Image by Sebastian Ganso from Pixabay

• People in Finland have long understood the climate crisis – yet their electricity use remained high.
• New research from the University of Vaasa shows that meaningful behavioural change occurred only once prices rose after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
• The message for leaders is clear: to change behaviour, target household finances, not moral values

For decades, Finland has been the model child for climate awareness.  

Environmental issues have been a part of public discussion for years, and Finns have had a general awareness of climate change.  

Yet, this high level of understanding has struggled to translate into lower electricity consumption. Everyday routines persisted with comfort while appliances ran without much thought for cost.  

This mismatch between values and behaviours sits at the core of Nayeem Rahman’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Vaasa. Rahman’s research shows that the only factor that created a genuine shift in energy habits was the sudden increase in electricity prices when Russia invaded Ukraine.  

Only then, when the bills shot up, households became far more attentive to how, and when, they use electricity.  

What moral arguments and sustainability campaigns failed to change, prices rises did.  

Patterns seen beyond Finland 

This experience is not restricted to Finland. A very similar pattern was seen in the UK during its own energy crisis in 2022/2023.  

For years, the UK government raised climate change awareness and encouraged households to think about their usage. The impact was little to none. But much like Finland, when energy prices spiked, the public’s behaviour changed almost overnight.  

Research from University College London analysed electricity and gas consumption in over 5,000 British households and found that, between October 2022 and March 2023, electricity use fell by 8.4% and gas use by 10.8% compared with the previous winter. 

These findings are reinforced by a study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies , which showed that when households faced a sharp increase in regulated price in the cost-of-living crisis, their overall energy consumption declined sharply.  

Further support comes from a study at Oxford Brookes University, which analysed demand-response trials in English homes equipped with heat pumps and battery systems. This research found that financial incentives were a key to encouraging a chnage in energy habits strengthening Rahman’s conclusion that monetary rewards remain one of the strongest motivators for change. 

The similarities between the reactions of the two countries are clear: the energy shift was not driven by a sudden rise in climate concerns but by the cost of keeping the lights on and the home warm.  

Technology helps change, but prices trigger it 

Digitalisation has made a significant impact in the energy market, particularly when it comes to enabling flexibility, Rahman reveals. Smart meters, apps and automatic devices are actively responding to the market with minimal human input.  

But while these tools make flexible consumption possible, they do not motivate it – what motivates households is costs. 

“While many express a desire to be environmentally friendly, the research indicates that material and monetary benefits are the most effective motivators for adopting flexible energy habits,” says Rahman.  

Technology allows consumers to more easily monitor their energy consumption and keep track of how much they’re using and when. Motivated by the desire to save money, and aided by this technology, the result is a financial win-win: households cut their costs while suppliers reduce the need to purchase high-priced energy. 

Therefore, sustainability becomes a welcome consequence, not the primary driver of behaviour.  

The three mechanisms reshaping the market 

What’s most interesting here is the gap between sustainability intentions and genuine behaviour.  

Households may say that they want to support cleaner energy, but the research shows that tangible benefits are the most effective motivators. With this in mind, Rahman’s research identifies three ways that households can practically help shift electricity demand – which while are drawn from Finnish case study but relevant to energy systems everywhere.  

First, energy retailers can develop business models that offer rewards for people adjusting their electricity use.  

This means offering discounts, reward schemes or lower tariffs to customers who shift their activities such as running washing machines, dishwashers or charging electric cars to times outside of when the gird is less used. Companies like Octopus Energy already use thus approach, offering their customers benefits for when they use their energy at off-peak hours.  

Second, digital platforms can provide households real-time messages about what the grid needs. 

This often involves using smart meters and apps to show when electric is cheapest or when renewable supply is high. Some systems even automatically carry out certain tasks, like heating water or charging a car so that households responds almost instantly to the changing grid. It is tools like this that make it easier for the public to efficiently use energy.  

Third, the rise of “prosumers” allows households to produce and consume energy simultaneously.  

Installing rooftop solar panels and home batteries means that families generate their own power and feed surplus back into the grid – making household more active in the energy system and supporting more stable and renewable-friendly electricity network. 

Together these mechanisms are changing how firms operate; platforms function and the overall system responds to demand. 

“Retailers are creating new business models that reward flexibility, digital platforms are linking households and the grid, and consumers are becoming prosumers by both consuming and producing electricity,” says Rahman. “These dynamics are reshaping the market – by changing how individual firms operate, by redefining the role of digital platforms, and by influencing the wider energy ecosystem.” 

Consumers are becoming influential participants, yet Rahman suggests that finances are the number one incentive when it comes to getting people to take part in new energy initiatives.  

“The most common incentive is a lower electricity bill. But it can also mean getting paid for the surplus energy from your rooftop solar panels, or being compensated for exporting electricity from your electric car’s battery back to the grid during a period of high demand on the grid,” Rahman explains.  

Advice for leaders: focus on costs, not conscience 

For policymakers, energy companies and tech developers, the implication is clear. If the goal is to encourage more flexibility and sustainable energy use, financial incentives will achieve far more than moral messaging.  

Dynamic pricing, money for demand responses and straightforward compensation models for prosumers are far more likely to motivate meaningful change than simply awareness campaigns alone.  

Rahman’s dissertation ultimately offers a pragmatic view of consumer behaviour. Households are willing to adopt flexible, greener energy habits, but they need concrete financial reasons to do so. Recognising this is not cynical but actually reflects how people make decisions.  

By aligning policies with real behaviour drivers, Finland, along with other nations, can push the shift to a more efficient and sustainable market, one not shaped by solely power plants but by the everyday person’s everyday choice made at home.  

Enjoyed this article? You may like this…