Encouraging Individual Contributions to Net-Zero Organizations: Effects of Behavioral Policy Interventions and Social Norms

Bastini, Karola; Kerschreiter, Rudolf; Lachmann, Maik; Ziegler, Matthias; Sawert, Tim Article — Published Version Encouraging Individual Contributions to Net-Zero Organizations: Effects of Behavioral Policy Interventions and Social Norms Journal of Business Ethics Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Bastini, Karola; Kerschreiter, Rudolf; Lachmann, Maik; Ziegler, Matthias; Sawert, Tim (2023) : Encouraging Individual Contributions to Net-Zero Organizations: Effects of Behavioral Policy Interventions and Social Norms, Journal of Business Ethics, ISSN 1573-0697, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 192, Iss. 3, pp. 543-560, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05516-8 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317922 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Journal of Business Ethics (2024) 192:543–560 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05516-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Encouraging Individual Contributions toNet‑Zero Organizations: Effects ofBehavioral Policy Interventions andSocial Norms KarolaBastini1 · RudolfKerschreiter2 · MaikLachmann1 · MatthiasZiegler3 · TimSawert2,4 Received: 24 May 2022 / Accepted: 7 August 2023 / Published online: 24 August 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract To contribute to a better understanding of the determinants of climate-friendly organizational behavior, we study the potential of behavioral policy interventions and social norms to foster individual contributions to organizational decarbonization initiatives. We investigate the effects of different types of behavioral policy interventions (default nudges vs. short-term boosts) in isolation and when they are combined with normative appeals to adopt climate-friendly behaviors in an organizational context. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment, we find that default nudges generally induced higher individual contributions to organizational carbon compensation programs than short-term boosts. Moreover, injunctive social norm information decreased the effectiveness of both types of behavioral interventions but affected the effectiveness of short-term boosts to a stronger extent than the effectiveness of default nudges. Contributing to the nascent literature on motivating climate change mitigating behaviors in organizational contexts, we additionally explore whether factors such as personality traits, pro-social and pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, and the degree of organizational identification exert an influence on the effectiveness of the interventions and provide qualitative insights into participants’ reasoning for their decisions. Keywords Climate-friendly organizational behavior· Organizational policy interventions· Nudge· Boost· Social norm Introduction Climate change urgently needs to be addressed at multiple levels. Accordingly, organizations are called upon to implement initiatives to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Such initiatives require cooperation and contributions at multiple levels and their success crucially depends on individuals within the organization who may or may not support them. Understanding how to encourage pro-environmental organizational behavior is therefore essential to the success of organizational decarbonization. Following Aguinis and Glavas’ (2012) call to rethink corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a multilevel research field, a growing research interest focuses on the psychological and sociological microfoundations of CSR (Gond & Moser, 2021; Gond etal., 2017; Jones etal., 2019; Wade & Griffiths, 2021). This strand of literature assumes that social motives are central to participation in CSR initiatives. In contrast, environmental psychology reflects the parallel relevance of self-interest and pro-social moral and normative concerns in motivating pro-environmental behavior (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Steg & Vlek, 2009). Interestingly, both lines of research affirm the importance of considering contextual factors and habitual behavior alongside intra-personal factors when selecting intervention strategies (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Behavioral interventions and social norms are frequently promoted as potential means to foster voluntary individual contributions to the public good of an intact natural environment (Creutzig etal., 2018, 2022; Nyborg etal., 2016). As organizational decarbonization involves all areas of activities, transformation initiatives are likely to benefit from both individual engagement and policy interventions that foster pro-environmental behavior at work (Griep etal., 2022; Lülfs & Hahn, 2014; Norton etal., 2015; Unsworth etal., 2013). To contribute to urgent and immediate action * Karola Bastini [email protected] 1 Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623Berlin, Germany 2 Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany 3 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 4 Present Address: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany 544 K.Bastini et al. 1 3 required to mitigate climate change, this study investigates the effects of behavioral policy interventions and social norms on individual support for an organizational decarbonization initiative. Organizational behavior can be shaped through a variety of channels (Unsworth etal., 2013). Behavioral policy interventions like nudges and boosts aim to alter individual choices through changes in the choice architecture (Reijula etal., 2018). Nudging builds on the assumption of bounded rationality and seeks to implement mental shortcuts that steer individual decisions towards better choices (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) by exploiting biases in intuitive judgment and decision-making. The approach thereby focuses on heuristic reasoning and intuitive processes that guide decision-making. Food choices, for example, can be improved by arranging healthier options more saliently in cafeterias, while preserving the freedom to choose less healthy options. Boosts, in contrast, are reflective interventions that seek to improve individual decision-making competencies by providing decision-makers with skills and knowledge to better structure the decision-making context (Grüne-Yanoff & Hertwig, 2016; Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). They thereby explicitly target analytic reasoning and reflective decision-making. For example, medical choices that involve exercising one’s own agency can be altered in desirable ways by explaining statistical information to patients (Hertwig, 2017). Boosts differ from nudges in being necessarily transparent (Grüne-Yanoff & Hertwig, 2016). In contrast to nudges, they work by encouraging active cognitive reflection and thus foster conscious and deliberative decision-making processes (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). Their effectiveness may therefore depend more on people’s prior beliefs and willingness to cooperate in ethical decision-making contexts (Marquardt, 2010; Mertens etal., 2022; Tannenbaum etal., 2017). To our best knowledge, direct comparisons of the effectiveness of nudges and boosts in the organizational decarbonization context are absent from the literature to date. We explore whether initial findings from related (Banerjee etal., 2022) and distinct contexts (Bradt, 2019; Folke etal., 2021; Franklin etal., 2019; van Roekel etal., 2022) can be transferred to climate-friendly behaviors in organizational decarbonization contexts. Since human behavior is strongly influenced by what others think and do, suggestions for effective policy interventions often address social norms as potentially powerful solutions in mitigation contexts (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Creutzig etal., 2018; Miller & Prentice, 2016; Nolan, 2021; Nyborg etal., 2016). Complementing behavioral interventions with social norm information may be a powerful means to alter beliefs that support conformity to desired behaviors (Everett etal., 2015; Miller & Prentice, 2016). The impact of social norm information, however, depends on the context of the intervention (Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019; Gamma etal., 2020; Reisch & Sunstein, 2016) and interventions may not always work as intended (Constantino etal., 2022; Nolan, 2021). More specifically, since climate change is both a complex phenomenon and a collective-action problem that involves conflict between short-term self-interest and longterm collective interest (Constantino etal., 2022; van Lange & Huckelba, 2021), manifold barriers and distributive conflicts must be overcome in attempts to cooperate and implement mitigation efforts and policies (Sparkman etal., 2021). We use an experiment to explore the potential of a default nudge, a short-term boost, and combinations of both interventions with social norm information to foster individual contributions to an organizational climate change mitigation initiative. The initiative aims to motivate individuals to use discretionary funds for carbon emission compensation payments that offset unavoidable emissions arising from organizational core activities. We seek to understand which personal and organizational context factors act as motivational levers or barriers for this specific type of climate-friendly organizational behavior. Previous research has not yet examined how different combinations of behavioral interventions play out in the urgent but highly debated social context of mitigating climate change in organizations. This study contributes to understanding the effects of behavioral policy interventions and social norms in organizational contexts in several ways. First, by comparing the effectiveness of behavioral interventions that target heuristic reasoning and intuitive decision-making against the effectiveness of interventions that target analytical reasoning and reflective decision-making, we advance knowledge on how organizational behavior can be shaped in desired directions without using coercive measures in normative-ethical contexts such as mitigating the organizational carbon footprint. The findings show that nudges targeting intuitive decision-making slightly increase individual contributions, but are ineffective in fostering individual contributions as compared to a control condition without an intervention. In contrast, the presence of boosts as reflective interventions that rely on trust in individual motivation to contribute even reduces individual contributions. Albeit widely promoted as potential solutions in mitigating climate change, our study thus highlights that neither approach helps an organizational cause, and boosts actually hurt it. The findings therefore critically question the extent to which interventions based on reflective decision-making are suited to generate the broad support that organizational decarbonization initiatives require. Second, the study accounts for the potential contextdependency of behavioral policy interventions by including several control variables that encompass individual characteristics and attitudes towards society, the environment, and the organization. By systematically evaluating their potential moderating roles, we explore which factors may affect 545 Encouraging Individual Contributions toNet‑Zero Organizations: Effects ofBehavioral Policy… 1 3 the effectiveness of both types of interventions. We further explore qualitative information on the reasons underlying decision-making, and thereby inform theory-building in the context of climate-friendly organizational behavior. Third, we provide evidence that integrating normative appeals to conform with a reference group’s views on how one should behave towards the environment may result in unintended consequences. Although social approval is a crucially important prerequisite for successful policy interventions in the climate context (Creutzig etal., 2018; Nyborg etal., 2016), this study highlights the limits that appealing to social norms in the mitigation context entails. We thereby advance the understanding of potential backfiring effects of social norm interventions in the context of climate change (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Constantino etal., 2022; Sparkman etal., 2021). Theoretical Background andHypotheses Development Determinants ofClimate‑Friendly Behavior Psychological research has identified personal attitudes, norms, intentions, and values as important determinants of individual pro-environmental behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Klöckner, 2013; Onwezen etal., 2013; Stern, 2000). Stern’s (2000) value-belief-norm theory conceptualizes behavior as the result of a causal chain between a person’s values, beliefs, and norms relating to pro-social and pro-environmental behaviors in the public, private, and organizational spheres. Previous studies indicate that personal biospheric and altruistic values (Stern etal., 1995) and moral norms (Joireman etal., 2001; Widegren, 1998), along with pro-environmental attitudes (Katz etal., 2022) and green behavioral intentions (Norton etal., 2017) are important determinants of employee green behavior. For organizational contexts, the literature on psychological and sociological microfoundations of CSR builds on social exchange and social identity theory in claiming that organizations engage in CSR to foster employees’ trust and organizational identification (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Farooq etal., 2014; Norton etal., 2017). This line of research assumes that substantive organizational engagement in social and environmental initiatives and a positive green psychological climate can foster employee engagement in organizational CSR initiatives (Chang, 2020; Norton etal., 2017; Vlachos etal., 2014, 2017). Empirical studies, however, approach these relations from distinct disciplines and use a variety of concepts and constructs (Francoeur etal., 2021; Gond & Moser, 2021; Wallnoefer & Riefler, 2021). A fragmented literature further explores the relevance of a variety of possible predictors of climate-friendly behavior at the individual level, such as personality traits (Brick & Lewis, 2016; Hopwood etal., 2021), psycho-social, cognitive, and sociodemographic factors (Thaller etal., 2020). For organizational contexts, organizational routines and habitual processes are proposed as potentially relevant determinants of sustainable employee behavior (Lülfs & Hahn, 2014; Norton etal., 2015; Ones & Dilchert, 2012; Wade & Griffiths, 2021). The present study investigates whether behavioral policy interventions and social norms are suitable policy instruments to foster voluntary contributions of individuals that help mitigate the overall organizational carbon footprint. Compared to more coercive measures such as strict regulatory structures, these approaches promote competence, relatedness, and autonomy, thus preserving the self-determining character of pro-social and pro-environmental behaviors (Rupp etal., 2010). Specifically, we investigate the effects of nudges and boosts, two non-fiscal and non-regulatory intervention types that aim to influence behavior in desired directions while preserving people’s freedom of choice (Hertwig, 2017). As outlined above, they differ in the underlying mechanism of action. Nudging builds on manipulating the choice architecture (Reijula etal., 2018) and thereby targets heuristic processes of reasoning, whereas boosts aim at developing individual decision-making competencies by providing decision-makers with skills and knowledge that enable them to better structure the decision context (GrüneYanoff & Hertwig, 2016; Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). Boosts thereby target analytic processes of reasoning that involve cognitive effort and learning. By exploring which approach is more effective in fostering voluntary individual contributions to organizational decarbonization initiatives, we seek to understand how the different mechanisms affect and guide individual climate-related behaviors. Behavioral Policy Interventions asInstruments toEncourage Contributions Nudges target to directly alter behaviors through changes in the choice architecture without demanding cognitive and motivational efforts of decision-makers. The idea of nudging originates from a research paradigm that interprets decisionmakers as systematically affected by cognitive and motivational deficiencies (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Rooted in dual-processing theories of human cognition (Evans, 2008), this intervention type exploits the finding that decisionmaking processes are often based on rapid, automated, and unconscious System 1 processes of human cognition (Evans, 2008; Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Kahneman etal., 1982). Deliberative System 2 processes that are characterized as slow, controlled, and effortful, may, however, intervene to revise or replace heuristic responses and correct for potential biases (Banerjee, 2020; Evans, 2006, 546 K.Bastini et al. 1 3 2008). Dual-process theories of reasoning assume that the extent to which reflective System 2 processes intervene in intuitive reasoning is influenced by motivational and situational factors. Motivational factors include an individual’s thinking disposition, feelings of rightness towards intuitive answers, and the importance of the decision, whereas situational factors include the available time, potential competing tasks, and other context factors (Evans, 2019). Nudging is likely to be effective if the extent to which reflective processes intervene in intuitive processing is low, or if reflective processes result in confirming the initial intuitive answer given. An effective form of a nudge targeting the structure of decisions is the implementation of a default option that is chosen if decision-makers do not explicitly specify other options (Thaler & Sunstein, 2003). Default nudges exploit decision-makers’ inertia and tendency to stick with the status quo (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). They are criticized for not being fully transparent and exploiting that people may be unaware of their presence and underlying purpose (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017; Rozeboom, 2021; Schubert, 2017; Siipi & Koi, 2021). Still, the effectiveness of default nudges across diverse contexts (Byerly etal., 2018; Gajewski etal., 2022; Hummel & Maedche, 2019; Mertens etal., 2022; Smith etal., 2013) and their cost-effective implementation (Benartzi etal., 2017) make them an attractive policy instrument to steer decisions in desirable directions (Reisch & Sunstein, 2016). In contrast to nudges, boosts interpret human decisionmakers as malleable individuals whose deficiencies can be overcome by providing them with skills and knowledge to improve their competencies (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). The underlying simple heuristics paradigm assumes that rapid and unconscious System 1 and deliberative System 2 processes of human cognition function simultaneously, such that biases and cognitive deficiencies can be overcome (Banerjee, 2020; Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). Boosts are necessarily transparent to decision-makers and require their cooperation to be effective (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). Grüne-Yanoff and Hertwig (2016) differentiate between short-term boosts that seek to improve human decisionmaking competencies in a specific context, and long-term boosts aiming to improve general cognitive abilities. From a theoretical perspective, short-term boosts are difficult to distinguish from educative nudges (Sunstein & Reisch, 2019) or nudges plus (Banerjee etal., 2022; Bruns etal., 2018) that combine nudges with information on their presence and/or purpose and have been introduced to the literature in response to criticism of the lacking transparency of nudges (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017). To maintain conceptual clarity and to identify which of the mechanisms underlying the steering or empowering approach is more promising for organizational change, we analyze the initial direct effects of a default nudge and a short-term boost. Previous empirical research has compared the approaches in different contexts. Studies addressing risky financial decision-making conclude that boosts generate better individual financial choices (Folke etal., 2021; Franklin etal., 2019) while for the context of risk insurance, Bradt (2019) finds that nudges are more effective. A recent field study in healthcare concludes that nudges have a stronger immediate effect, whereas the effect of boosts persists after the removal of the intervention (van Roekel etal., 2022). Bruns etal. (2018) test the effectiveness of default nudges in the context of voluntary contributions to carbon retirement and find that transparency relating to (1) potential behavioral influences and (2) the purpose of presenting a default does not decrease the effectiveness of the nudge. Banerjee etal. (2022) compare the effectiveness of nudge, boost, think (a purely reflective intervention, John etal., 2009), and nudge plus (a hybrid nudge-think strategy, Banerjee, 2020) in minimizing carbonintense food choices. They find that combining nudges with information on their presence and purpose does not reduce their effectiveness. Previous empirical evidence thus supports the effectiveness of nudges in demand-side mitigation contexts but provides limited evidence on the effectiveness of boosts. For the organizational decarbonization context considered here, we expect that default nudges are more effective than short-term boosts in fostering contributions to carbon compensation initiatives because they require less cognitive effort, as they are inclined to fast rather than deliberative reasoning. The effect of default options is often explained by the claim that they are perceived as implicit recommendations of experts with paternalistic intentions (McKenzie etal., 2006; Ridder etal., 2022). Accordingly, we predict that individuals perceive the default contribution as the amount that is implicitly recommended by the organization. This may or may not be in line with individual preferences and attitudes towards carbon compensation. Because default nudges target System 1 processing as the dominant mode of thinking, we expect the default nudge to be successful if deliberative System 2 processes do not intervene and individuals stick with the status quo. To the extent that reflective processes intervene in the reasoning process, the appropriateness of the default value and its consistency with individual preferences may be more critically questioned. The evaluation of possible alternative uses for (parts of) the default contribution may result in lower contributions. Short-term boosts necessarily target System 2 processes of cognition and will therefore likewise induce considerations of the appropriateness of contributions. Specifically, individuals will consider not using the (entire) amount for organizational decarbonization but instead prioritize purposes that serve individual self-interest (Miller, 1999). 547 Encouraging Individual Contributions toNet‑Zero Organizations: Effects ofBehavioral Policy… 1 3 Climate change can be characterized as a social dilemma in which cooperation will benefit the collective in the long term but is costly to individuals who benefit from non-cooperative behavior in the short term (van Lange & Huckelba, 2021; van Lange etal., 2018). This social and temporal conflict, along with the abstract and complex nature of climate change as a phenomenon, can foster psychological distance towards making contributions and result in lowering these. Moreover, potential negative attitudes towards the organization or the compensation of greenhouse gases may influence individuals’ contributions when reflective processes intervene. H1 Default nudges are more effective than short-term boosts in fostering contributions to climate change mitigation. Social Norms asInstruments toEncourage Contributions Prior research confirms that expectations of others’ attitudes and behaviors are important determinants of cooperative behavior (Goldstein etal., 2008; Griskevicius etal., 2008; Nyborg etal., 2016). Accordingly, social norms are promoted as a potential means of creating cooperation and avoiding free-riding behavior resulting in the overexploitation of natural resources in the climate commons dilemma (Carattini etal., 2019; Nyborg etal., 2016). Under the focus theory of normative conduct, descriptive social norms that relate to what is commonly done by others are distinguished from injunctive social norms that relate to the extent to which a behavior is commonly approved by others (Cialdini etal., 1991, 2006). Previous research has established parallels between the mechanisms underlying default nudges and social norms because default options are perceived as recommended (injunctive norm) or mostly chosen (descriptive norm) options (Everett etal., 2015). Combinations of social norms and nudges are referred to as norm-nudges, where the mechanism of action builds on social norms to change social expectations and thereby elicit desired behaviors (Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019). The conditions under which social norm-based interventions are effective require careful consideration (Gamma etal., 2020). Prior studies document that aligned descriptive and injunctive norms exhibit synergistic effects (Borg etal., 2020; Jacobson etal., 2020), whereas interventions relying only on one type of norm message are less effective (Bonan etal., 2020). The interactive effects of descriptive and injunctive social norms are theoretically grounded in the idea that they influence behavior through different motivational mechanisms. While conforming to descriptive norms fulfills the desire to make effective decisions, conforming to injunctive social norms serves to gain or maintain social approval (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Jacobson etal., 2011). Importantly, misaligned descriptive and injunctive norms may exhibit backfiring effects if normative appeals highlight that harmful behaviors are widespread and thus form a descriptive norm. Previous studies document such backfiring effects across different contexts (Bernthal etal., 2006; Cialdini, 2003; Richter etal., 2018; Staunton etal., 2014). Individuals’ willingness to conform to social norms is thus contingent upon (1) an empirical expectation that most other people conform to it, and (2) a normative expectation that most other people believe they should conform to it (Bicchieri, 2017; Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019). In the context of climate change, a major barrier to the effectiveness of using social norms to induce behavior change lies in the prevalence of unsustainable behaviors (Sparkman etal., 2021). Although many people are concerned about environmental impact and climate change, individual pro-environmental intent often fails to result in pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 2000). Psychological research confirms that climate change is perceived as an abstract and complex phenomenon that elicits psychological distance because its consequences affect a large collective, extend over long time horizons, and are often uncertain (van Lange & Huckelba, 2021). Individual sacrifices, in contrast, are often costly, immediate, and potentially conflicting with other values endorsed by the individual (Bouman & Steg, 2019; Bouman etal., 2021a). Moreover, previous findings indicate that individuals tend to overestimate self-interested behaviors by others (Miller, 1999; van Lange etal., 2018) and tend to assess others to have weaker biospheric values than themselves (Bergquist, 2020; Bouman & Steg, 2019; Bouman etal., 2021b; Leviston etal., 2013). Underestimating others’ climate-friendly values and behaviors can inhibit the potential effects of social norm interventions in the climate context (Sparkman etal., 2021; Steg, 2023), as it reinforces perceptions that unsustainable behaviors are common in a reference group (Richter etal., 2018). In light of these previous findings, our study solely uses injunctive norm information to emphasize the prevalence of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors within a reference group to potentially increase contributions to climate change mitigation. Consistent with the previous evidence of backfiring effects of misaligned injunctive and descriptive norms, however, we expect that the effectiveness of both default nudges and short-term boosts will decrease rather than increase when individuals are told that others believe that one should act in pro-environmental ways, while the empirical expectation that most other people act accordingly is presumably not supported. H2 Injunctive social norm information decreases the effectiveness of both default nudges and short-term boosts in fostering contributions to climate change mitigation. 548 K.Bastini et al. 1 3 Interaction ofBehavioral Policy Interventions andSocial Norms Injunctive social norms are expected to decrease individual contributions in the context of climate change mitigation because of apparent inconsistencies between normative appeals to behave in environmentally friendly ways and empirical expectations of others’ carbon-intensive lifestyles. We assume that this negative impact affects the effectiveness of default nudges to a lesser extent than the effectiveness of short-term boosts. Under the default nudge, the manipulation of the choice architecture directly targets behavior by exploiting a tendency to stick with the status quo that may at the same time be perceived as the recommended option. This mechanism of action is generally preserved if additional social reference information is provided. The reduction in the cognitive effort associated with the default rule thus persists when it is combined with injunctive social norm information. However, perceived inconsistencies between the normative information and empirical expectations of a reference group’s behavior may trigger System 2 processes to intervene and evaluate the situation more critically than in the absence of social norm information. The effectiveness of short-term boosts, in contrast, is rooted in active cognitive reflection and an evaluation of the consistency between individual preferences and collective goals targeted by the intervention. In line with the arguments leading to H1, we expect considerations of selfinterest against collective interest in social dilemmas (van Lange & Huckelba, 2021; van Lange etal., 2013, 2018) to occur more frequently under the intervention targeting System 2 processes of cognition. Perceived inconsistencies between injunctive social norm information and empirical expectations of carbon-intensive lifestyles may therefore be stronger when combined with the short-term boost intervention, and negatively influence the process of weighing individual costs against collective benefits resulting from the decision. Therefore, we expect the negative impact of additional social norm information to be more pronounced for short-term boosts than for default nudges. H3 The decrease in the effectiveness of interventions induced by the presence of injunctive social norm information is stronger for short-term boosts than for default nudges. To contextualize the impact of the (combinations of) interventions, we identify and control for several personal and contextual factors that may influence individual behavior in organizational contexts and test for moderating effects that these factors may exert on the results. Among the variety of possible influences discussed in the (fragmented) related literature (Wallnoefer & Riefler, 2021), we expect personality traits, pro-social and pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors as well as the degree to which an individual perceives herself as a member of the organization (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004; Roeck etal., 2016) to influence the relations among the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and social norms. Furthermore, we explore the relevance of individual motives and barriers to climate-friendly behavior documented in the previous literature (Gifford, 2011; Lorenzoni etal., 2007; Swim etal., 2010) in the specific organizational context studied here. Method We conducted a 2 × 2 between-subjects full-factorial experiment to test the effects of the (combinations of) interventions. We manipulated the type of behavioral policy intervention as the first treatment variable (nudge vs. boost condition), and the additional presence of injunctive social norm information as the second treatment variable (social norm absent vs. present). Moreover, we implemented a control group with no treatment. Figure1 exhibits the research model. Participants The experiment involved 165 student participants enrolled at large public German universities. Due to restrictions in accessing university campuses during the COVID-19 pandemic, the experiment was conducted using an online platform. Participants were recruited with ORSEE (Greiner, 2015). Student participants form part of organizations that, at the point in time when we conducted the study (September 2020), were considerably confronted with the demands that the younger generation has on science and the social role of higher education institutions in a world threatened by climate change. 57% of the participants were male (43% female) and their mean age was 24.09years (SD = 5.72). Research shows that among the generation between 14 and 30years, values such as sustainability and ecological integrity are more pronounced than in other age groups (BMU, 2018, 2019). Therefore, this age group is the most likely to exhibit injunctive social norms related to climate-friendly behaviors. Moreover, a university setting at the time we conducted the study features the unique characteristic that student initiatives like Fridays for Future are the cause of structural organizational change for a climate-neutral future, and therefore individual willingness to support the initiative is likely to be pronounced in a student sample. Procedure We first asked participants to answer a detailed pre-experimental questionnaire that surveyed sociodemographic 549 Encouraging Individual Contributions toNet‑Zero Organizations: Effects ofBehavioral Policy… 1 3 factors, personality traits, pro-social and pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, an ecological worldview, and the degree of identification associated with their university (Table A.1 in the Online Appendix).1 Participants received a fixed compensation of €15 for answering the preexperimental questionnaire. Figure2 exhibits the experimental procedure. At the beginning of the experiment, participants were informed that their university engages in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its operations to contribute to climate protection. Whereas GHG emission reductions are the central goal, inevitable emissions resulting from desirable activities such as student and employee commuting to the university, and academic traveling for research and study purposes are to be compensated to become a net zero-university soon. In the experiment, participants earned a fixed compensation of €10 and were given an additional amount of €10 that was explicitly deemed to be allocated to contribute to compensate the university’s inevitable GHG emissions. Their task was to decide which share of the additional €10 they were willing to contribute to the compensation initiative. However, parts of this additional amount or the entire amount could be kept for private use. Participants’ decisions on the allocation of the additional €10 were kept confidential. On average, participants received compensation of M = €15.3 (SD = 4.05) during the experiment. The average total compensation for participation in the study was thus M = € 30.3 and the average duration spent on answering the pre-experimental questionnaire and participating in the experiment was 31min (SD = 8.58). After reading detailed additional information on how carbon offset projects work and which prices apply per kg of GHG emissions offset, participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups (nudge/social norm absent; nudge/social norm present; boost/social norm absent; boost/social norm present) or the control group (no treatment). In the nudge conditions, we provided participants with a button to contribute a default value of €10 to carbon compensation while offering them the opportunity to opt out and choose a self-determined carbon compensation Fig. 1 Research model Monetary Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation Independent Variable 1 Type of Behavioral Intervention Independent Variable 2 Injunctive Social Norm Independent Variables Dependent Variable Control Variables Conceptual Level Operational Level Independent Variable 1 Nudge/Boost Independent Variable 2 Social Norm Absent/Present Amount of Carbon Compensation Payment Sociodemographic Characteristics, Personality Traits, Pro-social and Proenvironmental Beliefs, Attitudes, and Behaviors, Organizational Identification Control Group No Treatment Fig. 2 Experimental procedure 1. Demographics (1) 2. Subjective Happiness 3. Social Trust 4. HEXACO 5. Environmental Affect 6. Environmental Cognition 7. Environmental Behavior 8. New Ecological Paradigm 9. Organizational Identification 10.Organizational Identity Strength Pre-Experimental Questionnaire Experiment Introduction and Background Information Task Description Randomized Allocation of Participants to Experimental Conditions Allocation Decision and (Voluntary) Provision of Reasoning 1. Attitude Towards Climate Protection 2. Perception of Social Norms 3. Economic Consequences of COVID-19 Pandemic 4. Demographics (2) Post-Experimental Questionnaire Comprehension Checks 1 Table A.1 in the Online Appendix contains descriptive statistics for the items that were included in the present study. In addition to these items, further items were collected with the instrument, but these were not included in the analysis. 550 K.Bastini et al. 1 3 contribution (Bruns etal., 2018). In the boost conditions, we provided participants with additional information on the estimated average amounts of carbon that arise from desirable activities of university members and the underlying assumptions (average kilometers to commute to work and average travel kilometers per year). In addition, participants learned that by contributing the entire amount of €10 to the carbon compensation initiative, they could fully offset the average carbon emissions of one university member per year. In the social norm absent conditions, no additional information on a reference group’s opinion was provided. In contrast, participants in the social norm present conditions were informed that for a large majority (86%) of students in Germany, an intact natural environment is an essential part of a good life. Furthermore, among this (reference) group, the majority (71%) say they would be willing to spend more on environmentally friendly products (BMU, 2018). This choice of injunctive social norm information was made because, on the one hand, the aspects covered by the information are shared by a majority of the reference group. On the other hand, representative and reliable information on the proportion of the reference group that fully or partially offset their carbon emissions were not available. After making their decisions, participants were invited to explain the reasons for their decision. Last, a post-experimental questionnaire was distributed surveying participants’ attitudes towards climate protection and their perception of social norms (Table A.1 in the Online Appendix). Measures All measures were collected in German. For measures that were originally developed in English, we used validated translations of scales. In the absence of such, we followed the suggestions of Harkness (2003): Two researchers with different backgrounds within the research team independently translated the respective scales and resolved any inconsistencies in a subsequent discussion. Pro‑social andPro‑environmental Personal Attitudes We first measured subjective well-being using the Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) to elicit whether personal satisfaction is relevant to the outcomes. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85. We assessed the degree of social trust using three items of the European Social Survey (2018) covering the dimensions of perceived social trust, fairness, and helpfulness as the effectiveness of social norm interventions may be affected by the degree to which individuals are connected to others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Constantino etal., 2022). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81. Next, we used the HEXACO-60 to assess the major dimensions of participants’ personality structure (Ashton & Lee, 2009) as previous research indicates that personality traits predict sustainable attitudes and behaviors (Brick & Lewis, 2016; Hopwood etal., 2021). Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.68 (Openness to experience) and 0.77 (Conscientiousness). Individual pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors are expected to guide employee green behaviors (Katz etal., 2022; Stern etal., 1995) and were assessed using seven items that assess environmental affect, eight items that assess environmental cognition, and five items that assess different types of environmental behaviors (BMU, 2019). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83 for environmental affect, 0.77 for environmental cognition, and 0.77 for environmental behavior. In addition, individual endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm was assessed using the scale proposed by Dunlap etal. (2000). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74. Organizational Identification andOrganizational Identity Strength The degree to which individuals perceive themselves as members of an organization is expected to affect their engagement in organizational initiatives (Dick etal., 2007; Jones, 2010). We measured this aspect using six items covering organizational identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82. We adapted four items covering organizational identity strength (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) to the specific context of a climate-friendly university. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.90. Post‑experimental Measures In the post-experimental questionnaire, we assessed individual attitudes towards climate protection using two selfdeveloped items that monitor the importance that individuals attach to climate protection and the perceived effectiveness of compensation payments in protecting the climate. To control for social desirability, we included two items measuring the degree to which social norms relating to other participants and relating to the experimenting researchers were perceived (Everett etal., 2015). Last, we included two questions relating to participants’ economic condition at the time of the experiment and changes in their economic situation as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Analytic Strategy We first tested whether the random assignment of participants to the four experimental groups and the control group concerning their sociodemographic characteristics was successful using one-way ANOVAs or a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test for mean differences in the case of ordinally scaled characteristics. All tests are two-sided unless indicated otherwise. Based on the descriptive statistics for 557 Encouraging Individual Contributions toNet‑Zero Organizations: Effects ofBehavioral Policy… 1 3 (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28, 1041–1055. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97617 702501 Bergquist, M. (2020). Most people think they are more pro-environmental than others: A demonstration of the better-than-average effect in perceived pro-environmental behavioral engagement. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42, 50–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01973 533. 2019. 16893 64 Bernthal, M. J., Rose, R. L., & Kaufman, P. (2006). When norms collide: Normative conflict in the processing of public service announcements. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 16, 21–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J054v 16n01_ 02 Bicchieri, C. (2017). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press. Bicchieri, C., & Dimant, E. (2019). Nudging with care: The risks and benefits of social information. Public Choice, 115, 715. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1112701900684-6 BMU. (2018). Zukunft? Jugend fragen!: Nachhaltigkeit, Politik, Engagement - eine Studie zu Einstellungen und Alltag junger Menschen. Berlin. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https:// www. bmu. de/ filea dmin/ Daten_ BMU/ Pools/ Brosc hueren/ zuk un f t_ jugend_ fragen_ studie_ bf. pdf BMU. (2019). Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2018: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage. Berlin. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from https:// www. bmu. de/ f ilea dmin/ Daten_ BMU/ Pools/ Brosc hueren/ umwel tbewu sstse in_ 2018_ bf. pdf Bonan, J., Cattaneo, C., d’Adda, G., & Tavoni, M. (2020). The interaction of descriptive and injunctive social norms in promoting energy conservation. Nature Energy, 5, 900–909. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4156002000719-z Borg, K., Curtis, J., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Social norms and plastic avoidance: Testing the theory of normative social behaviour on an environmental behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19, 594–607. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cb. 1842 Bouman, T., & Steg, L. (2019). Motivating society-wide pro-environmental change. One Earth, 1, 27–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. oneear. 2019. 08. 002 Bouman, T., Steg, L., & Perlaviciute, G. (2021a). From values to climate action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 102–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2021. 04. 010 Bouman, T., van der Werff, E., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2021b). Environmental values and identities at the personal and group level. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 47–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cobeha. 2021. 02. 022 Bradt, J. (2019). Comparing the effects of behaviorally informed interventions on flood insurance demand: an experimental analysis of ‘boosts’ and ‘nudges.’ Behavioural Public Policy. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ bpp. 2019. 31 Brick, C., & Lewis, G. J. (2016). Unearthing the “green” personality. Environment and Behavior, 48, 635–658. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16514 554695 Bronchetti, E. T., Dee, T. S., Huffman, D. B., & Magenheim, E. (2013). When a nudge isn’t enough: Defaults and saving among low-income tax filers. National Tax Journal, 66, 609–634. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17310/ ntj. 2013.3. 04 Bruns, H., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Klement, K., Luistro Jonsson, M., & Rahali, B. (2018). Can nudges be transparent and yet effective? Journal of Economic Psychology, 65, 41–59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. joep. 2018. 02. 002 Buckless, F. A., & Ravenscroft, S. P. (1990). Contrast coding: A refinement of ANOVA in behavioral analysis. The Accounting Review, 65(4), 933–945. Byerly, H., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Hammond Wagner, C., Palchak, E., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., Schwartz, A. J., & Fisher, B. (2018). Nudging pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16, 159–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ fee. 1777 Carattini, S., Levin, S., & Tavoni, A. (2019). Cooperation in the climate commons. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13, 227–247. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ reep/ rez009 Chang, T.-W. (2020). Corporate sustainable development strategy: Effect of green shared vision on organization members’ behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1707 2446 Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0140 525X2 20020 23 Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109. Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1, 3–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15534 51050 01814 59 Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. psych. 55. 090902. 142015 Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cobeha. 2021. 01. 005 Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S00652601(08) 60330-5 Constantino, S. M., Sparkman, G., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bicchieri, C., Centola, D., Shell-Duncan, B., Vogt, S., & Weber, E. U. (2022). Scaling up change: A critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23, 50–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15291 00622 11052 79 Creutzig, F., Roy, J., Devine-Wright, P., Díaz-José. J., Geels, F. W., Grubler, A., Maϊzi, N., Masanet, E., Mulugetta, Y., Onyige, C. D., Perkins, P. E., Sanches-Pereira, A., & Weber, E. U. (2022). Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation. In IPCC (Ed.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Creutzig, F., Roy, J., Lamb, W. F., Azevedo, I. M. L., Bruine de Bruin, W., Dalkmann, H., O. Y. Edelenbosch, F. W. Geels, A. Grubler, C. Hepburn, E. G. Hertwich, R. Khosla, L. Mattauch, J. C. Minx, A. Ramakrishnan, N. D. Rao, J. K. Steinberger, M. Tavoni, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, … E. U. Weber (2018). Towards demand-side solutions for mitigating climate change. Nature Climate Change, 8, 260–263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s415580180121-1 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06305 279602 de Ridder, D., Kroese, F., & van Gestel, L. (2022). Nudgeability: Mapping conditions of susceptibility to nudge influence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17, 346–359. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91621 995183 de Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification? Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1141–1168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12216 de Wijk, R. A., Maaskant, A. J., Polet, I. A., Holthuysen, N. T. E., van Kleef, E., & Vingerhoeds, M. H. (2016). An in-store experiment 558 K.Bastini et al. 1 3 on the effect of accessibility on sales of wholegrain and white bread in supermarkets. PLoS ONE, 11, e0151915. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 01519 15 Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 133–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 09631 7905X 71831 Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 00224537. 00176 European Social Survey. (2018). ESS Round 9 Source Questionnaire. European Social Survey. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 378–395. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BF031 93858 Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. psych. 59. 103006. 093629 Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Reflections on reflection: The nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 25, 383–415. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13546 783. 2019. 16230 71 Everett, J. A., Caviola, L., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Faber, N. S. (2015). Doing good by doing nothing? The role of social norms in explaining default effects in altruistic contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 230–241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2080 Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 563–580. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510131928-3 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BF031 93146 Folke, T., Bertoldo, G., D’Souza, D., Alì, S., Stablum, F., & Ruggeri, K. (2021). Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, 1784. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s4159902100942-3 Francoeur, V., Paillé, P., Yuriev, A., & Boiral, O. (2021). The measurement of green workplace behaviors: A systematic review. Organization & Environment, 34, 18–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10860 26619 837125 Franklin, M., Folke, T., & Ruggeri, K. (2019). Optimising nudges and boosts for financial decisions under uncertainty. Palgrave Communications, 5, 961. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s415990190321-y Gajewski, J.-F., Heimann, M., & Meunier, L. (2022). Nudges in SRI: The power of the default option. Journal of Business Ethics, 177, 547–566. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055102004731-x Gamma, K., Mai, R., & Loock, M. (2020). The double-edged sword of ethical nudges: Does inducing hypocrisy help or hinder the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors? Journal of Business Ethics, 161, 351–373. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510183930-2 Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. The American Psychologist, 66, 290–302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0023 566 Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 586910 Gond, J.-P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 225–246. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2170 Gond, J.-P., & Moser, C. (2021). The reconciliation of fraternal twins: Integrating the psychological and sociological approaches to ‘micro’ corporate social responsibility. Human Relations, 74, 5–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26719 864407 Gravert, C., & Shreedhar, G. (2022). Effective carbon taxes need green nudges. Nature Climate Change. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4155802201515-1 Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1, 114–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s408810150004-4 Griep, Y., Kraak, J. M., & Beekman, E. M. (2022). Sustainability is dead, long live sustainability! Paving the way to include ‘the people’ in sustainability. Group & Organization Management. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10596 01122 11271 07 Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2008). Social norms: An underestimated and underemployed lever for managing climate change. International Journal for Sustainability Communication, 3, 5–13. Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory? Minds & Machines, 26, 149–183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s110230159367-9 Hagmann, D., Ho, E. H., & Loewenstein, G. (2019). Nudging out support for a carbon tax. Nature Climate Change, 9, 484–489. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s415580190474-0 Harkness, J. A. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 35–56). Wiley. Hertwig, R. (2017). When to consider boosting: Some rules for policymakers. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 143–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ bpp. 2016. 14 Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 973–986. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91617 702496 Hopwood, C. J., Schwaba, T., Milfont, T. L., Sibley, C. G., & Bleidorn, W. (2021). Personality change and sustainability attitudes and behaviors. European Journal of Personality, 49, 089020702110162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08902 07021 10162 60 Huitema, B. E. (2011). The analysis of covariance and alternatives: Statistical methods for experiments, quasi-experiments, and single-case studies (2nd ed.). Wiley. Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socec. 2019. 03. 005 Jacobson, R. P., Marchiondo, L. A., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Hood, J. N. (2020). The synergistic effect of descriptive and injunctive norm perceptions on counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 191–209. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510183968-1 Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 433–448. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0021 470 John, P., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2009). Nudge nudge, think think: Two strategies for changing civic behaviour. Political Quarterly, 80, 361–370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467923X. 2009. 02001.x Joireman, J. A., Lasane, T. P., Bennett, J., Richars, D., & Solaimani, S. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration 559 Encouraging Individual Contributions toNet‑Zero Organizations: Effects ofBehavioral Policy… 1 3 of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133–155. Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857–878. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 09631 7909X 477495 Jones, D. A., Newman, A., Shao, R., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Advances in employee-focused micro-level research on corporate social responsibility: Situating new contributions within the current state of the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 293–302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510183792-7 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar Straus and Giroux. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press. Katz, I. M., Rauvola, R. S., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2022). Employee green behavior: A meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 50, 179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 2260 Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour - A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1028–1038. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2013. 05. 014 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13504 62022 01454 01 Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 234 Leviston, Z., Walker, I., & Morwinski, S. (2013). Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3, 334–337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nclim ate17 43 Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17, 445–459. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2007. 01. 004 Lülfs, R., & Hahn, R. (2014). Sustainable behavior in the business sphere. Organization & Environment, 27, 43–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10860 26614 522631 Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10068 24100 041 Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 40301 30202 Marquardt, N. (2010). Implicit mental processes in ethical management behavior. Ethics & Behavior, 20, 128–148. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10508 42100 35959 50 McKenzie, C. R., Liersch, M. J., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2006). Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science, 17(5), 414–420. Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119, 1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 21073 46118 Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. The American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003066X. 54. 12. 1053 Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (2016). Changing norms to change behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 339–361. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evpsych010814015013 Moberg, K. R., Sovacool, B. K., Goritz, A., Hinojosa, G. M., Aall, C., & Nilsson, M. (2021). Barriers, emotions, and motivational levers for lifestyle transformation in Norwegian household decarbonization pathways. Climatic Change, 165, 85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1058402103018-y Nolan, J. M. (2021). Social norm interventions as a tool for pro-climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 120–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2021. 06. 001 Norton, T. A., Parker, S. L., Zacher, H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). Employee green behavior. Organization & Environment, 28, 103–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10860 26615 575773 Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 996–1015. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2178 Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C., Schlüter, M., Adger, W. N., Arrow, K. J., Barrett, S., Carpenter, S., Chapin III, S. F., Crépin, A. S., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., Jager, W., Kautsky, N., Levin, S. A., Madsen, O. J., … De Zeeuw, A. (2016). Social norms as solutions. Science, 354, 42–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. aaf83 17 Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2012). Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 444–466. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17549434. 2012. 01478.x Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The norm activation model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. joep. 2013. 07. 005 Reijula, S., Kuorikoski, J., Ehrig, T., Katsikopoulos, K., & Sunder, S. (2018). Nudge, boost, or design? Limitations of behaviorally informed policy under social interaction. The Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2, 99–105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 31235/ osf. io/ zh3qw Reisch, L. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do Europeans like nudges? Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 310–325. Richter, I., Thøgersen, J., & Klöckner, C. (2018). A social norms intervention going wrong: Boomerang effects from descriptive norms information. Sustainability, 10, 2848. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 82848 Rozeboom, G. J. (2021). How to evaluate managerial nudges. Journal of Business Ethics, 182, 1073–1086. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055102105005-w Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Aguilera, R. V. (2010). Increasing corporate social responsibility through stakeholder value internalization (and the catalyzing effect of new governance): An application of organizational justice, self-determination, and social influence theories. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 69–88). Routledge. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF000 55564 Schubert, C. (2017). Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological Economics, 132, 329–342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2016. 11. 009 560 K.Bastini et al. 1 3 Siipi, H., & Koi, P. (2021). The ethics of climate nudges: Central issues for applying choice architecture interventions to climate policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 13, 218–235. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ err. 2021. 49 Smith, N. C., Goldstein, D. G., & Johnson, E. J. (2013). Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32, 159–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jppm. 10. 114 Sparkman, G., Howe, L., & Walton, G. (2021). How social norms are often a barrier to addressing climate change but can be part of the solution. Behavioural Public Policy, 5, 528–555. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ bpp. 2020. 42 Staunton, M., Louis, W. R., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., & McDonald, R. I. (2014). How negative descriptive norms for healthy eating undermine the effects of positive injunctive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 319–330. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jasp. 12223 Steg, L. (2023). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 391–421. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evpsych032720042905 Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2008. 10. 004 Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. Stern, P. C., Kalof, L., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1636. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15591816. 1995. tb026 36.x Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2019). Educative nudges and noneducative nudges. In C. R. Sunstein & L. A. Reisch (Eds.), Trusting nudges (pp. 89–113). Routledge. Swim, J., Gifford, R., Howard, G., Clayton, S., Reser, J., Doherty, T., Stern, P. C., & Weber, E. U. (2010). Psychology & global climate change: Addressing a multifaceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology & Global Climate Change. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from http:// www. apa. org/ scien ce/ about/ publi catio ns/ clima techange. aspx Tannenbaum, D., Fox, C. R., & Rogers, T. (2017). On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions. Nature Human Behaviour. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s415620170130 Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 93(2), 175–179. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press. Thaller, A., Fleiß, E., & Brudermann, T. (2020). No glory without sacrifice—drivers of climate (in)action in the general population. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 7–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. envsci. 2020. 07. 014 Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Addressing climate change: Determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 197–207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvp. 2012. 02. 001 Unsworth, K. L., Dmitrieva, A., & Adriasola, E. (2013). Changing behaviour: Increasing the effectiveness of workplace interventions in creating pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 211–229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 1837 van Lange, P. A., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125–141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2012. 11. 003 van Lange, P. A. M., & Huckelba, A. L. (2021). Psychological distance: How to make climate change less abstract and closer to the self. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 49–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2021. 03. 011 van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., & Milinski, M. (2018). Climate change: What psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 269–274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09637 21417 753945 van Roekel, H., Reinhard, J., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022). Improving hand hygiene in hospitals: Comparing the effect of a nudge and a boost on protocol compliance. Behavioural Public Policy, 6, 52–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ bpp. 2021. 15 Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., Bachrach, D. G., & Morgeson, F. P. (2017). The effects of managerial and employee attributions for corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 1111–1129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2189 Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2014). Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 990–1017. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 1946 Wade, B., & Griffiths, A. (2021). Exploring the cognitive foundations of managerial (climate) change decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 181, 15–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055102104855-8 Wallnoefer, L. M., & Riefler, P. (2021). Concepts describing and assessing individuals’ environmental sustainability: An integrative review and taxonomy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 770470. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 770470 Widegren, Ö. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment and Behavior, 30, 75–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00139 16598 301004 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.