Case Study

After addressing the overarching question of how WTR relates to sustainability, the research turns to sub-question (2): What are the positions of relevant stakeholders towards WTR initiatives in the Netherlands? And how do they exert power in addressing barriers and

opportunities to WTR? As well as sub-question (3): To what extent can transition management address the barriers and opportunities to WTR in the Netherlands?

Given the nature of the question, a case study is chosen as the methodological approach to guide Chapters 5 and 6. A case study is an appropriate design when the research is concerned with the complexity and particular nature of a single case (Bryman, 2001:66).

3.2.1 Case Selection

The Netherlands is selected for the case study based on several criteria. First, the Netherlands is the site of much of the scholarship and practice of transition management. Loorbach et al (2017:604) locate the field as originating in the 1990’s and quickly being taken up by the Dutch government in their National Environmental Policy Plan, as well as in research grants which led to the formation of the international Sustainability Transitions Research Network. Since then, much of the theory and practice of transition management has been conducted in relation to transitions in the Netherlands, particularly about the Dutch energy transition. Therefore, the

Netherlands provides possibly the best case in which to analyze the contribution of transition management to government policy.

A second reason for selecting the Netherlands comes from their well-recognized position as a global leader in sustainability. The Dutch government has been vocal about reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, relying on sustainable energy, and along with the rest of Europe is working towards carbon neutrality in 2050 (Mulhern, 2020). Based on the importance of sustainable development in the Netherlands, as well as their history with the field of

sustainability transitions, the Dutch case appears interesting for exploring potential transition policies for sustainability.

In addition to the Dutch commitment to sustainability, the Netherlands is known to have one of the best work life balances in the world (OECD, 2020). While some may argue this makes the Netherlands a poor choice to explore reducing work hours, scholars argue that working hours may need to be reduced far below current levels in order to achieve future sustainability goals (Frey, 2019). As such, it may be the case that a national context which already prioritizes a healthy work life balance would be fruitful ground to explore further WTR’s. Anecdotally this appears correct, as many of the countries with healthy work life balances are also the sites of WTR experiments (De Spiegelaere and Piasna 2017), and in the Netherlands a major Trade union recently called for WTR in the form of a 30-hour workweek (ANP, 2021).

3.2.2 Units of Analysis

This main units of analysis for the Dutch case are actors who can affect WTR initiatives or transition management processes about WTR. Actors were considered relevant in relation to their ability to exercise power over or towards Dutch WTR initiatives. This analysis identifies four key groups of actors: (1) Government actors, including politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats; (2) academics, including both scholars involved in transition management research in the Netherlands as well as scholars focused on labour studies and sustainability; (3) trade unions, which have historically played a large role in negotiating working conditions; and (4) private sector actors with firsthand experience of WTR initiatives.

Using the MaP, this thesis categorizes these actors into state, market, and Third sector.

Actors from the community are not included in this analysis. This is because no community actors that operate at the sectoral or organizational level were able to be identified that had both interest in and power towards WTR initiatives.

In the Dutch case, state actors are analyzed primarily at the organizational level. At this level, state actors include the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Climate and Economics, and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. Actors in the Third sector are analyzed primarily at the individual and organizational level. These consist of actors from academic and research institutes, including Professor John Grin, an expert in transition management and co-author of

‘Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change’ (Grin et al, 2010), and Professor Paul de Beer, a researcher for the Amsterdam Institute of Advanced Labour Studies and member of the board of the Dutch Association for Industrial Relations.

Other Third sector actors are major Dutch trade unions, including the Federatie

Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV), the Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond (CNV), and De Unie.

Finally, market actors contain two businesses involved with WTR initiatives in the Netherlands.

An interview was conducted with one company that implemented a WTR trial. As per the request of the interviewee, the company is not named.

3.2.3 Data Sampling and Data Collection

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews are useful for research that aims to learn about a set of specific topics yet still prioritizes the views and opinions of the interviewee (Bryman, 2016:471). In this case, the aim of the interviews was to collect data on actors’ positions and power towards WTR initiatives and transition

management processes.

Interview questions were developed with the aim of learning actor’s positions toward WTR initiatives, though the theoretical insights gained from the systematic review influenced the content and focus of the follow up and probing questions. The interviews were structured around two lines of inquiry: The first (1) concerned the actor’s perceptions of the barriers and

opportunities, as well as the costs and benefits to changing work hours. Questions were open ended, allowing the interviewee to offer detailed responses. Follow up and probing questions were used to investigate specific concepts that were theoretically relevant, such as the role of regulative, normative, and cultural institutions or perhaps social, economic, and environmental factors that enable of constrain prospects for WTR.

The second line of inquiry (2) concerned power. Actors were asked about their own and other actors’ capacity to affect WTR initiatives and transition management processes. These

questions were open ended yet structured to focus on the types of power elaborated in the POINT framework, i.e., reinforcive, innovative, and transformative power. A third line of questioning centered around transition management, although these questions were primarily to actors involved in in research or policymaking with prior knowledge of the field.

As the research progressed the interview questions and process were refined. This meant that there was some variation in the length of the interviews and the time spent on particular sections, although this also arose naturally through the open ended and semi-structured nature of the interviews, as well as the restrictions and availability of the interviewees.

Actors were identified using a purposive sampling method, however, due to limited access and actor (un)willingness to participate in the research, an incomplete selection of all identified actors were interviewed. Government actors did not respond to repeated requests for interviews, while De Unie, a trade union in the Netherlands declined to take part in the research.

Similarly, a high-ranking executive from a large technology company unexpectedly pulled out from being interviewed. In cases where requests for interviews were denied or left unaddressed, the thesis has made effort to find relevant primary sources like speeches, policy documents, or collective bargaining agreements to represent the views of the actors. However, the lack of interviews with government actors is a major limitation for the analysis.

3.2.4 Data Analysis

Qualitative data collected in response to open-ended questions was analyzed by hand using a deductive approach to thematic analysis, which is a process to identify and analyze patterns and themes within data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). A deductive approach entails that the analysis is driven by the researchers theoretical or analytics interest, which in this case centered around the types of barriers and opportunities perceived by actors, as well as the type of power exercised by actors.

Thematic analysis is a flexible method that is not related to a particular epistemological perspective, making it a suitable method for exploring participants’ experiences. Analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phase framework for doing a thematic analysis. This begins by (1) becoming familiar with the data, during which the researcher searched for and became familiar with concepts that appeared frequently in the responses. Through this process, a list of initial codes was generated that captured common themes (2). Responses were grouped according to these codes until no new codes were detected. Codes were then grouped into larger

themes (3). However, in line with the deductive approach which seeks to provide a detailed account of a particular group of themes, the themes in the responses generally matched concepts around which the interviews were structured, such as sustainable development or political power.

Data were then recoded based on these themes, and quotes that represented particular themes were identified for the analysis. In the fourth stage (4), the researcher reviewed the themes to ensure accuracy. The final two steps include (5) defining, naming, and identifying relationships between themes; and (6) writing up results, which are presented in Chapter 5.