Conference Agenda

In this paper, I study a large-scale natural experiment where a supermarket, without prior announcement, increased the bonus points on fruit and vegetables and labeled them as “good deeds.” The additional bonus points function as an equivalent price reduction of 0.6--2%, and the labeling provides a normative nudge on fruit and vegetables as environmentally friendly products. I use panel data that cover more than 40,000 consumers who place over 800,000 orders several months prior to the implementation of the bonus, throughout the entire year when the bonus is in place, and for several months after the bonus has been removed. The results indicate a larger consumer response than expected solely on the basis of the monetary incentive. The bonus program increased overall fruit and vegetable consumption by, on average, 6--9% per order. I further find no evidence that increasing the monetary incentive from an equivalent price reduction of 0.6% to 2% had any additional impact on consumption.

Corporate social responsibility and the private provision of (global) public goods are of key interest to economists and policymakers alike. Increasingly, private companies are making their operations carbon neutral, often leading their own products to also be certified accordingly. It is an empirical question how consumers value carbon-neutral products and how informed they are about them, which we address as follows. First, we provide a meta-analysis of the literature analyzing demand for products with carbon-neutral labels, based on an overall sample of 27,241 participants. In this analysis, the focus is on average willingness to pay for carbon reductions as well as on the characteristics of the underlying literature, including the use of stated preferences and population samples, and their association with willingness to pay. Second, we leverage information on prices and product characteristics from one of the largest online marketplaces, Amazon's, to infer from revealed preferences on consumers' valuation of carbon-neutral products, through a hedonic approach. The staggered process of carbon-neutral certification leads to a series of quasi-natural experiments, which we use for identification purposes. We find that the literature, which is mainly based on survey studies, suggests a positive willingness to pay for carbon neutrality of products that exceeds most estimates of the social cost of carbon. However, this finding is not supported by the hedonic approach, which is based on market prices, where we do not find evidence for a positive willingness to pay for carbon neutrality for a wide range of products sold on Amazon.

We examine individuals' willingness to pay to offset their carbon footprint (WTPO) in

response to receiving information about (i) their own carbon footprint size (size nudge),

and (ii) receiving information about their own carbon footprint size and the gap with percapita

GHG emissions consistent with the 1.5°C target (distance-to-target nudge). We

employ a demographically representative online survey among the adult population in

Germany which includes a carbon footprint calculator and the randomized information

nudges. Results from estimating double-hurdle regression models suggest that the size

nudge increases participants' average WTPO by about one third. Yet, we find only limited

support that the distance-to-target nudge affects participants' WTPO. We further find that

participants' response to the information nudge is primarily effective for younger

participants, females, participants with mid-range income, with high levels of education,

and with low to medium-sized carbon footprints, ceteris paribus. Further, the WTPO is

positively related with income, education, carbon literacy, and environmental

preferences. Also, participants tend to underestimate the size of their carbon footprint

relative to that of others. We find no evidence, however, that participants' WTPO

depends on whether they believe that their carbon footprint is lower or higher than that

of others.

Based on data from a representative online survey among 1,751 individuals in Germany that comprised an incentivized donation experiment, this paper empirically examines whether obligatory or optional social information can increase individual donation for climate protection. Our econometric analysis of linear regression and Tobit models reveals no significant differences in the likelihood to donate for climate protection and the total amount donated for climate protection depending on whether respondents received the obligatory or optional social information frame. However, our empirical analysis shows that having the option to receive additional information and choose to see additional information leads to a higher likelihood to donate for climate protection and a higher total amount donated for climate protection. Both information treatments do not affect the respondents’ expectation on how much other respondents would donate for climate protection. In addition, environmental attitudes, social preferences, and perceived norms in environmental context increase the likelihood to donate for climate protection and the total amount donated for climate protection. These results suggest that the design of donation appeals, i.e., how additional information is provided, can decrease donation behavior when they facilitate information avoidance.