Energy labels for household appliances and their disclosureformat: A literature review

M. Rohling, R. SchubertETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED)

Abstract

Energy efficiency labels intending to influence con-sumers’ choices in favor of more energy efficienthousehold appliances disclose different types of in-formation. We review the existing literature onthe effects of different energy label formats on con-sumers’ choices. None of the existing energy labelsseems to represent a dominant strategy.

1 Introduction

A variety of energy efficiency labels exist aroundthe globe. The aim of such labels is to influenceconsumers’ purchase decisions for household appli-ances by making them more energy efficient. Theway in which these labels are designed differs signif-icantly. While some labels display details of a prod-uct’s energy consumption in physical units (kilo-watt hours), other labels focus on monetary units(for instance US$). Currently applied labels accu-mulate a product’s energy use over the period ofone year, while the energy consumption for a singleuse or for the product’s expected lifetime could alsobe shown.The way in which information is presented matterssince it directly impacts consumers’ purchase deci-sion. Larrick and Soll (2008) show that labels mayeven enhance less energy efficient decisions.The present survey reviews the existing literaturethat provides empirical evidence on the effects ofdifferent energy label formats on consumers’ choiceof household appliances.

2 Energy labels for householdappliances - Overview

Figure 1 presents the two existing categories of en-ergy labels: endorsement and comparative labels(see Wiel and McMahon (2005)).

energy efficiencylabels

endorsementlabels

Figures:2a, 2b, 2c, 2d

comparativelabels

categoricallabels

Figures:3a, 3b, 3c, 3d

continuous scalelabels

Figures:3e, 3f

Figure 1: Types of energy efficiency labels

The first category, Endorsement labels, are onlyapplied to models of a specific product class thatsatisfy certain criteria with respect to energy ef-ficiency or sustainability. They are thus basically’seal-of-approvals’. For most endorsement labels,meeting the criteria and receiving the label is vol-untary for the producers. The probably best knownendorsement label is the ENERGY STAR. It waslaunched in 1992 in the US and has since found itsway onto products in many other countries suchas most European countries, Canada, Australia,Japan, New Zealand, and Taiwan (see Figure 2a).The label marks the most energy efficient prod-ucts in more than 40 categories, including major of-fice equipment products, heating and cooling equip-

1

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 2: Endorsement Labels - (a): ENERGY STAR, (b): Chinese Energy Conservation Program,(c): Recognition-type Energy Label, (d): South Korean High-efficiency Appliance Certification Program

ment, lighting, home electronics, buildings as wellas plants.1 Other endorsement labels are, for exam-ple, the Chinese Energy Conservation Certificate(see Figure 2b), the Recognition-type Energy La-bel in Hong Kong (Figure 2c), or the High-efficiencyAppliance Certification in South Korea (see Figure2d).2 A typical characteristic of endorsement labelsis that they contain only little information and thusfor example do not allow to differentiate among thelabeled products with respect to energy efficiency(Banerjee and Solomon (2003)).The second category of energy labels, Compara-

tive labels, provide a comparison of products withrespect to a specific characteristic – often the en-ergy efficiency. Nowadays, providing comparativelabels on different household appliance categoriesis mandatory in most countries around the globe.The comparison between the products can eitherbe based on categories (bar or dial/gauge) or on acontinuous linear scale. In the first approach, thespectrum of energy efficiency characteristics of theavailable products is divided into a given amountof energy efficiency categories where each availableproduct falls into one of the categories. The com-parison labels allow for a comparison of appliancesacross the different energy efficiency categories,whereas comparisons within on category are notpossible. This approach is, for example, usedfor the EU Energy Label (see Figure 3a). Since1994, retailers in the EU have been required todisplay the label on new refrigerators, freezers,washing machines, and some other products like

1See www.energystar.gov for details on the label and acomplete list of ENERGY STAR products.

2See www.cecp.org.cn, www.gov.hk, or www.kemco.or.krrespectively for further information on these labels.

ovens or water heaters (European Parliament(1992)). The first design of the label had sevenseparate energy efficiency categories A - G, Abeing the best. In addition to the letter grades,energy efficiency categories are visualized by barsof different color and length: green and shortfor A, red and long for G. The energy efficiencycategory of a given a product is shown with ablack arrow that points from right to left to thelevel of the applicable category and also containsthe letter of the category. In order to accountfor the significant technological improvements inenergy efficiency of some household appliances, thethree new efficiency categories A+++, A++, andA+ have been added since 2010 for refrigeratingappliances, washing machines, and dish washers(European Parliament (2010)).3 The design of theEU Energy Label is also used by several othercountries, among them Switzerland, Brazil, Iran,Tunisia, and China (see Figure 3b). Similar typesof labels using a dial or gauge to categorize theappliances are used in Australia (see 3c), Japan(see 3d), Thailand, South Korea, and India. Aproduct’s energy class is visualized by the numberof stars that are highlighted in color, the morethe better. The maximum number of stars thatcan be achieved differs from five to seven betweendifferent product categories.

3Note, while the revised energy label still displays sevencategories, some energy efficiency classes shown on the labeldo not meet minimum EU Ecodesign requirements. For ex-ample, the label for washing machines shows classes A+++ -D, while a minimum class of A (A+ from Dec 2013 onwards)is required by the EU Ecodesign Directive (European Com-mission (2010a,b)).

2

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure 3: Comparative Labels - (a): EU Energy Label, (b): Chinese Energy Label, (c): AustralianEnergy Label, (d): Japanese Energy Label, (e): US EnergyGuide, (f): Canadian EnerGuide

In the second approach of comparison labels, acontinuous linear scale displays the range of energyconsumption – either in physical or monetary units– between the most (left end of the scale) and least(right end of the scale) efficient appliance with simi-lar product features. A small black arrow above thescale indicates the energy efficiency performance ofthe product at hand relative to other similar prod-ucts. The further left on the scale, the more energy-efficient is the product. Additional information onthe product’s actual energy use in physical or mon-etary units is provided next to the arrow abovethe linear scale. This approach, which allows for adirect comparison of energy consumption betweenall appliances and not just between different cat-egories, is used for the US EnergyGuide and theCanadian EnerGuide labels (see Figures 3e and 3f).As can be seen in the labels presented above,

comparative labels not only differ with respect tothe main energy efficiency comparison instrument,i.e. different energy efficiency classes or a continu-ous scale, but they also provide different additionalinformation. The EU Energy Label, for example,provides several pieces of physical informationabout the usage of the product, e.g. kilowatthours/annum or water (in liters) per year. The USEnergyGuide on the other hand focuses on infor-mation in monetary units and displays estimatedyearly operating costs in the center of the label.Information in physical units is also provides,but placed less prominently. The prioritizationof monetary over physical information on the USEnergyGuide has been in place since 2005 and also

before 1994, while a design with the opposite focuswas used between 1994 and 2005. Similarly, theenergy label used in Japan displays both, economicand physical information, with yearly operatingcosts being placed more prominently. As will beshown later, no unambiguous empirical evidenceexists on whether monetary rather than physicalunits have a larger impact on customers’ purchasedecisions. Advantages of providing informationin monetary units is that everybody can relateto the value of money while many people mightstruggle to make us of information in physicalunits. While monetary indications are easier tounderstand, they might to some degree providemisleading information due to the differences inenergy prices within the European Union or the US.

All labels currently in use accumulate the respec-tive information about energy consumption overthe time period of one year. Since consumers typi-cally perceive information as more important whena larger number is indicated (see e.g. Camilleriand Larrick (2013) or Burson et al. (2009)), pre-senting information over several years, e.g. overthe expected life-cycle of a product, might have alarger impact on consumers’ purchase decisions. Alarger number for the energy consumption differ-ence between less and more energy-efficient appli-ances could thus strengthen the case for the latter.No label currently provides such life-cycle informa-tion. One reason might be that providing life-cycleinformation requires several assumptions, e.g. onproduct lifetime or discount rates, which may be

3

contested and could thus also be misleading forsome consumers.In the following three sections, we review liter-

ature on empirically measured effects of differentenergy efficiency label formats on consumers’ pur-chase decision. We cluster the literature accordingto the method applied in the experiment, i.e. fieldexperiments, surveys, and choice experiments, andsummarize the findings in Table 1.

3 Information Disclosure For-mat - Field Experiments

Field experiments on the energy efficiency level ofconsumers’ purchases are either focused on con-sumers’ actual purchase decisions or on their pur-chase intentions. We start with looking at actualpurchase decisions.

3.1 Field Experiments - Consumers’Actual Purchase Decisions

There are only few field experiments in which theeffects of energy efficiency information disclosureon appliance choices are analyzed. In an early fieldexperiment, Anderson and Claxton (1982) studiedthe effect of energy labels and staff training on con-sumers’ purchase decisions for refrigerators. Whileno information on a product’s energy consump-tion was given in control stores, different informa-tion channels were used in the treatment stores.In the latter stores, potential buyers saw a self-constructed label similar to the Canadian Ener-Guide label. The label displayed the appliances’energy consumption either in kWh per month or inCanadian dollars per year. In addition to the in-formation provided on the label, sales staff of somestores were asked to explicitly mention the Ener-Guide label and to point out the importance of aproduct’s energy consumption on the total cost ofan appliance, i.e. including purchase price and es-timated operating cost over 10 years. Sales staff ofother stores should explicitly avoid any informationon energy consumption during the sales conversa-tion.The experiment was run for six weeks. Duringthis phase, 569 large and 119 small refrigeratorswere sold. Surprisingly, neither treatment had

an effect on consumers’ purchasing decisions con-cerning large refrigerators. For small refrigerators,however, disclosure of information on energy useinduced consumers to purchase more energy effi-cient products. Energy consumption of this appli-ance class was reduced by around 14%, from 118kWh/month before the experiment to around 101kWh/month at the end of the experiment. No sig-nificant differences were found between the con-ditions where sales staff explicitly mentioned theenergy label or not and when the label displayedyearly monetary rather than monthly physical in-formation. Yet, all disclosure formats induced thepurchase of more energy efficient small refrigeratorsrelative to the control stores.

Kallbekken et al. (2013) is the only recently pub-lished field experiment in which actual purchasedecisions of fridge-freezers and tumble driers wereanalyzed. In collaboration with a Norwegian re-tailer, the authors tested the effects of disclosureof energy efficiency information on the average en-ergy consumption of appliances sold. Three treat-ments were tested: First, a label indicating the ap-pliance’s undiscounted life-cycle energy costs wasdisplayed on the product.4 This self-designed la-bel was additional to the mandatory EU EnergyLabel that provides no economic information. Sec-ond, sales staff was trained. The training com-prised that selling more energy efficient appliancesmay increase the retailer’s turnover, having envi-ronmental benefits, and increasing customer satis-faction. The third treatment was a combination ofboth, labeling of life-cycle energy costs plus salesstaff training. No interventions were implementedin the control stores. In the 12 months before thetreatment started, 13.471 sales of tumble driers and24.917 sales of fridge-freezers were recorded. In the5-months intervention period 5,672 tumble driersand 9,582 fridge-freezers were sold.Differences in lifetime energy costs between themost and least efficient tumble drier were 625€and 250€ for fridge-freezers. Given an averagelife-time of the appliance of ten years, the differ-ence seems to be rather small, especially for fridge-freezers. Hence, economic incentives for purchas-

4Values were not discounted because (a) the concept ofdiscounting was confusing to some participants, (b) no ap-propriate discount rate was available, and (c) the authorsexpected that consumers would discount future costs intu-itively (Kallbekken et al. (2013)).

4

ing a more efficient fridge-freezer appeared ratherweak. Therefore, it was not surprising that neitherof three treatments described above had a signifi-cant effect on the energy efficiency of fridge-freezerssold.Furthermore, it has to be taken into account thatdue to the EU Ecodesign Directive all fridge-freezers had to be at least A-graded by the EU En-ergy Label (European Commission (2009, 2010a)).5Given this high energy efficiency ranking of allavailable products, any further differentiation ofappliances regarding operating costs might havebeen considered as irrelevant.For tumble driers, there was no effect in the firsttreatment in which a label disclosed life-cycle en-ergy costs. However, at least a temporary effect wasobserved in the stores in which sales staff receivedtraining and in which the combined treatment wastested. The data indicated that the average energyconsumption of tumble driers sold declined by 3.4%in the sales training treatment and by 4.9% in thecombined treatment. The effect was significant atthe 5% level for the combined treatment, yet not forthe training treatment. Interestingly, the effect wasstrongest in the first three months of the treatmentbut declined rapidly in months 4 and 5.Summing up, the few field experiments we have

indicate only weak impacts of energy labels on theenergy efficiency level of appliance purchases.

3.2 Field Experiments - Consumers’Purchase Intentions

Similar to the field experiment conducted in Kall-bekken et al. (2013), the effect of life-cycle costsdisclosure, i.e. purchase price plus expected life-time operating costs, on consumers’ decision to optfor more energy efficient washing machines was an-alyzed in Deutsch (2010). This paper analyzeswhether different washing machines were put intothe virtual shopping cart of a German on-line re-tailer when – in addition to the mandatory EU En-ergy Label – information on estimated operatingand total life-cycle costs were presented. However,since only click-throughs were recorded, the fieldexperiment gave indications only on purchase in-tentions but not on actual purchase decisions.

5The minimum required energy efficiency class of fridge-freezers was A+ from July 2012, and A++ from July 2014onwards (European Commission (2009, 2010a)).

During the test phase, potential customers of thetreatment group put 1025 washing machines, po-tential customers of the control group 1040 washingmachines in the virtual shopping cart. The data re-vealed only small effects of operating and total life-cycle cost disclosure on consumers’ plans to choosemore energy efficient appliances. Relative to thecontrol group, a reduction in the washing machines’energy and water use of less than 1% was observed.The effect was significant at the 1% and 5% level,respectively.

4 Information Disclosure For-mat - Surveys

In an early survey, McNeill and Wilkie (1979)wanted to find out whether disclosure of energyconsumption, expressed in kWh per year, dollarsper year, or dollars per month, had an impact onconsumers’ choice of refrigerator freezers. In thesurvey 155 women were asked, all of them residentsfrom Gainesville, Florida. The results of the sur-vey indicated that information disclosure would re-duce energy consumption of refrigerator freezers by2.3%. The disclosure format, physical vs. monetaryunits as well as annual vs. monthly information, didnot seem to have an effect on consumers’ appliancechoices. Neither of the results was significant.

In a follow up survey, Hutton and Wilkie (1980)analyzed whether the disclosure of life-cycle costsor of energy costs in dollars per year had a strongereffect on consumers’ purchasing decision to opt formore energy efficient products. In this survey,94 women from Gainesville, Florida participated.According to the data, displaying life-cycle ratherthan annual energy costs reduced energy costs sig-nificantly. Operating costs were reduced by 13% onaverage which resulted in an average total cost re-duction of $260 over the expected 14-year lifetimeof appliances.

The work presented in McNeill and Wilkie (1979)and Hutton and Wilkie (1980) was extended andupdated in Heinzle (2012). In the first part of thestudy, the respondents’ estimations of the poten-tial energy cost savings were tested when monetaryrather than physical information was disclosed. Forthis analysis, data from an online survey with 257participants were gathered. Unsurprisingly, the

5

data revealed that the estimations of the poten-tial energy cost savings improved when monetaryrather than physical units were disclosed. Morethan 60% of respondents tended, however, to over-estimate potential energy cost savings when phys-ical units – possibly in combination with currentelectricity prices – were displayed. This high degreeof overestimation could be reduced when physicalinformation was replaced by monetary information.Summing up, surveys on energy label impacts

show that monetary information improve the con-sumers’ estimations of the potential savings in en-ergy costs but alters consumers’ purchases signifi-cantly only when this information was accumulatedover the product’s expected lifetime.

5 Information Disclosure For-mat - Choice Experiments

In the second part of the Heinzle study (Hein-zle (2012)), a choice experiment with 208 Germanhouseholds was conducted. Hypothetical purchasedecisions of TVs were analyzed. It was examinedwhether the willingness to pay (WTP) for more en-ergy efficient TVs was more pronounced when infor-mation was given in the form of ’watts’, ’annual op-erating costs’, or ’lifetime energy operating costs’.The difference between the least efficient and themost efficient TV was 165 watt energy use, whichwas equivalent to 48€ operating cost per year or480€ operating cost over an expected product life-time of 10 years.The consumers’ WTP for switching from the mostefficient to the least efficient TV were as follows:The highest WTP, a median price premium of642€, was observed when information was pre-sented as ’lifetime energy operating costs’. Thesecond highest WTP, a median price premium of481€, was found when information was disclosed inthe form of watts. The lowest WTP, a median pricepremium of 354€, was measured when informationon annual operating costs was presented.These results show two interesting points. First,for guiding consumers’ purchase decisions, mone-tary units were better suited than physical units assoon as the operating costs were accumulated overthe products’ expected lifetime. Obviously, con-sumers looked at the potential energy savings with-

out considering the corresponding units. Second,the results reported in Heinzle (2012) led to nega-tive individual discount rates. The price premiumconsumers were willing to pay today for switchingfrom the least efficient to the most efficient TV washigher than the future savings from less energy con-sumption.6 In more detail, when information waspresented in the form of ’lifetime energy operat-ing costs’ or ’watts’, consumers were willing to pay642€ or 481€ respectively to save 480€ energy op-erating costs over the lifetime of 10 years. The cor-responding individual discount rates were −4.95%and −0.22% respectively. A positive individual dis-count rate was only observed when information waspresented in the form of annual operating costs. Inthis case consumers were willing to pay a price pre-mium of 354€ to save 480€ over the next 10 years.This implied an individual discount rate of +5.96%.

Most recently Newell and Siikamäki (2013) de-signed a choice experiment to analyze the effects ofdifferent energy label formats on households’ pur-chase decisions for cost efficient water heaters inthe US. In the experiment, more than 1200 indi-viduals were presented 12 different label designs(around 100 respondents per label design). Theself-designed labels were based on the US Ener-gyGuide label but differed with respect to the useof the yellow EnergyGuide logo, the informationcontent displayed (monetary vs. physical units),the exclusion of information on energy efficiencyrelative to similar products in the market (the hor-izontal bar), or the provision of information on CO2emissions. One of the 12 labels was similar to theEU Energy Label.The results of the Newell-Siikamäki choice exper-iment indicate that a simple presentation of esti-mated yearly operating cost had the strongest ef-fect on purchase decisions. Providing additionalinformation in physical units or on CO2 emissionshad a significant effect but was less important thanthe monetary information for nudging consumerstowards more energy efficient appliances. The ef-fects of using the yellow EnergyGuide logo and of

6Following Revelt and Train (1998), Heinzle (2012) cal-culated the implicit individual discount rate r by solvingW T P =

∑10i=1

x(1+r)i for r, where x = 48 was the amount

of annual savings in operating costs over the product’s ex-pected lifetime of 10 years and WTP was the median pricepremium consumers were willing to pay for switching fromthe least efficient to the most efficient TV.

6

indicating the product’s estimated yearly operat-ing cost in relation to the costs of other similarproducts in the market were statistically not sig-nificant. Whether the currently implemented En-ergyGuide label guided cost efficient purchase de-cisions depended on the underlying discount rate.Newell and Siikamäki (2013) followed Coller andWilliams (1999) and elicited consumers’ individualdiscount rates in their experiment. They did soby confronting the participants with a choice be-tween a payment A available in one month or ahigher payment B available in 12 months. Start-ing from 1000US$ for payment A, Newell and Si-ikamäki (2013) increased payment B until eachrespondent was indifferent between choosing pay-ment A or B. The discount rate that equalized thepresent value of both payments was 19% on aver-age, with a standard deviation of 23%, and a me-dian of 11%. Using the elicited individual discountrates, the currently implemented EnergyGuide la-bel enforced almost cost efficient purchases. As-suming a discount rate of 5%, households’ purchasedecisions indicated a significant undervaluation ofestimated yearly operating costs. When the En-ergyGuide label was combined with the ENERGYSTAR, estimated yearly operating costs were over-valued in the purchase decisions irrespective of theindividual discount rates. The same effect was ob-served for the EU-style label.Summing up, the recently published choice ex-

periments show that economic as well as phys-ical information influences consumers’ purchasechoices. Yet, the impact of the two informationformats cannot be ranked unambiguously.

6 ConclusionResearch analyzing households’ purchases of house-hold appliances indicates that energy labels mightimpact these decisions. However, which label for-mat is best for guiding consumers’ choices towardsmore energy efficient products remains disputable.The synthesis in Table 1 shows that neither mon-etary units nor physical units were unambiguouslyrelevant. Implications of presenting lifetime in-stead of annual information were more consistent.The impact of labeling proved to be stronger whenthe information provided was accumulated over theproduct’s expected lifetime. These effects, however,

tended to be small and, at least in some studies,non-significant. Thus, while no recommendationcan be given as to whether monetary or physicalunits ought to be disclosed, lifetime informationtend to have a stronger effect on energy efficientpurchases than monthly or yearly data.

ReferencesAnderson, C. D. and Claxton, J. D.: 1982, Barriersto consumer choice of energy efficient products,Journal of Consumer Research 9(2), 163–170.

Banerjee, A. and Solomon, B. D.: 2003, Eco-labeling for energy efficiency and sustainabil-ity: a meta-evaluation of {US} programs, EnergyPolicy 31(2), 109 – 123.

Burson, K., Larrick, R. and Lynch, J. J.: 2009, Sixof one, half dozen of the other: Expanding andcontracting numerical dimensions produces pref-erence reversals, Psychological Science 20, 1074–1078.

Camilleri, A. R. and Larrick, R. P.: 2013, Met-ric and scale design as choice architecture tools,Journal of Public Policy & Marketing .

Coller, M. and Williams, M. B.: 1999, Eliciting in-dividual discount rates, Experimental Economics2(2), 107–127.

Deutsch, M.: 2010, Life cycle cost disclosure, con-sumer behavior, and business implications: Ev-idence from an online field experiment, Journalof Industrial Ecology 14, 103–120.

European Commission: 2009, COMMISSIONREGULATION (EC) No 643/2009 of 22 July2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council withregard to ecodesign requirements for householdrefrigerating appliances, Official Journal of theEuropean Union, European Union.

European Commission: 2010a, COMMISSIONDELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No1061/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementingDirective 2010/30/EU of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council with regard to energy

7

labelling of household washing machines, Offi-cial Journal of the European Union, EuropeanUnion.

European Commission: 2010b, COMMIS-SION REGULATION (EU) No 1015/2010of 10 November 2010 implementing Directive2009/125/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council with regard to ecodesign require-ments for household washing machines, OfficialJournal of the European Union, EuropeanUnion.

European Parliament: 1992, Directive 92/75/EEC,Official Journal of the European Union, Euro-pean Union.

European Parliament: 2010, Directive2010/30/EU, Official Journal of the Euro-pean Union, European Union.

Heinzle, S.: 2012, Disclosure of energy operatingcost information: A silver bullet for overcomingthe energy-efficiency gap?, Journal of ConsumerPolicy 35(1), 43–64.

Hutton, R. B. and Wilkie, W. L.: 1980, Life cy-cle cost: A new form of consumer information,Journal of Consumer Research 6(4), 349–60.

Kallbekken, S., Sælen, H. and Hermansen, E. A. T.:2013, Bridging the energy efficiency gap: A fieldexperiment on lifetime energy costs and house-hold appliances, Journal of Consumer Policy36(1), 1–16.

Larrick, R. P. and Soll, J. B.: 2008, The MPGillusion, Science 320, 1593–1594.

McNeill, D. L. and Wilkie, W. L.: 1979, Pub-lic policy and consumer information: Impact ofthe new energy labels, Journal of Consumer Re-search 6(1), 1–11.

Newell, R. and Siikamäki, J.: 2013, Nudging en-ergy efficiency behavior: The role of informationlabels, Discussion paper, RFF.

Revelt, D. and Train, K.: 1998, Mixed logit withrepeated choices: Households’ choices of appli-ance efficiency level, Review of Economics andStatistics 80, 647–657.

Wiel, S. and McMahon, J.: 2005, Energy - Effi-ciency Labels and Standards: A Guidebook forappliances, equipment, and lightning, 2 edn, Col-laborative Labeling and Appliance StandardsProgram (CLASP), Washington, D.C.

8

Table1:

Summaryof

stud

iesthat

analyzetheeff

ects

ofdiffe

rent

energy

labe

lformatson

consum

ers’

purcha

sede

cisio

ns

Ref

eren

ceT

arge

tG

roup

,P

rodu

ctC

lass

Dis

clos

ure

form

atF

indi

ngs

Gen

eral

Phy

sica

lvs

.m

onet

ary

unit

sA

nnua

lvs

.lif

etim

eco

stF

ield

Exp

erim

ents

anal

yzin

gac

tual

purc

hase

deci

sion

sAnd

ersonan

dClaxton

(1982)

Customersof

aCan

adianretaile

r,Refrig

erators

I.kW

hpe

rmon

th

II.do

llars

peryear

III.

salesstaff

training

•labe

lingincreased

energy

efficien

cyof

smallr

efrig

era-

tors

sold

by14

%

•no

effecton

large

refrigerators

•salesstaff

training

hadno

signific

ant

effect

•no

signific

ant

diffe

renc

e•

nosig

nific

ant

diffe

renc

e

Kallbekken

etal.(

2013)

Customersof

aNorwe

gian

retaile

r,Tu

mble

driers

and

fridg

e-fre

ezers

I.life-cycleen

ergy

costsin

additio

nto

theEU

Energy

Labe

l

II.salesstaff

training

III.

combina

tionof

I.an

dII

.

•no

effecton

energy

efficien

cyof

fridg

e-fre

ezers

•en

ergy

efficien

cyof

tumbledriers

sold

increased

only

inII

.an

dIII.by

3.4%

and

4.9%

respectiv

ely

•disclosure

ofmon

etaryun

itsincreaseden

ergy

efficien

cyof

tumble

driers

sold

only

whe

ncombine

dwith

salesstaff

training

Fie

ldE

xper

imen

tsan

alyz

ing

purc

hase

inte

ntio

nsDeu

tsch

(2010)

Potentialc

us-

tomersof

aGerman

on-line

retaile

r,Washing

machine

s

I.life-cyclecosts

(purchaseprice

plus

expe

cted

lifetim

eop

erating

costs)

inad

ditio

nto

theEU

Energy

Labe

l

•en

ergy

andwa

ter

useof

washing

machine

sin

the

virtua

lsho

pping

cart

wasredu

ced

byless

than

1%

Surv

eys

McN

eillan

dW

ilkie

(1979)

Wom

enin

Gaine

sville,

Florida,

Refrig

erators

I.kW

hpe

ryear

II.do

llars

peryear

III.

dolla

rspe

rmon

th

•labe

lingredu

ced

energy

consum

p-tio

nby

2.3%

(non

-signific

ant)

•no

signific

ant

diffe

renc

e•

nosig

nific

ant

diffe

renc

e

continued

9

Table1continued:

Summaryof

stud

iesthat

analyzetheeff

ects

ofdiffe

rent

energy

labe

lformatson

consum

ers’

purcha

sede

cisio

ns

Ref

eren

ceT

arge

tG

roup

,P

rodu

ctC

lass

Dis

clos

ure

form

atF

indi

ngs

Gen

eral

Phy

sica

lvs

.m

onet

ary

unit

sA

nnua

lvs

.lif

etim

eco

stHuttonan

dW

ilkie

(1980)

Wom

enin

Gaine

sville,

Florida,

Refrig

erators

I.do

llars

peryear

II.life-cycleen

ergy

costs

•disclosure

oflife-

cyclerather

than

ofan

nual

energy

costs

redu

ceden

ergy

consum

ptionby

arou

nd13

%C

hoic

eE

xper

imen

tsHeinz

le(2012)

German

house-

holds,

TVs

I.wa

ttspe

ryear

II.an

nual

operating

costs

III.

lifetim

een

ergy

operatingcosts

•inform

ationdisclo-

sure

inwa

ttsha

da

strong

ereff

ecton

consum

ers’

WTP

for

apriceprem

ium

for

energy

efficien

cythan

annu

alop

era-

tingcosts

•disclosure

oflifetim

een

ergy

operating

costsha

dastrong

ereff

ecton

consum

ers’

WTP

foraprice

prem

ium

foren

ergy

efficien

cythan

watts

•consum

ers’

WTP

for

apriceprem

ium

for

energy

efficien

cywa

shigh

erwhe

ninfor-

mationwa

sdis-

closed

intheform

oflifetim

een

ergy

oper-

atingcostsrather

than

inan

nual

oper-

atingcosts

New

ella

ndSiikam

äki

(2013)

USresid

ents,

waterheaters

I.kW

hpe

ryear

II.do

llars

peryear

III.

environm

ental

inform

ation(C

O2

emiss

ions)

•inform

ation

disclosure

inmon

etaryun

itsha

dthestrong

esteff

ect

ongu

idingen

ergy

efficientpu

rcha

sede

cisio

ns

•ph

ysical

orenviron-

mentalinformation

wasless

impo

rtan

tthan

themon

etary

inform

ation

10