Nudging consumers toward sustainable

consumption

Kristiina AaltoEva Heiskanen

National Consumer Research Centre

Agenda

Framework: Nudge as an approach to shape sustainable consumption

Data and methods: EUPOPP project and cases Sustainable Public Catering and Energy and Environmental Expert (not originally Nudge)

Findings and discussionPotential and problems of Nudge?

Framework

Consumption and the demand-side are important for reaching a sustainable economy

potential for factor-4 improvements simply by changing demand/usage practices

Consumption and demand-side are difficult to influence

the sovereign consumerthe unmanageable consumerroutine and unreflective consumption

Nudge (Thaler & Sunstein)

Many consumer decisions are made automatically and are subject to various biases

libertarian paternalism: need to nudge people into the right direction (their own rational preferences)

Consumer choices can be improved by better “choice architecture”

i.e., by reorganizing the way choices are presented to the consumer

Examples:fruit instead of cake in the ”impulse basket” near the cafeteria cashierdisplay average electricity consumption of other households, smiley for those who use less than average

Data: Cases from the EUPOPP project

EUPOPP: Policies to promote sustainable consumption (http://www.eupopp.net)Focus on analysing the impacts of SC policy strategies and instruments on consumption patterns40 short case studies and 10 detailed ones of different kinds of policy instruments in EuropeTwo Finnish cases:

Sustainable Public CateringEnergy and Environmental ExpertInterviews with stakeholders, consumer focus groups

Sustainable Public Catering

Biases: familiarity, routine eating patternsSolution: weekly vegetarian day in public canteens (as one option to meet Council of State DoP on sustainable public procurement) -> direct experience of veg food may nudge people to use it moreResults:

slow implementationHelsinki school lunches: weekly veg day as of 2011public debate but also appreciation ”makes life easier”

Energy & Environmental Expert

Biases: Invisibility of energy use, poor communication between energy users and ’real’ expertsSolution: Peer volunteers monitor energy use, analyse causes, give advice -> energy & environment socially visible in/near homeResults:

Variable, good savings (5%) in best housesSome cases of extremism/busybodyism among EEEs, e.g. ”saunas not in use this weekend”

Pros and cons of Nudge

Shaping choice arhitectures can be effectivebut requires significant resources to ’tailor’ design everyday contexts

Shaping choice architectures is fairly legitimate in some situations

e.g. tradition of steering due to public health benefitscommunications and public engagement still necessary & helpfulnudge can work once the goal is widely shared, means well justified and legitimate

Paternalism vs. busybodyism?who is the choice architect? manipulation vs. help in meeting own goals?

Conclusions

Nudge strategies are not totally newoften used in social marketing etc., but often not consciously or systematically

Works where choices are not made very consciously

routine and ’autopilot’ types of everyday practices not amenable to cognitive interventions

Nudge as an explicit policy instrument is between regulation and information

more intrusive than information provision so requires more legitimation

Choice architects need to be selected carefully when used in public policy

transparency, alignment of public vs. personal goals…

Thanks!All comments welcome!

eva.heiskanen@ncrc.fi