Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors


Non-monetary incentives that encourage pro-environmental behaviour can contribute to combating climate change. Here, we investigated the effect of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors. In two large-scale field studies in Switzerland of over 200,000 households and 8,000 enterprises, we found that presenting renewable energy to existing customers as the standard option led to around 80% of the household and business sector customers staying with the green default, and the effects were largely stable over a time span of at least four years. Electricity consumption had only a weak effect on default acceptance. Our data do not indicate moral licensing: accepting the green default did not lead to a disproportionate increase in electricity consumption. Compared with men, women in both the household and business sectors were slightly more likely to accept the green default. Overall, non-monetary incentives can be highly effective in both the household and business sectors.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Shares of energy packages per supplier, sector and year.
Fig. 2: Predicted probabilities of green default acceptance per kWh.
Fig. 3: Shares of energy packages for large enterprises per year.

Data availability

The data were obtained by two Swiss electricity companies and are anonymized and part of non-disclosure agreements. Upon request and depending on consent from the companies, the data can be made available for replication. Replication data and code for the population survey will be made available using a data repository.

Code availability

The code used in this study is available from the authors upon request.


  1. 1.

    Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hardin, G. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248 (1968).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Franzen, A. & Meyer, R. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26, 219–234 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kvaloy, B., Finseraas, H. & Listhaug, O. The publics’ concern for global warming: a cross-national study of 47 countries. J. Peace Res. 49, 11–22 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J. & Wackernagel, M. Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis. Ecol. Econ. 56, 28–48 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Caviglia-Harris, J., Chambers, D. & Kahn, J. Taking the ‘U’ out of Kuznets. A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1149–1159 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Destek, M. & Aslan, A. Disaggregated renewable energy consumption and environmental pollution nexus in G-7 countries. Renew. Energy 151, 1298–1306 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (Penguin Books Ltd, 2009).

  9. 9.

    Liebe, U., Gewinner, J. & Diekmann, A. What is missing in research on non-monetary incentives in the household energy sector? Energy Policy 123, 180–183 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chassot, S., Wüstenhagen, R., Fahr, N. & Graf, P. in Marketing Renewable Energy, Management for Professionals (eds C. Herbes & C. Friege) Ch. 6 (Springer Nature, 2017).

  11. 11.

    Allcott, H. & Mullainathan, S. Behavior and energy policy. Science 327, 1204–1205 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ebeling, F. & Lotz, S. Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 868–86 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Egebark, J. & Ekstrom, M. Can indifference make the world greener? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 76, 1–13 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Altmann, S. & Traxler, C. Nudges at the dentist. Eur. Econ. Rev. 72, 19–38 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Pichert, D. & Katsikopoulos, K. Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 63–73, (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Johnson, E. & Goldstein, D. Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk. Uncertain. 1, 7–59 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. & Thaler, R. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status-quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5, 193–206 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sunstein, C. & Reisch, L. Automatically green: behavioral economics and environmental protection. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 38, 127–158 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Momsen, K. & Stoerk, T. From intention to action: can nudges help consumers to choose renewable energy? Energy Policy 74, 376–382 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hedlin, S. & Sunstein, C. Does active choosing promote green energy use? Experimental evidence. Ecol. Law Q. 43, 107–141 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kaiser, M., Bernauer, M., Sunstein, C. R. & Reisch, L. A. The power of green defaults: the impact of regional variation of opt-out tariffs on green energy demand in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 174, 106685 (2020).

  24. 24.

    Marwell, G. & Ames, R. Economists free ride, does anyone else? Experiments on the provision of public goods. J. Public Econ. 15, 295–310 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Carter, J. & Irons, M. Are economists different, and if so, why?. J. Econ. Perspect. 5, 171–177 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Caplan, B. Systematically biased beliefs about economics: robust evidence of judgemental anomalies from the survey of Americans and economists on the economy. Econ. J. 112, 433–458 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Weitzel, U., Urbig, D., Desai, S., Sanders, M. & Acs, Z. The good, the bad, and the talented: entrepreneurial talent and selfish behavior. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 76, 64–81 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Koudstaal, M., Sloof, R. & van Praag, M. Risk, uncertainty, and entrepreneurship: evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment. Manag. Sci. 62, 2897–2915 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Heslin, P. & Ochoa, J. Understanding and developing strategic corporate social responsibility. Organ. Dyn. 37, 125–144 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Vogel, D. The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility (Brookings Inst. Press, 2005).

  31. 31.

    Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. & Rothengatter, T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 273–291 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 23, 1773–1785 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Khan, U. & Dhar, R. Licensing effect in consumer choice. J. Mark. Res. 43, 259–266 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D., Brandt, M. & Skitka, L. Morality in everyday life. Science 345, 1340–1343 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Zizzo, D. Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Exp. Econ. 13, 75–98 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Schwartz, D., Fischhoff, B., Krishnamurti, T. & Sowell, F. The Hawthorne effect and energy awareness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15242–15246 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Energie, B. F. Schweizerische Elektrizitätsstatistik 2019 (Bundesamt für Energie 2019).

  38. 38.

    Strom- und Biogasprodukte. Der Markt für erneuerbare Energieprodukte 2016 (Verein für umweltgerechte Energie VUE, 2018).

  39. 39.

    Strom- und Biogasprodukte. Der Markt für erneuerbare Energieprodukte 2018 (Verein für umweltgerechte Energie VUE, 2020).

  40. 40.

    Chan, H. W., Pong, V. & Tam, K. P. Cross-national variation of gender differences in environmental concern: testing the sociocultural hindrance hypothesis. Environ. Behav. 51, 81–108 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Buis, M. L. Direct and indirect effects in a logit model. Stata J. 10, 11–29 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J. H., Jackson, M., Yaish, M. & Cox, D. R. On class differentials in educational attainment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9730–9733 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Ghesla, C. Defaults in green electricity markets: preference match not guaranteed. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4, S37–S84 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ghesla, C., Grieder, M. & Schubert, R. Nudging the poor and the rich—a field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults. Energy Econ. (2020).

  45. 45.

    Reisch, L. & Sunstein, C. Do Europeans like nudges? Judgm. Decis. Mak. 11, 310–325 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sunstein, C. The ethics of nudging. Yale J. Regul. 32, 413–450 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Sunstein, C., Reisch, L. & Kaiser, M. Trusting nudges? Lessons from an international survey. J. Eur. Public Policy 26, 1417–1443 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Sunstein, C. R. & Reisch, L. Trusting Nudges: Toward a Bill of Rights for Nudging (Routledge, 2019).

  49. 49.

    Sunstein, C., Reisch, L. & Rauber, J. A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost. Regul. Gov. 12, 3–22 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Abramson, P. R. & Inglehart, R. Value Change in Global Perspective (Univ. of Michigan Press, 1995).

  51. 51.

    Avoided Emissions Calculator (IRENA, 2019);

  52. 52.

    Icha, P. & Kuhs, G. Entwicklung der spezifischen Kohlendioxid-Emissionen des deutschen Strommix in den Jahren 1990 – 2019 Climate Change 13 (Umweltbundesamt, 2020).

  53. 53.

    Allcott, H. Social norms and energy conservation. J. Public Econ. 95, 1082–1095 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Bolderdijk, J., Steg, L. & Postmes, T. Fostering support for work floor energy conservation policies: accounting for privacy concerns. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 195–210 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Asensio, O. & Delmas, M. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E510–E515 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Goldstein, D. Nudge your customers toward better choices. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86, 99–105 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Kristal, A. & Whillans, A. What we can learn from five naturalistic field experiments that failed to shift commuter behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 169–176 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Nisa, C. F., Belanger, J. J., Schumpe, B. M. & Faller, D. G. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. Nat. Commun. 10, 4545 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Regional Portraits and Key Figures (Federal Statistical Office, 2020);

  60. 60.

    Diekmann, A. & Preisendorfer, P. Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration. Soc. 15, 441–472 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


U.L. and A.D. acknowledge support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) within the National Research Programme ‘Managing Energy Consumption’ (NRP71), project no. 407140_153715. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information




U.L., J.G. and A.D. designed the research and statistical analysis, U.L. and J.G. analysed data, U.L. led the writing of the paper and U.L., J.G. and A.D. contributed to writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulf Liebe.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Human Behaviour thanks Micha Kaiser, Yasuko Kameyama, Lucia Reisch and Cass Sunstein for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–8.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liebe, U., Gewinner, J. & Diekmann, A. Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors. Nat Hum Behav (2021).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing