ACEEE Greening Work Styles - Analysis of Behaviour Programmes in The Workplace

GREENING WORK STYLES:
AN ANALYSIS OF ENERGY BEHAVIOR PROGRAMS

IN THE WORKPLACE
Shui Bin
January 2012
Report Number B121
© American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

th
529 14 Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 507-4000 phone, (202) 429-2248 fax, aceee.org
Greening Work Styles, © ACEEE
CONTENTS
List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures .........................................................................................................................................iii
List of Boxes ...........................................................................................................................................iii
Glossary................................................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ v
Setting the Tone ................................................................................................................................ vi
Building a Team ................................................................................................................................vii
Employing Communication Tools ......................................................................................................vii
Deploying Key Engagement Techniques ..........................................................................................vii
What Are the Take-Home Messages from this Report? .................................................................. viii
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Commercial Buildings and Related Energy Use ................................................................... 1
1.2 A Brief Review of Energy Behavior Research ...................................................................... 1
1.3 The Definition of Work Styles, Green Work Styles, and Greening Work Styles ................... 2
2. Case Studies of Energy Behavior Programs in the Workplace ...................................................... 3
2.1 Research Scope and Selection of Case Studies .................................................................. 3
2.2 “Green the Capitol” at the U.S. House of Representatives (2007 to 2012, U.S.) ................. 4
2.3 The “Tenant Energy Management Program” at the Empire State Building (2009–2013,
U.S.) ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 “Conservation Action!” at BC Hydro (2006–2007, Canada) .................................................. 7
2.5 MEMPR Behavior Campaign in a Provincial Governmental Building (2008, Canada) ......... 8
2.6 “TLC-Care to Conserve” at University Health Network (2007–2010, Canada) ..................... 9
2.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 10
3. An Analysis of Strategies for the Development of Energy Behavior Programs in the Workplace 12
3.1 Setting the Tone .................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Building a Team .................................................................................................................. 16
3.3 Employing Communication Tools ........................................................................................ 18
3.4 Deploying Key Engagement Techniques ............................................................................ 23
i
4. Policy Implications ....................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Costs and Benefits of Energy Behavior Programs ............................................................. 27
4.2 Development of an Evaluation Framework for Energy Behavior Programs ....................... 29
4.3 Institutional Buildings, the Best Candidate for Energy Behavior Programs? ..................... 30
4.4 Integration of Energy Behavior Components into DOE’s Building Initiatives ..................... 30
5. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 31
References ........................................................................................................................................... 33
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Five Case Studies in This Report ............................................................................................. 4
Table 2. Lighting Campaign in the MEMPR Behavior Campaign .......................................................... 8
Table 3 A Brief Summary of Case Studies ........................................................................................... 11
Table 4. Peer Champion in Energy Behavior Programs ...................................................................... 18
Table 5. Use of Information Channels by Case Study ......................................................................... 19
Table 6 Use of Feedback in Case Studies ........................................................................................... 25
Table 7. Cost and Benefit Items of an Energy Behavior Program ....................................................... 28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Primary Energy Use and Annual Growth Index by Sector, 1980–2007 .................................. 1
Figure 2. Strategies for the Development of an Energy Behavior Program in the Workplace ............. 12
Figure 3. Logo of "Green the Capitol"................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4. Logo of "TLC-Care to Conserve"........................................................................................... 16
Figure 5. My Green Office .................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6 A Prompt in the TLC Case ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7. A Collection of On-line Prompts and Stickers for Energy Conservation ............................... 21
Figure 8. Poster Examples in Reviewed Energy Behavior ................................................................... 22
Figure 9. The EPRI Categorization of Feedback .................................................................................. 24
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1. Examples of Behavior-side of Green Work Styles ...................................................................... 3
Box 2. What Did They Say? ................................................................................................................... 5
Box 3. Upper Management Support in Energy Behavior Programs ..................................................... 14
Box 4. Program Committees in Energy Behavior Programs ................................................................ 17
Box 5. The Floor Challenge at Conservation Action at BC Hydro ........................................................ 26
Box 6. Rewards in Energy Behavior Programs .................................................................................... 27
iii
GLOSSARY
AOC Architect of the Capitol
BC British Columbia
BC Hydro BC Hydro and Power Authority
Btu British thermal unit
CAO The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
CBSM Community-based social marketing
DOE The U.S. Department of Energy
DSM Demand-side management
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
MEMPR The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
TLC Thermostats, Lights, and Controls
TWH Toronto Western Hospital
UHN The University Health Network
VOC volatile organic compounds
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am greatly indebted to many people who were very generous of their time and insights: Susan
Mazur-Stommen and Jennifer Thorne Amann at ACEEE, Dave Hunt and Elizabeth Malone at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Tianzhen Hong and Christopher Payne at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Paul Stern at National Academy of Sciences, Jacob Straus at Library of
Congress, and Christine Gustafson at BC Hydro. Their careful reviews and insight greatly improved
the report. I would like to thank Gregor Irvine-Halliday for his editing and very helpful inputs. Renee
Nida helped make this report publishable in a timely way.
The idea of this report was initiated by Steven Nadel. He provided important guidance on the direction
for this report. There were numerous discussions between Steve and me, which helped shape what
this report looks like now. Without his support and guidance, this report would not exist. I owe him a
big and loud thank you.
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Occupying 80 billion square feet and consuming roughly 20 percent of total U.S. energy use in 2010,
commercial buildings have the fastest growth rate for energy use in the U.S. of any end-use sector
(the other sectors being residential buildings, transportation, and industry). The federal government
has invested heavily in the establishment of a series of energy efficiency initiatives that target
research, development, and deployment of advanced technologies for the commercial buildings
sector, as well as job creation. Energy behavior programs, which can play a significant role in
improving building energy efficiency, remain largely absent from the current initiatives.
This report focuses on energy behavior programs in the workplace, which are designed and
conducted by building owners and renters to reduce building energy use through change in
employees’ attitudes and behaviors. The energy savings attributed to the reviewed energy behavior
programs vary from 4% (savings from a standalone behavior program) to nearly 75% (savings from a
comprehensive project in which a behavior program is a component).
The report is structured as a review of five case studies (Section 2), as listed in Table ES-1, from
which general strategies for the development of energy behavior programs for the commercial sector
are drawn (Section 3), and policy implications are discussed (Section 4).
Table ES-1. Five Case Studies in This Report
U.S. Canada
"Green the Capitol" at U.S. House Behavior Campaign in a Provincial

Government
of the Representatives Government Building
Government-Owned
"Conservation Action!" at BC Hydro
Utility
Public Research "TLC-Care to Conserve" at University
University-Owned Health Network of University of
Hospital Toronto
"Tenant Energy Management
Historical, Landmark
Program" at Empire State
Building
Building
“Green the Capitol” (2007–2008) is a successful top-down energy program implemented by the U.S.
House of Representatives. "The House of Representatives must lead by example, and it is time for
Congress to act on its own carbon footprint," declared then Speaker of the House of Representatives
Nancy Pelosi in 2007. The development and application of the “Green My Office” Web site is one of
the highlights of the project. It provides an excellent template for developing similar Web-based
behavior change tracking tools.
The Empire State Building is currently conducting a highly-publicized ongoing retrofit program (2008–
2013). The program, which incorporates an energy behavior component, also serves to raise public
awareness of the potential of similar retrofits, particularly for high-end office buildings and/or older
landmark buildings.
Both the energy behavior program at BC Hydro (2007) and the behavior campaign of the Ministry of
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resource (MEMPR) of British Columbia (2008) aggressively sought to
change energy conservation cultures in the workplace. BC Hydro integrated the results of energy
reduction into employees’ and management’s annual performance management structure, which in
turn determined their annual bonuses, thus creating a potent incentive mechanism for participation.
v
In addition to the BC Hydro and MEMPR cases, the “TLC-Care to Conserve” program (2007–2010) at
the University Health Network of the University of Toronto is an example of the application of
community-based social marketing (CBSM). The TLC‘s attention-getting banners and posters
(substituting the iconic images of “Rosie the Riveter” and “Uncle Sam” with generic hospital staff
images in the same context) used humor and historical association to engage participants and deliver
program messages.
The five cases share four common strategies that contribute to successful energy behavior programs:
(1) setting the tone; (2) building a team; (3) employing communication tools; and (4) deploying key
engagement techniques, as presented in Figure ES-1.
Figure ES-1. Strategies for the Development of an Energy Behavior Program in the Workplace
Setting the Tone

Workplaces, like any institution, have their own internal sets of rules and norms. Within this “mini-
society,” upper management (Section 3.1.1) has a critical role to play in inculcating the value-set of
the organization among employees. Upper management can incentivize and sanction activities within
their sphere of oversight, and often stand as representative of the values and beliefs of the group as a
whole. Energy behavior programs in the workplace that fail to garner the support of organizational
leadership are unlikely to succeed.
In each of the reviewed case studies, upper management made a public pledge to reduce building
energy use that effectively set the overall tone for the project (Section 3.1.2). As illustrated by the
reviewed case studies, organizational pledges made in public often lead to an organizational action
taking place. The visibility of personal pledges should consider the opinions of program participants,
as suggested by the TLC case.
Some energy behavior programs employ program branding as a means of communication with both
participants and the public (Section 3.1.3). A good branding for an energy behavior program should
vi
blend the messages of business identity and program theme into an attention-getting logo or a short
phrase, which may help establish not only the identity of the program, but also create an emotional
attachment among program participants and external audiences. Among the reviewed cases, “Green
the Capitol” and the TLC were seen to be the most effective in branding their energy programs.
Building a Team
A successful energy behavior program in the workplace is often the product of intensive teamwork.
Program committees (Section 3.2.1) consisting of key stakeholders within the organization are
convened to head up an energy behavior program, after which the committee is placed in charge of
project development, coordination, and communication. Some program committees invite an outside
party to be a committee member, or even to take charge of program design, development, and
management. For example, the TLC project committee contracted a consulting company to develop
and manage its energy behavior program.
Peer champions (Section 3.2.2) are either volunteers (e.g., “Conservation Floor Captains” in the
case of BC Hydro) or are selected by the program committee from building occupants (e.g., “Green
Office Representatives” in the “Green the Capitol” program, “Conservation Champions” and
“Conservation Floor Captains” in the MEMPR program, and “Social Market Champions” in the TLC
program). These peer champions act as points of contact between various onsite stakeholders and
help to promote the concept of energy conservation and associated desirable attitudes across the
organization through their ongoing interaction with other building occupants.
Employing Communication Tools

Communication is an activity that conveys information to a target audience. There is a wide range of
online and offline communication tools from which to choose; Emails and Web Sites (Section 3.3.1);
Public Meetings (Section 3.3.2); Prompts (Section 3.3.3), and Posters (Section 3.3.4).
Each of the reviewed programs employed e-mail and Web sites—two online communication
channels—as the main communication tools to reach participants. These programs also used more
traditional methods to deliver program messages at key program events (e.g., public meetings) and in
the workplace (e.g., posters). The use of prompts is reported exclusively in the three reviewed
Canadian programs, which represent CBSM applications, a popular social marketing theory
developed and widely propagated in Canada.
Deploying Key Engagement Techniques

An energy behavior program in the workplace above all requires sustained engagement with building
occupants. The reviewed energy behavior programs employed several common engagement
techniques.
Social norms (Section 3.4.1), a very popular approach employed in all of the cases reviewed, invoke
principles of right action that are binding upon members of a group and which serve to guide, control,
or regulate proper and acceptable behavior. Social norms have been widely discussed as an
important approach in the promotion of pro-environment values, attitudes, and behaviors. Feedback
(Section 3.4.2), as employed in “Green the Capitol”, the Empire State Building, and the MEMPR case,
offers information to people about the consequence of their actions. Researchers have long realized
that feedback was a more effective strategy than exclusively relying upon information, motivation, or
monetary incentives. Benign peer pressure and competition (Section 3.4.3), employed in the BC
Hydro and the MEMPR cases, refers to the influence of a peer group on its members with respect to
changes in attitudes and behavior deemed preferable in a working environment. Rewards (Section
3.4.4), employed in the three Canadian cases, are compensation for a desirable behavior. Rewards
send positive signals to those rewarded, thereby reinforcing a desirable behavior during the learning
process.
vii
What Are the Take-Home Messages from this Report?

Energy behavior programs in the workplace share several common strategies. Most notable is the
degree to which the support of upper management, which is strongly stressed in all of the reviewed
cases, proves to be critical to the development and success of an energy behavior program in the
workplace.
Due to the lack of a cost-benefit analytical approach and the absence of an evaluation framework
suitable for application to existing energy behavior programs, such programs have been inadequately
studied, and are thus often omitted from current efforts to promote building energy efficiency.
This report suggests that the energy research community, energy efficiency professionals, and policy
decision makers should work together to develop an improved evaluation framework to better
document, study, and evaluate energy behavior programs. Program administrators should consider
the integration of energy behavior programs into their building energy efficiency initiatives, which
would help promote the development and deployment of advanced technologies in a more
conservation-conscious environment. Moreover, government and utilities at every level should
consider leading by example by implementing their own energy behavior programs, as such efforts
would promote a culture of energy conservation in their workplaces and beyond.
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
The role of energy behavior in the residential and commercial sectors has been a semi-regular area
of interest for the energy research community since the oil crises in the 1970s. In the last five years,
the community has not only rekindled its interest in this area, but also has become dedicated to the
idea of applying the insights of social science to the more effective deployment of energy efficiency
projects and programs.
This report analyzes energy behavior programs in the workplace: Section 1 is an introduction to
commercial buildings and related energy use in the United States, a brief review of energy behavior
research, and the research scope of the report; Section 2 reviews selected energy efficiency behavior
programs in the commercial sector in the U.S. and Canada; Section 3 analyzes development
strategies and key engagement techniques shared by the reviewed programs; and Sections 4 and 5
examine policy implications and conclusions, respectively.
1.1 Commercial Buildings and Related Energy Use

Commercial buildings are one of the four major energy end-use sectors, accounting for 18% of total
U.S. energy consumption in 2009 (see Figure 1). Over the last three decades, commercial energy
use has grown at an annual rate of 2%, which is more than the annual growth in the transportation
(1.3%), residential (1.1%), and industrial (-0.1%) sectors, the last of which actually declined over this
period (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2011).
Figure 1. Primary Energy Use and Annual Growth Index by Sector, 1980–2007
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration 2011
There were 4.9 million commercial buildings in 2003, occupying 71.6 billion square feet of floor space
(U.S. Energy Information Administration 2008). Of the fourteen primary types of commercial buildings,
offices make up the highest percentage of total floor space (17%), total number of commercial
buildings (17%) and commercial building energy use (19%).
1.2 A Brief Review of Energy Behavior Research

The energy crises of the 1970s triggered research interest in energy consumption behavior, bringing
social science into the analysis of energy issues to augment traditionally employed economic and
engineering approaches.
1
The new focus on culture, lifestyles, social psychology, and household management proved fruitful:
the National Research Council (1982) published a report to address the behavioral and social aspects
of energy use and production; Stern and Aronson (1984) edited a fine book on the human dimensions
of energy use; while Kempton and Neiman (1987) compiled a collection of case studies of household
energy use that utilized a variety of social science research methodologies. Most of these early
studies looked into energy use behaviors at the residential individual and/or household level (Yates
and Aronson 1983; Stern and Aronson 1984; Bernard et al. 1987; Kempton and Neiman 1987;
Lutzenhiser 1993).
There was also some discussion of the linkage between organization and energy use—Stern and
Aronson (1984) analyzed the characteristics of energy use in organizations as well as the impact of
intermediaries on organizations’ energy use. Widman et al. (1984) discussed behavior-based
conservation strategies such as the role of information in institutional settings. Concurrently, many
studies of energy consumption in commercial buildings focused on organizational investment decision
making relating to energy efficiency (Goitein 1989; Cebon 1992; DeCanio 1993).
The rapid development of demand-side management (DSM) in the late 1980s and early 1990s
attracted a great deal of attention from the energy research community. In hindsight, the study of the
social and behavioral aspects of building energy use in DSM-related projects would have been of
great value. The DSM-related studies could have been developed to include experimentation and the
application of social science theories in energy research; however, few DSM studies discussed and
analyzed projects using these perspectives.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, global warming and carbon emissions were important research
themes in the energy research community. The majority of studies and research during this period
focused on the human dimensions of global change, climate change, and sustainability (Stern et al.
1997; National Research Council 1999; Dietz and Stern 2002), while a handful of advocates
addressed the integration of social science into energy research (Lutzenhiser and Shove 1999).
Since the mid-2000s, possibly due to increasing media coverage of climate change, soaring energy
prices and rising public awareness of the issue, or a natural maturation of energy thinking nurtured by
research undertaken over the last three decades, there has been an emerging trend of strong
research interest in applying social and behavioral science to energy and environmental research and
projects (Wilson and Dowlatabadi 2007; Ehrhardt-Martinez 2008; Owens and Driffill 2008; Allcott and
Mullainathan 2010; Ehrhardt-Martinez and Laitner 2010; Stern and Kasperson 2010; McKenzie-Mohr
2011). The revitalized interest in social and behavioral sciences has remained heavily oriented
towards the residential sector, but recently discussion has also moved in the direction of commercial
buildings (Brown and Cole 2008; Ehrhardt-Martinez and Laitner 2010). For example, Payne (2006, p.
11) discussed how commercial users respond to utility bills. Friedrich et al. (2010, p. 64) identified
several best practice behavior programs in the commercial sector.
1.3 The Definition of Work Styles, Green Work Styles, and Greening Work
Styles
A research topic in the study of household behavior and its impact on energy use and carbon
emissions in recent decades has been lifestyles, or ways of living (Schipper and Meyers 1992;
Hidetoshi 1996; Weber and Perrels 2000; Rick 2003; Shui and Dowlatabadi 2005; Feng et al. 2009).
However, there are few studies explicitly focusing upon specific ways of working, or work styles, and
their related impacts on building energy use.
Work styles refer to a bundle of attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. It often refers to one’s work
attitude and behavior towards his/her assigned tasks, management, and colleagues, among other
things. A particular work style may come about as a consequence of business activities, building
types, rules defined by upper management, and the general workplace culture. These factors have
direct and indirect impacts on energy use in the workplace.
2
In this report, “green work styles” refer to attitudes and behaviors favorable to energy conservation at
work. A list of green work styles for equipment and lighting use is presented in Box 1. The “greening”
of work styles refers to efforts or activities that encourage building occupants to adopt attitudes and
behaviors of energy conservation, which is also the primary objective of energy behavior programs.
Box 1. Examples of Behavior-Side of Green Work Styles
Concerning equipment use:
 Turn off your monitor when not in use, even if it is only for 15 minutes
 Enable ENERGY STAR® power settings on your computer
 Turn off photocopiers during off-hours
 Turn off machines and equipment when not needed
 Turn off printers and other office machines when they are not in use
 When laptops and cell phones are not being charged, unplug their chargers
Concerning lighting use:
 Turn off lights when areas are not in use

 Turn off your lights when you leave your office/cubicle, and in other unoccupied areas
such as copy rooms, break rooms, conference rooms, and restrooms
 Make use of the sun
 Adjust blinds to deflect heat in the summer and to retain heat during the winter
 Adjust lighting levels to match needs at different times
 Full lighting may not be necessary when performing several tasks, such as
presentations, cleaning, or stocking
 Use dimmers and controls (if available) to turn down lighting, or use the lights
required for the task (e.g., task lighting)
Source: rewritten based on Power Smart Tips at Work (BC Hydro 2008)
The next section reviews five energy behavior projects that attempt to develop or foster green work
styles of building occupants at workplace.
2. CASE STUDIES OF ENERGY BEHAVIOR PROGRAMS IN THE WORKPLACE

2.1 Research Scope and Selection of Case Studies
This report focuses on the review and analysis of energy behavior programs that are developed and
implemented by building occupants and/or owners to reduce building energy use through changes in
the behavior of building occupants in the workplace.
Five energy behavior programs were identified as case studies (see Table 1). Three were from
Canada and two from the U.S. These studies were selected from conference papers from sessions of
the Human Dimension of Energy Use Panel of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings for the years 1998 to 2010; from presentations at the Behavior, Economy, and Climate
Change Conference from 2008 to 2011; and from conversations with noted building energy experts.
3
Table 1. Five Case Studies in This Report
U.S. Canada
"Green the Capitol" at U.S. Behavior Campaign in a Provincial
Government
House of the Representatives Government Building
Government-Owned
"Conservation Action!" at BC Hydro
Utility
Public Research
"TLC-Care to Conserve" at University
University-Owned
Health Network of University of Toronto
Hospital
"Tenant Energy Management
Historical, Landmark
Program" at Empire State
Building
Building
2.2 “Green the Capitol” at the U.S. House of Representatives (2007–2012,1

U.S.)
2.2.1 Program Background & Measured Results

The "Green the Capitol" initiative was developed in the House of Representatives. This included not
only House-controlled functions on the House side of the U.S. Capitol building, but also the four
House office buildings and other House side projects (Straus 2011). The initiative covers a mixed set
of office and supporting facilities, including the U.S. Capitol built in 1793. The main campus in D.C.
houses 7,000 staff and occupies some 6.1 million square feet of floor space. There are 3,000
additional staff supporting the House working across the country. The total energy use of the D.C.
campus reached 809 billion Btu in 2006 (Diamond et al. 2008; Hromalik 2010).
With strong support from key senior leadership, the U.S. House of Representatives launched the
“Green the Capitol” Initiative in March 2007. The goals of the Initiative included: (1) becoming carbon
neutral within 18 months; (2) reducing energy use by 50% in ten years; and (3) becoming a model of
sustainable operations (Diamond et al. 2008). The Initiative pushed a comprehensive package aimed
to reduce energy use, waste, and the carbon footprint of the House by relighting the Capitol Dome
with compact fluorescent light bulbs, installing low volatile organic compounds (VOC) carpets, and
switching the Capitol power plant to natural gas. Behavioral components included the promotion of a
newly developed online tool named “My Green Office” and other behavior change activities such as
carpooling, commuting by bicycle, and recycling (Straus 2009).
Eighteen months after launch, “Green the Capitol” had reduced the institution’s carbon footprint by
74% (Straus 2009).
2.2.2 Project Activities Related to Energy Behavior Change

In April 2009, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) launched a project to promote
greening participants’ offices. The initiative created an internal interactive Web-based tool called “My
Green Office.” The Web site collected information provided by participants about the behavior choices
made in their offices to reduce energy use, carbon emissions, landfill waste, and energy expenditure,
reporting back to the participants feedback regarding savings in the above categories at both the level
of the participants’ offices and more broadly at the level of the entire House (CAO 2010).
1
The "Green the Capitol" initiative will formally end in 2012. This section about the “Green the Capitol” is mainly based on the
three reports published in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively, and focused on the "Green the Capitol" initiative conducted in
House of Representatives and the "main campus."
4
More than 100 trained CAO and Architect of the Capitol (AOC) employees provided in-office
consultations and follow-up technical services to staff. Some staff members volunteered to be “Green
Office Representatives” in offices that participated in the initiative. These volunteer representatives
functioned as a point of contact for charting their offices’ progress and keeping the CAO office
updated.
One of the successes of the “Green the Capitol” initiative was the voluntary participation of district
offices that were not part of the initial target audience (CAO 2010).
2.2.3 Key Messages from the Project

Program participants credited the success of the “Green the Capitol” initiative mainly to the strong
support voiced by then House senior leadership and the determination of upper management to lead
by example (Straus 2009; Hromalik 2010), see Box 2.
Box 2. What Did They Say?
"The House of Representatives must lead by example, and it is time for Congress to act on its
own carbon footprint."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, April 19, 2007
"Improving energy efficiency is the most effective first step that any organization can take to
make a positive effect on the world we live in and that we leave to our children and
grandchildren."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, April 19, 2007
“…… Perhaps more important is what the program represents: a fundamental transformation of
perspective and behavior. The House is changing the way it does business.”
Chief Administrative Officer Daniel P. Beard, January 8, 2010
2.2.4 Comments
“Green the Capitol” is a well-managed energy project implemented in governmental office buildings.
Its success was a product of strong support from upper management, good coordination across
departments, and reasonable reduction goals set jointly by the CAO and a national laboratory that
provided solid technical research.
“My Green Office” is an excellent example of an energy behavior project that targeted building
occupants. This project categorized behavior changes into “core actions” (which are considered easy
to complete, such as “recycle bottles, cans, and plastics” and “use compact fluorescent bulbs”) and
“stretch actions” (which are not as easy to complete, such as “adjust your thermostat +/- 2 degrees”).
The project Web site provided a track record of actions taken by participating offices and feedback
featuring estimated savings of energy (and dollars) and reductions in solid waste. The information not
only allowed participants to visualize the actual impact of behavior changes, but also further
personalized the project, which helped improve participants’ commitment to the project.
Among the five case studies, the design and implementation of the “My Green Office” Web site is
particularly worthy of note, as it provides a good template for developing similar Web-based tracking
tools, which could serve as effective interactive tools for use with participants in other energy
behavior programs.
5
Another of the initiative’s successes was the participation of district offices that were not among the
project’s initial target group. Given that the project was implemented by the leadership of the federal
government in the nation’s capitol, the project also represents an instance of leadership by example.
2.3 The “Tenant Energy Management Program” at the Empire State Building
(2009–2013, U.S.)

The Empire State Building (http://www.esbnyc.com/), a historical landmark built in 1931, is a multi-
tenant building with 2.7 million square feet and annual energy consumption of 238 billion Btu (Rocky
Mountain Institute 2010).
In April 2009, a retrofit program was launched at the Empire State Building and undertaken by a
project team including the Clinton Climate Institute, Jones Lang LaSalle, Rocky Mountain Institute,
Johnson Controls Inc., and Empire State Building Operations. The retrofit program aims to reduce
energy use by 38% and lead to annual energy savings valued at $4.4 million (Empire State Building
Company 2009). The program identified eight economically viable projects, including direct digital
control of tenant lighting, daylighting and plug loads, variable air volume air-handling units, retrofit
chiller plant, improved windows, tenant energy management program, radiant barrier, and tenant
demand control ventilation (Rocky Mountain Institute 2011).
2.3.2 Project Activities Related to Behavior Changes

Launched in April 2009, the project incorporated an intensive planning process that lasted the greater
part of a year and included bi-weekly team meetings and the internal development of a sustainability
scoreboard as well as a tenant engagement initiative. The Rocky Mountain Institute studied the role
of occupant comfort requirements, system design characteristics, changed operating schedules, and
incentives in building energy use.
The proposed tenant energy program has four components: (1) establishing electric sub-metering for
each tenant so that tenants can monitor their individual energy use; (2) identifying key building
personnel to act as the face of the program, and the designation of a point of contact at the
suggestion of each tenant; (3) providing online training and an introduction to best practices for
tenants to guide them in reducing their carbon footprints; and (4) documenting and reporting (Jones
Lang LaSalle 2011)

Jones Lang LaSalle, a global real estate services firm with a leading sustainability services program,
has been the program manager. The firm concluded that maximizing cost-effective energy and
carbon reduction requires a whole-system and life-cycle perspective. Developing solutions for
reducing energy use and carbon footprint requires collaborative efforts from all key stakeholders
(Jones Lang LaSalle 2011).
The Rocky Mountain Institute (2010), one of the five team members, suggested that project
preparation time could have been reduced through more efficient coordination and communication
among key stakeholders.
2.3.4 Comments
Compared to other energy efficiency projects, the Empire State Building retrofit enjoys unparalleled
intensive media coverage and thus helps raise public awareness of the impact of green building
practices. This retrofit project addressed the role of occupants’ comfort in the context of balancing
energy efficiency and the financial impact of measures undertaken, which is unique among reviewed
cases.
6
The Tenant Energy Management Program, which is the behavior component of the overall retrofit
project, is still in the development and early implementation stage. It will be interesting to return to this
program in the future and assess its progress, particularly in the areas of meter-based feedback and
incentives.
2.4 “Conservation Action!” at BC Hydro (2006–2007, Canada)

British Columbia (BC) is a province located on the west coast of Canada. BC Hydro and Power
Authority (http://www.bchydro.com) is BC’s largest electric utility company. In order to encourage its
employees to conserve energy in the workplace, BC Hydro initiated a pilot program titled
Conservation Action! in 2006. The pilot program aimed to save energy through changing building
occupants’ behavior. By the end of the first year, the pilot program reduced electricity consumption by
over 5% through behavior changes (Gustafson and Longland 2008).
The Conservation Action! program started as a pilot program at the main building occupied by its
Power Smart Department; however, its success quickly led to a company-wide roll-out. .
2.4.2 Project Activities Related to Behavior Change

The Conservation Action! pilot initiated a variety of behavior projects (Gustafson and Longland 2008):
 The appointment of volunteer Conservation Floor Captains who helped provide leadership
and information for other occupants;
 The Floor Challenge was an energy-saving competition between floors that was undertaken
with the final results qualifying the most successful participants for awards and public
recognition;
 The Cubicle Tune Up involved trained staff visiting building occupants at their work cubicles,
identifying energy-saving opportunities and providing related guidance for the set-
up/configuration of occupants’ office space;
 The Turn It Off campaign used posters and stickers to target manual switch and electric
appliances and equipment; and
 Green Tips were also e-mailed to all employees on a weekly basis.

Gustafson and Longland (2008) from BC Hydro concluded there were three guiding principles for the
success of the Conservation Action! project: (1) a positive, action-oriented approach (focusing on
what people can do and providing simple messages describing specific actions); (2) strong
management support and commitment; and (3) the engaging and empowerment of volunteers and
employees (volunteers served as effective assistants that were able to work on specific project
activities). They also concluded that,
……behavior change is not only effective but also creates a culture that facilitates the
adoption of technical measures.
2.4.4 Comments
Conservation Action! at BC Hydro focused on establishing an energy conservation culture in the
workplace through energy behavior programs targeting building occupants. The program leveraged
the participation of building occupants and carried out project activities by utilizing Community-Based
Social Marketing (CBSM) techniques such as persuasion, influence, motivation, commitment,
prompts, norms, communication, and incentives.
7
A unique feature of Conservation Action! was the integration of energy reduction performance into
employees’ and management’s annual performance review structure, which determines the size of
annual bonuses (along with other performance metrics).
2.5 MEMPR Behavior Campaign in a Provincial Governmental Building

(2008, Canada)

The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (MEMPR, http://www.gov.bc.ca/ener) is the
BC government ministry responsible for the administration and regulation of energy resources.
In 2008, MEMPR signed an agreement with BC Hydro to reduce its electricity use by 9% by 2009, by
20% by 2020, and to be carbon neutral by 2010. Since 2008, MEMPR has developed employee
engagement initiatives to build a culture of energy conservation (Owen et al. 2010).
By 2009, MEMPR’s total electricity consumption was reduced by 12% compared to its 2007 level.
The reduction could be attributed to a series of energy behavior programs, integrated with limited
investment in technology and retrofitting (Owen et al. 2010).

MEMPR’s behavior campaign consisted of two sections: a year-long employee engagement program
and a one-week lighting campaign.
The year-long employee engagement program contained three energy behavior initiatives aimed at
building a culture of energy conservation in the workplace: (1) The Green Team initiative invited a
team of “green-minded” individuals to meet regularly to identify energy-reduction opportunities; (2)
The Workstation Tune Ups initiative asked employees to reduce their energy use in the workplace by
completing a list of tasks; and (3) The Green Pledge initiative encouraged employees to voluntarily
make a pledge to achieve reduction of energy use, waste, and carbon emissions.
The one-week lighting campaign targeted three floors of the MEMPR main building: on the fourth floor
an automatic daylight dimming system was installed, on the fifth floor 85 individual light switches (one
for each work space on this floor) were installed, while the sixth floor was used as the baseline of a
pre-retrofit condition. The Lighting Campaign is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Lighting Campaign in the MEMPR Behavior Campaign
# of Technical Measure Weekly Lighting

Other Information
Floor Installed? Energy Savings
The Energy Efficiency Branch of
th
th One automatic daylight MEMPR is located on the 4 floor. This
4 floor 12.6%
system installed group of participants was highly
engaged in the campaign.
th
The 5 floor was encouraged to turn off
their office lights during lunch on one
th 85 individual light switches
5 floor day; participants received an e-mail 12.0%
installed
reminder concerning this Earth Hour
activity.
th No lighting measures
6 floor 2.4%
installed
The campaign determined the baseline lighting energy consumption and set a goal of electricity
savings of 10%. Each floor received tailored information about energy conservation and suggested
8
actions, and their energy use was metered in real time and presented on a dashboard. The fifth floor
conducted an “Earth Hour” style event one day, encouraging employees to turn off lighting during
lunch hour. Real-time feedback was provided through the week (Owen et al. 2010).

The project utilized a number of CBSM tools to promote energy conservation in the workplace,
including communication, feedback, prompts, appeals to norms, and empowering champions. The
project found that dramatic energy reduction from the lighting campaign did not continue after the
campaign despite the presence of real-time feedback, thus it is inferred that it takes time for new
energy conservation behaviors to become permanent (Owen et al. 2010).
The project also concluded that “employee engagement targeting behavior changes can deliver
measurable reduction in energy consumption, over and above technological measures (e.g., installing
light switches and dimmable ballasts with photo sensors)” (Owen et al. 2010).
2.5.4 Comments
The MEMPR behavior campaign is an energy behavior program that applied CBSM tools to promote
energy conservation in the workplace. The unique feature of this case was the program’s provision of
real-time feedback reporting actual energy use information to participants. In addition, the case
provided explicit energy-saving information from energy behavior programs (e.g., the lighting
campaign).
The author of this report is concerned that the lighting campaign was too short in duration to permit
solid conclusions to be drawn. In addition, the non-homogenous nature of the participants on each
floor (i.e., the Energy Efficiency Branch is located on the fourth floor, with very motivated and
engaged participants) also affects the energy saving results recorded in Table 2 and relevant project
conclusions.
One interesting finding from Table 2 suggests that the combination of behavior and technology (e.g.,
the use of installed occupant switches on the fifth floor) would lead to much higher savings than
behavior change alone (as was the case on the sixth floor).
2.6 “TLC-Care to Conserve” at University Health Network (2007–2010,

Canada)

The University Health Network (UHN, http://www.uhn.ca/applications/iNews/default.aspx), affiliated
with the University of Toronto, is a medical center consisting of three teaching hospitals including
Toronto Western Hospital (TWH).
In 2007, UHN received funding to develop a comprehensive energy management, employee

engagement and technology deployment program in its three hospitals over three years. The
program, called Thermostats, Lights and Controls (TLC)—Care to Conserve, comprised six
components: (1) social marketing, (2) employee engagement, (3) operator training, (4) retro-
commissioning, (5) comprehensive energy plans, and (6) detailed energy audits and retrofits.
In year one, the TLC program resulted in a 3.9% reduction in energy consumption in TWH. In year
two, the energy savings at TWH improved to 4.2% (Adamson 2010) .

The target energy behaviors in TLC included turning off monitors and computers when stepping away
from workstations, turning off electronics and appliances when not in use, and turning off task lighting.
9
Important information channels in the TLC program included stickers, posters, banners, and e-mail as
well as face-to-face kick-off and follow-up meetings. CBSM tools were heavily employed to engage all
hospital staff to participate in project activities (such as simple changes in energy use related
behaviors) to reduce energy consumption, including program branding, program pledges, and social
marketing champions. Building occupants were encouraged to provide their ideas for improving the
TLC program, some of whom were rewarded for their input.

Adamson (2010), who was hired from a consulting company to play the role of project manager for
the TLC project, concluded that the following key factors contributed to the success of the energy
behavior initiatives:
 Peer champions: “The use of peer champions to spread the message is extremely beneficial
as it saves time and resources and provides information and prompts from a trusted and
credible source.”
 Pilots in clinics and office areas: “Selecting the office areas and clinics as the initial pilot
sites also contributed to the success of the campaign as this allowed the materials to be
tested in a more receptive environment.”
 Successful posters and banners: “The success of the campaign was also due in part to the
materials that were employed, in particular the large, highly visible and visually appealing
posters and banners. The simplicity and consistency of the message was also an important
factor in the success of the campaign. All materials reinforced the same basic actions of
turning off lights, computers and personal appliances.”
 Behavior or components embedded in a comprehensive and integrated program: “The
behavioral components (social marketing and employee engagement) of the TLC program
have saved large amounts of energy and reduced GHG emissions in just the first two years
of implementation. This potential is only enhanced by incorporating these components into a
larger, more comprehensive energy management and engagement program which includes
more technical energy saving measures such as RCx, training and audits and retrofits.”
2.6.4 Comments
The project employed comprehensive social marketing tools to promote energy conservation through
behavior change by building occupants. The program branding helped not only create an identity that
distinguished this project from others, but also enabled its target audience to associate their activities
with the project activities. The use of peer champions created opinion leaders and messengers,
helping to spread energy conservation attitudes and behaviors to peers. The innovative use of
visually appealing banners (replacing Rosie the Riveter with generic hospital staff images) created a
sense of historical association and humor.
2.7 Summary
All five cases reviewed in this chapter feature programs implemented in recent years, which may
indicate a new and increasing interest in energy behavior programs conducted by building occupants.
All illustrate the importance of strong support from the upper management for energy behavior
programs. Three of five reviewed cases (including the BC Hydro case, the MEMPR case, and the
TLC case) included the application of CBSM tools in the development of their energy behavior
programs.
The reported energy savings from behavior programs was varied (see Table 3). “Green the Capitol”
and the Empire State Building cases belonged to different comprehensive energy programs that
include technology replacement and purchase, and other energy efficiency approaches. The energy
savings from energy behavior programs were not reported separately from the comprehensive
10
programs. Though the TLC case was a part of a comprehensive energy program, the energy savings
from its energy behavior component was estimated to be 4.2% for the first two project years.
The BC Hydro case and the MEMPR case were the only two stand-alone energy behavior programs
aimed specifically to create a culture of energy conservation in the workplace. The BC Hydro case
produced a 5% reduction in electricity use by the end of the first year. In a week-long lighting
campaign of the MEMPR case, a floor that used manual switches of lighting produced a 12%
electricity reduction that week.
Table 3. A Brief Summary of Case Studies
Program
Program Project
# Names in Behavior Program Only? Project Savings
Names Year
the Report
[Total project savings] Within
No. It falls under a
18 months of its launch,
comprehensive project
there was a 74% reduction
The “Green targeting sustainability in
Green the 2007– in carbon emissions through
1 the Capitol” the workplace, along
Capitol 2012 the use of energy-efficient
case with reduction in energy
equipment and products,
use, carbon emissions,
changes in fuel types, and
and waste.
behavior changes.
[Total project savings] It is
The
Tenant estimated that the retrofit
“Empire
Energy 2009– No. It is a component of project (including tenant
2 State
Management 2013 a large retrofit project. energy management
Building”
Program program) will reduce energy
case
use by 31%.
[Savings from the energy
Yes. It aims to create a behavior program only] The
Conservation The BC
3 2007 culture of energy project produced a 5%
Action! Hydro case
conservation. reduction in electricity use by
the end of the first year.
behavior program only]
Employee The Yes. It aims to create a During a week-long lighting
4 Engagement 2008 MEMPR culture of energy campaign, a floor that used
Program case conservation. manual lighting switches
reduced electricity
consumption by 12%.
No. It is one of six
projects under the same
behavior component only]
TLC—Care to 2007– The TLC program. The other
5 The TLC case led to a 4.2%
Conserve 2010 case projects focus on
energy saving during the first
technological means of
two years.
energy saving.
11
3. AN ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY

BEHAVIOR PROGRAMS IN THE WORKPLACE
A key factor necessary for a successful energy behavior program in the workplace is the effective
engagement of building occupants in energy conservation. All five reviewed cases shared common or
similar strategies in the development of their energy behavior programs, particularly in the
engagement of building occupants. These strategies included setting the tone, building a team,
employing communication channels, and deploying engagement techniques (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Strategies for the Development of an Energy Behavior Program in the Workplace
3.1 Setting the Tone

Before developing an energy behavior program, it is important to ask the following questions:
 As an organization what are our expectations from this project?

 Is this type of behavior program also in line with the mission of our business?
 How will it impact operations?
 Who should run this program?
 Is there wide-spread support for such an initiative?
 What energy behaviors will be targeted? How much energy could be saved? What are the
costs?
Anyone who is interested in developing a behavior program can raise and attempt to answer these
questions; however, it may be reasonable to speculate that the answers from upper management
may matter the most for the implementation of this behavior program.
12
Every workplace has its rules and norms and it is upper management (Section 3.1.1) that is ultimately
responsible for developing and supervising the enforcement of these rules and norms. Upper
management’s stance and willingness to pledge (Section 3.1.2) their support lays the groundwork for
successful program implementation. Some energy behavior programs also employ program branding
(Section 3.1.3) to communicate the “tone” to participants and the public.
3.1.1 Upper Management

In the workplace, not every member of an organization has equal influence on decision making and
the behavior of staff. A business environment is built by defining the vision and purpose of the
business (often explicitly or implicitly profit oriented), the organizational structure, and the corporate
culture. Conformity and compliance to norms and/or obedience to authority are regarded as an
important component of one’s professional ethics.
Obtaining support from upper management is the initial step in “setting the tone” for an energy
behavior program. As upper management is the most powerful group in the workplace, its buy-in is
critical: without the full support of upper management, it is highly unlikely that an energy behavior
program targeting building occupants could take off in the first place. The announcement of
unequivocal support from the top motivates employees to participate in programs, because
employees would view support from the top as validation of the importance of the program among
upper management (to whom they answer). Moreover, the support of upper management helps
mobilize human and financial resources to support the program, expedites coordination of working
relationships and schedules between involved parties, and can facilitate the removal of any
institutional and organizational barriers, all of which are crucial to the success of an energy behavior
program in the workplace.
All of the case studies addressed the significance of “support from the top” in the development and
success of their energy behavior programs. The top officials (i.e., occupying the highest or second
most senior positions in their organizations) publicly expressed their strong support for the program.
In addition, some organizations included a top official as a member of the program committee
responsible for program development and implementation (e.g., the BC Hydro case), and some
organizations internalized the support of upper management in their management process (e.g., the
MEMPR case). Box 3 presents the various ways in which upper management supported the energy
behavior programs discussed in the case studies.
13
Box 3. Upper Management Support in Energy Behavior Programs
In the case of “Green the Capitol,” then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer (the two highest ranking officials in the House) called for the launch of the “Green the
Capitol” initiative, and directed Chief Administrative Officer Daniel Beard to provide
recommendations and research plans (Diamond et al. 2008; Hromalik 2010).
The Empire State Building Company, the building owner, is one of five members of this historic
retrofit program. “Sustainability” is regarded as a positive selling point for the company in its efforts
to attract large tenants to the Empire State Building. The new market positioning and rebranding of
the Empire State Building indicates the strong support of the building’s ownership.
The “Conservation Action!” energy behavior program was fully integrated into the organizational
structure at various levels at BC Hydro. For example, (1) high-level management established a
steering committee, and assigned two senior managers to work on the initiative. (2) The
performance of staff in the initiative was formally included in BC Hydro’s annual performance
measurements. (3) Upper management attended project-related lunch meetings, and encouraged
employees to volunteer for the initiative’s activities (Gustafson and Longland 2008).
In the “Employee Engagement Program” at MEMPR, the Deputy Minister launched the energy
behavior program at a public meeting to raise the awareness of the program. Building a culture of
energy conservation was not only a program goal, but was also integrated into the Ministry’s
strategic planning and management process. For example, new employees will be introduced to
the program during their initial orientation at MEMPR (Owen et al. 2010).
The TLC case involves the most comprehensive communication tools and engagement techniques
among five reviewed case. The four-year project span and the employee engagement is the
evidence of the strong support and committeemen from upper management.
3.1.2 Pledge
A pledge is a binding promise to perform specific action(s) or achieve specific goals. According to
commitment and consistency theory, people are more likely to honor their commitment if they pledge,
orally or in writing, their commitment to an idea or goal (Feldman 1998). There are two types of
pledges: organizational pledges vs. personal pledges.
Based on the cases reviewed, organizational pledges made in public seem more likely to lead to
actual action. It may be reasonable to speculate that an organization’s public pledge acts as a public
announcement on behalf of the organization, which ties in strongly with its reputation, brand, and self-
image, assets that are expensive to build and maintain. Upper management, once it has offered its
pledge in a public forum, is more likely to provide its full support and commitment to a program.
Personal pledges made in public often lead to a higher rate of actual action than would otherwise be
the case (Feldman 1998), though personal pledges alone (i.e., not made in a public fashion) do not
guarantee actual action.
Foot-in-the-door techniques have been discussed as an instrument of pledge and compliance that
seeks to encourage participants to change their behavior by meeting a modest request. Freedman
and Fraser (1966) stated that “…… once someone has agreed to a small request he is more likely to
comply with a larger request.” Foot-in-the-door techniques have not only been applied to marketing
practices (e.g., a free sample of a product, a test drive for a car), but also studied and applied in
promoting energy conservation and environmental behaviors (Scott 1977; Katzev and Johnson 1984).
For example, Pallak et al. (1980) paid home visits to two groups of households, one group of
14
participants was asked to make a verbal commitment to participate in an energy saving program,
while another group of participants agreed to provide their names for publication in a report about
their participation in the energy saving project. The energy savings from the second group (that made
a public pledge) were about 10 to 20 percent higher than its previous level.
All of the reviewed energy behavior programs employed pledges as an important public relations
instrument to publicize a (new) program, and more importantly to engage organizational/personal
participation through organizational/personal commitment. The contents of pledges varied from
program to program. For stand-alone energy behavior programs with an aim of building a culture of
energy conservation (e.g., the BC Hydro and MEMPR cases), the content of the pledges did not
contain specific quantitative savings in energy use. For behavior programs which were part of a larger
comprehensive energy efficiency initiative (e.g., the “Green the Capitol” and TLC cases), pledges
often included specific targets for energy saving. In addition, all of the organizational pledges were
made through a series of public events such as press releases and internal meetings.
Besides an organizational pledge, the TLC case also sought employees’ personal pledges. For
example, staff members were asked to voluntarily sign the pledge on a large laminated poster placed
in a high-traffic lobby area. To encourage staff to sign the pledge, senior managers signed the pledge
on the prominently placed poster (Adamson 2010).
Organizational pledges should be publicly visible, while the visibility of a personal pledge should
consider the opinions of program participants. The “TLC” case revealed that some participants
expressed discomfort with regards to the public display of their personal pledges. Later, the personal
pledges were communicated through e-mails (Adamson 2010).
3.1.3 Program Branding

Branding is a process for creating an identity for a product (Aacker 1996). Solid program branding will
give a program long-term value, enabling its target audience to more readily associate with the
campaign, participate in its implementation and sustain its results (Basu and Wang, 2009). ENERGY
®
STAR is one of most successful examples of energy efficiency program branding. ENERGY STAR
has not only expanded from its original focus on lighting to a variety of commercial and residential
equipment and buildings, but has also become a brand for general energy efficiency: manufacturers
seek to enroll in the ENERGY STAR labeling program, while the success and visibility of ENERGY
STAR in the marketplace has increased consumer awareness of the advantages of products
featuring its logo.
In an energy behavior program, a successful program branding may help connect and motivate
participants, encourage a heightened sense of loyalty to the program and allow participants to better
identify with the program, while also delivering the program message to both participants and external
audiences.
In the case of “Green the Capitol,” its program branding includes a program name (Green the Capitol)
and a logo (see Figure 3). The logo contains graphics of a green leaf and the Capitol building, which
helps not only reflect the program name and message in a clear and simple fashion, but also to
establish a public image for the program.
In the TLC case study, the program team designed its brand to have three parts: (1) a program name
(TLC—Thermostats, Lights and Controls), (2) a logo with the program name and a tag line (Figure 4),
and (3) a package of program materials (Adamson 2010). The acronym “TLC” is not only about the
program contents (thermostats, lights and controls), but also representing the same acronym for
“tender loving care.” Moreover, the tag line “Care to Conserve” was developed to neatly combine two
program themes, healthcare and energy conservation, into one short phrase. It communicates the
program message in a very clear and concise way: it tells the viewer who is doing the program
(healthcare staff), what they are doing (conservation), why (caring for conservation) and how (taking
care to use energy resources efficiently).
15
Figure 3. Logo of "Green the Capitol" Figure 4. Logo of "TLC-Care to Conserve"
A good branding strategy for an energy behavior program should blend the messages of business
identity and program theme into an attention-inviting logo and/or a short phrase, which may help
establish not only the identity of the program, but also create an emotional attachment among
program participants and external audiences towards the energy behavior program.
3.2 Building a Team

An energy behavior program in the workplace is the product of teamwork. A program committee
(Section 3.2.1) often acts as the actual leadership of an energy behavior program, which is in charge
of project development, coordination, and communication. Peer champions (Section 3.2.2), selected
from building occupants (or building occupants who volunteer to play the role), work as points of
contact between building occupants and the program committee. These champions are the “ground
troops” in the implementation of an energy behavior project.
3.2.1 Program Committee

An organization is often structured to manage relevant business activities and communicates through
arranged patterns (Feldman 1998). How does the management and communication of an energy
behavior program fit into the larger preexisting organizational structure? All of the reviewed programs
created a new organizational node, i.e., a program committee, to solve this issue (Box 4).
A program committee is the leadership of an energy behavior program that is in charge of program
design, organization, coordination, and implementation. In order to facilitate coordination among
stakeholders who often belong to different departments, key stakeholders are invited to form the
program committee.
Administrative power is another important factor contributing to the effectiveness of the program
committee. A program committee with adequate power is better able to coordinate and organize
cross-department activities, and implement the project activities along the way. The support of upper
management would also be of great assistance to the program committee, giving the committee
power.
16
Box 4. Program Committees in Energy Behavior Programs
Under the direct instruction of the House Speaker, the CAO office, which is responsible for the
administrative functions of the House (such as human resources, information resources, payroll,
finance, procurement, and other business services), took on the role as the program committee
of the “Green the Capitol” program.
In the BC Hydro case, the upper management assigned two senior managers to a steering
committee and allowed two program coordinators to each allocate one day per week to the
initiative.
The TLC project team consisted of (1) UHN staff from its Energy and Environment Department
and energy teams at each of the three hospitals, and (2) external consultants such as IndEco
Strategic Consulting, Finn Projects and the University of Toronto Sustainability Office. The UHN
team was to design and implement the program. IndEco took the central role in designing,
implementing, and coordinating and managing the project (Adamson 2010).
Other key factors for running an effective program committee include maintaining close contact with
peer champions and keeping both upper management and building occupants informed and
engaged.
3.2.2 Peer Champion

A wealth of social psychological research suggests that person-to-person diffusion of ideas is more
likely to be effective than information delivered by media (Yates and Aronson 1983), while the use of
peers as behavior models was more effective in promoting conservation behavior than relying
exclusively on prompts (Aronson and O'Leary 1983). The presence of peer champions creates an
environment conducive to the spread of information and adherence to desirable norms (Widman et al.
1984).
In an energy behavior program, peer champions are the people who voluntarily take a strong interest
in the adoption and diffusion of energy conservation attitudes and behavior, though they may also be
selected by the program committee (Table 4). Although given different titles in each of the energy
behavior programs, peer champions typically serve as points of contact between building occupants
and the program committee, acting as opinion leaders, role models, messengers, ground troops and
change advocates. They play an essential role in propagating key energy conservation concepts and
attitudes throughout an organization through their continuous interaction with other building
occupants.
In the case of the TLC program, Adamson (2010) remarks that “the use of peer champions to spread
the message is extremely beneficial as it saves time and resources and provides information and
prompts from a trusted and credible source.” Assessing the MEMPR case, Owens and Driffill (2008)
concluded that the use of champions played a significant role in shaping the attitudes and behavior of
their colleagues.
17
Table 4. Peer Champion in Energy Behavior Programs
Name of Peer
Program
Champion in the Selection Work Contents
Name
Program
Helped educate and encourage
colleagues to take greening actions;
A designated lead in each
“Green the "Green Office charted progress on the My Green
of the Representatives’
Capitol” Representatives" Office site; updated CAO office
staff offices
coordinators on their offices’
participation in the program
Provided credible information and

The BC
"Conservation Volunteers from building local leadership for employees and
Hydro
Floor Captains" occupants served as a source of informal
case
feedback to initiative coordinators
Took exemplary actions to save

Building occupants who
energy and reduce waste, spread
"Conservation contribute to energy
the word about conservation
Champions" conservation behavior
activities, and helped inspire people
change in the workplace
to adopt new habits
The
MEMPR Helped reinforce the desired actions
case through personal contact, provided
Volunteer representatives credible, local leadership, acted as
"Conservation
from a participating floor of an information resource for
Floor Captains"
the building employees, and provided a
mechanism for informal feedback to
initiative coordinators
(1) Building occupants
who are keen to
participate in the program
Helped in the implementation of the
and/or well-known experts
social marketing component of
in their work area (e.g.,
The TLC "Social Market energy projects, including
floor or department); (2)
case Champions" disseminating program materials,
Staff who are members of
providing feedback to the project
the hospital's
team and leading by example
environmental team
working on the floor or in
the department
3.3 Employing Communication Tools

Communication is an activity that conveys information to a target audience. Target audiences need to
understand why they should do something, the impact of their behaviors, and how they can best go
about doing something (Widman et al. 1984). Hence, the informational contents of an energy
behavior program should be credible, simple, specific, and positive (e.g., fun).
All of the reviewed case studies employed a wide range of communication tools to deliver information
to their target audiences (Table 5). The online tools put to use include e-mail and Web sites (Section
3.3.1), while offline tools include public meetings (Section 3.3.2), prompts (Section 3.3.3), and posters
and banners (Section 3.3.4).
18
Table 5. Use of Information Channels by Case Study
Online Offline
Cases Public Prompts / Posters /
Email Web Sites
Meetings Stickers Banners
“Green the Capitol” X X X N.A. X
The Empire State Building X X X N.A. N.A.
The BC Hydro case X X X X X
The MEMPR Case X X X X X
“TLC-Care to Conserve” X X X X X
Note: N.A. refers to information not available from the existing literature of the reviewed energy behavior programs.
3.3.1 E-mail and Web Sites

Email is the most common means of communication in the workplace as it is quick, direct, cost-free,
and convenient. On any given workday an employee may spend more time checking and writing e-
mails than talking to his colleagues. The contents of e-mails relating to energy behavior programs
cover all aspects of project information: (1) project introduction, (2) notices for upcoming meetings
and project activities, (3) project surveys, (4) feedback, (5) project progress reports, and (6)
weekly/monthly green tips.
Web sites are powerful online tools used to present project information and engage building
occupants in energy behavior programs. Unlike e-mail, Web sites offer the advantage of a single
location with flexible formats and designs where more information (such as project information,
updated news, participant feedback, and green tips) can be stored and displayed.
In the MEMPR case, the Ministry’s intranet site featured profiles of “Conservation Champions” and
information related to specific energy conservation activities; e.g., turning off boardroom lights and
using task lighting after hours (Owens and Driffill 2008).
“Green the Capitol” runs an internal online “My Green Office” to remind participants of “things we’ve
done,” “things in progress,” and “things to do” (see Figure 5). This Web site is a good example of
effective Web design:
 The heading section contains the project information with the logo of “Green the Capitol” and
a large-font “My Green Office”. The use of the logo rather than text leaves more space on the
Web pages for other information.
 Well-chosen images often speak louder than words in Web design. People usually pay
greater attention to images than to text (Vandelay Website Design 2008). On the Web site of
“My Green Office,” there is a large picture taken from a participant’s office, with marks
indicating “things to do,” “things in progress,” and “things we’ve done.” To the right of this
picture, a column with three boxed frames provides further information on these three
subjects.
 The color of the Web site is green, which is consistent with the logo and theme of the project.
19
Figure 5. My Green Office
3.3.2 Public Meetings

A public meeting is a public social marketing event that can serve to announce endorsements by
upper management, publicize program information, report progress, answer possible questions from
meeting participants, and received/provide encouragements and comments from/to peers.
All of the reviewed energy behavior programs used public meetings to launch energy behavior
programs (such as kick-off meetings), announce upper management’s support and program
pledge(s), and to provide updates of the projects’ progress.
“Lunch and Learn” is a format for public meetings reported in the BC Hydro case (Gustafson and
Longland 2008). Building occupants were able to obtain useful knowledge on energy efficiency while
enjoying a free meal during their lunch breaks.
In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public meetings, a program committee often
sends e-mail reminders before a meeting followed by a meeting memo afterwards. Providing meeting
materials (such as promotional packages for the project and update reports) before the meeting also
helped participants familiarize themselves with program-related information.
3.3.3 Prompts
A prompt is a special type of note, a visual reminder or cue for action(s) to be completed. Wildman,
Simmons et al. (1984) suggested that prompts could be more effective if they “(1) gave specific
20
information regarding the requested behavior, (2) were considered important by the target audience,
(3) were given frequently or presented in different ways, (4) were located near the place where the
activity would take place, and (5) were attention-getting.”
All three reviewed Canadian cases documented the use of prompts as one of their information
channels, an indication of the influence of community-based social marketing (CBSM) advocated by
McKenzie-Mohr, a Canadian researcher. McKenzie-Mohr (2011) listed prompts as one of the tools
available for community-based social marketing. He Figure 6. A Prompt in the TLC Case
explained that people need to be reminded to do the
things they might otherwise forget. Figure 6 shows a
prompt used in the TLC program to encourage viewers
to turn off lights. Figure 7 presents similar turn-off prompts
collected from Web sites, which may offer some references
for interested readers.
Figure 7. A Collection of On-line Prompts and Stickers for Energy Conservation
Source: http://www.awarenessideas.com/Energy-Decals-s/10.htm
21
3.3.4 Poster
As a popular traditional communication channel, posters have been used in all of the reviewed case
studies, except for the Empire State Building case.
“Green the Capitol” and the TLC case used posters to call for specific actions, such as scheduling a
green consultation (Figure 8A), submitting project ideas (Figure 8B), or sending a positive,
encouraging message for participation (Figure 8C). All of these posters were designed to deliver
specific information (which is
featured explicitly in the Figure 8. Poster Examples in Reviewed Energy Behavior
poster) using an effective
poster design. For example,
congressional staff in the
“Green the Capitol” (Figure 8A)
are represented by a dark
suited female with a green leaf
cloth pin in the place of the
customary American flag lapel
pin. A “Green the Capitol” logo
is located at the bottom right of
the poster. The TLC posters
(Figures 8B and 8C) featured
the familiar wartime icons of
the U.S. Army's Uncle Sam in
his iconic "I want you" pose
(Figure 8B) and the equally
famous Rosie the Riveter’s
“We can do it” (Figure 8C),
with hospital staff in their
working clothes substituted for
Uncle Sam and Rosie.
Compared to a prompt, a text-

oriented poster can deliver
more information. For
example, the BC Hydro floor
challenge initiative used
posters to display the floor
challenge results, the coming
month’s activities,
opportunities for participation,
and new energy conservation
tips (Owen et al. 2010).
22
3.4 Deploying Key Engagement Techniques

An energy behavior program in the workplace seeks to encourage building occupants to conserve
energy through active engagement. There are several engagement techniques shared by the
reviewed energy behavior programs: social norms (Section 3.4.1), feedback (Section 3.4.2), benign
peer pressure and competition (Section 3.4.3), and rewards (Section 3.4.4).
3.4.1 Social Norms

As defined by Merriam-Webster, a norm is a principle of right action binding upon the members of a
group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior. Social norms have
been widely discussed as an important approach to promote pro-environment values, attitudes and
behaviors (Stern and Aronson 1984; Widman et al. 1984; Stern 1985; National Research Council
1999; McKenzie-Mohr 2000; Ehrhardt-Martinez 2008, p. 84).
The reviewed energy behavior programs suggest that many elements are linked to the use of social
norms.
 Upper management (Section 3.1.1) is a powerful group in the workplace that sometimes
develops and enforces workplace norms. The endorsement of particular norms by upper
management often motivates employees to conform to them, thus helping to establish new
norms in the workplace. As noted by all of the studies reviewed, support from upper
management for a specific program or action can be of great assistance in the promotion of
energy behavior programs. Indeed, it is one of the most important factors in the
establishment and promotion of a culture of energy conservation in the workplace.
 Peer champions (Section 3.2.2) are another important instrument in the establishment of
norms in an organization. Peer champions are positively publicized for their embodiment of
desired attitudes and behaviors. They not only personify organizational approval of new
norms, but also actively distribute them through social learning and information diffusion
processes.
 Benign peer pressure and competition (Section 3.4.3) refer to the tendency of a peer
group to pressure its members to conform to the norms of that group. The introduction of
benign peer pressure may lead to friendly competition within the organization, and thereby
help promote desired norms. For example, Conservation Action at BC Hydro conducted a
friendly energy conservation competition between participating floors (Gustafson and
Longland 2008).
 Rewards (Section 3.4.4) provide monetary or non-monetary incentives for completion of
desired actions. Providing incentives helps in the promotion of desired social norms by
sending a clear positive signal of social (organizational) approval for specific behaviors.
3.4.2 Feedback
Feedback provides information to participants about the consequences of their actions. The Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) categorized feedback into six groups, including standard billing,
enhanced billing, estimated feedback, daily/weekly feedback, real-time feedback, and real-time plus
(Wu et al. 2007). Direct feedback (real-time and real-time plus in Figure 9) provides more information
to recipients but incurs higher costs.
Researchers have long realized that feedback was a more effective strategy than exclusively relying
upon information, motivation, or monetary incentives (Aronson and O'Leary 1983; Yates and Aronson
1983; IEA 2007). Based on a review of an international sample of 61 primary research studies of 57
feedback initiatives, Laitner and Ehrhardt-Martinez (2011) concluded that depending on the type of
feedback employed, the average household electricity saving from feedback ranges from 4 to 12%.
23
Note that the current research on feedback are all focused on the residential sector and that there
has been little research on the impact of feedback on individual occupant behavior in the workplace.
Figure 9. The EPRI Categorization of Feedback
Source: EPRI (2007)
Three of the reviewed energy behavior programs reported the use of feedback in their programs (see
Table 6).
Both the Empire State Building case and the MEMPR case provided real-time feedback information
through sub-meters installed in each accounting unit (a tenant unit in the Empire State Building case,
and on each floor in the MEMPR case). The Empire State Building case offered more comprehensive
feedback information, including individual tenant’s live and historical energy use data, comparison
with other tenants, and norms. The MEMPR case provided participants with actual electricity use
information during its lighting campaign.
The “Green the Capitol” case provided estimated real-time feedback on the saving of energy and of
reductions in waste and carbon emissions, based on participants’ self-reporting. A unique feature of
the feedback information of this case was the inclusion of both individual and group feedback.
Widman et al. (1984) speculated that the combination of both individual and aggregated feedback
could be quite effective in encouraging energy reduction.
In terms of feedback format, the MEMPR program provided access both online and on a dashboard,
while the other two programs studied made use of only one of the two formats to deliver feedback
information.
24
Table 6. Use of Feedback in Case Studies
The Empire State

“Green the Capitol” The MEMPR Case
Building Case
Live information on
Savings in dollars,
Feedback energy use, comparison
energy, water, and Electricity saved
Contents charts, sustainability tips
reductions in waste
and updates
Estimated or
Contents
Estimated Actual Actual

Actual Impacts
Sub-metered on each
Meter Installed
Estimated by means Sub-metered for each floor and reported through
or Other
of an algorithm tenant unit the use of Pulse Energy
Means
software
Feedback
Real-time Real-time Real-time
Frequency
Individual, Individual (current and

Individual and group
Group, and history), other tenants, Group (each floor)
Format
feedback
Norm? and norm
Online personal
Information Online and a digital
account in intranet A digital dashboard
Format dashboard
(web-based)
Very effective in the week
Whether
when the experiment was
Effective or
N.A. N.A. implemented; however,
Not for Energy
the saving did not
Cost–Benefit
Savings
continue afterwards.
Cost of The total capital cost was
Implementing N.A. $365,000 for the meter N.A.
Feedback installation. The annual
energy savings is
projected to be $396,000 20% reduction of
Savings from
N.A. from behavior change electricity use in the
Feedback
project activities. experiment week
Note: N.A. refers to the related information not available from the existing literature
provided by the reviewed energy behavior programs.
The cost-effectiveness of a feedback program and the durability of the behavior change brought
about by the feedback are two important issues to consider when evaluating feedback programs
(Widman et al. 1984). The three case studies gave very limited information or none at all regarding
these two issues.
3.4.3 Benign Peer Pressure and Competition

Peer pressure refers to the influence exercised by a peer group on members’ attitudes and behaviors,
thus encouraging members to conform to norms favored by the peer group. In a firm, upper
management sometimes makes use of benign peer pressure to encourage preferred attitudes and
actions. For example, when a manager reports the project progress of a group in a meeting, benign
peer pressure is felt by members of the group.
25
Competition refers to rivalry between two or more parties striving for the same objective. The parties
could be different firms, or different groups within the same firm. The latter is called internal
competition. Matsuo (2005), who studied Japanese sales departments, argued that the management
of internal competition plays an important role in creating and sharing knowledge in these
organizations.
The reviewed cases intentionally (such as the Floor Challenge presented in Box 5) or unintentionally
(such as having a public meeting to report progress by each department) introduced benign peer
pressure and internal competition into their energy behavior programs.
Box 5. The Floor Challenge at Conservation Action at BC Hydro
The Floor Challenge was a friendly competition between the floors in the building. Points were
awarded in three categories: electricity reduction, waste reduction, and participation. The
initiative tracked the monthly performance in each of the three categories, and displayed
monthly and cumulative points on a Celebration Board. The initiative also communicated
monthly floor challenge updates electronically and in person to all employees. At the end of the
year, the initiative announced winners and awards (Gustafson and Longland 2008).
The Floor Challenge Initiative made use of several characteristics of benign peer pressure and
internal competition: (1) clear objectives and a scoring system, which helped building occupants know
what indicators were being measured, (2) transparent tracking, which made measurement
accountable, (3) public display of monthly performance to all employees, which created benign peer
pressure and internal competition between floors, and (4) rewards, which provided a positive signal to
building occupants, thereby encouraging desired behaviors.
In a working environment benign peer pressure and competition are common among individuals,
teams, and departments within the same firm. The effective use of the two techniques in an energy
behavior program can help to quickly establish and diffuse new norms of energy conservation in a
firm, or even among firms if they implement the same energy behavior programs.
3.4.4 Rewards
A reward is a return on or compensation for a desirable behavior. A reward sends a positive signal
that reinforces a desirable behavior during a learning process. As social learning theory suggests,
people model their own behavior by observing others who have been rewarded or punished (Bandura
1974, 1976)
Rewards can be financial; however, respect, visibility, credibility and authority are equally or even
more sought as rewards in a working environment. Box 6 presents some rewards featured in the
cases of the reviewed energy behavior programs.
26
Box 6. Rewards in Energy Behavior Programs
Floor Challenge (the BC Hydro case) announced its winner at the end of the year, with a
grand prize consisting of a VIP ticket at a Vancouver Canadians baseball game and a
barbeque for the winners (Gustafson and Longland 2008).
Conservation Champion Recognition Program (the BC Hydro case) allowed employees to

recognize each other for exemplary actions that save energy and reduce waste. A recognition
card had two components: one part was posted on a white board in a common area on their
floor and the other part was given to the employee being recognized. At the end of each
month, the cards were collected and a random draw was held for a $25 gift card (Gustafson
and Longland 2008).
Recognition and rewards (the TLC case) are important parts of the energy behavior
component of the TLC case. The program called for staff to share their ideas for project
improvements, and publicized their names in the hospital newsletter. Staff who submitted an
idea were eligible to enter into a draw for a prize. The UHN project team also rewarded those
staff who submitted the most innovative ideas (Adamson 2010).
4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Costs and Benefits of Energy Behavior Programs
An organization usually conducts a cost-benefit analysis before deciding to invest in a proposed
project. An energy behavior program could be regarded by an organization as an investment activity,
since development and implementation require the organization’s financial resources to support staff
time and purchase equipment and there is an expectation of a return on the investment in the form of
lower costs.
What would a cost-benefit analysis of an energy behavior program look like? Table 7 presents a list of
key cost and benefit items of an energy behavior program.
27
Table 7. Cost and Benefit Items of an Energy Behavior Program
Cost Items Benefit Items

 labor costs, such as key members of the
project committee, upper management
 savings in energy expenditures;
involvement in public events, and employees’
 creating a “green image” for the
time allocated to project activities;
organization by reducing energy use and
 Web site development costs (e.g., the “Green
its carbon footprint;
the Capitol” program) and posters (e.g., the
 building a culture of energy conservation
TLC case); Prompts?
within an organization;
 equipment purchase and installation costs
 producing spill-over impacts; and
(e.g., automatic sensors) and meters (e.g., the
Empire State Building case, and MEMPR  incurring lower program costs the most of
case); and time compared to many other energy
2
efficiency programs (e.g., retrofits).
 monetary rewards (e.g., the MEMPR case) and
other miscellaneous costs (such as printing
costs and food incentives in public events).
Among the key cost items of an energy behavior program, the labor cost varies by program. For
example, the TLC case hired a consulting company to develop the program and manage its program
committee, while the project committee of the MEMPR case consisted of “green minded” volunteers
recruited from building occupants.
Purchase and installation costs of equipment and meters could be the largest part of project
expenses in energy behavior programs, especially for a meter-based feedback project; therefore a
feedback project should carefully conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to the launch of such a project.
Among the key benefits of an energy behavior program, the spill-over impacts may be manifested
in two ways: other parts of the organization, which were not initially targeted in the energy behavior
program, may see the success of the program and later elect to actively participate in the program
(e.g., the district office that participated in “My Green Office” initiative in the “Green the Capitol”
project).
Another possibility is a change in participants’ own thinking and activities: following participation in the
program they may become more active in their own energy-saving practices. They may reduce their
home energy use, actively participate in, or even organize energy conservation programs in their
communities. They may act as agents for change outside of the organization, with the diffusion of
energy conservation behavior in other settings leading to indirect reduction of energy expenditure,
energy use and carbon emissions.
From the breakdown of the cost and benefit items of an energy behavior program, it is clear that the
cost items are more easily expressed in monetary terms, while the majority of the benefit items are
more intangible and therefore more difficult to measure in quantitative terms, such as the emergence
of a culture of energy conservation, the establishment of a green image, and spill-over impacts.
The difficulties of measuring and quantifying benefits of energy behavior programs often lead to the
absence of cost-benefit analysis in energy behavior programs (e.g., “Green the Capitol,” the BC
Hydro case, the MEMPR case, and the TLC case), or a cost-benefit analysis which only reports and
2
Note that there are some simple control adjustment measures that are virtually no cost that can achieve savings greater than
those cited in this report.
28
compares quantitative values (e.g., the Empire State Building case). The quantification problem may
lead to energy behavior programs being undervalued in the mainstream energy-efficiency initiatives
advocated by federal and state governments.
There is a clear need for the energy research community, policy decision makers, and energy
professionals to develop a cost-benefit assessment framework for energy behavior programs,
particularly for the assessment of the less tangible benefits of energy behavior programs. An
accounting of these benefits is the most important and also the most difficult aspect of the evaluation
of energy behavior programs.
Meanwhile, the lack of such an accounting framework should not be considered an obstacle to policy
decision makers and upper management of companies seeking to promote energy behavior
programs in the workplace. The low-cost nature of energy behavior programs poses little risk to the
profitability of enterprises and involves few disruptions to operations or work schedules. Conversely,
these programs could bring valuable benefits to the workplace (e.g., a green image, improved ethics,
and reduced energy expenditures), and more broadly to homes, communities and society at large.
4.2 Development of an Evaluation Framework for Energy Behavior

Programs
All of the reviewed case studies provided a very useful introduction to how energy behavior programs
are carried out in a wide variety of working environments; however, few of the case studies provided
detailed evaluations of the programs. Most even lacked documentation of the costs and energy
savings of the studied energy behavior programs. This missing information includes but is not limited
to the following:
 the persistence of energy savings from behavior changes;

 attitude and behavior changes resulting from energy behavior programs;
 evaluation of the impact of a variety of information channels (e.g., the effectiveness of e-mail,
Web sites, public meetings, etc.); and
 an assessment of engagement techniques (e.g., social norms, feedback, benign peer
pressure, rewards, etc.)
The absence of any evaluation framework for energy behavior programs may explain the lack of the
evaluation information needed to assess the effectiveness of these programs, a substantial
shortcoming that may lead to their exclusion from other, more technologically-focused energy
efficiency programs.
To address this deficiency, an evaluation framework could be developed that would involve four
distinct types of evaluations:
 Direct impact evaluations measure the tangible and easily quantified impact of energy
behavior programs, such as program costs, reductions in energy use, energy expenditures,
and carbon emissions.
 Indirect impact evaluations focus on the intangible benefits of energy behavior programs,
such as positive effects upon professional ethics, company image, and spill-over impacts on
participants’ homes and communities.
 Attitude and behavior impact evaluations concern the impact of energy behavior programs on
the attitudes and behaviors of participants, particularly the impact of components such as the
use of information channels and engagement techniques.
 Process evaluations assess the entire process of program development, including the
management of program committees, peer champions, and the effectiveness of branding.
29
There is an urgent need for the energy research community, energy efficiency professionals, and
policy decision makers to work together to develop an appropriate evaluation framework for energy
behavior programs. Such a framework would provide a valuable tool in the documentation and
analysis of ongoing energy behavior programs, while offering the promise of a future roadmap for the
improvement of energy behavior programs in their application to a variety of living and working
environments.
4.3 Institutional Buildings, the Best Candidate for Energy Behavior

Programs?
Institutional buildings, according to thefreedictionary.com, are buildings used by established
organizations or foundations, particularly those dedicated to education, public service, or culture.
During the case selection process, it was a surprise that there were so few case studies of energy
behavior programs, with nearly all of them falling under the category of “institutional buildings”—with
the Empire State Building a notable exception: the “Green the Capitol” program was implemented in
government buildings, the MEMPR case in a Canadian provincial government agency that is
3
responsible for energy policy and regulation, while BC Hydro is closely tied to the BC government ,
and the TLC program at UHN is similarly linked to the University of Toronto, which is a publicly-
funded university.
In addition, it seems that all of the reviewed cases share other certain common traits:
 All of them publicly displayed strong interest in promoting energy efficiency and sustainability;
 Upper management demonstrated extraordinary support for the programs;
 Employees, or at least a portion of employees, were highly motivated and passionate about
the cause;
 All of them own the buildings in which the programs were implemented;
 There is a very close interaction between building occupants and a built environment, i.e.,
building occupants spent a great deal of working time in the buildings; and
 There is a very close interaction between building occupants, i.e., a large proportion of
building occupants spent significant amounts of time in the workplace.
Are institutional buildings the best candidates for energy behavior programs?
The answer is not a simple “yes.” Any building owner and occupant who fit the above six traits, or at
least the majority of them could be regarded as good candidates for an energy behavior program.
One conclusion we may safely make is that some institutions in the U.S. and Canada are willing to
take the lead in promoting energy behavior programs. Government offices at federal, state, county
and city levels are all good candidates for low-cost energy behavior programs, and thus for setting an
example for others to follow.
4.4 Integration of Energy Behavior Components into DOE’s Building

Initiatives
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently running several programs and initiatives to
promote building energy efficiency in a wide range of commercial buildings. These initiatives could
offer opportunities for the integration of energy behavior components into existing programs and
initiatives.
3
The government of British Columbia owns BC Hydro. BC Hydro reports to the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources (MEMPR).
30
The Better Buildings Challenge (http://www4.eere.energy.gov/challenge/) encourages leading

organizations (corporate and community) to make substantial commitments to building energy
efficiency. Its Web site states that partners would “develop an organization-wide plan to achieve
energy goals” though no specific information is provided. Inclusion of “greening the work styles” of
building occupants in their list of project activities could be beneficial to Better Buildings Challenge
projects.
The Commercial Building Energy Alliances aim to improve building energy efficiency in key industries
(such as retailers http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/alliances/retailer_energy_alliance.html,
commercial real estate http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/alliances/commercial_real_estate.html,
and hospitals http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/alliances/hospital_energy_alliance.html) through
advanced technologies and strategies. The current Alliances seem to focus exclusively on
development and deployment of advanced technologies and materials. The Alliances could also
develop energy behavior programs by industry and share experiences through the existing Alliances’
network.
The inclusion of energy behavior components in the current building energy efficiency initiatives
would increase the spread of energy behavior programs, increase total project impact and promote
the adoption of energy-saving technology in a conservation-conscious environment.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This report studies workplace-based energy behavior programs that have been developed and
implemented by building occupants and/or owners seeking to reduce building energy use through
changes in occupants’ behavior. The report also provides an in-depth analysis on the common
strategies used by these energy behavior programs to engage participants.
The report is structured as a review of five case studies, including “Green the Capitol” in the U.S.
House of Representatives, the “Tenant Energy Management Program” in the Empire State Building,
“Conservation Action!” at BC Hydro, a behavior change campaign undertaken at the BC Ministry of
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the “TLC-Care to Conserve” program at the University
Health Network of the University of Toronto.
Four common intervention approaches were used in the reviewed energy behavior programs: (1)
setting the tone with the strong support of upper management, (2) building a team with a project
committee and peer champions on board, (3) utilizing communication tools to reach target audiences,
and (4) engaging building occupants by means of social norms, feedback, benign peer pressure and
competition, as well as through performance-linked rewards.
The report discussed the costs and benefits of energy behavior programs, but found that few
programs have performed an adequate job of documenting and analyzing cost and benefit-related
information. The difficulty of measuring and quantifying (sometimes intangible) benefits of energy
behavior programs could be the main reason that energy behavior programs have been neglected in
current, more technologically driven initiatives.
In addition, a lack of evaluation information in the current energy behavior programs inhibits a better
understanding of key aspects of these programs, such as the hypothesized persistence of energy
savings resulting from behavior changes. Similarly, this current lack of evaluation data also limits
opportunities for assessing the effectiveness of the various information channels and engagement
techniques in the promotion of a culture of energy efficiency. Thus there is clearly a need for the
energy research community, policy decision makers, and energy professionals to work together to
develop an evaluation framework (including a cost-benefit assessment approach) for energy behavior
programs.
The DOE has been actively promoting building energy efficiency through an array of building
initiatives. Though the existing initiatives have integrated many important components (e.g.,
31
technology, building materials, and finance), the inclusion of energy behavior components would
create a more conservation-conscious environment in which to promote the adoption of energy-
saving technology, while increasing the scope and scale of the impact of these programs through the
existing network of building initiatives.
Some institutions in the U.S. and Canada are undoubtedly willing to take the lead in promoting energy
behavior programs. Government offices at federal, state, county, and city levels are all appropriate
candidates for low-cost energy behavior programs. By instituting such programs they could play an
important role in the promotion of energy efficiency by setting an example for others to follow, and by
helping to establish a culture of energy conservation both in the workplace and beyond.
32
REFERENCES
Aacker, D.A. 1996. Building Strong Brands. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press.
Adamson, S. 2010. "Using TLC to Reduce Energy Use." In Proceedings of the 2010 ACEEE Summer
Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy.
Allcott, H. and S. Mullainathan. 2010. "Behavior and Energy Policy." Science 327(5970): 1204-1205.
Aronson, E. and M. O'Leary. 1983. "The Relative Effectiveness of Models and Prompts on Energy
Conservation: A Field Experiment in a Shower Room." Journal of Environmental Systems 12:
219-224.
Bandura, A. 1974. "Behavior Theory and the Models of Man." American Psychologist 29(12): 859-
869.
———. 1976. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.
BC Hydro. 2008. "Power Smart Tips for Work."

http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/psbusiness/pdf/business_power_smart_
employee_awareness_power_smart_tip1.Par.0001.File.business_power_smart_employee_aware
ness_power_smart_tip1.pdf. Vancouver, B.C., Canada: BC Hydro.
Bernard, J.T., M. Lemieux, and S. Thivierge. 1987. "Residential Energy Demand : An Integrated Two-
Levels Approach." Energy Economics 9(3): 139-144.
Brown, Z. B. and R. J. Cole. 2008. "Engaging Occupants in Green Building Performance: Addressing
the Knowledge Gap." In Proceedings of the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
[CAO] Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. 2010. Enabling a Green Workforce—Building a
Culture of Sustainability in the House (A Progress Report). Washington D.C.: Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer.
Cebon, P. B. 1992. "'Twixt Cup and Lip Organizational Behaviour, Technical Prediction and
Conservation Practice." Energy Policy 20(9): 802-814.
DeCanio, S. J. 1993. "Barriers within Firms to Energy-Efficient Investments." Energy Policy 21(9):
906-914.
Diamond, R., C. Payne, and G. Scherling. 2008. "Greening the U.S. House of Representatives." In
Proceedings of the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington,
D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Dietz, T. and P. C. Stern, Eds. 2002. New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information,
and Voluntary Measures. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Ehrhardt-Martinez, K. 2008. Behavior, Energy, and Climate Change: Policy Directions, Program
Innovations, and Research Paths. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy.
Ehrhardt-Martinez, K. and J. A. Laitner, Eds. 2010. People-Centered Initiatives for Increasing Energy
Savings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Empire State Building Company. 2009, 2011. "Sustainability and Energy Efficiency." from
http://www.esbnyc.com/sustainability_energy_efficiency.asp.
33
Feldman, R. S. 1998. Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Feng, K., K. Hubacek, and G. Dabo. 2009. "Lifestyles, Technology and CO2 Emissions in China: A
Regional Comparative Analysis." Ecological Economics 69(1): 145-154.
Freedman, J. L. and S. C. Fraser. 1966. "Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-The-Door

Technique." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(2): 195–202.
Friedrich, K., J. Amann, S. Vaidyanathan, and R. N. Elliott. 2010. Visible and Concrete Savings: Case
Studies of Effective Behavioral Approaches to Improving Customer Energy Efficiency.
Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Goitein, B. 1989. "Organizational Decision-Making and Energy Conservation Investments."

Evaluation and Program Planning 12(2): 143-151.
Gustafson, C. and M. Longland. 2008. "Engaging Employees in Conservation Leadership." In

Proceedings of the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington,
D.C.: American Council for an Energy-efficient Economy.
Hidetoshi, N. 1996. "Lifestyle Change and Energy Use in Japan: Household Equipment and Energy
Consumption." Energy 21(12): 1157-1167.
Hromalik, N. 2010. "The U.S. House of Representatives as a Model of Sustainability." Behavior,

Energy & Climate Change Conference. Sacramento, Calif.
[IEA] International Energy Agency. 2007. Mind the Gap–Quantifying Principal-Agent Problems in
Energy Efficiency, 224. International Energy Agency.
Jones Lang LaSalle. 2011. A Landmark Sustainability Program for the Empire State Building.
http://www.ap.joneslanglasalle.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/United%20States/JLL_Empire_Stat
e_Building_Project_Plan.pdf?utm_source=LandingPage&utm_medium=LandingPage&utm_term
=ProjectPlan&utm_campaign=EmpireStateBuilding.
Katzev, R. D. and T. R. Johnson. 1984. "Comparing the Effects of Monetary Incentives and Foot-in-
the-Door Strategies in Promoting Residential Electricity Conservation." Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 14(1): 12-27.
Kempton, W. and M. Neiman, Eds. 1987. Energy Efficiency: Perspectives on Individual Behavior.
Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Laitner, J. A. and K. Ehrhardt-Martinez. 2011. "The Human Dimensions of the Growing Energy and
Climate Imperatives." www.aceee.org/files/pdf/conferences/30th/building/Laitner.pdf.
Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Lutzenhiser, L. 1993. "Social and Behavioral Aspects of Energy use." Annual Review of Energy and
the Environment 18: 247-289.
Lutzenhiser, L. and E. Shove. 1999. "Contracting Knowledge: The Organizational Limits to

Interdisciplinary Energy Efficiency Research and Development in the US and the UK." Energy
Policy 27(4): 217-227.
Matsuo, M. 2005. The Role of Internal Competition in Knowledge Creation: An Empirical Study in
Japanese Firms. Bern, Switzerland, Peter Lang.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2000. "Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based

Social Marketing." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 543-554.
34
———. 2011. Fostering Sustainable Behavior–Community-based Social Marketing. New Society

Publishers.
National Research Council. 1982. Behavioral and Social Aspects of Energy Consumption and
Production: Preliminary Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
———. 1999. Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next
Decade. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Owen, T., A. Pape-Salmon, et al. 2010. "Employee Engagement and Energy Information Software
Supporting Carbon Neutrality." In Proceedings of the 2010 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Owens, S. and L. Driffill. 2008. "How To Change Attitudes and Behaviours in the Context of Energy."
Energy Policy 36: 4412-4418.
Pallak, M. S., D. A. Cook, et al., Eds. 1980. "Commitment and Energy Conservation.: Applied Social
Psychology Annual. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Payne, C. 2006. The Commercial Energy Consumer: About Whom Are We Speaking? Washington,
D.C.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Rick, D. 2003. "A Lifestyle-Based Scenario for US Buildings: Implications for Energy Use." Energy
Policy 31(12): 1205-1211.
Rocky Mountain Institute. 2010. Project Case Study: Empire State Building. Rocky Mountain Institute.
———. 2011. "Greening the Empire State Building." http://bet.rmi.org/rmi-news/greening-the-empire-

state-building.html. Rocky Mountain Institute.
Schipper, L. and S. Meyers. 1992. Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future
Prospects. Cambridge University Press.
Scott, C. A. 1977. "Modifying Socially-Conscious Behavior: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique." Journal

of Consumer Research 4(3): 156-164.
Shui, B. and H. Dowlatabadi. 2005. "Consumer Lifestyle Approach to US Energy Use and the Related
CO2 Emissions." Energy Policy 33(2): 197–208.
Stern, P., Ed. 1985. Energy Efficiency in Buildings: Behavioral Issues. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
Stern, P. C. and E. Aronson, Eds. 1984. Energy Use: the Human Dimension. New York: Freeman.
Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, et al., Eds. 1997. Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research
Directions. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Stern, P. C. and R. E. Kasperson, Eds. 2010. Facilitating Climate Change Responses: A Report of
Two Workshops on Insights from the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
Straus, J. R. 2009. Administering Green Programs in Congress: Issues and Options. Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Straus, J. R. (Congressional Research Service). 2011. Personal communication.
35
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2008. "Overview of Commercial Buildings, 2003." Commecial
Building Energy Consumption Survey. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/overview1.html.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. "Table 2.1a Energy Consumption by Sector, 1949–
2009." Annual Energy Review. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
http://205.254.135.24/totalenergy/data/annual/txt/ptb0201a.html.
Vandelay Website Design. (2008). "Issues Involved with Website Communication."

http://vandelaydesign.com/blog/design-process/website-communication.
Weber, C. and A. Perrels. 2000. "Modelling Lifestyle Effects on Energy Demand and Related
Emissions." Energy Policy 28(8): 549-566.
Widman, R., B. Simmons, et al. 1984. Behavioral Approaches to Energy Conservation in

Organizations: A Selected Review of the Literature, 21. Chicago: The University of Michigan.
Wilson, C. and H. Dowlatabadi. 2007. "Models of Decision Making and Residential Energy Use."
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 169–203.
Wu, Y., C. Liu, et al. 2007. Study on China Building Energy Management System. Beijing, China:
Construction Industry Publishing House.
Yates, S. M. and E. Aronson. 1983. "A Social Psychological Perspective on Energy Conservation in
Residential Building." American Psychologist 38(4): 435-444.
36

ACEEE Greening Work Styles - Analysis of Behaviour Programmes in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACEEE Greening Work Styles - Analysis of Behaviour Programmes in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACEEE Greening Work Styles - Analysis of Behaviour Programmes in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREENING WORK STYLES:

AN ANALYSIS OF ENERGY BEHAVIOR PROGRAMS

Report Number B121

© American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

List of Figures .........................................................................................................................................iii

List of Boxes ...........................................................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ v

Setting the Tone ................................................................................................................................ vi

Building a Team ................................................................................................................................vii

Employing Communication Tools ......................................................................................................vii

Deploying Key Engagement Techniques ..........................................................................................vii

1.1 Commercial Buildings and Related Energy Use ................................................................... 1

1.2 A Brief Review of Energy Behavior Research ...................................................................... 1

2. Case Studies of Energy Behavior Programs in the Workplace ...................................................... 3

2.1 Research Scope and Selection of Case Studies .................................................................. 3

2.4 “Conservation Action!” at BC Hydro (2006–2007, Canada) .................................................. 7

2.6 “TLC-Care to Conserve” at University Health Network (2007–2010, Canada) ..................... 9

2.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Setting the Tone .................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Building a Team .................................................................................................................. 16

3.3 Employing Communication Tools ........................................................................................ 18

3.4 Deploying Key Engagement Techniques ............................................................................ 23

4. Policy Implications ....................................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Costs and Benefits of Energy Behavior Programs ............................................................. 27

4.2 Development of an Evaluation Framework for Energy Behavior Programs ....................... 29

AOC Architect of the Capitol

BC Hydro BC Hydro and Power Authority

Btu British thermal unit

CAO The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

CBSM Community-based social marketing

DOE The U.S. Department of Energy

DSM Demand-side management

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

MEMPR The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

TLC Thermostats, Lights, and Controls

TWH Toronto Western Hospital

UHN The University Health Network

VOC volatile organic compounds

Table ES-1. Five Case Studies in This Report

"Green the Capitol" at U.S. House Behavior Campaign in a Provincial

Setting the Tone

Employing Communication Tools

Deploying Key Engagement Techniques

What Are the Take-Home Messages from this Report?

1.1 Commercial Buildings and Related Energy Use

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration 2011

1.2 A Brief Review of Energy Behavior Research

Box 1. Examples of Behavior-Side of Green Work Styles

Concerning equipment use:

Concerning lighting use:

 Turn off lights when areas are not in use

2. CASE STUDIES OF ENERGY BEHAVIOR PROGRAMS IN THE WORKPLACE

Table 1. Five Case Studies in This Report

2.2 “Green the Capitol” at the U.S. House of Representatives (2007–2012,1

2.2.1 Program Background & Measured Results

2.2.2 Project Activities Related to Energy Behavior Change

2.2.3 Key Messages from the Project

Box 2. What Did They Say?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, April 19, 2007