An agenda for future Social Sciences and Humanities research on energy efficiency: 100 priority research questions

The paper addresses an urgent need to integrate Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) perspectives into energy efficiency research and policy, which have been dominated by techno-economic approaches. It highlights two core gaps: SSH contributions are often narrowly instrumentalised or sidelined by funders and policymakers, and agenda-setting has lacked inclusive, deliberative processes that draw on the breadth of SSH disciplines. In response, the authors set out to co-create a forward-looking, inclusive research agenda focused on energy efficiency in Global North contexts. Using Horizon Scanning, they aim to identify priority research questions that reflect the diversity of SSH, challenge narrow framings of energy efficiency, and better situate efficiency within social systems of demand and supply. The study is positioned to inform EU Horizon Europe priorities but is relevant more broadly across Global North settings.

The background traces the evolution of SSH engagement with energy efficiency from early insights—Jevons’s rebound effect (1865), Podolinsky’s social energetics, and Humanities perspectives (Bloch, White)—through the post-1970s energy crises that catalyzed interest in behavior, information, and local action (Aronsen & Stern, 1984). Over time, focus shifted from energy security to climate change mitigation and low-carbon transitions, with growing attention to niches, regimes, policy mixes, and justice. Continuities include attention to local initiatives, community energy, and social equity (e.g., gendered dimensions, fuel poverty). A major development has been practice-theoretical approaches challenging individualistic behavior-change models, reframing demand as socially organized practices, questioning efficiency as an unequivocal goal, and emphasizing sufficiency. Critical-SSH has expanded to lived experiences, material cultures, and emotional geographies. The review underscores that well-developed SSH approaches—ranging from practical policy evaluation to fundamental critiques—are poised to contribute to both delivery and appraisal of energy efficiency, while recognizing persistent gaps in inclusion, diverse SSH representation, and the need to move beyond techno-determinism and individualism.

The study employed a structured Horizon Scanning exercise, adapted from Sutherland et al. (2019) and detailed in Foulds et al. (2019a), to co-create an SSH research agenda for energy efficiency.

• Governance and participants: A Steering Committee (first four co-authors) set Terms of Reference (scope, definitions, policy contexts) and oversaw the process. A Working Group (27 co-authors) from EU/H2020-Associated countries with SSH expertise on energy efficiency supported question solicitation, selection, and editing. Members spanned 21 countries, 29 SSH sub-disciplines, were 52% women/48% men, 26% with prior STEM background; 33% were ‘frontrunners’ and 67% ‘field leaders’.
• Question solicitation: Each Working Group member submitted questions and invited up to 20–25 colleagues. An online survey (Feb–Apr 2020) asked for 3–5 SSH research questions plus justification. Eligibility: prior SSH expertise on energy efficiency; based at a research organization in an EU or H2020 Associated Country. Survey yielded 152 respondents (62% men, 37% women, 1% rather not say; 78% PhD), across 62 SSH (sub-)disciplines, 23 countries, 26 nationalities, and full career stages, generating 513 submitted questions (dataset anonymised and published: Energy-SHIFTS Consortium, 2021).
• Editing and cleaning: Two editors (first and second authors) standardized questions for style, relevance, scale, and scope with inter-editor agreement checks. Outcomes: 101 questions deleted (insufficient SSH grounding/relevance or not a question), 35 additional questions added (disaggregated or derived from justifications), and 64 merged (overly similar), resulting in 383 edited questions.
• Scoring and selection: Steering Committee and Working Group individually scored all 383 questions from 1 (definitely exclude) to 5 (definitely include), judging importance for Horizon Europe. Rules applied: questions with median 5 auto-selected (n=1); highest-scoring 49 added to make 50; medians 1–3 excluded (n=183); remaining compiled into a long-list (n=150). A first virtual workshop discussed results, with members advocating for three long-list questions each and highlighting gaps (e.g., gender, Global South, social innovation, unintended consequences). The Committee then provisionally selected 95 questions and inductively generated seven themes. A second workshop refined the remaining five questions, theme descriptions, mission statement, and narratives. Final 100 questions were agreed and signed off by members.
• Noted dynamics: More conventional questions (e.g., economics/business management, many rebound-effect items) tended to score lower. The process emphasized deliberation over rigid criteria to capture breadth across SSH approaches.

• Output: A mission statement and 100 SSH priority research questions, inductively clustered into seven themes:
  1. Citizenship, engagement and knowledge exchange in relation to energy efficiency.
  2. Energy efficiency in relation to equity, justice, poverty and vulnerability.
  3. Energy efficiency in relation to everyday life and practices of energy consumption and production.
  4. Framing, defining and measuring energy efficiency.
  5. Governance, policy and political issues around energy efficiency.
  6. Roles of economic systems, supply chains and financial mechanisms in improving energy efficiency.
  7. The interactions, unintended consequences and rebound effects of energy efficiency interventions.
• Mission statement: To promote SSH research that better situates energy efficiency within social systems of energy demand and supply, and constructively challenge notions of efficiency by opening up meanings, applications, and implications across contexts, actors, and scales.
• Emphases across themes: Moving beyond individualistic behavior change to energy citizenship and participatory, localised approaches; integrating justice (distributional and recognition) and intersectionality; embedding everyday practices, materiality, and digitalisation; critically examining frames, metrics, and expert authority in defining/measuring efficiency while exploring sufficiency; analyzing multilevel governance, policy mixes, and political dynamics including sufficiency mainstreaming; probing economic systems, global supply chains, and finance including implementation gaps in industry and post-crisis stimulus design; addressing interactions, ‘invisible’ policies, rebound, and co-benefits with health and well-being.
• Quantitative highlights of the process: 152 expert respondents; 513 submitted questions edited to 383; selection via scoring, two deliberation workshops, and inductive theme generation; 100 final questions ready for use by researchers and policymakers.

The agenda directly addresses the study’s twin gaps by (i) demonstrating the breadth and value of SSH contributions beyond narrow instrumental roles, and (ii) embedding an inclusive, transparent, deliberative process to set research priorities. The seven themes collectively reframe energy efficiency within complex socio-technical systems, highlight energy citizenship and justice, and challenge technocratic, device-scale, and individualistic framings. They open space for sufficiency alongside efficiency, emphasize intersections with everyday practices and ‘invisible’ policy domains, and consider governance, power, and economic structures that condition outcomes. The result is a field-spanning agenda that can guide Horizon Europe and other Global North research programs, helping align SSH research with policy needs while safeguarding critical perspectives that can anticipate unintended consequences, improve legitimacy, and enhance effectiveness of energy efficiency strategies.

This paper delivers a co-created, empirically grounded SSH research agenda for energy efficiency comprised of 100 questions across seven themes. It showcases extensive SSH capacities—from practical policy and governance insights to critical reframings—and offers ready-to-use questions for researchers (including early-career) and policy actors. The approach demonstrates the utility of Horizon Scanning for SSH agenda-setting and the importance of inclusive, deliberative methodologies. Future work should: broaden geographic scope to include Global South perspectives; further integrate sufficiency, intersectionality, and ‘invisible’ policy linkages; and continue iterative horizon scanning to reflect evolving geopolitical contexts and policy priorities. By mobilising these SSH priorities, research and innovation systems can develop more equitable, context-sensitive, and effective energy efficiency measures and governance solutions.

• Geographic scope: Focused on Global North (EU and Associated Countries), limiting generalizability and excluding Global South contexts except for a few questions in Theme 6.
• Participant-dependent: Horizon Scanning outputs are contingent on who participates; a different group might have produced a different set of questions.
• Temporal specificity: Reflects views and priorities during early 2020; later geopolitical developments (e.g., 2022 energy/geopolitical crises) may shift priorities.
• Disciplinary representation: Although broad, SSH heterogeneity means not every perspective is captured; Economics historically dominates funding while interpretive SSH are underrepresented.
• Scope of agenda: Not intended to be definitive or comprehensive; ordering of questions does not indicate prioritization and methodological choices favored breadth over strict criteria.