Graduate School of Communications
Master’s Thesis
Fixed or Flexible?
How Interest Group Frames Differ With Regard to Levels and Time Course of Public Debates. A Case Study on the Ban of Diesel Cars from German Cities.
by Julian Kutzim
12000167
Master’s Programme Communication Science Corporate Communication
Supervisor: Dr. Irina J. Lock
28.06.2019
Word Count: 7.980
Abstract
How do interest groups communicate to get what they want? This question has been keeping researchers busy for decades, with a recent increase in studies applying the concept of framing to it. Indeed, interest groups have been found to strategically promote certain aspects of an issue to gain influence on policy making. Building on and furthering this scholarly stream, the present research investigates how the frames deployed by interest groups differ between the regional and national level as well as the time course of a public debate, and how this affects which frames come to surface in the media. This is done by means of a qualitative case study on the fierce debate about a ban of diesel cars from German cities. The debate is understood as an issue arena with interest groups being the central actors herein. Present frames were identified inductively through the analysis of an array of publicly available documents from relevant groups on the regional and national level, and then deductively searched for in articles of regional and national newspapers. Hereafter, interviews with representatives of the corresponding groups where conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the patterns identified. Findings indicate a high consistency between interest group frames across debate levels and time that is strategically fostered to increase the effectiveness of framing efforts. Furthermore, the existence of alliances forwarding similar sets of frames was witnessed. These appear to be especially successful in shaping the public debate, as the frames brought forward by those alliances matched those salient in the media debate. The findings are of academic and societal relevance, as they deepen the understanding of highly complex framing processes in issue arenas and point towards the potential impact of collaborating interest groups on public discourse. Gaining knowledge about their framing strategies is thus of importance. Practical and academic implications are derived from this research.
How Interest Group Frames Differ With Regard to Levels and Time Course of Public Debates. A Case Study on the Ban of Diesel Cars from German Cities
Beginning with Schattschneider (1960), researchers have been investigating what
argumentations interest groups use to forward their cause and how this influences policymaking (De Bruycker, 2017). Increasingly, scholars address the question by applying the concept of framing, showing that interest groups make strategic use of framed communication to push policy decisions in desired directions (for an overview, see De Bruycker, 2017). Yet little is known about how they adapt the utilized frames throughout the lifespan of an issue and towards different debate levels, and how this affects which frames appear in the media. This study sheds light on these questions,
investigating the fierce debate around a ban of diesel cars (hereafter referred to as ban) from German cities:
In November 2015, just two months after Volkswagens confession to have misled regulators about the emissions of their cars with programmed engine software started the Dieselgate, the environmental NGO "Deutsche Umwelthilfe" (DUH) launched lawsuits against federal states across 16 cities in Germany due to the violations of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission levels (Teevs, 2015). As diesel cars were identified to contribute to these violation (Dambeck, 2015), with millions exceeding emission standards and suspected to cause thousands of premature deaths every year (Chossière et al., 2017), the DUH argued for ban. Corresponding with the massive societal impact of such a step – approximately a third of all cars in Germany are diesel nowadays (Statista, 2019) – this called interest groups from the full spectrum of society to action, fighting for and against a ban.
Most interestingly, the accompanying debate took place on various levels: Since each municipality is individually responsible for meeting the effective NOx level of 40 µg/m³ (39. Bundesimissionsschutzverordnung, 2010), decisions on a ban are a regional issue. Simultaneous,
the issue is of national concern and triggers the call for an overarching solution by the government. This multilayerdness offers a chance to compare frames deployed by interest groups over the course of the debate both on the national and regional level – represented by the city Düsseldorf, capital of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). This tackles the limitations of present research, as most studies treat frames as discrete options to pick from, stopping “short of looking at the communicative construction” (Ihlen et al. 2018, p. 111). Further, the multilayerdness allows for a comparison of frames deployed by interest groups (meso-level) to those surfacing in the media debate (macro-level) on both geographical levels. Such research is still missing (De Bruycker, 2017). Adding to the scientific contributions, this study understands the debate at hand as an issue arena, which puts an emphasis on the dynamic interactions and competition between the stakeholders involved (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010). Within this concept, interest groups can be seen as stakeholder organizations trying to concentrate their power and gain influence in the arena. Gaining an understanding of how the issue is framed over time, in relation to its geographical and textual context and other groups framing efforts will push the concepts theoretical development (Vos, Schoenmaker & Luoma-aho, 2014). It will therefore guide the sampling and serve as an analytical lens.
These contributions are of societal importance too: Although Baumgartner, Berry, Hojnacki, Kimball, and Leech (2009) found that single interest groups rarely possess the power to steer a debate, this might be different for strong alliances. Indeed, research has found that interest groups collaborate to gain influence (e.g. Hojnacki, 1997; Mahoney, 2007b). As this debate is likely to drive all actors in one of two camps – for and against a ban – alliance formation might occur, offering the chance to investigate their influence on societal discourse and policy making due to framing. Understanding this process is of democratic importance, especially since the car industry is a major actor here. Being amongst the most powerful interest groups in Germany (Eiden & Endt, 2017; Kantara, 2018), it will be interesting to see if it is able to push its position through. Given the biases of the interest group system towards businesses in western democracies (Binderkrantz, 2012;
Thrall, 2006), this is likely and a full understanding of framing processes therefore essential for a society that wants to shield itself from manipulation.
By the means of a qualitative case study, this research aims at answering the following questions: How do interest groups as actors in the issue arena of a ban of diesel cars from German cities make use framing? Specifically: How do the frames in use differ between the national and regional level? How do the frames in use change over time? And how do the frames in use differ between meso- and macro-level of the debate?
In order to answer these questions, the following section will define and discuss lobbying and framing in relation to each other. A section on the methodical foundation of this study follows, before moving on to a merged presentation of results and discussion. The last section presents study limitations and future research avenues.
Literature
What is Lobbying and How Does it Work?
Following Milbraths (1960), this study understands lobbying as a “communication process, and the task of the lobbyist is to figure out how he can handle communications most effectively in order to get through to decision makers" (p. 35). More specifically, according to McGrath (2007) lobbying denotes to any "form of persuasive communication in the political arena" (p. 269, as cited by Ihlen et al., 2018). It aims at maintaining a policy or change it, whatever is favorable to the interests the lobbyist represents (Ihlen et al., 2018). Lobbying can thus be understood as the basic activity of every actor in the issue arena of a ban, as they either try to prevent or implement it. Lobbying further signifies a pre-requisite for and a result of liberal, pluralist democracies
(Schlozman & Dahl, 1983). As outlined by Anastasiadis (2014), citizens can express their opinion on policy-making by voting in intervals and have little opportunities in between, but forming
interest groups grants them the ability to do so constantly. Then again, this societal perspective seems optimistic, as the interest group system shows considerable bias and allows only the most powerful voices to be heard (Ihlen et al., 2018). Interest groups refer to individuals, organizations or institutions gathering in an overarching entity that develops strategies to influence public policy (Beyers, Eising & Maloney, 2008) and thus are synonymous with actors in issue arenas.
Two forms of lobbying can be identified: direct lobbying works via relations to
policymakers, namely the government (Trapp & Laursen, 2017). This can be achieved through official channels such as committee hearings or clandestine channels and personal relationships which are hidden from public control (Culpepper, 2011). Indirect lobbying involves asserting influence on decision makers through the public, for example via grassroots initiatives or the news media (Trapp & Laursen, 2017). Although direct lobbying is relevant for the case and partially included through the analysis of committee protocols, the focus of this research lies on indirect lobbying through news media to establish the meso-macro-link. It is a widespread reasoning amongst scholars that interest groups try to push an issue and their perspective towards it on the news agenda to shape policy development – directly via media and indirectly via public (e.g. Mahoney, 2007a; Trapp & Laursen, 2017). The logic is that once persuaded via the media, the public then advocates the perspective and exerts far greater pressure than any interest group itself. As McCombs (2005) states: "The media can not only be successful in telling us what to think about, they can also be successful in telling us how to think about it" (p. 546, as cited in Trapp & Laursen, 2017). Indeed, research on agenda-setting indicates that issues as well the frames salient in the news media influence public opinion, which in turn is important to consider for any elected policymaker (Kuypers, 2009). Even more so if the issue is relevant for millions of citizens, thus dominating the media debate can be expected to be a prime strategy in the case at hand.
However, media attention is scarce and obtaining it comes with a high amount of competition. Literature on media penetration of interest groups points towards an array of
influential factors, ranging from organizational resources such as money and members (e.g. Thrall, 2006) to types of interest groups (Binderkrantz & Krøyer, 2012), to the position of an interest group, as those against a certain policy receive more attention than those in favor (De Bruycker & Beyers, 2015). This can be related to the inherent media logic that views conflicts as newsworthy (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017), which will be of importance for this research when discussing why interest groups did or did not manage to dominate the debate.
Diving into these contextual factors would be outwith the scope of this study, but it should be noted that gaining media coverage is a highly complex process influenced by a multitude of factors, therefore far from being predictable (McCombs, 2004). The same holds true for lobbying itself, as literature indicates interest groups strategies and their success to be influenced by group characteristics like type, resources and geographical level and on contextual characteristics of the debate like salience, its complexity and the amount of conflict (e.g Baumgartner et al., 2009; Klüver, Braun & Beyers, 2015).
Interest Groups as Framers – Can They Gain the Prerogative of Interpretation?
A number of recent studies applies the concept of framing to investigate how interest groups shape public debates around issues to generate favorable policy outcomes (e.g. Boräng et al., 2014; Daviter, 2007; Klüver, Mahoney, & Opper, 2015). In order to grasp their findings, a deeper
understanding of framing as the process and frames as its result is required: According to Entman (1993), framing means "to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described" (p. 52). As Entman explains, salience refers to highlighting pieces of information by repetition or prominent positioning to increase the chance of the audience perceiving and processing it. He further states that omitting certain information is as relevant as including others. Importantly, this usually goes
unnoticed by the audience, since selective human attention makes it rely on whatever information is accessible (Kuypers, 2009).
Entmans (1993) definition of framing is not only extremely popular with more than 14,000 citations on Google Scholar (2019), but it fits the study and its understanding of lobbying as a communication process (Milbrath, 1960), rendering framing as a conscious and strategic action in which interest groups construct the frames befitting to their cause (De Bruycker, 2017). Frames then serve as a narrative that guides the audience to view an issue from the perspective of the framer (Hallahan, 2011).
Important for this research, frames can be distinguished according to type and level (for an overview, see De Bruycker, 2017). First, De Vreese (2005) introduced the difference between generic an issue-specific frames: The former denotes to frames that are capable of transcending thematic and temporal boundaries, like public interest or economic frames. Examples can be found in the studies of Boräng and Naurin (2015), Ihlen et al. (2018) or Klüver and Mahoney (2015). Issue-specific frames on the contrary cannot be transferred to other debates. As De Bruycker (2017) states, "for case studies, these issue-specific frames serve as descriptive devices to unveil what is at stake in an issue and how this evolves through time and space" (p. 777). Fitting the studies research goal and its temporal aspect, this will be the relevant frame type to identify.
Second, a distinction between equivalence and emphasis frames can be made (Druckman 2001; 2004): While equivalence frames make use of the same information but cast them in a positive or negative light (e.g. opportunities versus risks), emphasis frames highlight aspects of an issue, which makes the audience focus on these when forming an opinion (Druckman, 2004). Given the correspondence with Entmans (1993) definition, emphasis frames will be of particular relevance for the study.
Third and highly important for this research, framing processes can be distinguished according to the debate level, termed by Baumgartner and Mahoney (2008) as the "two faces of
framing" (p. 435): While the first face is concerned with the meso-level 1framing of interest groups, the second face is concerned with the macro-level framing that shapes the collective issue
definition, which can be viewed partially as an aggregate of competing interests and is resembled by the media debate here. This distinction follows the rationale that all policy issues are
multi-dimensional, as they differently affect people and society in general and thus are confronted with a vast and often incompatible interests. This is evident in the case at hand, as a ban essentially means benefiting from cleaner air for some while suffering from mobility issues for others, and so on. To fully understand how the collective issue definition of a ban evolves, one must study both faces and link them to each other (Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2008), as done here.
What Do We Know About the Power and Flexibility of Interest Group Frames?
On the macro level, collective issue frames evolve dynamically and are influenced by the sociocultural and issue context, as well as interest group characteristics (Benford & Snow, 2000; Druckman, 2001; Klüver, Mahoney, & Opper, 2015). Due to this complexity, interest groups unlikely possess the power to solely frame collective issues (Baumgartner et al., 2009; Mahoney, 2008). An explanation could be that the competing interests equalize each other and lead to an equilibrium (Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2008). Further, Boräng and Naurin (2015) found factors like the scope of the conflict and the amount of publicity to limit framing: As more people have a stake in the issue, self-serving frames are difficult to justify and less likely to succeed. And although media coverage can help to mobilize parts of the public and spread a frame, it is also selective and favors certain groups and frames (Boräng & Naurin, 2015): Supported by the logic of news value (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017), the aforementioned bias of the interest group system has been found to
In the article, this is referred to as the micro-level. Since micro denotes to a single person, the
1
spill over to the media, with the most powerful groups gaining the most attention (Binderkrantz, 2012; Thrall, 2006).
On the meso-level, frame choice is shows to be limited: Of high importance are interest group characteristics like organizational form and nature of the interest (Klüver, Mahoney, & Opper, 2015), since the frame has to fit its user to be credible and effective (Benford & Snow, 2000;
Druckman, 2001). For instance, corporations and their representative interest groups, classified as sectional groups, have been found to be more likely to make use of economic frames, whereas cause groups like NGOs are more likely to appeal to the public interest (Klüver, Mahoney, & Opper, 2015). And close to the case at hand, Klüver (2009) showed that in regard to a European
Commission policy towards, environmental groups and manufacturers of electric cars highlighted its benefits for the climate, whereas manufacturers of combustion engine cars highlighted its negative aftermaths in terms of job losses.
The process thus seems to allow for only narrow frame variation, with cause groups being even more limited in their frame choice than sectional groups (Klüver, Mahoney, & Opper, 2015). Much in line, only one-third of EU lobbyists have been found to use audience-tailored frames (Mahoney, 2008). Baumgartner and Mahoney (2008) offer two explanations: First, interest groups are afraid of being perceived as manipulative thus aim for consistency. And second, it could be effective to send the same message repeatedly to make it stick in the collective issue definition.
Nonetheless, strategic frame variation and dynamics like bridging, amplification, extension, and transformation do occur (Benford & Snow, 2002) and we have little information about how interest groups use them. In addition, being limited on the macro-level does not mean framing is ineffective: Frames might influence decision makers when brought forward behind the scenes, distant from the forces of public discourse – especially since a majority of policy issues do not attract significant amounts of publicity (De Bruycker & Beyers 2015). Relating to closed meetings between Chancellor Merkel and CEOs from the car industry (Mortsiefer, 2018), this influence
should not be underrated. Last, mergers of interest groups forwarding the same frames might be more successful in shaping public debates, as outlined.
Methodology
Research Approach
Fitting its theory building and knowledge creating nature, this study uses an exploratory, embedded single-case study approach (Yin 2009). It relies on the triangulation of sources of
evidence – in this case publicly available documents and semi-structured interviews – and produces a rich description and analysis of the case, and thus generates a deeper understanding of contextual and individual factors that produce a certain outcome (Yin 2009).
In regard to methodological fit, this approach has been particularly popular when studying interest groups and framing processes, as it accommodates their complexity and allows to study the construction and evolution of frames (Lock & Seele, 2018; Voltolini & Eising, 2017). Further, the case at hand is of high general public interest, deals with an issue of national importance and thus is significant enough to serve in a case study (Yin, 2009).
It should be noted that the case study approach has been criticized not only for its lack of generalizability, with findings limited by time, space and context of the issue, but for lack of reliability and internal validity (Lock & Seele, 2018, Voltolini & Eising, 2017). To ensure high research quality, this study will use a series of measures described by Yin (2009) and, specifically for case study research on interest groups, by Lock and Seele (2018), as shown in Table 1.
Sampling and Procedure
Applying the concept of issue arenas (Luoma-aho & Vos, 2010) to the theoretical sampling, the most relevant stakeholder groups involved in the issue were identified as customers, car
Table 1
How this study addresses the methodological rigor of case studies
Quality criteria Means Implementation
Construct validity Data triangulation (Yin, 2009)
Using a broad range of documents from various sources, as well as interviews with relevant interest groups.
Chain of evidence (Yin, 2009)
Describing data collection and analysis as well as changes in the procedure in detail Review
(Yin, 2009)
Key informants, namely the interviewees, review the case study report as well as interview transcripts
Reliability Case study protocol (Yin, 2009)
Keeping a research diary allows tracking the process from the initial research question to the final case study report Case study database
(Yin, 2009)
Keeping an Excel-Sheet that provides a detailed description of and direct access to the sampled documents
Transparency
(Lock & Seele, 2018)
Providing protocol, database, interview guide and transcripts in the Appendix Internal Validity Theoretical sampling
(Yin, 2009)
Using the concept of issue arenas
Enrichtment
(Lock & Seele, 2018)
Addressing the issue at hand from a communication perspective
External Validity Contextuality (Lock & Seele, 2018)
Using actors, materials and channels that are common to other contexts and political systems
Comparability (Lock & Seele, 2018)
Offering structural analogies to other contexts to increase generalizability of findings.
manufacturers, environmental organizations, businesses and municipalities. Although other groups are of possible relevance, the sample had to be limited to the most relevant ones, with a focus on groups that where active on the regional and national level. By studying news reports and
governmental committee protocols on the topic, representatives were identified for each stakeholder group. Inclusion was further determined by the significance of the interest group and the amount of communication available, resulting in a sample of eight interest groups (see Table 2). For a detailed description of each, see Appendix A.
In regard to meso-level framing, the website of each group was scanned for communication on the ban, using the on-site search engines and googles "in-site"-search function with the term “Dieselfahrverbot*” or “Fahrverbot*” . An initial strategy to collect communication around time 2
points identified by a visibility analysis did not produce enough results (see research diary ,
Appendix B). Therefore, the entire communication within the timeframe of 42 months was checked, starting with the initial lawsuit of the Deutsche Umwelthilfe in November 2015 and ending with the data collection, April 2019. Documents were downloaded if they substantially addressed the ban. Further, publicly available protocols of environmental and traffic committee meetings on the issue were scanned for contributions of each group. The final sample consisted of 152 documents,
ranging from press releases to position papers, studies, surveys and more (see Table 2 and Appendix C for a complete list).
In regard to macro-level framing, media coverage was gathered within the timeframe, using the archive Nexis Uni. Searches were built around a string involving the terms "Diesel" and 3
"Fahrverbot" and limited to one daily newspaper per debate level: The Rheinische Post (RP) has its headquarter in Düsseldorf, is the second biggest newspaper of the region (Schröder, 2019) and can
Asterisk used to retrieve a maximum of possibly relevant results in combination with the term
2
String "Die Welt": (Fahrverbot! w/15 Diesel! OR Dieselfahrverbot!) AND publication(Die Welt);
3
String ”Rheinisch Post”: (Fahrverbot! W/15 Diesel! OR Dieselfahrverbot!) AND publication(DieWelt) AND ATLEAST2 (Düsseldorf)
Table 2
Overview of sample
Meso-level
Stakeholder group Interest group Debate level Sampled documents Customers Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil
Club (ADAC hereafter )
National 13
ADAC Nordrhein and ADAC Westfalen (ADAC NRW hereafter)
Regional 5
Local businesses Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks (ZDH hereafter)
National 26
Handwerkskammer Düsseldorf (HWK hereafter)
Regional 14
Municipalities Deutscher Städte- und
Gemeindebund (DStGB hereafter)
National 29
Städte- und Gemeindebund NRW (StGB hereafter)
Regional 10
Car industry Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA hereafter)
National 23
Environmental organizations
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH hereafter)
Both 29 a
152 in total b
Macro-level
Rheinische Post (RP) Regional 20
Die Welt (WELT) National 18
38 in total
a The DUH had more than 200 relevant documents on the issue, they were therefore sampled
around the time points initially identified by a visibility analysis
b Including 3 committee protocols relevant for multiple interest groups and thus not listed
be characterized as liberal-conservative. Aiming for a similar profile, Die Welt (WELT) was chosen to represent the national debate-level. An overview of the initial search was downloaded, cleaned from duplicates and imported into SPSS, leaving 176 RP-articles and 267 WELT-articles (see Appendix D for visibility analysis). To exclude the national media coverage from the RP, results were limited to those marked by the label “Lokales” . Hereafter, a stratified random sample was 4
drawn from each newspaper and included for analysis. Since randomization based on time intervals was not feasible in SPSS, the number of articles per newspaper was divided by 20 – the sample size aimed for – and sampling interval for each thus found and applied. This approach also captures the debate evolution more accurately than a sampling based on fixed time intervals, as important periods resulting in high news coverage are represented accordingly. The final sample (see Table 2 and Appendix E for a complete list) was double checked for representativeness of debate
development and actors.
Last, all interest groups were asked for a semi-structured interview, but only four agreed to take part. The interviewees were deeply involved in the case: Two of them are the leading
spokesperson, one is the head of the main department responsible for the case and one is the head of the interest group itself (See Appendix F). The interviews were conducted in June – two in person and two via telephone – directly after the content analysis, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the initial findings. Only the main topic of the research was sent to the interviewees, to prevent prefabricated answers. The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, with one exception where the interviewee reduced his commitment to 15 minutes on short notice. Each interview was
recorded, transcribed and reviewed by the interviewees. For the interview guide and the transcripts, see Appendix G and H respectively. Since the interviewees were German, quotes used in this study were translated into English by the author and proofread by a native speaker.
For unknown reasons, articles after May 2018 did no longer contain the label „Lokales“, although
4
they were specifically related to Düsseldorf and its local context. The author therefore read each of them, assigning the label manually where appropriate.
Data Analysis
The documents were coded using CAQDAS, namely Atlas.ti. The analysis was inspired by the qualitative rhetorical approach to framing analysis outlined by Kuypers (2009), as it allows for criticism and rich interpretation of strategies and thus generates deeper insights than mere social-scientific description. Frames were identified inductively by coding the elements outlined by Entman (1993), namely problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and treatment recommendation. To investigate the evolution of frames across time and debate levels, a stepwise approach was chosen: First, focusing on the meso-level frames, all documents of one group were coded consecutively in chronological order before moving to the next. After the initial coding, cooccurrence-tables were used to identify overlapping and imprecise codes as well patterns and overarching categories during the axial coding phase (see Appendix I for a list of codes) (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). Hereafter, a frame matrix was created, following the procedure described by Van Gorp and van de Goot (2012). Second, the macro-level media debate was analyzed to see which of the frames identified came to dominate. Third, the generated insights were used to refine the interview guide and the interviews, in turn, were used to enrich the observations. Throughout the process, the author oscillated between literature and data.
Research Context – Short Case Description
For decades German consumers have been persuaded by the car industry that diesel engines are more economical and environmentally friendly than their gasoline counterparts, and stimulated to buy them with massive tax subsidies for diesel fuel (Becker, 2017). The image of the clean diesel was shattered along with the car industries in late September 2015 after the outbreak of the diesel scandal (Breitinger, 2018), as it quickly became apparent that manipulated engines exceeded emission levels many times and contributed the longstanding violation of NOx levels (Bauchmüller & Kirchner, 2018; Dambeck, 2015). This lead the DUH to start its series of lawsuits, amounting to
court cases in 35 cities until today (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, 2019). Interestingly, these lawsuits stayed largely below the radar and the debate did not gain traction until September 2016, with the first decision of the administrative court Düsseldorf in favor of a ban, as evident from a visibility analysis of four national daily newspapers in Germany (see Appendix D). As of today, major cities like Hamburg and Berlin have already implemented a ban and many more are still in debate, such as Düsseldorf (“Wo Diesel-Fahrverbote gelten oder drohen”, 2019). The car industry – although
agreed to provide software updates for 5.3 million cars, conversion programs for older diesel cars and funding of infrastructure programs (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Infrastruktur, 2017) – refuses until today to agree to nationwide hardware retrofitting to meet emissions standards (Eckl-Dorna, 2018). The debate thus continues to evolve, with millions of car owners being in insecure positions.
Results and Discussion
Ten Frames Dominate the Debate
Ten frames were identified in the documents and can be seen as the most important lines of argumentation within the debate. Table 3 provides an overview. For enhanced clarity, the following sections will explain each narrative in more detail before discussing frame deployment and
dynamics. Words in quotation marks represent textual framing devices, quotes from documents are listed with a timestamp for traceability. In addition, the according frames were confirmed in
interviews with representatives of HWK, StGB, VDA and DUH.
The Existential-Fear-Frame. The first frame centers on the claim that a ban resembles a “threat to existence” for businesses like those of craftsmen, which depend on diesel cars for practical and economic reasons: First, a majority of utility and delivery vehicles would be offered solely with diesel engines, thus large parts of the business fleets could not be used anymore, with no
Tabl e 3 F ram e Mat ri x – F ram es de pl oy ed i n t he de bat e on a ban of di es el c ar s f rom G er m an c it ie s F rame P rob le m D efi n iti on C au sal in te rp re tati on M or al e val u ati on T re atme n t r ec omme n d ati on D ep loye d by a E xi st ent ial -F ear -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s A ba n of di es el c ars enda nge rs bus ine ss exi st ent ia ll y Bus ine ss es de pe nd on di es el ca rs for e conom ic a nd pra ct ic al re as ons P rope rt y ri ght s Ca rs in s toc k s houl d be prot ec te d or e xe m pt ions gra nt ed. HWK ZDH StG B D S tG B F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) E xi st enz be dr ohe nd; U nt er ne hm ens -sc hl ie ßunge n; dr as ti sc he F ol ge n Mobi li tät is t G es chäf ts -m ode ll ; F uhr par k gr ößt ent ei ls D ie se l; Ke ine A lt er nat iv en; H ohe Inv es ti ti one n E nt ei gnung; B et ri ebs ve rm öge n B es tands sc hut z; A us nahm ege ne hm igunge n T hr eat ene d-Soc ie ty -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s A ba n of di es el c ars enda nge rs s oc ie ta l func ti oni ng D ie se l c ars a re ne ce ss ary t o ens ure m obi li ty a nd provi si on of funda m ent al s ervi ce s a nd goods P ri nc ipl e of proport iona li ty A ba la nc e of i nt ere st s ha s t o be found; A ba n i s t he la st opt ion VDA AD A C NR W ; A D A C e .V . HWK ZDH StG B D S tG B F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) L ebe ns fähi gk ei t de r St ädt e; St il ls tand; D ram at is che E ins chr änk unge n; Ve rs or gungs pr obl em e; W ar en und D ie ns tl ei st unge n; Mi ll ione n A ut of ahr er auf D ie se l ange wi es en; U nv er häl tni s-m äßi g; U nange m es se n; W ahr ung de r Ve rhäl tni sm äßi gk ei t; le tz te s Mi tt el ; a Col orc odi ng for e nha nc ed vi sua li za ti on of pa tt erns , us ing a ra inbow the m e ra ngi ng from V D A (re d) t o D U H (purpl e). N at iona l a nd re gi ona l groups are hi ghl ight ed i n t he s am e c ol or t o e m pha si ze fra m e c ons is te nc y.
Tabl e 3 – Con ti n u ed F ram e Mat ri x – F ram es de pl oy ed i n t he de bat e on a ban of di es el c ar s f rom G er m an c it ie s F rame P rob le m D efi n iti on C au sal in te rp re tati on M or al e val u ati on T re atme n t r ec omme n d ati on D ep loye d by a Sy m bol -P ol ic y-F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s A ba n of di es el c ars is ine ffe ct ive a nd m ere s ym bol ic pol ic y L ar ge pa rt s of e m is si ons s te m from ot he r s ourc es a nd em is si ons w il l onl y be re loc at ed P ol ic y m aki ng ha s to be e ffe ct ive A ll e m it te rs s houl d be inc lude d i n t he probl em sol ut ion; A n a rra y of e ffe ct ive al te rna ti ve s s houl d be us ed VDA AD A C NR W A D A C e .V . HWK ZDH StG B DStGB F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) Sy m bol pol it ik ; Ke ine Ve rr inge rung; Ke ine nac hhal ti ge L ös ung; Ni cht z ie lf ühr end; A nde re Q ue ll en; U nv er zi cht bar e A us nahm en; Ve rl age rung; W ir ks am e U rs ac he nbe -käm pf ung; Int el li ge nt e L ös unge n; Z us am m enwi rk en al le r Ve rur sac he r;A lt er nat iv en; U m fas se nde s Maßnahm enpak et ; Ve rk ehr swe nde Sc ape goat -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s Cons um ers a re m ade the s ca pe goa t by pol it ic s a nd c ar indus try P ol it ic s a nd c ar i ndus try a re re spons ibl e for t he s it ua ti on P ol lut er -P ays -P ri nc ipl e; Re spons ibi li ty; T rus t Ca r i ndus try a nd pol it ic s shoul d t ake on re spons ibi li ty and c om e up w it h s ol ut ions A D A C NR W A D A C e .V . HWK ZDH StG B D S tG B F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) Sc hwar ze r P et er ; Z ec he z ahl en; H af tbar m ac he n; F ahr ve rbot e l as se n Ve rur sac he r auße n vor ; W er tv er lus t; Ve rur sac he r de r Mi se re ; Tr ic ks er ei en de r A ut ohe rs te ll er ; U nt ät igk ei t de r P ol it ik ; V er tr aue n i n U m we lt fr eundl ic hk ei t; Ve rur sac he rpr inz i p; V er ant wor tung; Ve rt raue n; B ri ngs chul d; F inanz ie ll e Ve rant wor tung; Sof twar eupdat es ; Kos te nl os e Nac hr üs tung; E nt wi ck lung al te rnat iv er A nt ri ebe ; R ec ht ss ic he rhe it ; a Col orc odi ng for e nha nc ed vi sua li za ti on of pa tt erns , us ing a ra inbow the m e ra ngi ng from V D A (re d) t o D U H (purpl e). N at iona l a nd re gi ona l groups are hi ghl ight ed i n t he s am e c ol or t o e m pha si ze fra m e c ons is te nc y.
Tabl e 3 – Con ti n u ed F ram e Mat ri x – F ram es de pl oy ed i n t he de bat e on a ban of di es el c ar s f rom G er m an c it ie s F rame P rob le m D efi n iti on C au sal in te rp re tati on M or al e val u ati on T re atme n t r ec omme n d ati on D ep loye d by a Inde m ni fi cat ion -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s Ca r i ndus try l os t trus t a nd w ant s t o re ga in i t F ra ud of i ndi vi dua l com pa ni es a nd a n undi ffe re nt ia te d publ ic de ba te da m age d t he re put at ion of t he ent ire c ar i ndus try Re spons ibi li ty; T rus t Ca r i ndus try t ake s on re spons ibi li ty for c us tom ers and e nvi ronm ent w it h vol unt ary m ea sure s VDA F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) Ve rt raue n v er lor en; Z ur üc kgge wi nne n; E inz el fal l; U ndi ff er enz ie rt e D ebat te ; V er sac hl ic hung; Ve rant wor tung; Ve rt raue n; Ve rant wor tung; e rhe bl ic he r B ei tr ag; Saube re L uf t; Sof twar eupdat es ; U m taus ch-pr äm ie ; F ond; E nt wi ck lung al te rnat iv er A nt ri ebe ; T he -H and-T hat -F ee ds -You-F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s Ba n of di es el c ars w oul d e nda nge r G erm any’ s ke y indus try Ca r i ndus try provi de s j obs , cont ri but es to gros s va lue cre at ion a nd i s i nt erna ti ona ll y re now ne d. T he di es el pl ays an i m port ant rol e he re in S oc ia l s ec uri ty and w ea lt h; Int erna ti ona l com pe ti ti ve ne ss P ol it ic s s houl d not e nda nge r thi s i m port ant indus try s ec tor VDA F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) Indus tr ie st andor t D eut sc hl and; Sc hl üs se li ndus tr ie ; W el twe it führ end i n D ie se lt ec hnol ogi e E xpor twe lt m ei st er ; hoc hwe rt ige A rbe it spl ät ze ; W er ts chöpf ung; A us hänge sc hi ld; W et tbe we rbs fähi g ke it ; W ohl st and und Bes chäf ti gung; Ni cht s el bs t aus br em se n; a Col orc odi ng for e nha nc ed vi sua li za ti on of pa tt erns , us ing a ra inbow the m e ra ngi ng from V D A (re d) t o D U H (purpl e). N at iona l a nd re gi ona l groups are hi ghl ight ed i n t he s am e c ol or t o e m pha si ze fra m e c ons is te nc y.
Tabl e 3 F ram e Mat ri x – F ram es de pl oy ed i n t he de bat e on a ban of di es el c ar s f rom G er m an c it ie s F rame P rob le m D efi n iti on C au sal in te rp re tati on M or al e val u ati on T re atme n t r ec omme n d ati on D ep loye d by a P ar adox -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s A ba n of di es el c ars w oul d be count erproduc ti ve for t he e nvi ronm ent D ie se l ha s a be tt er e col ogi ca l ba la nc e t ha n t he pe trol e ngi ne and c annot be re pl ac ed by al te rna ti ve pow er uni ts ye t E nvi ronm ent al prot ec ti on t hrough innova ti on Conve rs ion t o m ode rn di es el ca rs VDA (HW K ) (Z D H ) F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) U m we lt pol it is ch ve rk ehr t; U nv er zi cht bar e Te chnol ogi e; T ei l de r L ös ung; Spar sam ; W eni ge r E m is si one n al s B enz ine r; Saube r; E ff iz ie nt ; Mode rn; U m we lt sc hut z; D eut sc he Kl im az ie le ; B es tands er ne ue rung; F lot te ndur chdr ingung; Ne ue A bgas st andar ds ; E ur o-6-d-temp D ownpl ay -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s A ba n of di es el c ars is not ne ce ss ary E m is si ons w ere c ont inuous ly low ere d a nd l eve ls ge t onl y ne gl igi bl y vi ol at ed. M ea sure s im pl em ent ed a re s uf fi ci ent . E nvi ronm ent al prot ec ti on t hrough innova ti on; Re cogni ti on of t he progre ss m ade N o ba n, a s t he probl em is about to be s ol ve VDA F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) L uf tqual it ät sf rage bal d ge lös t; R üc kl äuf ige r T re nd; L uf t i st s aube re r de nn j e; G er ingf ügi ge Ü be rs chr ei tunge n; H ot spot s; Maßnahm en wi rk en; F or ts chr it te be rüc ks ic ht ige n; Innov at ion A uf de m r ic ht ige n W eg; G em ei nde n m üs se n Maßnahm en um se tz en; E ff ek ti ve Maßnahm en; Nac hr üs tung i ne ff ek ti v; a Col orc odi ng for e nha nc ed vi sua li za ti on of pa tt erns , us ing a ra inbow the m e ra ngi ng from V D A (re d) t o D U H (purpl e). N at iona l a nd re gi ona l groups are hi ghl ight ed i n t he s am e c ol or t o e m pha si ze fra m e c ons is te nc y.
Tabl e 3 – Con ti n u ed F ram e Mat ri x – F ram es de pl oy ed i n t he de bat e on a ban of di es el c ar s f rom G er m an c it ie s F rame P rob le m D efi n iti on C au sal in te rp re tati on M or al e val u ati on T re atme n t r ec omme n d ati on D ep loye d by a R ight eous ne ss -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s E m is si ons e nda nge r the he al th of c it iz ens T he c ri m ina l c ar i ndus try dom ina te s pol it ic s a nd t hus im pe de s e ffe ct ive pol ic y m aki ng P rot ec ti on of ci ti ze ns a nd t he ir ri ght to c le an a ir L aw sui ts a re ne ce ss ary t o enforc e e m is si on l eve ls ; P ol it ic s ha s t o fre e i ts el f a nd forc e i ndus try t o re trofi tt ings DUH F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) Tode sf äl le ; Kr ank he it ; L uf tv er sc hm ut zung; G if t; D ie se labgas gi ft ; O rgani si er te Kr im inal it ät ; Kar te ll ; B et rüge r; Wür ge gr if f; f er nge st eue rt e B unde sr egi er ung; E rf ül lungs ge hi lf e; U nt ät ig; R ec ht auf s aube re L uf t; Sc hut z de r B ev öl ke rung; R ec ht dur chs et ze n; Kam pf für saube re L uf t; Z wang; Indi spe ns abi li ty -F ram e R eas on in g d evi ce s A ba n i s t he onl y ef fe ct ive m ea sure to bri ng dow n em is si ons fa st D ie se l c ars a re the m ai n pol lut er a nd a lt erna ti ve s a re ine ffe ct ive or t ake too l ong. P ol ic y m aki ng ha s to be e ffe ct ive Ba n of ol de r di es el c ars DUH F rami n g d evi ce s (s el ec ti on) E inz ige r W eg; ei nz ige O pt ion; U naus we ic hl ic h; Ke in W eg v or be i; D re ck ige D ie se l; Ü be rwi ege nde r A nt ei l; H aupt que ll e; W ir kungs los ; Ni cht r ec ht ze it ig; W ir ks am ke it ; E ff ek ti vät ; Not we ndi gk ei t v on te chni sc he n Nac hr üs tunge n; F inanz ie rung dur ch H er st el le r; Saube re A ut os ; a Col orc odi ng for e nha nc ed vi sua li za ti on of pa tt erns , us ing a ra inbow the m e ra ngi ng from V D A (re d) t o D U H (purpl e). N at iona l a nd re gi ona l groups are hi ghl ight ed w it h t he s am e c ol or t o e m pha si ze fra m e c ons is te nc y.
alternatives available. Second, the devaluation of the cars created by a ban would result in financial damages “unbearable” by medium-sized businesses, especially since many of them recently
invested in modern diesel cars with the establishment of environmental zones. Characterizing the ban as an “expropriation”, the frame pledges for the “conservation of the status quo” or
“exemptions" for businesses at the minimum:
A ban would equal an expropriation of operating funds and would be existentially threatening for many businesses. The craftsmen fundamentally reject a ban as it puts a massive burden on businesses. (HWK, 16.03.2019)
The Threatened-Society-Frame. This salient frame uses a wider angle to stress that a ban would bring society to a “standstill”. It argues that diesel cars would be important for the “provision of services and goods” from the economic and public sector and also for millions of citizens who would depend on them in daily live. A ban would thus create severe “supply problems” and shut down all of community life.
This form of exclusion of individual types of vehicles endangers the inner cities as the lifeline of communities. Those measures prevent not only private rides with diesel powered vehicles, but also shipping- and public authority traffic and rides of action forces like the firefighters, ambulances and police. (DStGB, 19.02.2018)
A balance of environmental and societal interests should thus be found in which a ban is the “last option”.
The Symbol-Policy-Frame. This frame focuses on promoting a set of alternative measures to bring down emissions. Within this frame, a ban is characterized as “symbol policy”, since a large share of emissions would stem from other sources not affected by a ban, like agriculture, industry and power plants. Further, a ban in certain areas would simply relocate emissions and the already small effect would be undermined by exemptions necessary to ensure societal functioning. To tackle
the violation of emission levels, the inclusion of all emitters and a multitude of alternatives solutions – subsumed under the umbrella term “mobility transition” – are promoted:
The focus should rather be on meaningful, integrated mobility concepts which link all modes of transport with each other in an optimal way and bring a relief to road traffic, like for example optimized traffic guidance systems, the increased use of alternative power units in municipal fleets with high mileage within cities, modern parking concepts, user-friendly park-and-ride spots as well as a more capable public transport and attractive connections in pedestrian and bike traffic. (ADAC NRW, 07.03.2017)
The Scapegoat-Frame. Also highly salient, this frame argues that a ban would make
consumers the scapegoat of car industry and politics, who are seen to be the real parties responsible. The former would have “tricked” by using programmed engine software to lower emissions during testing, the latter failed to check and regulate appropriately, both promoted and subsided diesel cars as eco friendly. Consumers “trusted” this promise and “unjustly” would have to “pay the bill" – in form of a depreciation of their cars and mobility. Car industry and politics are asked to come up with solutions:
The federal government and the industry are responsible for the current dilemma and therefore it is on them to come up with solutions and massively take action with which the threshold can be reached. (ZDH, 29.11.2017)
It focuses on the car industry paying for software-updates and the most contentious measure, hardware retrofitting, while the government is prompted to create the legal basis for such measures.
The Indemnification-Frame. This frame is used to defend the car industry, arguing that it is aware of the loss of trust and wishes to repair it: By developing innovative products that support the nation strive towards “sustainable mobility” and more important, with the “voluntary” measures agreed upon the diesel summit “National Forum Diesel”, offered and payed for by the car industry. Meanwhile, it is used to relativize the diesel scandal as fraud from “isolated cases” that would have
shocked customers and industry alike. But an “undifferentiated public debate” would have mixed them up into “sweeping condemnations” against industry and technology, overlooking technical reasons for a gap between tested and real-life emissions:
The until September 2018 effective NEFZ-test-conditions are 20 years old and partially imprecise. Besides they do not represent todays automotive engineering adequately. That is why the emission values determined on the test bench differ from real values on the streets. This delta due to technical reasons is to be strictly distinguished from manipulations. (VDA, 14.12.2018)
The Hand-That-Feeds-You-Frame. This one highlights the economic and societal importance of car industry and diesel technology, terming them as the most important “key industry” and a “pillar” on which national wealth and social security rest: With almost 600,000 employees creating a gross value of 48 billion euro, largely due to the construction of labor intense diesel engines. The car industry is further depicted as an international “signboard” for the industrial site Germany and a “global leader” in diesel technology. Taken together these arguments
characterize it as the hand that feeds the nation, which – much in line with the saying – should not be bitten (which is what a ban would do):
Especially in the state in which the modern diesel engines in the world get produced, one should assume that the politicians in charge know on which industrial basis prosperity and employment rest. (VDA, 22.02.2017)
The Paradox-Frame. Centering on environmental protection and innovation, this frame claims not only that diesel cars a “indispensable” and “necessary” to reach European CO2-emission levels, but that a ban would actually be “counterproductive” for the climate. The reasoning here is that modern diesel engines are “cleaner”, more “economical” and “efficient” than petrol engines, as they would consume 25 percent less fuel and produce 15 percent fewer CO2-emissions. Because the mass of diesels could not be replaced by alternative technologies yet, a ban would increase the share
of petrol engines and thus negatively affect the climate. Further, a ban would increase emissions as cars would travel greater distance on routes not meant for high amounts of traffic. The “modern diesel” would therefore not be the problem, but “part of the solution” in form of “fleet renewal”:
With every new vehicle that replaces and old one, the air in cities gets better. The newest generation of diesels is very clean and economical. The faster such Euro-6d-Temp-vehicles get on the streets, the bigger the advancements for the air quality. (VDA, 09.10.2018) The Downplay-Frame. This frame is newly introduced to the debate with the main goal of relativizing the issue of emissions: By stressing that air quality within cities is “better than ever” with only “slight” violations of emission-levels in a “few cases”. Requesting to recognize the progress made, not only the improvements throughout the last decades but especially within the period of the debate due to solutions found on diesel summits are highlighted, depicting the problem as mastered:
Already at the end of 2019, 80 percent of the newly registered diesel-cars will be equipped with SCR, the most modern emission technology. At the beginning of the next decade it will be almost every newly registered diesel-car. The issue of nitrogen oxide for new vehicles is therefore solved. (VDA, 05.04.0217)
The Righteousness-Frame. Based on the value of protecting citizens and their “right to clean air", this frame is the only one to focus on the noxious effects of emissions: With an extensively framed language, it iterates that diesel cars cause thousands of deaths annually by “poisoning” the air. It emphasizes the long standing violation of emission levels and views car industry and politics as the responsible parties, similar to the Scapegoat-Frame but to a far greater extreme: The industry is characterized as a “cartel” and “organized crime” that has a “stranglehold” over the government, which would work as a “servant” in the interest of the former, so that effective policy making is impeded to the detriment of public.
It is shameful that the government is fostering the fraudulent car producers for over three years – on the expense of the consumers, their health and mobility. (DUH, 09.10.2018) Following this narrative, the frame is mainly used to gain support for the lawsuits, depicting them as the necessary means to protect citizens rights and interests
The Indispensability-Frame. This frame is used to argue that a ban is the only effective measure to bring down emissions fast, describing “dirty diesels” as the “main source” of emissions and alternative solutions as “ineffective” or “too slow” in the short-term. Like the Symbol-Policy-Frame, it builds on the belief that effective policy making is necessary, which leaves only one option for the short term – a ban:
The only way to protect the health of the people and enforce ‘clean air’ in those more than 70 cities especially polluted remains an extensive ban of diesel cars. (DUH, 15.08.2018)
Who Uses Which Frame?
A stable finding of this study and answer to the first research question is that the frames used on the national and regional level hardly differ: As shown in Table 3, the three interest groups represented on both levels used the exact same frames, in multiple cases down to the figures of speech and examples. For instance, within the Existential-Fear-Frame the dependence of businesses on diesel cars was illustrated like this by ZDH and HWK:
Also in the future it will not be possible to transport heating boilers on the bike or in the tram” (HWK, 17.10.2017)
The finding was backed by the interviews with Mr. Ehlert (HWK) and Mr. Lehrer (StGB) who described a structured process of position development within their interest groups that lead to coherent communication across all branches:
As a rule, we develop common positions in a democratic, internal and graduated procedure, which are then represented to the outside world in a uniform way by state associations and the federal association (Mr. Lehrer, StGB)
This was further described as a bottom-up process, in which the potential impacts of a ban on regional groups were gathered and synthesized into an overarching position on the national level. This fits with what Klüver, Mahoney, and Opper (2015) describe as the “logic of membership”: All of the interest groups here are member organizations that have to represent the interests of their constituencies to receive funding and continue to exist. Since these constituencies are essentially the same for both levels, the logic must lead to the use of the same frames too. Regional groups can be seen to represent the individual members while functioning as collective members of the national group. This structure ensures lobbying efforts to be as close the members position as possible across various regional and the national level. This was also described by Mr. Ehlert:
It comes from below, from the chambers who raise their individual position to the state level and then to level of our central federation, so that by collecting various positions a common formulation is found. (Mr. Ehlert)
The logic of membership is likely to be fortified as the impacts of a ban on a craftsman for example are likely to be the same across cities. The same can be expected for other interest groups with a multi-level structure like municipalities and customers. And although regional nuances exist – for example due to emission level violations being more severe in one city compared to another – the broadness of the frames encapsulates them. Much in line, the StGB does not speak of municipalities in NRW, but just of municipalities. Similar, the HWK speaks of artisans and the ADAC NRW of drivers in general, instead of narrowing it down to their regional population. Consistency might further be driven by striving for credibility. As outlined in the literature review, interest groups are reliant to be perceived as credible if they want their frames to resonate (Druckman, 2001), and
frame consistency is one precondition of credibility (Benford & Snow, 2000). Deploying different frames on different levels would therefore undermine this quest.
Closely connected are observations on frame choice: Most groups emphasized one or two frames that were the closest to the inherent interest represented: For instance, while ZDH and HWK seemed to prioritize the Existential-Fear- and Threatened-Society-Frame highlighting the impact on businesses and therefore on the larger society, the VDA appeared to mainly deploy the Paradox-Frame as well as the Downplay-Paradox-Frame, stressing the environmental friendliness of diesel cars and the progress made. This prioritization was confirmed in the interviews with representatives of HWK and VDA when confronted with the content of the frames deployed and asked for the most
important ones. For example:
It’s the arguments three (Paradox-Frame) and four (Downplay-Frame). First, there is no getting around it, the modern diesel has a better CO2-balance than the petrol engine and fleet renewal will have its effect. The second point is, that it is correct that there is no need for a ban anymore. (Mr. Rotter, VDA)
These findings corroborate the influence of interest group characteristics on frame choice as outlined in the literature review and is connected to credibility too, as frames have to fit its user (e.g. Boräng & Naurin, 2015; Klüver, Mahoney, & Opper, 2015).
However, prioritization was subtle, as all interest groups exclusively used arrays of frames instead of single ones. Broadly, these frame arrays could be differentiated between groups arguing for a ban (DUH) and those against it (the rest). For example, the Threatened-Society-, Symbol-Policy-, and Scapegoat-Frame are deployed by all groups opposing a ban, except for the latter one excluding the VDA, who is representing the villains herein. This fits with literature pointing towards the forging of alliances of likeminded interest groups in order to get the attention of policymakers (Hojnacki, 1997; Mahoney, 2007b; Klüver, 2011). Interestingly, although the
existence of allies was partially recognized within the interviews, frame alignment between the interest groups in this sample was described not as a strategic but natural process:
We have only realized that if we have communicated our position on the subject, similar positions have been voiced by other institutions, associations and such, but we have never harmonized that in advance, for example in the form of a common press release (Mr. Lehrer, StGB)
Besides a natural overlap of interests, frame alignment might emerge due to a combination of frames working in the same direction being more effective than the use of a single one. In line, the frames deployed by those arguing against a ban build on, complement and extent each other. For example, the Existential-Fear-, Threatened-Society-, and Symbol-Policy-Frame are heavily linked, as the dangers for businesses equals dangers for the provision of their services to society, which in turn worsens the issue of ban not being effective. Same holds true for the frames deployed against a ban (Righteousness- and Indispensability-Frame)
On a deeper level, frame choice showed to be more complex: Although fighting for opposing solutions, the DUH shared its responsibility definition with representatives of
municipalities, businesses and customers, which is why the Scapegoat- and Righteousness-Frame are very close to each other. This was expressed by Mr. Ehlert too, although not addressing the DUH specifically:
If one speaks reasonably about this topic, there is no dissent between the declared
environmental and climate protectors and the economy. Both groups, the economy and, in this case, the Greens say: It is the responsibility of the automotive industry and the
responsibility of the politics, and not the responsibility of businesses, which now have to adhere to these wrong decisions. (Mr. Ehlert, HWK)
In its fight against a ban, the VDA applied the Threatened-Society and Symbol-Policy-Frame – like the representatives of customers, businesses and municipalities – but had to counter their
