,[44] may not deliver the scale of behaviour change required.[45][46] However, some research suggests that ‘nudging’ behavioural interventions may be effective when used with financial incentives.[47][48][49]
Key Uncertainties/Unknowns
Contributors to the horizon scan noted that there is uncertainty surrounding the longevity of policy levers aiming to influence behaviour. Initiatives, such as information and nudging campaigns, are thought to be insufficient on their own.[50] [51] How multiple interventions interact with one another when used simultaneously as part of systems-wide approach also remains uncertain.[52]
The UK Government’s 2022/23 “It all adds up” energy savings campaign[53] was launched in response to demand for greater energy savings information amidst rising energy bills and a cost-of-living crisis. The campaign was successful in doubling the number of households who reduced their boiler flow temperature to exactly 60°C in 2022/23 compared to the previous winter.[54] However, campaigners stated “the most important lesson learned from the campaign was that for more complex actions to be adopted, greater explanation, guidance and reasons to believe need to be supplied.”[55]
Stakeholders suggest that more research is needed to determine the impact of behavioural spillover, where changes in one behaviour impacts another.[56][57][58]
Key questions for parliament
- How is the government monitoring the consistency and robustness of behavioural insights?
- How are insights from behavioural science and public engagement activities applied to public policymaking across departments?
- Have there been any recorded spillover or rebound effects from state-level behaviour change interventions?
- How can we account for spillover or rebound effects?
- How is success defined for public engagement on climate change?
- What metrics can be used to measure the impacts of public engagement on climate change?
Related documents
Enabling green choices for net zero, POSTnote 714
Disinformation: sources, spread and impact, POSTnote 719
Net zero and behaviour change, House of Lords Library Briefing
References
[1] Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformation. (2023). The implications of behavioural science for effective climate policy (CAST).
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powering-up-britain/powering-up-britain-net-zero-growth-plan
[3] https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2023-progress-report-to-parliament/
[4] House of Lords, Environment and Climate Change Committee. (2022). In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals (parliament.uk)
[5] Climate Change Committee. (2019). The UKs contribution to stopping global warming. p.185.
[6] Oxfam. (2021). Carbon emissions of richest 1% set to be 30 times the 1.5°C limit in 2030
[7] Jacquet, V. et al. (2023). The Impacts of Democratic Innovations. ECPR Press
[8] Willis, R., et al. (2022). Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. WIRES Climate Change Volume 13, Issue 2, e759
[9] House of Lords, Environment and Climate Change Committee. (2022). In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals (parliament.uk) (HL Paper 67). UK Parliament. Para 77 and 78.
[10] Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. (2021). Net zero public engagement and participation: A research note.
[11] Halpern, D. (2019). Inside the nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference. (Updated ed.). WH Allen.
[12] Major-Smith, K., Borne, G. J., Wallis, L., Major-Smith, D., & Cotton, D. (2023). Impact of a default nudge intervention on plant-based milk consumption in a UK university café. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3cpsr
[13] Meier, J., Andor, M. A., Doebbe, F. C., Haddaway, N. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2022). Do green defaults reduce meat consumption?. Food Policy, 110, 102298.
[14] Ruiz, I. B., & Cwienk, J. (2021) A look at Germany’s bottle deposit scheme. Deutsche Welle.
[15] Döbbeling-Hildebrandt, N., Miersch, K., Khanna, T. M., Bachelet, M., Bruns, S. B., Callaghan, M., & Minx, J. C. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing. Nature Communications, 15(1), 4147.
[16] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2024). About Carbon Pricing.
[17] Döbbeling-Hildebrandt, N., Miersch, K., Khanna, T. M., Bachelet, M., Bruns, S. B., Callaghan, M., & Minx, J. C. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing. Nature Communications, 15(1), 4147.
[18] Best, R., Burke, P. J., & Jotzo, F. (2020). Carbon Pricing Efficacy: Cross-Country Evidence | Environmental and Resource Economics (springer.com). Environmental and Resource Economics, 77(1), 69-94.
[19] Ewald, J. et al. (2022). Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters. Resource and Energy Economics, Volume 70, 101331
[20] Fouquet, R, and O’Garra, T. (2022). In pursuit of progressive and effective climate policies: Comparing an air travel carbon tax and a frequent flyer levy. Energy Policy, Volume 171, 113278
[21] Le Gouais, A., Panter, J.R., Cope, A., Powell, J.E., Bird, E.L., Woodcock, J., Ogilvie, D., Foley, L. and iConnect Consortium, 2021. A natural experimental study of new walking and cycling infrastructure across the United Kingdom: The Connect2 programme. Journal of Transport & Health, 20, 100968.
[22] Vadovics, E. et al. (2024). Preferences, enablers, and barriers for 1.5°C lifestyle options: Findings from Citizen Thinking Labs in five European Union countries. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, Volume 20, Issue 1
[23] Mendy, L. et al. (2024). Counteracting climate denial: A systematic review. Public Understanding of Science, Volume 33, Issue 4.
[24] Minas, A. M., & Tipping, C. (2024). “But we’re a meat-eating family”: Engaging environmentally concerned but politically distrustful groups on reducing meat and dairy. CAST Briefing 27
[25] Climate Outreach. (2024). Reviewing Britain’s seven segments.
[26] Kronrod, A., Tchetchik, A., Grinstein, A., Turgeman, L., & Blass, V. (2023). Promoting new pro-environmental behaviours: The effect of combining encouraging and discouraging messages. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86, 101945.
[27] Climate Outreach. (2024). Beyond ‘trusted messengers’: New insights on trust & influence in climate communications.
[28] House of Lords, Environment and Climate Change Committee. (2022). In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals (parliament.uk) (HL Paper 67). UK Parliament. Paras 102 and 285.
[29][29] Stea, S., & Pickering, G. J. (2019). Optimizing messaging to reduce red meat consumption. Environmental Communication, 13(5), 633-648.
[30] Vringer, K., Heijden, E.V., Soest, D.V., Vollebergh, H., & Dietz, F.J. (2017). Sustainable consumption dilemmas. Sustainability, 9, 942.
[31] Jachimowicz, J. M., Hauser, O. P., O’Brien, J. D., Sherman, E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2018). The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 757-764. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0434-0
[32] Bonan, J., Cattaneo, C., d’Adda, G., & Tavoni, M. (2020). Combining information on others’ energy usage and their approval of energy conservation promotes energy saving behaviour. Nature Energy, 5(11), 832-833. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00727-z
[33] United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Consuming differently, consuming sustainably: behavioural insights for policymaking.
[34] Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434.
[35] Corner, A. (2020). System change vs behaviour change is a false choice – Covid-19 shows how they’re connected
[36] Rapid Transition Alliance. (2018). Climate and rapid behaviour change: What do we know do far?.
[37] Perera, E. D., Moglia, M., Glackin, S., & Woodcock, I. (2022). The intention-implementation gap for community involvement in urban waterways governance: a scoping review. Local Environment, 28(4), 495–517.
[38] Hatty, M. et al. (2024). Community involvement in waterway management: Identifying and prioritising community behaviours to protect and enhance Melbourne’s waterways. Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 161, 103877
[39] Perera, E. et al. (2023). Beyond “Community-Washing”: Effective and Sustained Community Collaboration in Urban Waterways Management. Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4619
[40] House of Lords, Environment and Climate Change Committee. (2022). In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals (parliament.uk) (HL Paper 67). UK Parliament. Para 69.
[41] Sharma, A. P. (2021), Consumers’ purchase behaviour and green marketing: A synthesis, review and agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 15(1), 1217-1238.
[42] ElHaffar, G., Durif, F., & Dubé, L. (2020). Towards closing the attitude-intention-behaviour gap in green consumption: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. Journal of cleaner production, 275, 122556.
[43] United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Consuming differently, consuming sustainably: behavioural insights for policymaking.
[44] Lehner, M., Mont, O., & Heiskanen, E. (2016). Nudging – A promising tool for sustainable consumption behaviour? Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 166–177.
[45] Nisa, C. et al. (2019). Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nature Communications volume 10, Article number: 4545
[46] Mitev, K. et al. (2023). The Implications of Behavioural Science for Effective Climate Policy Output 1: Literature Review and Background Report. The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), commissioned by the Climate Change Committee (CCC)
[47] Rapid Transition Alliance. (2018). Climate and rapid behaviour change: What do we know do far?.
[48] Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. (2021). Net zero public engagement and participation: A research note.
[49] The Behavioural Insights Team. (2023). How to build a net zero society. p.31
[50] House of Lords, Environment and Climate Change Committee. (2022). In our hands: Behaviour change for climate and environmental goals (parliament.uk) (HL Paper 67). UK Parliament. Para 81.
[51] Major-Smith, K., Borne, G. J., Wallis, L., Major-Smith, D., & Cotton, D. (2023). Impact of a default nudge intervention on plant-based milk consumption in a UK university café. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3cpsr
[52] Reinders, M. J., Bouwman, E. P., & Onwezen, M. C. (2024). Reducing meat consumption in restaurants: Exploring the default mechanism in a surprise menu, combined with effort and price incentives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 98, 102402.
[53] Cost of Living Support. (2024, May 24). How to save energy and lower your bills – Help for Households. Help for Households
[54] Rossi, V. A., & Bennett, G. J. (2024). The impact of the UK Government’s “Help for Households” advice to reduce boiler flow temperatures – ResearchGate.
[55] CampaignXchange. (2023). CampaignXchange Deliverable 1: Library of Campaigns – United Kingdom: It all adds up
[56] Carrico, A. R. (2021). Climate change, behaviour, and the possibility of spillover effects: Recent advances and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioural Sciences, 42, 76-82.
[57] Puntiroli, M., Moussaoui, L. S., & Bezençon, V. (2022). Are consumers consistent in their sustainable behaviours? A longitudinal study on consistency and spillover. Journal of Business Research, 144, 322-335.
[58] Li, J., Li, J., Guo, K., Ji, Q., & Zhang, D. (2024). Policy spillovers from climate actions to energy poverty: international evidence. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-12.
Image credit: Naiyana via Adobe Stock
