Decisions made by social housing providers (SHPs) profoundly affect their tenants' energy affordability, a group characterised by above-average energy poverty rates. Concentrated deprivation in this tenure has intensified due to policy-driven ‘residualisation’, compelling SHPs to serve almost exclusively low-income and marginalised households. Despite this, research exploring the potential of SHPs to tackle energy poverty through targeted interventions for their most vulnerable tenants remains sparse. The 2021–2022 energy price crisis offers a unique context to investigate this issue, given its substantial impact on household energy affordability. This study delves into insights of social housing professionals through focus groups conducted in France, England, and the Netherlands. It examines their views on the effectiveness of interventions and assesses their feasibility within the respective institutional contexts. We find that SHPs generally favour retrofit prioritisation and behavioural interventions as effective means of supporting at-risk tenants, whereas alterations in rent setting or housing allocation are considered potentially impactful but often undesirable or impracticable. We identify institutional barriers and lack of data as key obstacles to SHPs' adoption of more targeted interventions. To empower SHPs in tackling energy poverty, housing policy reforms must acknowledge and address the significant impact of energy costs within total housing expenses.@en

Energy poverty is a far-reaching concept that intrinsically bridges numerous fields of study, ranging from engineering to anthropology and medical science to social psychology. The profound implications of energy poverty on the quality of life globally have also led to a wide range of metrics and policies aimed at measuring it and alleviating it, albeit with limited success. Using a mixed methods approach, our network has conducted research to advance knowledge and interpretations of energy poverty and boost scientific outputs' capacity to shape knowledge-based policies. In this article, we critically review this extensive research endeavor, as well as its results. We build on the conceptual, methodological, and policy dimensions of energy poverty research to set up pathways toward a new, interdisciplinary research and policy agenda on energy poverty mitigation better equipped to provide meaningful answers to the challenges posed by the current ongoing energy crisis.@en

This report addresses energy poverty in social housing, proposing solutions to aid an inclusive energy transition. It highlights the disproportionate impact of rising prices on vulnerable tenants, suggesting short-term measures like energy advice and energy-saving kits, along with long-term strategies such as prioritising renovations for those in need and reforming housing allocation policies to combat the issue effectively.@en

The European energy crisis of 2022 stresses the importance of protecting the most vulnerable households. Price peaks disproportionally affect households with low incomes, limited savings, and inefficient homes, and increased energy poverty: the inability to secure sufficient domestic energy services that allow for participation in society (Bouzarovski & Petrova, 2015). Since European social housing countries have become increasingly residualised, a significant share of households in or at risk of energy poverty are being accommodated by social housing providers (Poggio & Whitehead, 2017; Walker, 2008). However, while most practitioners acknowledge that social housing providers (SHPs) have a responsibility in energy poverty alleviation, targeted intervention approaches have hardly been explored (Desvallees, 2022). The body of scholarship on energy poverty measurement has grown rapidly, but its use in practice has hardly been addressed (Bouzarovski et al., 2021). Sherriff et al. (2019) note that a possible explanation might be that insights from research are inadequately communicated to policymakers and practitioners. Charlier and Legendre (2021) add that the sense of urgency has substantially differed across countries. This paper aims to combat these gaps, by proactively engaging with practitioners across Europe to find out which targeted intervention approaches are considered most effective, what their benefits and potential (regulatory) obstacles are, and whether these perspectives differ in different policy contexts. We indirectly examine the responsibilities SHPs are willing to accept within a ‘just transition’, and explore whether, and if so how, their apparent techno-economic approach to retrofit provision could be altered (De Feijter et al., 2019).@en