Are Workplaces the Key to Sustainable Cities?


Our accelerating climate crisis, hastened by government inaction, necessitates creative solutions. Against this backdrop, sustainable cities — powered through renewable energy sources — are emerging as a counterpoint to national passivity. Leveraging insights from behavioral science, local governments can help promote environmentally conscious behavior, conducive to the development of sustainable cities. In this endeavor, workplaces – inherent to both cities and individual’s lives and consisting of systems of social and hierarchical organization – are crucial facilitators.

Psychological barriers to individual sustainability

Despite ubiquitous sociocultural messaging about the importance of sustainability and enclaves of “green” citizens, widespread pro-environmental action remains unrealized.

Psychologically this can be explained by two cognitive mechanisms inherent in human decision-making. 

Temporal discounting, the predisposition of individuals to undervalue delayed relative to present rewards,  renders environmentally friendly behavior less rewarding [1]. In so far as the dire ramifications of environmental inaction seem distant, “acting [sustainably] represents a trade-off between short-term and long-term benefits,” [2] one which individuals interpret as being of limited value and subsequently do not make.

Analogously, participation in sustainable practices presents a cognitively non-linear process. Substantiated by construal level theory, the correlation between micro actions (e.g. water conservation) and macro-environmental damage (e.g. climate change) is tangential in most people’s minds. This is because ideas distant from individuals — be that temporally, spatially, socially, or psychologically  — are viewed in a more abstract and detached manner [3]. Thus, on a cognitive level, we misconstrue the interrelationship between individual and collective sustainability.

Together, these cognitive mechanisms reduce the personal immediacy of our climate crisis, and therefore engagement with sustainable behavior.

Defining sustainable cities

A 21st-century environmental buzzword, the term “sustainable cities” may generate labyrinthine images of a futuristic society, replete with gardens ergonomically arranged on the roofs of city scrapers and electricity-generating wind funnels concealed with stylish designs. Although this expression of environmentalism is certainly valid, a more subtle manifestation – a city in which individuals engage in sustainable behavior – is more accurate to where we’re headed.

Stockholm, Sweden, is a pertinent example. Ranking first in the European Union for levels of organic food consumption, renewable energy powered homes, and personal recycling of bottles and cans, Stockholm signifies the power of environmentally conscious individual behavior in creating a sustainable city [4].

Creating sustainable cities: The role of the workplace

Workplaces, inherent to cities and individuals’ lives, are uniquely positioned to engender sustainable citizenship. Operating social norms and systems of stratification – such as workplace rewards – can be leveraged to produce psychological nudges which override intuitive and environmentally unproductive cognitive construals. A recent report, The State of Employee Engagement in Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility, disclosed an encouraging statistic: 89% of individuals would regularly utilize a sustainability practice, introduced to them in the workplace, at home [5]. Such potentiality of organization-based behavioral change to induce pro-environmental behavior and create sustainable cities can be examined through several case studies.

(1) Leveraging competition and comparative feedback in the workplace.

Workplaces often inculcate explicit and implicit systems of competition, whereby an individual’s organizational value is determined by his or her performance in relation to that of others. This competition and its corresponding behavioral ramifications – for example, performance cognizance – can be extrapolated to induce environmentally sound behavior. Siero et al (1996), for example, ascertained the influence of comparative feedback in encouraging conservational behavior among two groups of employees at a Dutch metallurgical site. The researchers tasked two teams with completing several sustainable tasks and integrating sustainable practices within their workplace responsibilities. The first team received feedback only on their personal performance, while the second team was provided comparative feedback – that of their performance in relation to the other team. Creating strong feelings of group-based competition, the comparative feedback condition activated employees’ habituated response of demonstrating their relative value. Predictably, then, the second team engaged in substantially more environmentally conscious behavior and persisted in doing so for the entirety – six months – of the study’s commission [6].

Offering a more contemporary demonstration, Cool Choice, a nonprofit in Wisconsin, found that workplace competition can nudge at-home sustainability – advancing the realization of a sustainable city. The researchers divided employees into teams in which they were rewarded with points for engaging in environmentally responsible behavior at home (e.g., engaging in proper waste sorting, utilizing LED lights, and installing rain barrels). Compared to a control group, the competition increased awareness of the importance of sustainability and reduced household electricity use, a change which persevered for six months following the study’s conclusion [7]. Markus Brauer, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, attributes this outcome to two psychological factors: peer pressure and habituation [8]. Reflecting the importance of workplaces to individual lives, particularly self-efficacy, employees accept the pressure the environmental competition creates to modify their at-home behavior. Doing so over a period of time results in the behavioral modification becoming habitual and, eventually, natural.

(2) Leveraging workplace hierarchies and individuals’ desire for personal ascension.

Workplaces often operate a hierarchical structure and increasingly delineate the importance of personal characteristics – virtuosity, respect, and trust –  in facilitating professional advancement. Through the involvement of hierarchically significant individuals and the attachment of reputational benefits to pro-environmental behaviors, sustainable individuals, workplaces, and cities can be promoted. Senior Director of the Rare Center for Behavior and the Environment, Kevin Green, agrees, citing a practical analogy: “If a city were to encourage recycling, but recycling receptacles were placed out of general sight,  then they would not help boost the reputations of those who recycled, [hence discouraging them from doing so] [9].”

Termed the Energy Champion Approach, a report by Dr. Keuren Sussman and Maxine Chikumbo highlights the effectiveness of individuals with significant persuasive power in nudging pro-environmental behavior in employees [10]. Workplace leaders – already familiar, embedded within the target group, and supported by their hierarchical significance – are a fitting demographic. This is evidenced in Schelly et al (2011), whereby a school principal – a workplace leader – utilized his hierarchical and persuasive power to encourage sustainable behavior among employees and students, subsequently reducing energy consumption by 50% in the school [11]. Supplementing this by attaching reputational benefits to environmental efforts – in this case, an awards ceremony and congratulatory emails – reduced energy consumption by a further 10%.


The AI Governance Challenge

The psychological mechanisms activated in these case studies effectively override the unproductive cognitive biases – temporal discounting and construal level theory – specified previously. By enabling immediate rewards, namely workplace inclusion and ascension, employees are able to identify a proximate and linear relationship between their personal action and the rewards attained.


Leveraging social norms and hierarchies within workplaces can effectively transform individual behavior and actualize, over time, sustainable cities. It is behavioral science that, by providing a nuanced understanding of human behavior, can help diffuse our ticking climatic time bomb.


[1] Why People Aren’t Motivated to Address Climate Change. (2018). Harvard Business Review.

[2] Story, G., Vlaev, I., Seymour, B., Darzi, A., & Dolan, R. (2014). Does temporal discounting explain unhealthy behavior? A systematic review and reinforcement learning perspective. Frontiers In Behavioral Neuroscience, 8. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00076 

[3] Cairns, Kate & Harvey, Joan & Heidrich, Oliver. (2014). Psychological factors to motivate sustainable behaviors. Proceedings of the ICE – Urban Design and Planning. 167. 165-174. 10.1680/udap.14.00001 

[4]   Bossuyt, D. M., & Savini, F. (2018). Urban sustainability and political parties: Eco-development in Stockholm and Amsterdam. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(6), 1006–1026.

[5] New Survey Shows Urgent Demand for Employer Focus on Sustainability. (2014). Sustainable Brands.

[6] Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I., Malhotra, B., Russel, R., Unsworth, K., Clegg, C. (2015). Changing Behavior: Successful Environmental Programmes in the Workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment. Bus. Strat. Env. 24, 689–703 

[7] Building a sustainable future. (2019).

[8] Building a sustainable future. (2019).

[9] 15 ways to use behavioral science in sustainability – Landscape News. (2019). Landscape News.

[10] Sussman, R., Chikumbo, M. (2016) Behavior Change Programs: Status and Impact. (2016). ACEEE. 

[11] Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I., Malhotra, B., Russel, R., Unsworth, K., Clegg, C. (2015). Changing Behavior: Successful Environmental Programmes in the Workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment. Bus. Strat. Env. 24, 689–703

Beyond Irrational Politics

Science will not depoliticize politics—nor should it. Policy is not a substitute for politics

What can a behavioral scientist learn by reading the politics section these days? There’s a lot of disagreement, of course, but that disagreement is taking a fresh twist. It’s not new to have differences about what we want to achieve, and differences about what we think are the best ways to get there. But now we disagree about whether something is even true. We don’t just hold different values or hypotheses—we hold different facts!

Political polarization has intensified to the point that we believe “our” people and disbelieve “others.” Populism has intensified to the point where we believe common sense and disbelieve expertise. Trust plays a critical role here: we give or withhold our trust based on who says something, not on what they say.

All this wreaks havoc on ideals of evidence-based policy-making. The grand vision of the policy sciences is that—collectively, as a society—we negotiate a common goal (usually about improving social welfare) and then we rationally weigh the evidence to figure out the best means to achieve that goal. In practice, any such clean division between goal-setting and fact-finding has always been uneasy, but the recent swells in political disagreement have made things even more difficult.

The response from some corners of the evidence-based policy circle have been to double down on evidence and rational processing: using science as a way to “depoliticize” the political sphere, reining in ideology.

Populism: outrage during a crisis of legitimacy 

These are many of the same people who are flabbergasted that a politician can openly lie in public and yet receive the support of voters. Lying should be an instant disqualifier for the purely rational voter. If a politician’s value is measured by how attractive their goals are and how credible their plans are to get us there, then lying should challenge our ability to even assess what a candidate would do if they were elected. And yet candidates (especially populists) who lie openly have managed to draw huge support.

A recent study by Hahl, Kim and Sivan explores this conundrum in a brilliant way. Their hypothesis is that a populist can actually make themselves more popular by lying—because they’re telling some kind of deeper truth. The experimental design primed respondents to affiliate with one of the two candidates: either the incumbent or the outsider. In cases where the incumbent was corrupt, voters rated the outsider as very authentic even when he made statements contradictory to established and openly agreed-upon facts—when he lied flagrantly. In the absence of the legitimacy crisis, the effect disappeared

Basically, if no one trusts the “insiders” who run the system, then the more you scandalize those insiders by lying openly, the more you show yourself to be one of “the people.” This setup works when there is a rift between the people and the establishment that is supposed to represent them, when there is a crisis of legitimacy. Such a crisis can arise under at least three circumstances.

  1. Incompetence: People feel that the government is working in the best interests of constituents, but they are ineffective at achieving their goals.
  2. Corruption: People feel that the government is working in its own best interests rather than those of constituents.
  3. Favoritism: People feel that the government is unfairly privileging some constituents over others. (E.g., the playing field is being leveled between a historically privileged group and everybody else, a.k.a. discrimination against the established class)

In any of these cases, the result is that a politics of resentment sets in, where “the people” (and who that refers to will be different in different cases) feel that the government is advancing a hidden agenda, which “the people” are powerless to stop in its advance. The vote for a populist candidate is an expression of outrage with the system as a whole, calling out the system as illegitimate.

The populist’s lie reveals a deeper truth

In their work, the authors talk about the populist’s lie containing a “deeper truth.” But how can a lie and a truth coexist in the space of the same sentence? They are awkward bedfellows. Maybe we need to dig a bit deeper into what it means for something to be true. Ernst Cassirer, a philosopher of the early 20th century, spent many years doing just that. His theories about language, myth and science provide valuable guidance through this contemporary conundrum.

Cassirer’s final book (The Myth of the State, a diagnosis of the intellectual roots of Nazism, written in 1945) talks about the Western belief that, since the Enlightenment, humankind has cast off its tendencies towards superstition. Perhaps our prehistoric ancestors believed in spirits and supernatural forces, but modern man—and at that time they apparently only talked about or among men—is a fully rational agent. If there are any residual superstitious beliefs or individuals in our society, they are surely just marginalia, leftovers from our past that will shortly be swept away by the winds of modernity.

Of course, the rise of Nazism illustrated the depths of our hubris. Put anyone in a dire enough situation and they will look to anything that provides a ray of hope. When “normal” functioning fractures, myth is only too happy to come spewing forth from that rupture. (The Milgram experiments also demonstrated that obedience to authority will push basically anyone to commit unconscionable acts, putting to bed any lofty, racist notions that perhaps the rise of Nazism was just a German problem.)

Expressing ourselves through myth

But what is myth? It is defined as the inherence of the part in the whole, and vice versa. Let’s digest that. Language is mythic when the word and the object are completely identified and indistinguishable from each other. The magic spell works because the incantation literally is the object it calls forth, containing all of the object’s causal powers within the word.

For example, in ancient Egyptian mythology, Isis tricks Ra into revealing his secret name, and in so doing she gains power over him. Children at summer camp do the same thing, trying to find out the “real names” of counselors that go by “camp names” instead—and lording it over the counselors when they do.

It works the same way with mythic art. The icon contains all the power of what it depicts. For instance, to own an image of The Prophet is to claim to have power over him (which perhaps gives some context as to why people get pretty upset when such pictures, especially unflattering caricatures, are published in newspapers).

Myth is all about expression. Each act and each representation is the full expression of its object, and of the power of that object. Our sign is our identity. By contrast, scientific speech is epistemic. Each utterance represents a fact, a state of affairs out there in the world about which one has knowledge.

Desperate circumstances call for desperate stories 

When Hahl and colleagues talk about the coexistence of the lie and the deeper truth in a single sentence, we can understand this by distinguishing the epistemic lie from the expressive truth. “The state of affairs in the world is not as I claim it to be, but my act—my disdain of the establishment—tells you everything you need to know about who I am: I stand for the people.” The lying populist can emerge only when there is a politics of resentment, when people put the expressive function of their voice above the epistemic function of their voice.

Cassirer highlighted that material conditions must never be allowed to degrade too far, that under such desperate circumstances myth would once again come to dominate the political sphere. What we are learning now with the rise of populism is that such crises can be equally well provoked by a symbolic crisis: a crisis of legitimacy, a sense among the people that the political caste is advancing its own agenda, one that the people feel powerless to stop. (It would also be worth considering what other conditions might trigger a symbolic crisis, beyond corruption or favoritism.)

Reason: only one piece of the puzzle

For evidence-based policy, we must recognize that facts and values cannot be cleanly divorced, as some hope. Science will not depoliticize politics—nor should it. Policy is not a substitute for politics, because avoiding material crises still leaves open the specter of symbolic breakdowns. Perhaps unintuitively, evidence-based policy depends on politics, it does not avoid it. Politics cannot just be shunned, it must be done better if we wish to see progress on the use of evidence.


The AI Governance Challenge

For behavioral science, much of its history has been cast as a reaction to classical economics, and especially as an invalidation of the presumption that humans are rational agents. Behavioral science maps out the conditions under which we are rational and the conditions under which we aren’t. Humans are quasi-rational agents. As long as we continue to frame these “departures” as “failures to be rational,” we tacitly endorse the idea that a perfectly rational agent is what a human ought to be—which means that we haven’t really thrown off the heavy mantle handed down to us from classical economics.

To truly move out from under the rationalist shadow, behavioral research and insights need to start mapping out humanity’s expressive tendencies, in addition to the epistemic tendencies that behavioral research has focused on so far. We need to explore what it is that we are doing when we are not acting rationally. Politics is providing a live demonstration that rationality is only one piece of the puzzle.

This blog post summarizes a paper delivered by the author (in collaboration with Chantale Tippett) at the 2019 International Conference on Public Policy.

The image in this post is of British fascists demonstrating in London in 1937. The desire to belong and the surge of emotions in a crowd can sweep up even the enemies of that ideology. Photograph: Daily Herald Archive/SSPL/Getty.

Why You Need a Chief Behavioral Officer

This article originally appeared in [] and belongs to the creators.

When bringing a new idea to market, how do you choose the right approach? Do you ask your senior management and fellow employees for their opinions? Do you rely on market reports and research surveys? Do you simply trust your gut?

Or do you conduct your own in-house experiments to learn firsthand what works best in your organization?

If you forgo experimenting, you’re not alone: The latest findings from Harvard Business School researchers suggest that few organizations actually experiment. However, this is rapidly changing as the field of applied behavioral science gains momentum and moves from the lab to the real world.

The Rise of Behavioral Science

Popular culture is now embracing the behavioral science movement, thanks to popular TED TalksNew York Times best-sellers, and Harvard Business Review articles that focus on applied social psychology and how it can be used to improve our businesses and our world.

With behavioral economics becoming the new “Moneyball,” psychological concepts such as loss aversion, social proof, and default effects are entering the popular lexicon. Once thought of as incomprehensible “brain surgery,” behavioral science is becoming water-cooler conversation. Behavioral economics pioneer Richard Thaler’s recent Nobel Prize is another testament to the public’s embrace of the field.

Yet the industry implementation of these ideas has been slow to start. While more than 60 governments in 23 countries around the world have pioneered best practices based on behavioral science, few industry leaders are following suit.

Indeed, the number of leading companies with dedicated behavioral science teams can currently be counted on one hand (Walmart, Pepsi, and Morningstar are notable examples). But now more than ever, it’s critical for industries to build dedicated internal practices of behavioral science.

Why Care About Behavioral Science?

Numerous case studies have shown that businesses benefit massively from better understanding human behavior as a fundamental consideration of employee productivity and happiness, customer engagement, and product and business model innovation.

Employee Engagement

Behavioral science is helping to unleash human potential in the workplace by providing employees with a sense of meaning. Science shows that employees are motivated by far more than money — namely, a sense of purpose.

For example, Adam Grant led a landmark study showing that college fundraisers generated 171 percent more alumni donations, compared with a control group, after reading letters from scholarship beneficiaries. In this same study, meeting a recipient in person for just five minutes generated performance improvements that lasted months.

Although it’s easy to think of employees as mere assets to be managed, business leaders would be wise to apply this principle of purpose — and to experiment within their own organizations to create a happy, engaged, and productive workforce.

Customer Behavior

Consumer marketers have been leading the way in applying psychological principles to influence stakeholder behavior. Marketers price products strategically — tapping into our bias for the midpoint — by anchoring against higher-priced decoys.

New products are often presented “fully loaded” and tend to be purchased that way, as our default bias taxes the will to remove each bell and whistle. Free trials are an institution of consumer promotions because our natural aversion to loss makes us unlikely to discontinue a service once we’ve tried it.

These behavior-based marketing tactics are enhanced by A/B testing capabilities within consumer websites, enabling marketers to compare subtle nuances of messaging, which can have outsized effects on consumer behavior. But these “nudge” tactics aren’t just about communication. They have the power to change important behavior in consumers’ lives.

For example, when Opower wanted to encourage customers to use less energy, it added an element of social comparison, pointing out how much energy customers used in comparison to their neighbors. This approach decreased energy usage of high consumers by more than 6 percent, thanks to our deeply engrained bias to act in accordance with social norms.

So what really drives consumer judgment and decision-making? Counterintuitively, it’s not always more information. Testing and designing communications for the complexities of the human mind is often a more effective path.

Business Innovation

Beyond incremental improvements to existing solutions, behavioral science can also help us dream big. Perhaps the most exciting application is the transformation of products and business models.

In an economy of rapid disruption and technological innovation, companies can’t afford not to pay close attention to human motivation and behavior. Behavior-based trends are transforming entire industries.

For example, subscription models are proliferating because they separate the pain of payment from the joy of consumption — a fundamental behavioral principle driving the rise of innovative startups like Birchbox, Trunk Club, and Blue Apron.

Another emerging principle is operational transparency. Behavioral scientists teach us to “show the work” and to provide a window into the process of delivering value — from clothing to travel to pizza. (Think Domino’s pizza tracker.)

Even established industries such as insurance have been fundamentally disrupted by innovators paying attention to human behavior. With leading behavioral economist Dan Ariely as its chief behavioral officer, Lemonade is the first peer-to-peer insurance company rapidly gaining “crazy market share” by building on fundamental principles of behavioral science. It’s striving to make insurance simple, transparent, and prosocial — by giving back unused premiums to causes that clients care about, for example.

A Culture of Behavioral Science

We wrote this article over a shared curiosity for human behavior in the modern workplace. Do foosball tables really make employees (feel) more innovative? How do soul-sucking commutes affect teammate camaraderie? Why don’t people take their vacation days?

These questions and others led us to a more formal collaboration on an employee engagement research road map. It was designed to inspire a series of experiments within Maritz’s client programs and better understand what makes people tick in the workplace.

Having bridged the academic and industry divide, we’ve discovered a few characteristics, informed both by science and practice, that help make behavioral science part of everyday organizational decision-making.

1. Chief Behavioral Officers

Applied behavioral science requires an in-depth understanding of business and customer challenges — which can only be grasped fully by internal teams with on-the-ground experience and company-specific accountability.

In that vein, businesses would be wise to identify a subject matter expert to build a behavioral science center of excellence. While everyone in the organization benefits from this knowledge, new and focused expertise requires a dedicated person to set goals, be accountable, and share best practices across the organization.

CBOs are advocates for the human at the center of every policy and program. In every meeting, they’re responsible for asking: What behaviors are we trying to influence? Are the employees, participants, or customers in this program doing as well as they could be? What specific steps are we asking these people to take?


The AI Governance Challenge

Marrying art and science, the CBO leads a series of workshops and journey-mapping to spark curiosity in human behavior and motivation, while engaging data science and analytics resources to identify measurable outcomes. The CBO might also have a scientific background, but it’s more important that he or she knows the programs well and has empathy for the individual participant as well as a strong dose of common sense. A recent article aptly summarizes the characteristics of a successful behavioral scientist.

CBOs can walk through the participant journey and intuit barriers and motivators as hypotheses for testing, which was the first step we took at Maritz toward building a list of testable questions that matter to our leaders, stakeholders, and clients.

2. Academic Communities

CBOs may not have the answer to every behavioral problem, which is where academic networks come in. Not only can they provide greater information, but they also keep confirmation biases in check, which adds rigor and credibility to experimenting.

Forging partnerships oriented toward publishable outcomes is a mutually beneficial way to uncover actionable insights in business. The academic community is trained in the machinery of experimentation, but the business community is endowed with a deep understanding of the machinery of their enterprises.

Teaming together is an exercise in comparative advantage that improves outcomes on both sides.It’s the ultimate win-win: Academics can be a cost-efficient resource to businesses when they’re able to collect unique data to support their research, and businesses can benefit from their knowledge.

Researchers’ expertise and interests can vary widely by topic (consumer decision-making, employee well-being, and salesperson motivation), technique (analysis of big historical data sets versus controlled experiments) and focus (individual employee or organization-level changes). So building a network of the right academic collaborators will take some legwork, further attesting to the importance of having a dedicated chief behavioral officer to develop these connections.

In thinking about employee engagement, we considered this academic diversity and built a network of potential collaborators by taking our research road map on a roadshow, meeting with academics at a few top-tier universities to investigate their research interests related to various dimensions of the modern workplace experience.

It’s critical to work together from the beginning on the research questions and invite key stakeholders such as clients, customers, and employees to contribute. Aligning interests of the business and of the academic collaborator is the best way to generate new insights about human behavior in the modern marketplace.

3. Experimentation

Experimentation is the foundation of behavioral science. The only way to really understand what causes behavior change in your stakeholders is to make a habit of running randomized controlled trials (“RCTs” in science speak). Without proper testing, you might be inferring causal relationships that aren’t there or missing an opportunity to try something better.

Building testing capabilities into the foundation of a business’s tech platform is a good way to instill the practice of experimentation. It’s also important for leadership to set the expectation that programs aren’t perfect at launch — there’s usually room for trying, testing, learning, and challenging assumptions.

Embracing experimentation means celebrating failures, too. When we continually test new ideas and approaches, learning what doesn’t work is just as important as uncovering what does.

Applied behavioral science is a largely untapped field that can help business leaders better understand and influence their employees and customers. Businesses also have a lot to contribute to the academic field, which still requires field research to better understand the impact of theoretical ideas on real people in natural contexts.

The modern marketplace provides scientists with real-world settings to evolve our collective understanding of the human psyche. Industry and academia is a good partnership for a smarter world.