IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v108y2017icp184-193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using behavioral insights to make firms more energy efficient: A field experiment on the effects of improved communication

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenkranz, Stephanie
  • Vringer, Kees
  • Dirkmaat, Thomas
  • van den Broek, Eva
  • Abeelen, Christiaan
  • Travaille, Anjo

Abstract

The Dutch government provides annual, detailed, energy-efficiency feedback to individual companies that have signed a voluntary agreement to increase their energy efficiency. However, only about 14% of all companies actually download their dedicated report containing this feedback. To increase the assumed positive effect of the feedback, the Dutch government aims to increase this download rate. Drawing upon insights from behavioral economics, the present study investigates the effects of alternative emails, inviting to download the feedback report, on 505 companies´ download behavior, in a randomized controlled field experiment with two treatment groups and one control group. The download rates for our treatment groups are more than three times higher compared to the control group. Survey results indicate that the follow up behavior does not differ between the respondents who were nudged and those who were not. Moreover, we found indications that downloading the report induces the energy coordinators to consider energy-saving measures. More generally we have shown that policy targeting energy saving of firms can benefit from using behavioral insights. Relatively small changes in the implementation of specific interventions can have large influences on the effectiveness of the policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Vringer, Kees & Dirkmaat, Thomas & van den Broek, Eva & Abeelen, Christiaan & Travaille, Anjo, 2017. "Using behavioral insights to make firms more energy efficient: A field experiment on the effects of improved communication," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 184-193.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:108:y:2017:i:c:p:184-193
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517303476
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.056?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Gleerup & Anders Larsen & Soren Leth-Petersen & Mikael Togeby, 2010. "The Effect of Feedback by Text Message (SMS) and Email on Household Electricity Consumption: Experimental Evidence," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 113-132.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Abeelen, Christiaan & Harmsen, Robert & Worrell, Ernst, 2013. "Implementation of energy efficiency projects by Dutch industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 408-418.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    5. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    6. Laura C. Haynes & Donald P. Green & Rory Gallagher & Peter John & David J. Torgerson, 2013. "Collection of Delinquent Fines: An Adaptive Randomized Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of Alternative Text Messages," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 718-730, September.
    7. Biesiot, Wouter & Noorman, Klaas Jan, 1999. "Energy requirements of household consumption: a case study of The Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 367-383, March.
    8. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    9. Sebastien Houde, Annika Todd, Anant Sudarshan, June A. Flora , and K. Carrie Armel, 2013. "Real-time Feedback and Electricity Consumption: A Field Experiment Assessing the Potential for Savings and Persistence," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Loureiro, Maria & Labandeira, Xavier, 2019. "Exploring Energy Use in Retail Stores: A Field Experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    2. Schlindwein, L.F. & Montalvo, C., 2023. "Energy citizenship: Accounting for the heterogeneity of human behaviours within energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Spandagos, Constantine & Yarime, Masaru & Baark, Erik & Ng, Tze Ling, 2020. "“Triple Target” policy framework to influence household energy behavior: Satisfy, strengthen, include," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Asmare, Fissha & Jaraitė, Jūratė & Kažukauskas, Andrius, 2021. "The effect of descriptive information provision on electricity consumption: Experimental evidence from Lithuania," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
    3. Georg Liebig & Jens Rommel, 2014. "Active and Forced Choice for Overcoming Status Quo Bias: A Field Experiment on the Adoption of “No junk mail” Stickers in Berlin, Germany," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 423-435, September.
    4. Loureiro, Maria & Labandeira, Xavier, 2019. "Exploring Energy Use in Retail Stores: A Field Experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    5. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Dolan, Paul & Metcalfe, Robert, 2013. "Neighbors, knowledge, and nuggets: two natural field experiments on the role of incentives on energy conservation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51563, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Yeomans, Mike & Herberich, David, 2014. "An experimental test of the effect of negative social norms on energy-efficient investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 187-197.
    8. Iwafune, Yumiko & Mori, Yuko & Kawai, Toshiaki & Yagita, Yoshie, 2017. "Energy-saving effect of automatic home energy report utilizing home energy management system data in Japan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 382-392.
    9. Egebark, Johan & Ekström, Mathias, 2016. "Can indifference make the world greener?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-13.
    10. Ramos, A. & Gago, A. & Labandeira, X. & Linares, P., 2015. "The role of information for energy efficiency in the residential sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 17-29.
    11. Peters, Jörg & Langbein, Jörg & Roberts, Gareth, 2016. "Policy evaluation, randomized controlled trials, and external validity—A systematic review," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 51-54.
    12. Schleich, Joachim & Klobasa, Marian & Gölz, Sebastian & Brunner, Marc, 2013. "Effects of feedback on residential electricity demand—Findings from a field trial in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1097-1106.
    13. Chen, Victor L. & Delmas, Magali A. & Locke, Stephen L. & Singh, Amarjeet, 2017. "Information strategies for energy conservation: A field experiment in India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 215-227.
    14. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Klobasa, Marian, 2017. "Persistence of the effects of providing feedback alongside smart metering devices on household electricity demand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 225-233.
    15. John List & Michael Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00447, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Jessoe, Katrina & Rapson, David & Smith, Jeremy B., 2014. "Towards understanding the role of price in residential electricity choices: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 191-208.
    17. Buckley, Penelope, 2020. "Prices, information and nudges for residential electricity conservation: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    18. Benjamin Ho & John Taber & Gregory Poe & Antonio Bento, 2016. "The Effects of Moral Licensing and Moral Cleansing in Contingent Valuation and Laboratory Experiments on the Demand to Reduce Externalities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(2), pages 317-340, June.
    19. Ruokamo, Enni & Meriläinen, Teemu & Karhinen, Santtu & Räihä, Jouni & Suur-Uski, Päivi & Timonen, Leila & Svento, Rauli, 2022. "The effect of information nudges on energy saving: Observations from a randomized field experiment in Finland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    20. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2015. "What do we learn from public good games about voluntary climate action? Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Working Papers 0595, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:108:y:2017:i:c:p:184-193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.