Behaviorally Green: Why, Which and When Defaults Can Help

  • Cass R. Sunstein
  • Lucia A. Reisch


Careful attention to ‘choice architecture’ promises to open up new possibilities for environmental protection—possibilities that may be more effective than the standard tools of economic incentives, mandates, and bans. How, for example, do consumers choose between environmentally friendly products or services and alternatives that are potentially damaging to the environment but less expensive? The answer may well depend on the default rule. Indeed, green default rules may be a more effective tool for altering outcomes than large economic incentives. The underlying reasons include the powers of suggestion, inertia, and loss aversion. If well-chosen, green defaults are likely to have large effects in reducing the economic and environmental harms associated with various products and activities. Such defaults may or may not be more expensive to consumers. In deciding whether to establish green defaults, choice architects should consider consumer welfare and a wide range of other costs and benefits. Sometimes that assessment will argue strongly in favor of green defaults, particularly when both economic and environmental considerations point in their direction. But when choice architects lack relevant information, when interest group maneuvering is a potential problem, and when externalities are not likely to be significant, active choosing, perhaps accompanied by various influences (including provision of relevant information), will usually be preferable to a green default.


Behavioral economics Environmental protection Green default Choice architecture Nudging 



We are grateful to Cassie Chambers and Daniel Kanter for excellent research assistance.


  1. Adler MD (2011) Well-being and fair distribution: beyond cost-benefit analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler MD, Posner EA (2006) New foundations of cost-benefit analysis. Harvard University Press, New HeavenGoogle Scholar
  3. Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2010) Identity economics: how our identities shape our work, wages, and well-being. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Allcott H (2011) Social norms and energy conservation. J Public Econ 95:1082, 1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allcott H, Greenstone M (2012) Is there an energy efficiency gap? J Econ Perspect 26:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allcott H, Rogers T (2012) The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions 28 (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 18492, 2012).
  7. Allcott H, et al (2012) Energy policy with externalities and internalities (Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 17977).
  8. Bartling B et al (2013) The intrinsic value of decision rights 5 (University of Zurich, Department of Economics, Working paper no. 120).
  9. Beshears J et al (2010) The limitations of defaults, at 8 (Sept. 15, 2010) (unpublished manuscript).
  10. Boyle G (2012) Renewable energy: power for a sustainable future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown CL, Krishna A (2004) The skeptical shopper: a metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. J Consum Res 31:529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown JR, et al (2011) The downside of defaults, Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research.
  13. Bubb R, Pildes R (2014) How behavioral economics trims its sails and why. Harv Law Rev 127(6):1593–1678Google Scholar
  14. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team (2011) Behaviour change and energy use.
  15. Card D, Dahl GB (2011) Family violence and football: the effect of unexpected emotional cues on violent behavior. Q J Econ 126:103, 105–106, 130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carroll GD et al (2009) Optimal defaults and active decisions. Q J Econ 124:1639, 1641–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chetty R, et al. (2012) Active vs. passive decisions and crowd out in retirement savings accounts: evidence from Denmark, pp 42–44 (Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 18565.
  18. Cialdini RB et al (2006) Managing social norms for persuasive impact. 1 Soc Influ 3:10–12Google Scholar
  19. Costa DL, Kahn ME (2010) Energy conservation “nudges” and environmentalist ideology: evidence from a randomized residential electricity field experiment, pp 15–19 (Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 15939).
  20. Craig Smith N, Goldstein DG, Johnson EJ (2009) Smart defaults: from hidden persuaders to adaptive helpers 15–16 (INSEAD Business School, Working Paper No. 2009/03/ISIC).
  21. Dinner I et al (2011) Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. J Exp Psychol Appl 17:332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (Text with EEA relevance), Official J Eur Union, L 211/56 (2009).
  23. Egebark J, Ekström M (2013) Can indifference make the world greener? (IFN, Working Paper No. 975).
  24. Ellerman AD et al (2000) Markets for clean air: The U.S. acid rain program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. EPA (2011) Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2011 facts and figures 36.
  26. Everett B et al (eds) (2012) Energy systems and sustainability. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2012) Development of renewable energy sources in Germany 2011.
  28. Fleming SM, et al (2010) Overcoming status quo bias in the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:6005, 6007.
  29. Fox-Penner P (2012) Smart power: climate change, the smart grid, and the future of electric utilities. Island Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Fryer RG et al (2012) Enhancing the efficacy of teacher incentives through loss aversion: a field experiment 2 (Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 18237).
  31. Gale WG, Mark Iwry J, Walters S (2009) Retirement savings for middle- and lower-income households: The Pension Protection Act of 2006 and the Unfinished Agenda. In: Gale WG (ed) Automatic: changing the way America saves, vol 11. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 13–14Google Scholar
  32. Gilbert B, et al (2013) Dynamic salience with intermittent billing: evidence from smart electricity meters (Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 19510).
  33. Graham JD (2008) Saving lives through administrative law and economics. Univ PA Law Rev 157:395, 516–523Google Scholar
  34. Griskevicius V et al (2010) Going green to be seen? Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halpern SD et al (2013) Default options in advance directives influence how patients set goals for end-of-life care. Health Aff 32:408, 412–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hartmann P, Apaolaza Ibáñez V (2006) Green value added. Mark Intell Plan 24:673, 676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Homonoff TA (2013) Can small incentives have large effects? The impact of taxes versus bonuses on disposable bag use? (Mar 27, 2013) (unpublished manuscript).
  38. Infas Energiemontor (2012)
  39. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2010) Technical support document: social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866 [hereinafter Technical Support Document 2010].
  40. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2013) Technical support document: technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under executive order 12866.
  41. Johnson EJ et al (2012) Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark Lett 23:487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Just DR, Wansink B (2009) Smarter Lunchrooms: using behavioral economics to improve meal selection. Choices 24:32 at *5.
  43. Kaenzig J et al (2013) Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany. Energy Policy 53:311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kagan RA, Skolnick JH (1993) Banning smoking: compliance without enforcement. In: Rabin RL, Sugarman SD (eds) Smoking policy: law, politics, and culture. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 69, 78Google Scholar
  45. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin, Harlow, pp 20–22Google Scholar
  46. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. In: Thaler RH (ed) Quasi rational economics. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp 167–168Google Scholar
  47. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1994) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. In: Thaler RH (ed) Quasi rational economics. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, p 167, 169Google Scholar
  48. Keller PA et al (2011) Enhanced active choice: a new method to motivate behavior change. J Consum Psychol 21:376, 378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lessig L (1995) The regulation of social meaning. U Chi L Rev 62: 943Google Scholar
  50. Loewenstein G, et al. (2014) Disclosure: psychology changes everything. Annu Rev Econ (published online 2014. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041341 (at 12).
  51. Löfgren A et al (2012) Are experienced people affected by a pre-set default option – results from a field experiment. J Environ Econ Manage 63:66, 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Madrian BC, Shea DF (2001) The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ 116:1149, 1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McGraw P et al (2010) Comparing gains and losses. Psychol Sci 21:1438–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McKenzie CR, Liersch MJ, Finkelstein SR (2006) Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychol Sci 17:414, 418–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meiners RE et al (2011) The false promise of green energy. Cato Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. Micklitz H-W. et al (2010) The consumer – trusting, vulnerable or responsible? Plea for a Differentiated Strategy in Consumer Policy, Statement by the Scientific Advisory Board on Consumer and Food Policies at the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture (Dec 2010).
  57. Mullainathan S, Shafir E (2013) Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  58. Muller NZ et al (2011) Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States economy. Am Econ Rev 101:1649, 1650–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nordhaus W (2011) Estimates of the social cost of carbon: background and results from the RICE-2011 model (Oct 18, 2011) (unpublished manuscript).
  60. Ölander F, Thøgersen J (2013) Informing or nudging: Which way to a more effective environmental policy? In: Scholderer J, Brunsø K (eds) Marketing, food and the consumer. Pearson, Harlow, p 141Google Scholar
  61. Pachur T et al (2012) How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? J Exp Psychol Appl 18:314–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pichert D, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 28:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rebonato R (2012) Taking liberties: a critical examination of libertarian paternalism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 153–209Google Scholar
  64. Reisch LA (2003) Consumption. In: Page EA, Proops J (eds) Environmental thought. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 217Google Scholar
  65. Reisch L (2013) Verhaltensbasierte Elemente einer Energienachfragepolitik, in Grenzen der Konsumentensouveränität 139 (Jahrbuch Normative und institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik, Vol 12)Google Scholar
  66. Renner S et al. (2011) European smart metering landscape report 91.
  67. Schuldt JP (2013) Does green mean healthy? Nutrition label color affects perceptions of healthfulness. Health Commun 28:814, 818–819.
  68. Sethi-Iyengar S, Jiang W, Huberman G (2005) How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. In: Mitchell OS, Utkus SP (eds) Pension design and structure: new lessons from behavioral finance. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Sexton SE, Sexton AL (2011) Conspicuous conservation: the Prius effect and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides 22 (June 30, 2011) (unpublished manuscript).
  70. Shafir E (ed) (2013) The behavioral foundations of policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  71. Shah AK et al (2012) Some consequences of having too little, Science 338:682, 682–683.
  72. Starr MA (2009) The social economics of ethical consumption: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. J Socio Econ 38:916, 919–20Google Scholar
  73. Sunstein CR (2013a) Deciding by default. Univ PA Law Rev 162:1.
  74. Sunstein CR (2013b) The storrs lectures: behavioral economics and paternalism. Yale Law J 122:1826, 1842–1852Google Scholar
  75. Sunstein CR (2014) Why nudge? The politics of libertarian paternalism. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  76. Tannenbaum D, Ditto PH (2012) Information asymmetries in default options 11–17 (unpublished manuscript).
  77. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  78. Ullmann-Margalit E (1978) Invisible-hand explanations. Synthese 39:263–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wansink B (2014) Slim by design: mindless eating solutions for everyday life. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Wansink B, Hanks AS (2013) Slim by design: serving healthy foods first in buffet lines improves overall meal selection 2 (unpublished manuscript).
  81. Warentest S (November 20, 2012) Stiftung Warentest empfiehlt Versorgerwechsel.
  82. Zehner O (2012) Green illusions: the dirty secrets of clean energy and the future of environmentalism. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Law SchoolHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Intercultural Communication and ManagementCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations