This data explores the knowledge base around productivity and its links to energy and wellbeing. The data was generated as part of a project that mapped and reviewed 1) links between energy and productivity and 2) wellbeing and productivity. The project used two forms of expert elicitation to guide a literature review and visualisation exercise. Experts in productivity, energy, productivity and wellbeing were surveyed. Initial participants were selected based on the networks of project researchers, and the ESRC. Recruitment then followed a snowballing methodology. In total, 58 people were invited to participate in the energy study. Of these 32 completed the survey, and 12 (not including research team members) attended the workshop. 53 people were invited to participate in the wellbeing study. Of these 20 completed the survey, and 7(not including research team members) attended the workshop. The surveys contain details of who the participants believe are key figures and key papers in energy/productivity/wellbeing research. The workshop outputs are visualisations of key relationships between energy/wellbeing /productivity by participants.Productivity growth means getting more output from fewer inputs. It is a key goal of conventional economic policy. But ‘productivity growth’ is a vague concept and there are large gaps in our understanding of it. This ESRC funded project explores links between the different types of productivity and two major gaps: the relationship between energy and productivity, and wellbeing and productivity. The aim is to map the existing evidence base and guide future ESRC productivity research. Among policymakers and economists it is widely agreed that the UK has a ‘productivity problem’. In the UK, Labour productivity growth has been falling since the mid-1960s. This trend intensified after the financial crisis, when UK labour productivity growth collapsed altogether. Although the UK situation is particularly acute, it is not unusual. Falling labour productivity growth is seen in economies across the world. This could be because of changes in the nature of energy supply and demand over the last few decades. Energy is closely related to the key elements conventionally thought to impact productivity (such as technology), but could also be linked in less obvious ways. For example, changes in the structure of the economy (as we shift from manufacturing to services), gender and income inequalities, and the physical quality of energy itself may all play a role in mediating the energy-productivity relation. Properly understanding all these factors is essential, partly because we expect big changes in the energy base of the economy as we move to low-carbon energy sources. Falling productivity growth is considered a problem because in conventional economics productivity growth (particularly labour productivity growth) is thought to be linked to material standards of living. In this view as productivity growth falls, so does growth in material living standards. In the dominant political economy, reductions in the growth of material living standards are assumed to lead to reduced wellbeing. However, it is unclear just how strong the link between productivity growth and wellbeing actually is. Productivity growth does impact some parts material living standards, such as the distribution of income. However, its impact on these elements is mediated by other factors such as government policy. At the same time, it is also possible that an over focus on productivity growth could negatively impact societal wellbeing. For example, many activities that are key providers of societal wellbeing have low levels of productivity growth. Low labour productivity growth activities include health and social care, and education—all key sectors in terms of the economy’s ability to generate wellbeing. The relation between productivity growth and wellbeing is complex and underexplored.

Questionnaires were sent to potential participants/experts to identify key themes, literature and research groups exploring energy and productivity and then wellbeing and productivity in the UK. Participants were initially drawn from the networks of team researchers, and contacts at the ESRC. Recruitment then followed a snowballing methodology. In total, 58 people were invited to participate in the energy study. Of these 32 completed the survey, and 12 (not including research team members) attended the workshop. 53 people were invited to participate in the wellbeing study. Of these 20 completed the survey, and 7 (not including research team members) attended the workshop. In the questionnaires, participants were asked: 1) What do you believe are the 3 key themes in well-being/energy and productivity research? 2) What are the 3 key articles, books, or grey literature we should consult for our literature review? 3) Are there any key authors/research groups you think we should approach to be part of this project? Survey responses informed the development of initial literature reviews (carried out by the review teams, based at the University of Surrey). Based on these initial searches, briefing notes and preliminary system maps were produced. The mapping methods research group (located at Loughborough University) organised and facilitated the two participatory systems mapping workshops. The workshops brought together experts from diverse academic disciplines. Participants were asked to read the briefing paper ahead of the workshop and to come prepared to contribute to participatory mapping processes. The aim of the workshops was to facilitate interdisciplinary discussions and capture key themes using systems mapping methods. Ahead of the workshops, participants were sent a briefing note summarising the results of the surveys and preliminary literature searches. At the workshops, participants worked together to create foundational structures to visualise knowledge. Specific attention was paid to significant relationships and tensions within the themes under investigation.