Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: A Field Experiment on Lifetime Energy Costs and Household Appliances

  • Steffen Kallbekken
  • Håkon Sælen
  • Erlend A. T. Hermansen


Providing consumers with information that can lead to more energy-efficient choices can help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions while reducing costs to consumers. A natural field experiment is conducted in collaboration with an electrical retailer to test strategies for influencing sales of household appliances. The experiment involves two product categories, fridge-freezers and tumble driers. Information on lifetime energy cost of appliances is provided through a label and training of sales staff. For fridge-freezers, the authors find no significant effects. For tumble driers, the combined treatment and training treatment reduce average energy use of tumble driers sold by 4.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The effect is strongest initially, over 12% on average for the first 3 months for the combined treatment but declines over time. The effect is significant at the 5% level for the combined treatment while not significant for sales staff training.


Energy efficiency Field experiment Cost disclosure Household appliances 



Thanks to Mikkel Alme, Martine Grønlund and Åshild Indresøvde at Elkjøp for significant help with designing and implementing the experiment. Thanks to Christian Bjørnæs, Torben Mideksa, Bård Romstad, and Hege Westskog at CICERO for help with conducting the experiment and analysing the results. The project was funded by GreeNudge. Special thanks to Beate Nossum and Gunhild A. Stordalen at GreeNudge for help with making the experiment possible.


  1. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93(1), 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie, A., Diamnond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allcott, H., & Mullainathan, S. (2010). Behavior and energy policy. Science, 327, 1204–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allcott, H., & Wozny, N. (2010). Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy paradox. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. MIT Energy Initiative and Sloan School of Management.Google Scholar
  5. Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., & Taubinsky, D. (2011). Externalizing the internality. New York University Working Paper.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, C. D., & Claxton, J. D. (1982). Barriers to consumer choice of energy efficient products. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Attari, S. Z., DeKay, M. L., Davidson, C. I., & Bruin, W. B. d. (2010). Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(37), 16054–16059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cropper, M. L., & Oates, W. E. (1992). Environmental economics: A survey. Journal of Economics Literature, 30(2), 675–740.Google Scholar
  9. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M. (2010a). The effect of life-cycle cost disclosure on consumer behavior: Evidence from a field experiment with cooling appliances. Energy Efficiency, 3(4), 303–315. doi: 10.1007/s12053-010-9076-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deutsch, M. (2010b). Life cycle cost disclosure, consumer behavior, and business implications. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 103–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00201.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Council. (1992). Council directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992. Official Journal of the European Communities 13.10.92: European Council.Google Scholar
  13. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401. doi: 10.1257/002205102320161311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene, D. L., Patterson, P. D., Singh, M., & Li, J. (2005). Feebates, rebates and gas-guzzler taxes: A study of incentives for increased fuel economy. Energy Policy, 33(6), 757–775. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heinzle, S. (2012). Disclosure of energy operating cost information: A silver bullet for overcoming the energy-efficiency gap? Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 43–64. doi: 10.1007/s10603-012-9189-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heinzle, S. L., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2012). Dynamic adjustment of eco-labeling schemes and consumer choice—The revision of the EU energy label as a missed opportunity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(1), 60–70. doi: 10.1002/bse.722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutton, R. B., & Wilkie, W. L. (1980). Life cycle cost: A new form of consumer information. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1994). The energy efficiency gap—What does it mean? Energy Policy, 22(10), 804–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaenzig, J., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). The effect of life cycle cost information on consumer investment decisions regarding eco-innovation. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 121–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00195.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Growth from Knowledge. (2007) Forbrukerdagbøker [consumer diaries] 2007. Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. Korhonen, A., Roos, I., Throne-Holst, H., Jensen, H. M., Ahlkvist-Johansson, H., & Rosen, G. (2007). Impact of energy labelling on household appliances TemaNord (vol. 605): Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  23. Krewitt, W. (2002). External costs of energy—Do the answers match the questions?: Looking back at 10 years of ExternE. Energy Policy, 30(10), 839–848. doi: 10.1016/s0301-4215(01)00140-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. List, J., & Gallet, C. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNeill, D. L., & Wilkie, W. L. (1979). Public policy and consumer information: Impact of the new energy labels. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. A. (2007). Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shen, J., & Saijo, T. (2009). Does an energy efficiency label alter consumers’ purchasing decisions? A latent class approach based on a stated choice experiment in Shanghai. [research support, non-U.S. Gov’t]. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11), 3561–3573. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stern, N. (2007): The economics of climate change - The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Thøgersen, J. (2007). Social marketing of alternative transportation modes. In T. Gärling & L. Steg (Eds.), Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life (pp. 367–381). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Thorne, J., & Egan, C. (2002). An evaluation of the federal trade commission’s energy guide appliance label: Final report and recommendations. Washington D.C: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  31. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003a). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003b). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Kallbekken
    • 1
  • Håkon Sælen
    • 1
  • Erlend A. T. Hermansen
    • 1
  1. 1.CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research–OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations