SCALING UP ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS...reasons why initiatives fail to take off inside an organization. This white paper outlines five areas where disconnects often exist, along

SIX REASONS WHY YOUR ENERGY EFFICIENCY EFFORTS MAY BE STALLEDPAGE 2

This white paper provides keys insights from multiple research studies on the topic of energy efficiency engagement and deployment in the

commercial, government, utility and university sectors. It also provides best practices on how energy efficiency and sustainability initiatives are

being implemented successfully by stakeholders. These individuals include company executives, building owners, facility/energy managers,

and energy efficiency program managers within utility and government. The findings and recommendations presented are based on the work

of Brand Cool and Indicia Consulting. Brand Cool is a marketing agency specializing in energy efficiency engagement. Clients include Pacific Gas &

Electric, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Efficiency Vermont, Northwest Energy

Efficiency Alliance, National Fenestration Ratings Council, and South Jersey Gas. Indicia Consulting is one of the few organizations doing large-

scale ethnographic research in the fields of energy efficiency and sustainability. Clients include State of California, Bosch N.A., World Resources

Institute, United States Department of Energy, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.

It’s been well documented that better energy efficiency can

have a significant impact on business value. More effective

management of building equipment and processes. Reduced

carbon footprint. Energy savings. Enhanced resiliency. The list

of benefits goes on. Despite these advantages, the proportion of

organizations investing in more efficient equipment and systems,

or more comprehensive energy efficiency programs, largely

remains static.

The reasons cited for this are familiar: Lack of funds to invest,

more urgent capital improvement priorities, and unproven

emerging technologies. What’s typically not on this list is the

single most important factor in the adoption of energy efficiency:

People.

Understanding how individuals and communities interact with an

organization’s energy practices is essential to identifying what

will work best in each environment and how the company will

achieve its goals. Insight on human behavior also is necessary

for management to align on the decisions needed to move

energy efficiency forward in their organization.

Through our research across multiple sectors (commercial,

industrial, government and university), we’ve uncovered several

reasons why initiatives fail to take off inside an organization.

This white paper outlines five areas where disconnects often

exist, along with shifts organizations can make to raise their

energy and business performance to new levels.

SCALING UP ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS


You can design a building to the highest energy efficiency codes

and specifications, but once it’s occupied, what happens to

affect the baseline?

Recent studies led by Dr. Jianli Pan, assistant professor of

computer science at the University of Missouri-St. Louis,

help to answer this question by showing that energy-efficient

technology and smart buildings don’t necessarily reduce energy

consumption. The main barrier to efficiency that’s cited: human

habits—the subconscious source of our long-term behaviors.1

We don’t have to read a research paper to understand this.

Within our organizations, we can see missed opportunities all

around us. Offices with motion sensor lighting remain lit well

after occupants have left the building. Employees run space

heaters in cubicles in the summer as advanced HVAC systems

blow cool air. Facility managers delay retro-commissioning

to comply with short-term, cost-cutting mandates, leaving the

recalibration and repair of equipment that’s wasting energy

untouched.

Because human habits and behavior change are largely

misunderstood, they are rarely included in energy efficiency

and sustainability planning outside of system operator training.

The most common reason given is that it’s “too labor intensive

and costly.” In probing deeper, though, we’ve found that the real

reason for avoiding the human component is the fear, anxiety

and stress that comes with asking people to do something

differently. One research participant at a major university

described this problem vividly: “Behavior change tends to freak

management out. So, we automate as much as we can to avoid

the topic.”

In sweeping behavior change under the rug, organizations limit

their ability to look beyond technological solutions to solve

energy challenges. They also limit their potential return on

investment (ROI) on technology purchases. This can have a

negative ripple effect by stalling upcoming projects, given most

organizations choose to invest further in energy efficiency if their

initial efforts yielded strong ROI.

By exploring how behavior-based strategies can influence both

operator and occupant habits during the planning process,

management can gain a more holistic view on the many options

that are available. And, unlike many technology measures,

behavioral strategies don’t require high upfront capital

investments or significant technical expertise, making them

more accessible to building owners and facility managers—

especially those without a lot of resources at their disposal.

A vivid example of how behavioral strategies can make a

difference is Japan’s “Super Cool Biz” campaign. To deal with

energy shortages throughout the country and cut back on the

need for air conditioning in the summer months, the national

government encouraged office workers to wear cooler outfits.

Many businesses embraced the change, putting into practice

behavioral tactics that fit with their organizational culture. The

Peninsula Tokyo Hotel, for example, gave employees new

uniforms (shedding their standard jackets, blouses and ties)

and set the building temperature to 82 degrees Fahrenheit.

Because of this behavioral measure, the hotel reported reduced

energy consumption by 11 percent.2 The initiative also became

a central proof point in the hotel’s commitment to environmental

responsibility, which is important to staff and guest experiences.

SHIFT# 1

1 An Internet of Things Framework for Smart Energy in Buildings: Designs, Prototypes and Experiments, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, Dr. Jianli Pan, Issue 6, December 2015

2 Save Energy for Japan “Super Cool Biz,” The Peninsula Tokyo Hotel, www.Toko.peninsula.com/en/discover/hotel-moments/201406_Save-Energy-for-Japan, June 2014

PUT BEHAVIOR CHANGE INTO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING


Explore the behaviors that are most relevant to your

organization that could have an impact. Traditionally,

energy efficiency programs that tackle behavior are cookie

cutter. Because each business or organization has its own

unique culture, behavioral strategies that reflect the industry,

the location, the personalities of staff, and the power plays that

affect decisions are more successful. Through work with the

Northeast Sustainability Energy Association, Indicia Consulting

developed a framework that can be used to develop behavioral

strategies that are unique to an environment:

• Talk with the people who will be affected or who

might have alternative ideas. Do a brown-bag focus

group or one-on-one interviews to ask, “How might we

achieve our goal(s)?” “What do you think should be

changed?” “What do you think are some of the biggest

barriers and opportunities?” The most common areas to

explore are lighting, heating and ventilation.

• Do a gut check. After collecting their input, synthesize

the information into one or two ideas. Then go and ask

people what they think. Do they perceive barriers or

challenges that might have been overlooked? This pre-

emptive on-the-ground research can help avoid costly

mistakes down the line.

• Develop a strategy. Once a potential behavior change

has been identified, develop a strategy to address it. To

do this, use a logic model to establish the relationships

that exist among the current state, the behavior

intervention, and the desired outcome. These things must

“hang together” to get the outcome you are looking for.

Take temperature complaints as an example. Rather

than setting the temperature to what the HVAC operator

believes is the optimum degree for energy savings, survey

building occupants first. This will help establish a baseline

for what a “comfortable temperature” is specific to the

location. It can also identify outliers—those individuals

who are most likely to complain after a change has been

instituted.

• Clarify the goal and connect associated behavior

change strategies. Finally, identify any other behaviors

that could or need to be promoted to help achieve the

goal. Using the same example, if the goal is to save

energy by setting the thermostat back while also reducing

occupant complaints about the temperature, what

behavior interventions are needed? If people can easily

change the temperature setting, the savings potential will

be voided. Yet, bolting a lock to the thermostat won’t stop

complaints. It could increase the number. Other options

could be to change the temperature throughout the day

to reflect occupant patterns, to change it only during

peak hours when energy demand and costs are higher,

or a combination of several behaviors. This could include

dealing with the specific needs of the outliers.

During the discovery process, the ACEEE Field Guide to Utility

Run Programs can be an excellent resource. This tool, which

details research on 40 different types of behavioral programs,

provides multiple examples of how behavior change strategies

can be deployed.

SHIFT# 1

PUT BEHAVIOR CHANGE INTO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING

PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICE:


SHIFT# 2 CHANGE THE DISCUSSION ON INVESTMENT AND MEASUREMENT

When behavior change investment conversations take place

during planning and decision-making processes, there’s

always an elephant in the room. People are uncomfortable and

unprepared to talk about how this energy efficiency component

can be measured to justify the resources and cost.

Part of this problem is that organizations use inappropriate

methods to evaluate ROI from their sustainability initiatives.

Instead of applying a model that reflects a system for behavior

change maintenance, organizations evaluate behavior change

initiatives the same way they do a new piece of equipment.

This creates incredible pressure to demonstrate a rapid return,

many times within payback cycles that are as little as 18 months

or less—a timeframe that is simply unrealistic for behaviors

to become habitual. It also impacts the ability to tackle

energy efficiency holistically—from the technology and human

perspective.

To find what helps people achieve scale and progress faster

within each environment, it’s important to address the temporal

and spatial discounting that occurs naturally in our response to

change. This will help create the relevancy and urgency needed

for people to act. By nature, we’re not as motivated by things

and perceive them to be less valuable if they’re further away in

time, even if they do have long-term benefits.


Find ways to make investing in energy efficiency more

appealing. More progressive organizations are getting around

the need to prove quick payback by establishing innovative

internal funding structures. For example, some institutions

provide departments with a specific amount of money each

year for energy efficiency efforts. Internal teams brainstorm and

decide what can be done and then implement the initiatives

they can afford. All savings that are realized are given back to

the department to reinvest, often allowing them to tackle larger

initiatives. This perpetuates relevancy and inspires people

to continually innovate how they do things. It makes them

look good, and it makes their department look good. These

organizations are consistent sustainability award winners,

leaving others in their industry wanting to know more about how

they’re raising the bar, year over year.

Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that make

sense for behavior change. One way to do this is simply

to tie behavior change efforts to energy usage data, then set

targets and measure at year one, year two and year three. This

will require greater coordination among staff and departments,

utilities, energy providers and customers, depending upon

the initiative. But it can be done. Obviously, measuring the

effectiveness of engagement campaigns and tactics can also be

an indicator (number of people who took an action, number of

leads converted, etc.). If you want to add a layer of complexity

beyond measuring usage and energy costs, establish a KPI for

non-energy benefits (NEBs) and explore ways to measure them.

Below are just a few for consideration:

• Higher building occupancy rates

• Increased sale price for properties

• Reduction in health issues for employees or tenants

• Better indoor air quality

• Improved employee satisfaction, productivity, teamwork, morale

• Reduction in waste or environmental damage


Energy efficiency initiatives should be viewed less as sets

of mandates and more as opportunities to comprehensively

influence an organization’s or community’s culture. Top-down or

traditional hierarchical approaches to creating energy efficiency

standards or goals almost always fail or stall efforts. This is

because people lack motivation and accountability if they can’t

make the leap from understanding the new standard to applying

it at a functional level. However, when people are included in the

process of translating newly adopted standards or goals, they

can help define what success looks like.

This creates horizontal accountability, where people can

negotiate what’s mutually most relevant, engage in joint

activities, feel responsible, and carry out and maintain the

desired behaviors in their experiences over time.3 Intrinsic

human motivators such as autonomy, control, efficacy, altruism

and affiliation are all activated when this type of accountability is

built into efficiency standards.

This approach is especially important to consider for education

and training. Quite often, we see commissioning agents operate

in a “top-down” approach. They put together training that

emphasizes instructions and authoritative sources, rather than

curriculum that focuses on creative problem solving and peer-to-

peer discussions. This creates an environment of “saying” rather

than “doing.” The commissioner then expects rapid adoption

and thorough compliance with their “system.” This traditional

approach results in a class of dependent subjects for whom

change comes as something that is unwelcome, imposed, and

superficial, without meaning to their everyday lives. And, by

establishing the commissioner as the sole authority and ultimate

go-between, he or she experiences more unexpected failures

and disruptions to the system they’ve set up.4


Don’t just teach. Show and tell. In our research with

organizations that are effectively deploying large-scale behavior

change, the concept of “show, tell and discover” pops up over

and over. At one large, prominent university, facility managers

at each campus building have incorporated learning through

teaching exercises to not only innovate the way everyone thinks

about energy efficiency, but spread the application of best

practices, including:

• Staff routinely accompanies vendors on facility walk-throughs to inspect equipment and systems to transfer knowledge and brainstorm what can be done to improve operations.

• Staff members share best practices at weekly meetings to highlight what they’re doing, the results they’ve had, and discuss with others how they can apply similar techniques and behaviors to their job.

• Facility crews meet with faculty and students to connect the topic of energy efficiency with how people are using the building, and to solicit their ideas and encourage participation. They then reinforce how efforts are making a difference through signage that shares the latest facts and

appreciation.

These simple practices improve outcomes and make energy

efficiency more visible across the entire organizational culture—

from helping people feel respected for their work and prideful in

what they do, to decreasing training expenses—all without the

need for less effective “carrot and stick” mechanisms like paid

incentives.

3 Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: The Career of a Concept, Etienne Wenger, 20104 Occupants as Urban Pests: What History Can Teach Us about Building Management, Dr. Susan Mazur-Stommen, January 2015

SHIFT# 3 GIVE POWER TO THE PEOPLE EARLY IN THE PROCESS


Social influence is when people’s emotions, opinions or

behaviors are affected by others.5 Shared values are the first link

in this causal chain of effect (Stern, 2000). It’s why successful

organizations establish a vision to guide a company’s values

and provide it with purpose.6 Energy efficiency and sustainable

practices can be a part of this success if they hold an authentic

and demonstrable place within an organization’s values.

To foster this connection and initiate participation, many

energy and environmental efforts have developed pledge

systems. These range from engaging individuals (e.g., ENERGY

STAR®: “Change the World,” Green Faith Pledge) and schools

(PowerSave Schools), to buildings and companies (Better

Buildings Challenge, America Business Act on Climate), to

federal and state carbon pledges. The beauty of these is that

they offer a prepackaged vision and value system that’s not only

aligned with built-in human motivators such as affiliation and

altruism, but is also proven to work.

Studies have shown that signing a public commitment is a

more powerful facilitator of long-term change than offering

incentives (Pardini and Katzev, 1983). First, it offers a platform

to publicly commit to a shared purpose, tapping into our innate

pro-social orientation and providing an onramp to connections

with others. As the theory of Personal Norm Activation suggests

(L. Berkowitz ed., 1977), making a commitment cements the

desired course of action as a personal norm—we see it as a

moral standard in ourselves. Because of this, we’re more likely

to hold ourselves accountable to doing the desired behaviors,

which in turn stimulates and reinforces the desired social

influence.


Provide social mechanisms to reinforce and recognize

people and organizations for their commitment. Institutions

and businesses that are making great progress in energy

efficiency and sustainable practices have embedded the

essence of the pledge in their culture, by:

• Launching partner programs to provide a supportive framework for social sharing and networking with a larger group, and reinforcing emotional benefits by recognizing leaders publicly at the industry, state and federal level for their commitment.

• Helping employees maintain a positive sense of identity and a strong connection to their work group by involving them in the piloting and adoption of more energy efficient options, such as switching from individual office space heaters to energy efficient floor mats, or from individual coffee makers on desks to a centralized coffee station.

• Demonstrating leadership’s commitment by establishing goals for energy efficiency, key performance indicators to measure progress, budgets for energy upgrades and behavior change, and roles and responsibilities as a part of the strategic planning process.

5 Qualities of a Leader,” Online Leadership Guide: Personal MBTI Type Analysis, qualities-of-a-leader.com, December 2011, retrieved April 2013

6 Purpose as a Compass, Big Think, John Coleman, 2015

SHIFT# 4

USE SOCIAL INFLUENCE TO SHAPE PARTICIPATION ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION


7 Trust in Government: 1958-2015, Pew Research Center, November 2015 8 Consumer Trust in Utilities Lowest Since 2009, Accenture, Smart Grid News, July 2013 9 Honesty/Ethics in Professions, Gallup, December, 2015

Regardless of the cultural setting, individuals are more likely to

follow the guidance given to them by people they trust and feel

connected to (Bandura, 1986). This is the problem with many

of the current delivery models we’re using to engage people in

energy efficiency. Public trust in government and big business

are at historically low levels.7 Utilities are digging their way back

from rock bottom levels in consumer confidence.8 This is all

compounded by the fact that contractors continue to be rated

among the lowest of professions for honesty and ethics.9

Energy program implementers need to recognize how this

impacts engagement in their initiatives. People might be

receptive to the message and to participating, but not act on it

because they don’t have a good feeling about the messenger.

This is particularly true with certain groups such as low-income,

senior and minority populations, where trust issues are often

more acute, and the need to relate to personal circumstances is

greater.

Creating alternate channels for delivery is one way to get

around this common obstacle. For example, entities such as

community-based organizations already influence pro-social

behavior, and provide supportive environments to foster shared

connections. They have an intimate knowledge of the local

vibe: they know what’s occurring in neighborhoods, they have

a pulse on the current attitudes toward topics, they know what

languages people speak and are prepared to engage people

from an authentic place. Equally important, they can provide the

hands-on assistance to help people narrow choices to avoid

falling into default behaviors like maintaining the status quo or

avoiding decision-making.


Make it easy for others to take your program to

the streets. The New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority (NYSERDA) recognized the importance

of leveraging trust when it launched partnerships with 18 CBOs

across New York State. Funded by the Green Jobs, Green New

York program, its goal was twofold: deliver energy management

programs to local, predominately underserved populations, and

create relationships with local contractors to stimulate on-the-job

training for the unemployed. To effectively prepare the CBOs for

promoting the energy efficiency programs available in their area,

we developed customizable outreach tools that could be tailored

to the organization’s mission and capacity, including:

• Templates for case studies and press releases, letters to local officials, website content, print and digital ads, and event signage/activities—in 13 different languages.

• CBO staff training on how to effectively market upgrades in their area, starting with helping them hold their first events to educate the public. This made it easy for CBO staff to generate awareness, interest and conversations with people in their communities, without the need for additional resources. And it helped ensure that NYSERDA wouldn’t lose the brand equity it had built for statewide programs like Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® by giving promotional control over to local entities.

• Customer experience audits designed to address contractor trust issues and identify where breakdowns

were occurring in the engagement process.

CBOs and contractors used these tools to redefine their roles

during key stages in the process, ensuring the right support was

delivered by the most trusted source when it really mattered.

This support led to approximately 5,000 energy assessments

and projects, and a 50 percent lead-to-project conversion for

CBOs.

SHIFT# 5 BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER THROUGH TRUSTED CHANNELS


Consumption behaviors are rarely informed by rational,

calculated information processing, such as saving costs on bills

or “doing the right thing.” Instead, they’re rooted in psychosocial

dimensions such as the need to feel accepted, loved, safe,

secure, free and in control.

Implementers of energy efficiency measures need to address

these dimensions in the ways they communicate and connect

with people to motivate behavior change that lasts. Uncovering

how people feel about energy or sustainability, and reflecting

these emotions in ways that resonate with people, doesn’t

require costly research. But it does involve having in-depth

conversations with people to understand their experiences,

the subconscious beliefs at the root of habituated behaviors,

and the cultural nuances that could change the meaning of the

messages we use.

Our research in the multifamily building sector illustrates this. In

talking with owners about energy efficiency, we found that they

didn’t need to be sold on the concept. For the most part, owners

believe in its value. What we needed to do, however, was adjust

the messaging (and sales and channel approach) to reflect how

owners really think about and deploy upgrades in their buildings.

Some of the insights we found included:

• If owners can bake energy efficiency in, they will do so, but it must connect to the projects they have on their priority list.

• Because humans are social, they’ll turn to their peers first to get advice. Then they’ll seek out the help of their general contractor—not an energy specialist—because they trust them to deliver on time and on budget.

• Finally, they’ll only do upgrades if it doesn’t add construction time—not because of costs, but because they fear tenant disruptions could increase unit turnovers and the number of complaints their building supers have to

deal with.

Uncovering insights like these increases the number of

ways implementers can resonate with audiences to improve

both reach and cost-effectiveness. And, it could be the key

to designing more effective, mass-scalable solutions for

encouraging conservation practices.


Question surface-level assumptions. Often, the messaging we

think would work has hidden meaning that could block efforts. This

is especially true for energy programs that are free. Pacific Gas

and Electric encountered this obstacle with its ESA Program, which

provides free home improvements to customers who meet specific

income requirements. Initially they thought, “It’s free—who wouldn’t

sign up for it?” But engagement was lagging. Through research, we

identified aspects that were triggering suspicion, like:

• Because the application process called for them to share

personal information, customers were scared. They didn’t

want their information falling into the wrong hands for fear of

impacting their immigration status.

• They also found the idea of free upgrades too good to be

true, leading to a wariness of hidden fees.

By integrating messaging that recognized and acknowledged

these concerns head on into a direct mail and email campaign, the

program received 24,885 applications—a 162 percent increase over

the initial campaign goal of 15,400 applications.

Look at how factors in decision-making are perceived. Lack

of alignment on what messages mean can also impact the approval

of energy efficiency measures. In research—conducted on behalf of

IQ Energy Reports—with professionals who are involved in making

non-residential lighting decisions, we found disconnects exist

among varying levels of organizational management. When asked

about internal barriers to decision-making around installing LEDs,

43 percent felt that getting a sign-off from senior management was

a major hurdle. When probing deeper, it was clear that mid-level

managers were using a different lens than senior management to

evaluate the expense. They also have differing views on outcomes.

This became evident when looking at lighting retrofits vs. new

installations. Regardless of whether the person was a mid-level

building facility manager, a university-based manager or an energy

performance contractor, they consistently saw retrofits as posing

significant problems. Because they are three times more likely than

their upper counterparts to have engaged with retrofits, they’re more

likely to recommend waiting for when the organization can afford

new LED installations. This conflicts with senior management’s

perceptions on more cost-effective retrofits.10

SHIFT# 6

TAP THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL NUANCES THAT TRULY IMPACT BEHAVIOR

10 2016 Survey of Lighting Industry Stakeholders, IQ Energy Reports, Dr. Susan Mazur-Stommen, March 2016

SIX REASONS WHY YOUR ENERGY EFFICIENCY EFFORTS MAY BE STALLED

The conduit for the adoption of energy efficiency already exists

in most organizations. The methods are there. The technology

and information are available. Now, we simply need to connect

the motivation.

By activating the power of human-to-human connections,

organizations can drive the adoption of energy efficiency within

their cultures, and deepen the results that are possible.

Holly Barrett, Vice President of Strategy & Insight of Brand Cool

Barrett is a 20-plus year marketing veteran whose career spans brand consulting to integrated marketing

communications. Brand Cool is a marketing agency dedicated to bringing humans and brands together to

make the world a better place. Clients include PG&E, NYSERDA, CEE, NFRC, NEEA, South Jersey Gas, and

Efficiency Vermont. To learn what Brand Cool can do for you, go to www.brandcool.com.

Susan Mazur-Stommen, Principal and Founder of Indicia Consulting

Mazur-Stommen is a cultural anthropologist who “wrote the book” on utility-based behavior change programs.

Her client roster at Indicia Consulting includes the State of California, Bosch N.A., World Resources Institute,

United States Department of Energy, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. To learn what Indicia

Consulting can do for you, go to www.indiciaconsulting.com.

CONCLUSION

AUTHORS

http://www.brandcool.com

http://www.indiciaconsulting.com

Documents

SCALING UP ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS...reasons why initiatives fail to take off inside an organization. This white paper outlines five areas where disconnects often exist, along