Purpose Carbon footprint calculators (CFCs) are recognised as valuable educational tools, though prior research suggests their influence on behaviour change may be limited unless accurate emissions data is delivered in reflective, social contexts. This study aims to examine the impact of a scientifically robust CFC embedded in social norms and reflection-based interventions on climate knowledge and behaviour change intentions among university students and educators. Design/methodology/approach The authors held workshops for two distinct cohorts: educators (n = 109) and university students (n = 42), who individually assessed their personal emissions using the calculator, then participated in peer-led discussions on climate mitigation strategies. These workshops incorporated the capability and motivation aspects of the capability, opportunity, motivation – behaviour (COM-B) behaviour change model. Post-workshop surveys captured participants’ knowledge gains and behaviour change intentions. Findings In total, 94% of educators and 98% of students reported increased knowledge, while 99% and 88%, respectively, intended to reduce emissions. Results suggest that scientifically aligned CFCs may strengthen both climate awareness and pro-environmental behaviour change motivation when delivered in reflective, social learning environments. Research limitations/implications Findings are based on self-reported data. Future studies should objectively assess whether such interventions lead to sustained behavioural change. Originality/value This uncontrolled, interventional case study responds to calls for reflective, behaviourally informed applications of CFCs through integration within a structured behaviour change intervention. Applying the COM-B framework to both CFC intervention design and evaluation in an educational context is a novel approach. The study offers a scalable framework for fostering pro-environmental behaviour change motivation through higher education.
Moore et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: