[ 1 0 7 5 2 6 1 7 ] [ M e n t o r : J . R o t h u i z e n ] [ S e c o n d R e a d e r : J . D e V r i e s ] [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A m s t e r d a m ] [ H u m a n G e o g r a p h y ] [ n a o m i s c h r a n d t @ g m a i l . c o m ] [ b a c h e l o r t h e s i s ]
The case of green shareholders collective
Follow This
The role of storylines in understanding regime
destabilization within the Dutch energy transition
N. Schrandt
14 Januari
19
08
Fall
Acknowledgements
Writing this thesis was both challenging and exciting; it is the product of a combination between my bachelor Future Planet Studies and my major Human Geography. First of all I owe great thanks to my supervisor Jaap Rothuizen; he made it possible to write a thesis that I am passionate about. Thank you for your enthusiasm, your comments that motivated me when I faced difficulties in the process, your constructive feedback at any time, and above all for the involved way in which you have been guiding me. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. John Grin for taking the time to help me with the theory and for giving valuable advice. Thanks to you I was able to add important insights to my research, making it more valuable and interesting. I am also grateful to the interviewees, who shared their knowledge and experiences with me, giving this thesis the body it needed.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for laughing at me and also for keeping their patience; it kept me motivated and enthusiast to make the most of this project.
Abstract
A worldwide transition to a sustainable energy system is needed to curb the consequences of climate change, but the Netherlands is lagging behind other European countries. The major objective of this thesis is to explore the role of grassroots initiatives in advancing the Dutch energy transition by pressuring the incumbent regime to unlock discursive practices. Therewith this thesis contributes to the understanding of destabilization processes that lie at the base of transition.
By combining the methods of the Multi-Level Perspective and Argumentative Discourse Analysis, it is illustrated how storylines-in-the-making of niche-level actors are essential in the advancement of transitions. This is done through a qualitative case study of green shareholders collective Follow This that tries to convince Shell to become a sustainable company.
The results support the view that storylines-in-the-making are important in opening up the dominant discourse of the incumbent regime. It was shown that elements of the storyline of Follow This are re-ordering understandings of how incumbents perceive the energy transition, possibly indicating discursive regime destabilization. A longitudinal research is recommended that includes the storyline of Shell and capture the developments of the transition.
Table of Content
Acknowledgements ... 2
Abstract ... 3
Table of Content ... 4
Abbreviations ... 5
List of Figures ... 5
List of Tables ... 5
Introduction ... 6
Theoretical Framework ... 8
1. The Energy Transition... 8
2. Multi-Level Perspective ... 9
3. Destabilization Processes ... 11
4. Grassroots Initiatives ... 12
5. Discourses & Storylines ... 13
Methodology ... 16
1. Research Strategy... 16
2. Argumentative Discourse Analysis ... 17
3. Ethics and Research Limitations ... 22
Analysis ... 23
1. The Multi-Level Perspective ... 23
2. The Storyline-In-The-Making ... 28
A Changing Storyline ... 33
Conclusion ... 38
Bibliography ... 40
Appendix 1: Itemlist M. van Baal ... 48
Appendix 2: Itemlist C. Koole & R. Kleiburg ... 49
Appendix 3: Transcript M. van Baal ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4: Transcript R. Kleiburg ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 5: Transcript C. Koole ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 6: Fragment Report Follow This ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Abbreviations
ABP Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds Achmea IM Achmea Investment Management Achmea OR Achmea Own Risk ADA Argumentative Discourse Analysis AGM Annual General Meeting APG Algemene Pensioen Groep CCS Carbon Capture and Storage EBN Energie Beheer Nederland MLP Multi-Level Perspective NAM Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij NN Nationale Nederlanden PCA Paris Climate Agreement PGGM Pensioenfonds Zorg en WelzijnList of Figures
Figure 1: Share of energy from renewable sources, 2004 and 2016 (Eurostat, 2018)……….8 Figure 2: The Multi-Level Perspective on sustainability transitions (Geels 2011)………11 Figure 3: Discourse structuration of storylines (Hajer, 1993)………...……….15 Figure 4: Conceptual model of transition and discourse theory……….……….17List of Tables
Table 1. Information about interviewees.………19 Table 2. Overview of sources that comprise elements from the storyline of Shell.….………..…..20 Table 3. Overview of steps in methodology……….……….………..………..21 Table 4. Overview of actors in the MLP framework of the energy transition in the Netherlands……….…..27 Table 5. Overview of the storyline of Follow This..………..……….……..………..………..………32 Table 6: Voting behaviour of Shell’s shareholders in 2017 and 2018………..……….34Introduction
A growing body of research claims that a worldwide transition to a low-carbon sustainable economy with a secure and affordable energy supply is needed to decrease the implications of climate change, but also that of political instability, economic crises and social insecurity (Scholten & Bosman, 2016; Schoffelen, 2015; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012). Consequently, the transition to sustainable energy is high on the political agenda. However, the Dutch government fails to live up to the obligations of climate targets and is lagging behind other European countries (International Energy Agency, n.d.; Bosman et al., 2014; Schoffelen, 2015; Sterling, 2017). Therefore, governing the energy transition proves to be an on-going challenge.
An increasing number of studies have found that grassroots initiatives play a pivotal role in facilitating societal transformation (Sutherland, Peter & Zagata, 2015; Hossain, 2016; Akizu et al., 2018). Grassroots initiatives can oppose the system in which they are embedded by creating their own path, and therewith challenge the regime (Gernert, El Bilali & Strassner, 2018; Geels & Schot, 2007; Kooij et al., 2018). Seyfang & Haxeltine (2012) have researched the impact of grassroots movement fighting fossil fuels in the UK on regime transformation, and have found that identity and purpose are crucial for social movement niches to spread into wider publics and impact regime change. Geels (2011) particularly discusses the importance of discourses in appealing to a wider audience, as he states that expectations and visions are at the core process for niche development. Discourses are an interrelated set of texts and the production and reception of these, which give meaning to physical and social realities (Hajer, 1995; Hajer, 2002; Hajer & Versteeg, 2006; Berg, 2009; Fairclough, 2001). Thus, revealing discourses can help identify dominant structures that are produced and reproduced in society, and subsequently challenge those (Irigaray et al., 2016; Hajer & Versteeg, 2006). Therefore, it is interesting to further research the emerging discourses of niche-level actors that pressure the regime, in order to understand how they can grow and possibly strengthen their contribution to the energy transition.
In order to understand the complex dynamics between different levels within socio-technical transitions, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) is used as a framework that conceptualizes three levels; the landscape, regime and niche. However, few researchers have addressed the destabilization processes that contribute to the unlocking of regime discourses, as MLP literature often focuses on the development of new sustainable innovations, and the conditions for these innovations to break through at regime level (Kungl & Geels 2018; Leiprrand & Flachsland, 2018). Therefore, this thesis aims to contribute to the understanding of regime destabilizing processes by focusing on the discourse of a niche-level actor, namely Follow This. Follow This is a Dutch grassroots shareholders collective that tries to advance the energy transition by buying shares in Shell and subsequently filing a motion in the shareholders meeting to push Shell into a sustainable direction (Follow This, 2018).
Understanding the discourse of niche-level actor Follow This can provide valuable insights in future developments of the on-going regime dynamics (Bosman et al, 2014). By doing this, the thesis will expand on the research of Bosman et al. (2014) who have researched the pressures of the discursive storyline of the incumbent regime.
Thus, the thesis sheds new light on the role of niche-level actor Follow This in the Dutch energy transition. This, since Follow This has put pressure on oil giant Royal Dutch Shell and weakened their discursive coherence (Mommers, 2018a). The goal of Follow This is to make Shell a fully sustainable company by 2030. Therefore, the main research question is: what role does Follow This have in advancing the Dutch energy transition? After having described some important concepts in the theoretical framework, the methodology will be clarified by explaining the use of both transition and discourse analysis. In the thesis, the first result section focuses on the context of the power dynamics at play and the lock-in in the Dutch energy transition through the MLP. Next, the storyline of Follow This will be analysed by looking into the arguments the organisation poses regarding the challenges of the energy transition. This will be complemented with a description of how the movement is trying to deal with these challenges by analysing the proposed solution and strategy of Follow This. Finally, the impact of the pressure that Follow This puts on the regime will be analysed by making use of the existing literature on discourse and transition theory. The discussion and conclusion will reflect upon the most striking findings against the background of both societal and theoretical considerations.
Theoretical Framework
1. The Energy Transition
On December 2015, 195 countries signed the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA), agreeing to legally binding global climate goals (European Commission, 2015). Also, the European Council agreed on a binding framework for energy targets for the year 2030, in line with the PCA (European Commission, 2014). The aim of the framework is to help the EU create a secure and sustainable energy system by increasing the share of renewable energy in the total energy supply. The goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels with at least a share of 27% in renewable energy consumption. However, the Netherlands seems to be lagging behind other EU countries. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands has been reduced with 13% compared to 1990, while the average in the EU-28 is 22.7% (Eurostat, 2018). Moreover, the Netherlands has a 6% share of renewable energy, while the average in the EU-28 is 17%, as can be seen on the illustration below.
Figure 1. Eurostat. (2018). Share of energy from renewable sources, 2004 and 2016 (in % of gross final energy consumption)
Recent literature has concluded that the difficulty for the Netherlands to reach the targets is the result of a strong fossil fuel regime in the Netherlands (Bosman et al., 2014). This is problematic since the incumbent actors, such as fossil fuel companies and the government, largely influence the direction and pace of the energy transition, subsequently stimulating a regime lock-in (Vink, 2017; Loorbach, 2018; Bosman et al., 2014). The term lock-in refers to a situation where carbon-intensive systems persist and lock out alternative energy technologies owed to technical, economical and/or institutional factors (Erickson et al., 2015). From an economic point of view, this may result in a possible carbon bubble where investments in fossil fuels worth of 3.4 trillion euros become stranded
assets, as the value of the investments will be lost when alternative forms of energy substitute fossil fuels (Mercure et al., 2018; Harvey, 2018; IEA, 2014; Evans, 2014). Politically, the lock-in shows as a strong division within the dominant regime about the responsibility to take action to move towards a low-carbon economy. On the one hand, it is argued that the government should create an environment that favours alternative and sustainable forms of energy (Bosman et al., 2014). On the other hand, such interventions are seen as a threat to the investment climate. This has resulted in a weakened coherence of the fossil energy regime (Bosman et al., 2014). Mentally, the fossil fuel companies contribute to a lock-in by spreading misinformation and by lobbying against climate policies that restricts fossil fuel drilling (Loorbach, 2018). Specifically, Shell has framed a climate scenario to reach the targets of the Paris Climate Agreements, by betting on yet-to-be-invented technologies that take CO2 emissions out of the air (Loorbach, 2018; Van Loon, 2018a). This might delude the need for short-term action and need for climate policy. This is in line with Blanchet (2016), who argues that incumbent actors act strategically by developing frames in order to mobilise people to support their practices. This lock-in will be further discussed in the first chapter of the analysis. Therefore, the Netherlands seems to be in need for a transition. The persistent problems that are connected to the energy sector cannot be effectively addressed by the existing regime, and deep-structural changes are required. A transition is generally described as a long-term systemic change of socio-institutional regime structures to another, as a response to persistent problems (Grin, Rotmans & Loorbach, 2010; Bosman et al., 2014; Geels, 2011; Osunmuyiwa et al., 2018). Those deep-structural changes involve the transformation of multiple sectors, i.e. from physical infrastructure to politics and cultural values, and are therefore referred to as ‘socio-technical transitions’ (Geels, 2011).
2. Multi-Level Perspective
To understand the complexities of socio-technical transitions, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) is often used. The MLP can give insight in the nature and dynamics of a transition, and under what conditions a transition may develop (Grin, 2008). The MLP helps analysing the developments and interference at three different levels of a transition: the niche, the regime and landscape trends, as can be seen on figure 2 at page 11 (Grin, 2008; Grin, 2011). According to Grin (2011), the different levels can be seen as relationships between actors, structures and practices that are closely intertwined.
The regime is particularly interesting in the MLP, as transitions can be seen as shifts from one regime to another, and the other levels are defined in relation to the regime (Geels, 2011). The regime can thus be described as a ‘deep structure’ that consists out of a set of rules, structures and practices that are reinforced by actors such as politicians, industries, policy makers and users (Geels, 2011). Hermans et al. (in Bosman et al., 2014, p.47) state that regimes share the following characteristics:
(1) A regime consist of a long-term coalition of actors such as businesses, politicians, citizens or NGO’s; (2) these coalitions share a set of formal and informal rules that guide their activities; and (3) a regime implies a shared vision for the future building on some form of collective knowledge shared by the actors involved.
The collective knowledge and shared rules form the dominant discourse of the regime and will be further explained in section five. The regime level takes many decades to develop and becomes almost static, as it tries to reinforce the existing set of structures by creating lock-in mechanisms, as shown in the previous section (Geels, 2011; Geels, 2018). The lock-in mechanisms are the result of incumbent actors that try to maintain and defend the system, owing to the rules and institutions of the regime that guide their actions, making the regime resistant to change (Geels, 2018). Therefore, this level generally develops path-dependently, based on the existing structures (Geels et al., 2016; Bosman et al., 2014; Kooij et al., 2018; Geels, 2018). Niches can operate outside of the regime as they are partly protected against the regimes’ influence (Geels, 2011; Grin, 2008). Therefore, niche actors can go “beyond or against the orchestrated paths of transition” (Kooij et al., 2018, p.52). Niche actors are for example entrepreneurs or start-ups that create radical innovations or experiment with new practices that do not correspond with the existing regime (Geels, 2011). By doing this, they hope that their ideas or innovations will eventually be adopted by the incumbent regime or replace it. This makes niches highly important for transitions, as they are at the base of systemic change.
Transitions are influenced by exogenous landscape trends that put pressure on the existing system. Examples are climate change, macro-economic patterns or political ideologies (Geels, 2011). Subsequently, these pressures can open up windows of opportunity for niche innovations to break through and alter or even replace the incumbent regime (Grin, 2008; Geels, 2011). A transition can only occur when changes at the three levels, namely regime, niche and landscape, reinforce each other (Grin, 2011; Geels & Schot, 2007). A transition is therefore an outcome of alignment between the levels trough interactions and processes, which can be seen in figure 2 on the next page.
However, both Kungl & Geels (2018) and Leiprrand & Flachsland (2018) have stated that MLP literature often focuses on the development of niche innovations and the conditions for niches to break through at regime level, but that the characteristics of processes that influences these conditions have not been dealt with in depth. This is problematic when positioning Follow This within the MLP framework, as the model (figure 2) does not provide an explanation for regime destabilizing processes from niche-level pressures. This makes it important to make choices around the terminology that is used in this paper. Niches are often considered as radical innovations; grassroots initiatives such as Follow This might not be considered a niche actor, as they do not offer new innovations (J. Grin, personal communication, December 19, 2018). Rather, Follow This creates
pressure that might destabilize the regime while they operate at niche level. Therefore, throughout this paper Follow This is referred to as a niche-level actor. Figure 2. The Multi-Level Perspective on sustainability transitions. Reprinted from “The Multi-Level Perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms”, by Geels, F., 2011, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Volume 1, p. 28.
3. Destabilization Processes
Regime destabilization was conceptualised by Kungl & Geels (2018) as “the unlocking of core regime elements such as routines, technical capabilities, strategic orientation and mind-sets” (p. 78). Kungl & Geels (2018) argue that socio-political pressures from activists and social movements at niche-level, such as Follow This, contribute to the de-legitimization of institutional logics such as mission, mind-sets and business models. This is important, as institutional logics are considered to be the hardest regime elements to change (Turnheim & Geels, 2013). These elements can be seen as the institutions of the industry that reinforce the lock-in of the regime, and are divided by Kungl & Geels (2018) as: “(1) mind-sets, belief systems, (2) mission, identity, norms, (3) technical knowledge and capabilities, (4) formal-regulatory institutions (regulations, taxes, subsidies)” (p.81). The companies within the industry respond strategically to pressures that challenge these institutions, by e.g. economic positioning strategies (marketing), innovation strategies (R&D), corporate political strategies(lobbying, financial contributions to political parties), and framing strategies (public relations, advertising)(Kungl & Geels, 2018).
Turnheim & Geels (2013) argue that the reinforcing strategies from the regime and the destabilizing pressures from socio-political environments can be seen as two interacting processes. On the one hand, pressure from socio-political environments can result in economic and/or legitimacy problems for the companies within the industry. On the other hand, these companies use the strategic responses as described above to adapt to these pressures, therewith defending the existing regime. However, Turnheim & Geels (2013) argue that if the pressure from socio-political environments, i.e. activist niche-level actors, increases and with that economic or legitimacy problems, the companies could eventually loosen their commitment to the existing regime, subsequently unlocking routines, technical capabilities, mind-sets and strategic mission. This does not mean that the destabilization of the regime is equivalent to ‘overthrowing’ or suppressing the incumbent actors, or that this is the aim of socio-political pressures from activists and social movements (Leipprand & Flachsland, 2018). Rather, incumbent actors might still be part of the new regime, but through destabilization the discursive hegemony of a regime is changed, which will be further discussed in section 5 (Leipprand & Flachsland, 2018). This shows the importance of niche-level actors such as Follow This in contributing to the opening up of regimes that is necessary for a transition to occur.
4. Grassroots Initiatives
Bosman et al. (2014) have suggested that the discourse of incumbent actors in the energy transition of the Netherlands is under pressure, and the developing storylines of niche-level actors currently have the potential to shake up dominant discursive positions. This might alter power relations within the regime, therewith providing a window of opportunity for niches to break through and alter the incumbent regime (Bosman et al., 2014; Leipprand, Flachsland & Pahle, 2016).
Having said this, it is interesting to look further into the characteristics of Follow This as the principle unit of analysis of this study. Follow This is a Dutch grassroots initiative that operates at niche level. Gernert et al. (2018) refer to the term grassroots initiatives as: “groups of people trying to create solutions to challenges as they see them, adhering to criteria that diverge from mainstream institutions and practically expressing core social values” (p. 3). They often express different core values than the regime, and challenge the discursive practices of the regime by promoting new forms of organization (Ingram, 2017). In many cases, including Follow This, grassroots initiatives can be seen as social movements, since they might promote collective action in civil society in order to transform to a more sustainable community (O’Hara, 2013; Gernert et al., 2018). Grassroots initiatives are particularly important in transitions, as they are often ‘ahead of the game’ (Gernert et al., 2018; Haxeltine et al., 2013). This means that their novel discourses or developing storylines are closely related to the needs of the communities in which they are embedded. Accordingly, the prominent role of grassroots initiatives is to alter values and beliefs of communities to more sustainable ones
(Gernert et al., 2018; Maschkowski, 2017). Similarly, Hajer (1995) argues that a transition may occur “through the emergence of new storylines that re-order understandings” (p.56).
5. Discourses & Storylines
That being the case, it is interesting to look further into the developing storyline of Follow This and the effect on the discursive practice of the incumbent regime. A discourse can be describes as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer, 1995, p.44). Discursive practice refers to ‘all the ways in which people actively produce social and psychological realities’, or in other words, the construction of (dominant) social realities through actions that concern power, belief, identity and ideology (Hajer, 1995; p. 53; Foucault, in Hajer, 1995; Durnova & Zittoun, 2013). This makes discursive practice a Foucauldian term, as this also shows that the interests of regime actors are constantly reproduced through discourse, since their authority is in so far powerful because other actors perceive that to be true (Foucault, in Hajer, 1995). Thus, the discursive practices are the reinforcing actions of the regime actors that were described in section 2 as the lock-in mechanisms to defend and maintain their system.
Discourses become apparent in the arguments of the language used by individuals and organizations in the form of storylines (Hajer, 1995; Bosman et al., 2014). Storylines are the format in which everyday communication and arguments between actors occur, and can be seen as a narrative (Leipprand et al., 2016; Hajer, 1993). How actors perceive the world depends on the storylines available, as they provide a conceptual apparatus to perceive reality in different ways, therefore determining how a problem is explained (Hajer, 1995).
People especially use storylines to make sense of inter-discursive problems; complex problems that require knowledge from various disciplines that are impossible for a single actor to understand in all its details, such as the energy transition (Hajer, 1995). Storylines reduce the discursive complexity of these problems by simplifying what causes the problem and how it should be solved, and are therefore determinative for the solution of conflicts that concern these problems (Hajer, 1995). Storylines combine elements from different domains and should be seen as metaphors; when an element of a storyline is used, it invokes the storyline as a whole (Hajer, 1995). Storylines are strategies that position actors and express ideas such as ‘responsibility’, ‘urgency’ and ‘blame’. In other words, the storylines are the arguments that are used to explain a problem, which then depends on the storylines that are available in the discussion. This means that actors use storylines to try to convince others of their view of the world, by criticizing certain social arrangement and proposing new ones (Hajer, 1995). Thus, storylines cluster collective knowledge, contribute to the positioning of actors and helps substantiating coalitions of actors (Bosman et al., 2014).
A coalition of actors is referred to as a discourse coalition, and means that a network of actors’ uses the same storyline that suggest a common understanding amongst the actors involved (Leipprand et al., 2016; Bosman et al., 2014; Hajer, 1995). In time, a developing storyline can lead to a discourse coalition if a wider public feels attracted to it. Then, the storyline may become a part of the discussion regarding the inter-discursive problem; it becomes a so-called ‘trope’ in the discussion (Hajer, 1995). This might also allow other actors (with different storylines) to expand their understanding of the problem, as the storyline might provide an alternative way to perceive it. Therefore a new storyline makes it possible for other actors to go beyond their own discourse of expertise and re-order understandings (Hajer, 1995; Bosman et al. 2014). Seeing that inter-discursive problems such as the energy transition are hard to grasp in all its’ detail for an actor, the new storyline might fill in the gaps of knowledge of pre-existing storyline and create possibilities for problem closure.
Eventually, a new storyline can substitute the dominant storyline of a discourse on the two conditions that both discourse structuration and institutionalization occurs. Discourse structuration refers to the situation where the new storyline dominates how actors conceptualize the problem (Hajer, 1993). This process can be seen in Figure 3 on page 15, where on the left the new storyline (B) becomes a trope in the discussion of a problem, and on the right has become the dominant conceptualization of the problem. Discourse institutionalization means that the discourse is translated into institutions, by for example policies, and therefore become dominant in the social and political institutions of society (Hajer, 1993; Hajer, 1995; Leipprand et al., 2016). That is, the previously mentioned regime shift that may occur in a transition, where the dominant discourse of a regime coalition opens up and breaks down to be replaced by a discourse that is more suitable to the changing circumstances (Bosman et al., 2014; Grin et al., 2010). This development of storylines will be researched in the thesis by analysing the storyline of Follow This in the setting of the Multi-Level Perspective.
To summarize, both the MLP and discourse theory suggest that niche-level pressures can challenge the dominant discourse of a regime and open up lock-ins to discourses that are more suitable to a changing society (Bosman et al., 2014; Grin et al, 2010; Hajer, 1995). Leipprand et al. (2016) therefore argue that ideas and conceptualizations of problems with energy policy are of significant value for policy outcomes. As was shown in section 1 and 2, a problem in the energy transition is that the dominant fossil fuel discourse is impeding the transition as it tries to strengthen the status quo (Curran, 2012). Scrase & Ockwell (2010) argue that the fossil fuel discourse can only be overcome by reframing the problem and solutions in a way that is in line with core government priorities such as economic growth, which is incorporated in Follow This’ strategy. Therefore, looking into the discourse of Follow This can help understand the significance of destabilization processes that lay at the base of the energy transition. This is highly valuable, as niche-level actors might eventually become part of the regime when their network grows and their storylines-in-the-making become adopted by a wider public (Bosman et al., 2014; Seyfang & Smith, 2007). After all, discourse analysis can provide insights in underlying dynamics between niche and regime actors, where storylines from niche-level actors
might contribute to unlocking the dominant discourse of the regime that counteracts the transition (Leipprand & Flachsland, 2018).
Figure 3. Discourse structuration of storylines. Reprinted from Hajer, Maarten (1993): Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalisation of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In: F. Fischer, & J. Forester (Eds.): The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Rev. Ed. pp. 43-76). Durham/London.
Methodology
1. Research Strategy
Making use of discourse- and transition analyses, this study typically has a constructivist approach. It starts from the assumption that the meaning of objects and processes is socially constructed through the use of language (Leipprand et al., 2016; Bryman, 2012). The thesis looks into a complex policy problem, namely the energy transition, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning that is given to this phenomenon by different actors within the energy system. For this reason, the thesis has a qualitative research strategy, as this allows emphasizing the use of arguments by actors to analyse how they interpret their social world (Bryman, 2012). Subsequently, it was chosen to do a single case study, in order to intensively and thoroughly analyse the complexities of the energy system in which Follow This is embedded. Follow This was chosen as unit of analysis since Bosman et al. (2014) have suggested that further research was needed on storylines-in-the-making within the energy transition, as they might challenge the discourse of the incumbent regime (Sutherland, Peter & Zagata, 2015; Hossain, 2016; Akizu et al., 2018; Bosman et al., 2014). Additionally, Follow This has momentum in the energy transition as the organization seem to have weakened the discursive practice of Royal Dutch Shell; the biggest and most powerful public oil company in the world as of May 11, 2018 (Forbes; Poole, 2018; Mommers, 2018a). Hence, analysing the storyline of Follow This can add to the existing literature on the role of niche-level actors and their pressure on the incumbent regime in times of change. Also, Follow This uses an original strategy to make an impact on the regime, making them interesting to compare to the existing transition literature.
Follow This is a typical example of a grassroots initiative, since it tries to persuade both citizens and the shareholders of Shell of their sustainable vision (Follow This, n.d.). More specifically, Follow This is a shareholders collective established in 2015 by former journalist Mark van Baal, with the goal to support Shell in becoming a fully sustainable energy company by 2030 and therewith advancing the energy transition (van der Wal, 2015; Follow This, n.d.; Mommers, 2018a). Their strategy is to use the profits of Shell from fossil fuels to invest in sustainable forms of energy. Follow This mobilises citizens to buy shares in Shell so that Follow This can push a green resolution during the yearly shareholders meeting of Shell (Follow This, n.d.; Mommers, 2018a). As of the 18th of April 2018, Follow This represents more than 3.600 shareholders worth of 18 million euros, which is approximately 0,008% of the shares in Shell (Mommers, 2018a). Then, during the yearly shareholders meeting, Follow This has to convince the pension funds and big investors of Shell of their green resolution to gain at least 75% of the votes in for the motion to be adopted (Mommers, 2018a). In 2016, the first year Follow This submitted the resolution, 3% of the shareholders voted in favour of the resolution, followed with 6% in 2017 and 5,5% in 2018 (Mommers, 2016a; Mommers, 2018a; Mommers, 2018b; Waarlo, 2018;
Bollen, 2018). Despite the relatively low percentages, Follow This has caused a division within the shareholders of Shell and weakened their discursive practice, since normally 99% of the shareholders agree with the vision of Shell (Mommers, 2018a).
2. Argumentative Discourse Analysis
For the analysis of the role of Follow This in the energy transition in the Netherlands, the thesis has drawn on argumentative discourse analysis (ADA) (Hajer, 1995) and on the literature regarding transition studies (e.g. Grin, 2008; Grin, Rotmans & Schot, 2010; Geels et al., 2011). A conceptual model of the two theories in the thesis is presented in figure 4 below. The main focus of ADA is storylines, as storylines are the arguments that actors use in everyday communication, which was discussed in the theoretical framework in section 5 (Hajer, 1995; Bosman et al., 2014; Leipprand et al., 2016). Looking at storylines can reduce discursive complexity and can provide a coherent image of problems and processes, making them useful to study (Leipprand, Flachsland & Pahle, 2016). Storylines comprise arguments, which may include metaphors, analogies, historical references, clichés and appeals to collective fears or senses of guilt (Bosman et al., 2014). Thus, when analysing storylines, it is important to dissect the arguments that actors use, as other actors might subsequently use or be influenced by these arguments. Hajer (1995, p. 64) has illustrated the concept of storylines in his ‘acid rain’ case study, where actors perceived the problem of dying fish in different ways. There was a storyline that related the problem to natural stress, a storyline that related to fate, but the storyline-in-the-making of pollution eventually provided an alternative way to perceive the problem and became the dominant way of how actors conceptualized the problem.
Figure 4. Conceptual model of transition and discourse theory
It should be noted however, that when analysing the storylines and the effect of it on the energy transition, a longitudinal approach would be required to capture the actual impact on regime change. This falls outside the scope of the thesis; therefore the thesis will focus only on current events (from the moment Follow This was founded in 2015 until now) and with help from the Multi-Level Perspective position the storyline in the energy transition of the Netherlands as of now.
2.1 Scoping
The analysis was carried out in three phases in accordance with the ADA, namely scoping, data collection and data analysis (Hajer, 1995; Bosman et al., 2014). An overview of the phases, their objective and related sub questions are presented in table 3 on page 21. The first phase, scoping, forms a framework of the system under study (Hajer, 1995). This was done by extensive reading on transitions and grassroots initiatives in scientific literature, complemented with newspaper articles and reports on the current events of the energy transition, by among others the International Energy Agency, the Klimaatakkoord, the Energieakkoord, de Correspondent, de Groene Amsterdammer, Platform Investico etc. Subsequently, the Multi-Level Perspective was used to understand the system dynamics at various levels in the Dutch energy transition at play. This framework is presented in the first chapter of the analysis.
It should be noted that the MLP does not prescribe the range of a topic, as the regime level as a concept can be applied to various topics with different scopes (Geels, 2011; Vink, 2017). For example, the scope of the regime can vary from the entire energy system to only the actors involved in the fossil fuel industry. Decisions around the scope of the topic influences the actors that will be discussed here, and therefore it is important to mention that this thesis will only focus on the actors that influence the amount of energy generated from fossil fuels by Shell in the Netherlands. This, because the Netherlands has a strong fossil fuel dominated regime that counteracts decision-making in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, and the storyline of Follow This tries to influence this problem. In order to make sure all relevant actors and developments are discussed, extensive collaboration with my supervisor and help from expert on the subject professor J. Grin was carried out.
2.2 Data Collection
The second phase, data collection, concerned the sampling and in-depth interviewing of actors to reconstruct the storyline of Follow This. Semi-structured interviews were taken to have the flexibility of discussing topics that seemed important in the eyes of the interviewees, while also having the possibility to discuss specific issues which have been defined beforehand (Bryman, 2012). These topics included the main challenges of the energy transition, the successes of Follow This, how they perceive the energy mix of the future and what challenges they face as an organisation. The item list can be found in the appendix, and is based on the findings from the scoping phase and the article of
Bosman et al. (2014). Interviewees were selected trough purposive sampling, where relevant participants to the research question were sampled in a strategic way. The first interviewee was Mark van Baal, the founder of Follow This. As the founder and only fulltime employee of Follow This, he is the voice in both the public sphere and in contact with Shell. By using snowball sampling, Mark van Baal brought me into contact with Robert Kleiburg (previous Shell employee, now advisor and ambassador for Follow This) and Cato Koole (consultant and researcher for Follow This). More information of the interviews can be found in table 1 below, as well as the transcripts in the appendix. These actors together form the storyline of Follow This, as they are key figures in the positioning of the organisation in the energy transition and were closely involved in decisions that concern the strategy of Follow This.
Interview Position Interview Situation Date Duration
M. van Baal Founder Face-to-face 6-11-2018 50 min R. Kleiburg Ambassador & Strategy Consultant Telephone 14-11-2018 37 min C. Koole Strategy Consultant & Research Telephone 5-12-2018 33 min
Table 1. Information about interviewees
Theoretical saturation helped decide the amount of interviews that were needed for the research. Theoretical saturation means that enough data has been collected so that new data no longer suggest new insights (Bryman, 2012). However, there are no rules that establish how many interviews are needed to achieve theoretical saturation. Bryman (2012) argues that sample sizes should not be so small that theoretical formation is difficult, and not be too large that data analysis becomes too hard. Considering that all interviews had high data-saturation, it was chosen that no more interviews were needed, as this would become too time intensive, and the data that was gathered provided enough information; new information was no longer added.
The storylines are constructed by dissecting the arguments that were used by the interviewees. Attention was paid to metaphors, analogies and historical references that supported those arguments in order to capture the tone. To support this, the interviews are complemented by primary data from the website of Follow This, as well as articles written in their name, tapes and interviews. An overview of the used sources is provided in table 2 on page 20. These sources, as well as the dominant storyline that was constructed by Bosman et al. (2014), are also used to broadly construct the storyline of Shell (and their shareholders), as this is important to determine to what extent their storyline has changed because of Follow This. It should be noted that using the storyline as defined by Bosman et al. (2014) means that the assumption was made that Shell uses the same dominant storyline as other incumbent actors. To restrict false assumptions, the storyline as presented by Bosman et al. (2014) was complemented with data coming from Shell; e.g. reports, press releases and their website, also presented in table 2. Moreover, considering that the construction of storylines is time intensive, as in-depth interviews were needed, it was chosen to only broadly define the Shell storyline. This
research to include a detailed analysis of the storyline of Shell. The data used beside the interviews allows for triangulation of the spoken data from the interviews with their written data. Similarly, the analysis of the storyline is checked with both M. van Baal and C. Koole to make sure that the argumentation is correctly presented.
APA Type of source Actor Statement/Element of storyline
Mommers (2018c)
Newspaper Article Shell How to perceive Follow This and the position of Shell in regard to the Paris Climate Agreement Bosman et al.
(2014)
Journal Regime Dominant storyline of incumbent regime on the energy transition in the Netherlands
Van Loon (2018a)
Symposium Shell Positioning of Shell within the energy transition in the Netherland and role of Follow This.
Van Loon (2018b)
Newspaper Article Shell Positioning of Shell within the energy transition in the Netherland and role of Follow This.
Royal Dutch Shell plc (2017)
Report Shell Statements regarding the net carbon footprint ambition.
Royal Dutch Shell plc (2018a)
Report Shell Directors response to resolution Follow This. Royal Dutch
Shell plc (2018b)
Press Release Shell Statements regarding the new short- and mid-term targets of Shell.
Simons & Marcelis (2017)
Report Shareholders Statements of shareholders regarding the 2017 resolution of Follow This during the AVA.
Bollen (2019) Magazine Article/Interview
Shareholders Perspective of shareholder Aegon regarding their position in the energy transition and relation with Follow This.
Van Dijk (2018) Newspaper Article Shareholders + Shell
Statements regarding the new short- and mid-term targets of Shell.
Jessop (2018) Newspaper Article Shareholders The position of shareholders regarding the role of the fossil fuel industry in the energy transition
Table 2. Overview of sources that comprise elements from the storyline of Shell
2.3 Data Analysis
In the third phase, the interviews were transcribed and coded by hand, so that the segments were still part of the context of the interview. Linking the frequently mentioned concepts across the interviews and interpreting this reconstructed the storyline of Follow This. By using the findings of the scoping phase from both discourse- and transition studies, it was decided that arguments that regarded concepts such as strategy, motifs, vision, pressures and interactions were important for this thesis to position Follow This in the Multi-Level Perspective and compare this to the existing literature on the role of storylines in transitions. Subsequently, these findings are triangulated with professor J. Grin, who is a key author in transition studies, in order to cross-check the interpretation of the data.
Phase Description Objection Method of Analysis Type of Data Sub Question 1) Scoping Creating framework, get acquinted with system under study Identify problem/lock-in, decide on key informants for interviews, make item list for interviews Multi-Level Perspective Secondary Data: Scientific Journals, Governmental Publications, Reports, Newspapers “Why are grassroots initiatives useful in the lock-in of the Dutch energy transition?” 2) Data
Collection Gather data necessary for storyline(s)
Provide image of discursive position, pressures and potential. Argumentative Discourse Analysis Primary Data: Interviews, Internet communications, Video Recordings of seminars - 3) Data Analysis Transcribe and label data by hand, interpret and link concepts and categories Reconstruct storyline of Follow This Argumentative Discourse Analysis Primary Data: Interviews, Internet communications, Video Recordings of seminars. Supported by secondary data: Newspapers and publications of Shell. “How does the storyline of Follow This give meaning to the energy transition?” and “How does Follow This position themselves against the pressures of the Dutch energy transition?” 4) Theory Formulation Triangulation of findings/interpretation with professor J. Grin and define role Follow This in the MLP Formulate position and impact of storyline Follow This in MLP Multi-Level Perspective & Argumentative Discourse Analysis Combination of the above and results of the ADA. “What role does Follow This have in the energy transition of the Netherlands” Table 3. Overview of steps in methodology
3. Ethics and Research Limitations
Here, some ethical considerations and methodological limitations will be briefly discussed based on the criteria for qualitative research as stated by Bryman (2012). First, the thesis relies a great deal on personal values and experiences of individuals, as the main data source is interviews and the method of analysis concerns discourse theory. Therefore, when handling the interview process, informed consent will be taken into account. Precautionary steps are informing the interviewees about the subject of the thesis and the dissemination of the data to the university. Also, the interviewees will be given the possibility to refuse the interview or the use of their name, in which case personal anonymity will be granted by mentioning them as ‘a member of the organisation of Follow This’. A point of concern is that the interviews and websites are in Dutch, meaning that a great deal of data will be translated into English. This concern is dealt with by triangulating the findings between interviews and websites, and when uncertainty occurs by verifying the results with the interviewees. Also, the storyline methodology inevitably requires interpretation and thus subjectivity to some extent. This has been dealt with by carrying out respondent validation of the constructed storyline with M. van Baal, in order to seek corroboration of the findings. This way, the credibility of the interpretation of the results is enhanced, as the findings and perspectives of the interviewees are verified of good correspondence. Also, statements of the interviewees will be summarised during the interview to make sure that the meaning corresponds. Moreover, in order to enhance the dependability of the thesis, all interviews were recorded, transcribed, and added in the appendix, inviting readers to critically reflect on the constructed storylines from the interviews. Next, by using quotes it was tried to identify why certain conclusions were made from the data. Also, in order for replication to take place, the methodology is described in great detail. This is also true for the thick description of the context of the case study, providing others the possibility to make judgements about the transferability of the findings to other cases.
It should also been noted that within the analysis of the Multi-Level Perspective, six landscape developments were identified. However, further longitudinal research would be needed to determine exactly how these developments affects the regime destabilization in the Dutch energy transition. Lastly, the thesis focuses on the role of Follow This in the Dutch energy transition by analysing regime destabilisation. However, discussing a possible discursive shift is interpretative as this concerns future developments. Therefore, the thesis is not predictive for the future, but aims to uncover the underlying dynamics within the niche-regime interaction that might be at the base of a transition to occur.
Analysis
1. The Multi-Level Perspective
This chapter elaborates on the Multi-Level Perspective by first describing the regime actors involved in the Dutch energy transition. By doing this, the findings from the MLP can add to the understanding of the lock-in that occurs in the discursive practice of the incumbent regime. Then, the niche-level actors that put pressure on the discursive practice of the incumbent regime will be discussed. Afterwards, landscape developments that might influence these actors are presented. With this in mind, the findings might clarify the importance of storylines-in-the-making during transitions, which will be analysed in the next chapter.
1.1 Regime actors and their lock-in
The key actors within the Dutch energy regime that contribute to the fossil fuel lock-in are the government, major oil & gas companies, and big investors that vary from the government through Energie Beheer Nederland (EBN) to pension funds, insurance companies and banks, as is presented in table 4 on page 27 (Brink & Riemersma, 2018; Brink et al., 2016; Bosman & Oxenaar, 2018; Loorbach, 2018). Bosman & Oxenaar (2018) have found that the Dutch government and the fossil fuel industry are closely intertwined and argue that the government is part of the fossil fuel industry. This, because EBN invests in oil and gas production on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, but also because of state-owned companies that are involved in fossil fuels, such as GasUnie and GasTerra (van den Berg, 2017; Oxenaar, 2017). The government also collaborates with Shell and ExxonMobil through the company GasTerra, which makes them an active actor in the gas sector (Heilbron et al., 2013). The financial involvement of the Dutch government in the fossil fuel industry can be seen in the state’s assets between 2001 and 2015, which was comprised of oil and gas reserves for 20% on average (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2017; Bosman & Oxenaar, 2018). Moreover, 14% of the government’s income consists out of revenues from the fossil fuel industry (Bosman & Oxenaar, 2018; Oxenaar, 2017). Thus, the Dutch government contributes to the regime lock-in on a policy level since it is an active actor in the fossil fuel industry with its’ own financial incentives, therefore protecting the status quo in the energy system (Oxenaar, 2017). The intertwined interests between the government and fossil fuel industry is a lock-in mechanism that Kungl & Geels (2018) refer to as corporate political strategy.
The lock-in of the Dutch government has consequences for the advancement of the energy transition. Geels (2018) argues that the role of the government is substantial in transitions, as policy changes in economic conditions have a central role in the developments of decarbonisation. These economic policy changes are important as climate protection is a public good, and therefore private actors such as consumers or companies have limited incentives to change as a result of the free-rider problem
and prisoner’s dilemma (Geels, 2018). Consequently, the lock-in of the government is problematic, as Oxenaar (2017) argues: “there is thus an inherent friction between the two ‘roles’ of the government in the energy transition, on the one hand the government is part of the fossil fuel based regime and has contributed to its build up through policy and regulation, yet on the other hand it needs to initiate a transition away from this system” (p. 2). In other words, when the government does not make policy changes, the energy transition is not likely to progress, as it seems logical that consumers and companies will not do it on their own as a result of the prisoner’s dilemma. In that case, the responsibility to change to low-carbon alternatives will constantly be passed to other actors, as is illustrated by Marjan van Loon (general manager at Shell) during a symposium of the energy transition in Pakhuis de Zwijger, stating that “the transition is about the actions of billions of consumers, and not the thinking of a few engineers” (Van Loon, 2018a). Such statements are what Kungl & Geels (2018) refer to as framing strategies that reinforce the regime’s lock-in.
Thus, the government has received critique from niche-level actors that it does not take sufficient policy measures that are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. An example of the governmental lock-in can be seen in the current negotiations of the Dutch Klimaatakkoord, where is laid down how emissions of greenhouse gasses will be reduced with 49% by 2030 (NOS, 2017; Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, 2018). The negotiations for the fossil fuel industry are in collaboration with other regime actors, namely eleven oil- and chemical companies (e.g. Shell, Exxonmobil, BP) who are responsible for 75% of the emissions in the Dutch industry, and it is argued by the government that without their collaboration the Klimaatakkoord cannot be reached (Sengers & de Vos, 2018). This clearly shows a lock-in, as the Klimaatakkoord is subject to delaying tactics from the oil- and chemical companies that fight the advancement of climate ambitions (Sengers & de Vos, 2018). C. Koole mentioned in her interview that Shell contributes to the mental and organisational lock-in by participating in the negotiations of the Dutch Klimaatakkoord (Appendix 5). This because Shell has an interest in postponing the energy transition since they make profit of a product that has no place when the transition advances. C. Koole states that Shell is integrated in all levels of the negotiation, as it is a party that is taken very seriously and therewith the “champion in lobbying” (Appendix 5). Similarly, as already discussed in the theoretical framework, the fossil fuel industry is blamed for investing large amounts of money in lobbying against climate measures (Sengers & de Vos, 2018; Loorbach, 2018). Thus, substantial policy changes are hard to reach owing to the entanglement between the government and the industry.
Similarly, fossil fuel companies and their shareholders reinforce the lock-in on the industry side of the regime. This can be seen through recent speculations about a ‘carbon bubble’; fossil fuel reserves that are on the books of fossil fuel companies but which cannot be extracted, as this will cause the release of more carbon dioxide than allowed by the Paris Climate Agreement (Mercure et al., 2018; Carbon Tracker, 2017; Mommers, 2016d; Campanale & Leggett, 2011). The carbon bubble could arise as a consequence of what is known as stranded assets. Stranded assets are assets that are not able to
earn an economic return as a result of over inflation of stocks in coal, gas and oil reserves that are owned by fossil fuel companies because they are not supported by an underlying demand for fossil fuels (Amadeo, 2018; Carbon Tracker, 2017; Harvey, 2018). It is currently estimated that approximately two-thirds of fossil fuels reserves cannot be extracted when following the PCA, which creates stranded assets as these stocks become worthless (Mercure et al., 2018; Harvey, 2018). This problem shows a financial lock-in that is created by fossil fuel companies and their investors, as the status-quo reinforces a situation of financial fossil fuel dependency that could potentially lead to massive market losses, in order to keep a business as usual path that shifts risks to the future (Carbon Tracker, 2017; Harvey, 2018). Kungl & Geels (2018) categorize this lock-in mechanism as an economic positioning strategy. However, in order to limit the economic damage from a potential bubble burst it is important to decarbonize as soon as possible and thus to diversify investments in other resources than fossil fuels (Mercure et al., 2018 Harvey, 2018). This also highlights the importance of the role of shareholders in fossil fuel companies, as they have the power to push for alternatives and therewith spread the risks of the bubble. Given these points, it can be seen that the regime is susceptible to several lock-in mechanisms that reinforce their own institutional logics, therewith defending the status quo.
1.2 Niche-level actors and their discourse coalition
From the interviews it appeared that the people from Follow This themselves identifies with a group of other niche-level actors that are also involved in pressuring the regime actors towards a low-carbon energy system (Appendix 3). M. van Baal (Appendix 3) states that Follow This complements what Greenpeace, Fossiel Vrij and Milieudefensie are already doing, and that Follow This is a “perfect addition to give the final push”. Therefore, it seems that Follow This makes the strategic decision to position themselves with other niche-level actors, therewith forming a discourse coalition, as they share certain elements of their storyline in convincing regime actors to take action (Appendix 3). For example, they urge for more action now to prevent the consequences of climate change from happening and that the incumbent regime has to take more responsibility in advancing the transition. Another niche-level actor that fits the storyline of the discourse coalition is Urgenda. Urgenda has prosecuted the Dutch State and won, with the conviction that the State has to protect its’ citizens against the consequences of climate change and to do so, it has to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses with at least 25% in regard to 1990 (Urgenda, n.d.). From this it seems that dynamics from grassroots initiatives at niche-level are becoming more aligned, progressing in the pressure that they put on the regime as a discourse coalition.
1.3 Landscape developments
Geels (2018) states that the landscape level comprises broader contextual developments such as slow-changing trends (e.g. ideologies, geopolitics) and exogenous shocks (e.g. economic crises, major
Six trends were identified from scientific literature and the interviews. The first trend is climate change, as the concern about climate change is the driver for the need of a low-carbon transition (Geels, 2018). A second trend is the usage of the neoliberal environmental ideology, which can be recognized in the storyline of the regime actors as described by Bosman et al. (2014) and the stance that these actors take in the media. According to Ciplet & Roberts (2017), characteristics of the neoliberal environmental ideology is that of market-based approaches for environmental problems through e.g. privatization, commercialization and commodification of natural resources. But also, a heightened influence of the private sector in decision-making, as was shown at the negotiations for the Klimaatakoord above. The neoliberal ideology has also spurred a third development; the creation of a global environmental movement which distrusts and increasingly criticizes the ‘business as usual’ way of thinking (Van Verschuer, 2018). This trend can also be related to the financial-economic crisis in 2008, leading to distrust and concerns about the economic system among citizens (Van Verschuer, 2018). Indications for this trend vary from the increasing rate of populism in European politics (e.g. Wilders and Orbán) to the popularity of ideas for economic alternatives such as Kate Raworth’s doughnut economy (Hulsman, 2017; Lewis et al. 2018; Bijlo, 2017). In line with this trend is the fourth trend, which concerns an increasing environmental awareness and sustainability thinking. This trend is built on the foundation of inclusive development by protecting the world’s ecosystems while providing for future generations at the same time (Neill et al., 2017; Kates, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005). Related to this trend are the recent developments of the fifth trend around the divestment from fossil fuels, where shareholders sell-of their stocks in fossil fuels because of concerns about climate change and financial fears (Carrington, 2018). Insurance companies, nations (e.g. Ireland) and cities (e.g. New York) have currently divested 5.2 trillion euros worth of stocks from fossil fuels (Carrington, 2018). The sixth trend concerns the technological development of sustainable energy alternatives, such as solar energy, geothermal energy, wind energy and environment-friendly energy storage, but also the increasing efficiency and affordability of these technologies (Sen & Ganguly, 2017). Taken together, these trends find resemblance as elements of the two overarching landscape trends that Spaargaren et al. (2012) refer to as globalization and sustainable development.
MLP-level Actors/Trends Description
Regime The Dutch Government Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relation,
Fossil Fuel Companies Shell, ExxonMobil, Gasunie, GasTerra, NAM, BP, Total Major shareholders, e.g.
pensionfunds, insurance companies and banks
Robeco, APG, Achmea, PGGM, ABP, Aegon, NN, ABN Amro, van Lanschot Kempen, Actiam, EBN
Niche Urgenda/Our Children’s Trust
Climate Lawsuit against the Dutch/USA government Milieudefensie Climate Lawsuit against Shell. Collaborator in negotiations
Klimaatakkoord.
FossielVrij Divestment movement campaigning to divest from fossil fuels by ABP, Universities and municipalities
Follow This (Shell) Green shareholders collective that pressures Shell through their shareholders.
Greenpeace Environmental organization that spreads awareness for environmental problems in politics and the public through lobbying and protests.
Landscape Climate Change The development of global warming caused by anthropogenic activities and its’ environmental, financial and social consequences (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2018) Neoliberalism Ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of
free market competition and minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2018)
Global Environmental Movements
General reference to public distrusts in neoliberal and market-based societies that follow a ‘business as usual’ path. Varying from the emergence of populism to the popularity of alternative economic models
Sustainability The interrogation of existing modes of social organization in terms of sustainability and the effort to transform the status quo so as to promote the development of more sustainable activities (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 2018) Financial Divestment The phenomenon where stocks in fossil fuels are divested in
order to morally, politically and financially nudge the energy transition to a sustainable market
Technological Advances in Clean Energy
Development of sustainable energy technologies, e.g. photovoltaic or geothermal energy, that can be easily replenished and preserves the earth for future generations (Owusu & Asumadu-Sarkodie, 2016)
Table 4. Overview of actors in the MLP framework of the energy transition in the Netherlands. Derived from the sources used in this chapter unless stated otherwise.
2. The Storyline-In-The-Making
In this chapter, the storyline-in-the-making of Follow This is constructed with representative quotes from the interviews. The storyline constitutes out of different elements, such as the main challenges that the energy system is facing and the solution and strategy to these challenges. Also, some tensions within the storyline are presented as some differences in opinion were identified in segments of the interviews. On page 32, a summarising table (5) can be found with all the elements that constitute the storyline of Follow This.
2.1 The pace of change
The storyline-in-the-making of Follow This regards the future of the Dutch energy system and the main challenges and actors involved. A key element in the storyline is the concern for climate change and inadequate action from regime actors to curb the problem. In communicating this concern, the organisation often refers to the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) and the goal to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius (Aartse, n.d.; Appendix 3; Appendix 6). Subsequently, Follow This uses the PCA as an argument for action as the resolution states; “the company (Shell) has to align its targets with the Paris Climate Agreement” (Aartse, n.d.). Also, by using the PCA as an argument for action, the energy transition has a relatively short timeframe in the storyline of Follow This: “there are only a few years left to make or break the Paris Climate Agreement and curb global warming” (Appendix 8), which contradicts the dominant storyline where the year 2050 is often used as a reference point for action (Bosman et al., 2014). In short, Follow This communicates a sense of urgency when it comes to the energy transition.
The main challenge regarding the energy transition in the storyline of Follow This concerns the pace at which the fossil fuel industry changes from a business as usual path to a more sustainable one. The fossil fuel industry is seen as highly important in influencing the course of climate change, as Follow This argues that the industry is responsible for more than half of all greenhouse gas emissions (Appendix 6). Follow This believes that the oil and gas companies are key actors in causing climate change, yet believe that without these companies there is no way to tackle it. They are both the problem and the solution (Appendix 3). They also argue that it is important to focus on oil majors, as nowadays their influence on the transition is greater than that of governments, seeing that the mandate for governments end at their borders, while corporations operate beyond borders (Appendix 5). This is the reason why Follow This focuses on Shell and the future of the company.
2.2 Unchaining Shell
From the storyline of Follow This, three challenges were identified in moving oil and gas companies to a sustainable course of action. M. van Baal is very clear about the core problem; a lack of imagination at regime level (Appendix 3). He argues that the biggest barrier in every transition is “the lack of imaginative power to thrive in a world without the thing that has made the regime so successful; in
