Harald Heinrichs · Pim Martens Gerd Michelsen · Arnim Wiek Editors

3 Open Issues and Future Research
The examples discussed above all repurpose tools of influence for sustainability 
objectives. Similar lines of research could be very fruitful for connecting proven
behavioral tools with pressing sustainability problems. Of course, tools will have to 
be refined for new settings, which come with a host of challenges.
There is the challenge of transferability. Many behavioral science insights have 
been derived in specific cultural or experimental settings, leading to difficulties in 
reproducing results in new contexts (Henrich et al. 
2010
). Research on panaceas
suggests, in general, exercising caution when transferring solution options from one 
specific context to another (Ostrom et al. 
2007
). Once a problem is chosen, tools are 
selected, and likely resistance is anticipated, testing assumptions in small scale or 
pilot interventions can communicate the effectiveness of behavioral tools within a 
specific problem’s context.
A related challenge is selecting the appropriate suite of behavioral tools for each
sustainability intervention. There are many more tools available than we have space 
to discuss here (Thaler and Sunstein
2008
; Heath and Heath 
2010
; Kahneman 
2011
), and combinations will often be more effective than a single tool for a specific 
intervention. Future research can help determine the relative impacts of behavioral
tools, find the most effective blends, and pair the right tools with the ripest 
problems.
Such intervention studies could support evidence-based policy-making for sus-
tainability transitions. However, evidence alone is often insufficient to overcome 
social and political bias and the status quo (Bartels 
2002
; Baum and Gussin 
2007
; 
Nyhan and Reifler
2010
). This is partially due to what psychology terms “motivated 
reasoning,” which means that we use beliefs to filter evidence and choose which 
evidence to accept or reject (Kunda 
1990
; Redlawsk
2002
). This indicates that inter-
ventions for sustainable consumption need to be embedded in a larger societal pur-
suit to overcome the widening imbalance between private and public interests 
(Reich
2008
).
Evidence-based policy-making, using insights from behavioral research, faces 
additional challenges. Some behavioral interventions have been termed “libertarian
paternalism,” meaning that choice is offered, but the choice architecture aims at 
certain options (defaults, strategically placed food, etc.). Opponents of such behav-
ioral interventions worry about the balance between freedom, democracy, and “lib-
ertarian paternalism.” These arguments claim “nudges” are a slippery slope to social 
engineering-like “shoves” (Lott
2013
). Supporters of “nudges” counter that the
point of interventions is to balance existing influences and “use decision errors that 
ordinarily hurt people to instead help them” (Downs et al. 
2009
, p. 160). After all,
it is called “libertarian” paternalism because the “nudged” are free to choose. 
“Nudges,” in this sense, can be seen as recalibrating decision environments to
account for biases and incentivizing preferred behaviors, such as sustainable con-
sumption. Of course, preferred behaviors will depend on values and the “motivated 
reasoning” attached to those values. This is a reminder that tools of influence are 
J. Harlow et al.

---

299
means
to an end. A broader societal discourse is necessary to converge on the end
(goals) a society wants to pursue.
Behavioral intervention efforts also encounter problems familiar for intentional 
change toward sustainability (Beddoe et al. 
2009
). The status quo has culture, con-
text, politics, and values that create winners and losers. Coal plants lose revenue 
when consumers choose “green” energy, and utility companies lose revenue when 
we wash fewer towels. Any sustainable behavior change will have to navigate the
current setting strategically and anticipate likely points of resistance (companies 
whose food is no longer in the cafeteria hot spot). Choosing a scale where resistance 
is minimized, impact is maximized, and tools are available is key to successful 
interventions. This is especially important for making consumption more sustain-
able, as status quo market forces and capitalism will be extremely powerful at large 
scales (global trade and multinational corporations). Future research can establish
which behavioral tools experience more or less backlash (and on what scale) and 
suggest which tools are sensitive to which political and cultural contexts.
• Task : Pick an area of consumption (think of examples like automobiles, bottled 
water, computers, new homes, etc.) and think through (a) the negative impacts of 
this consumption activity, (b) who benefits from this consumption activity, (c) 
how the product is marketed to society, (d) what behavioral principles these 
marketing activities take advantage of, (e) what sustainable consumption alter-
natives exist, and (f) how you might use the behavioral principles discussed to 
promote these alternatives. What do you think of the idea of “nudging” people 
toward sustainable consumption? How would you make a case to someone who 
disagrees with your opinion?