Unravelling multi-value creation: the case of solar energy initiatives

(1)

Unravelling multi-value creation: the case of solar

energy initiatives

Master Thesis

MSc International Business and Management

Patricia Pires dos Santos Pereira h.p.pires.dos.santos.pereira@student.rug.nl

Student number: S3301656

University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Dr. B.J.W. Pennink Co-assessor: Dr. K. van Veen

22nd January 2018

(2)

2 “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones

(3)

3

ABSTRACT

Several authors claim that we currently live in an era of change, because the existing model is not sustainable. Collaboration among different parties (government, citizens and companies) to create other values besides economic is essential to evolve into the direction of new sustainable models. This transition faces some barriers including the established traditions, rules and laws and the existing methods to evaluate firms’ performance, which only consider financial performance. Therefore, this research aims to contribute to theoretical developments of the concept of creating shared value by empirically advance in the understanding of how different actors interact to create value. By interviewing four Dutch and three Portuguese initiatives on solar energy, the ultimate goal is to answer the following questions: What are the values, which actors are involved and how does their relation look like in the creation of solar energy initiatives; and how do these values, relations and number of actors evolve over time and across-countries? The findings show how important it is for cooperatives to involve different actors in their networks and their constant pursuit to balance social and economic value. Additionally, closeness, trust and informal structures seem to be essential to enable the process of creating shared value.

Keywords: Creating shared value (CSV); New Business Models (NBMs); multi-value-multi-actor

Acknowledgements

(6)

6

1. INTRODUCTION

Capitalism has provided unmeasurable development for societies, but, as we all know, everything comes with a price. The increasing social, environmental and even economic problems may be caused by the lack of optimization of our current economic model, but it may be as well because the “old” model doesn’t work anymore - it is not sustainable (Jonker & O’Riordan, 2016). A great part of the wealth of nations is undoubtedly attributed to firms’ activity, which gives them a central role in society. Nonetheless, the excessive focus on selfish economic goals to increase shareholder’s value, also carries several reputational issues. This pure neoclassical perspective started to be challenged in the 1950s most notoriously by Bowen (1953) who claimed that, as powerful institutions, companies have the responsibility to act in accordance to what is desirable for the society (Liel von, 2016). But it was not until the 1980s that the Stakeholder Theory was developed by Freeman (1984), challenging firms’ exclusive focus on shareholders by pulling their attention to the responsibilities they also hold with other involved parties (such as customers, employees, governments, local communities, etc.). And so, the building blocks for CSR were in place.

Although there is no universally established definition of Corporate Social Responsibility (Liel von, 2016), the European Commission (2011) defines it as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society”, adding that “enterprises should have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy in close collaboration with their stakeholders”. In the same document, it is clear the emphasis on creating shared value for both firm’s shareholders, stakeholders and society at large; at the same time that, adverse impacts should be identified and mitigated (European Commission, 2011).

(7)

7 Along with this concept, in their work on New Business Models, Jan Jonker and his group call our attention to the importance of multi-value creation and cooperative collaboration in designing sustainable New Business Models. Multi-value creation points out in the same direction as CSV: value creation should not be restricted to economic value (profit), but should also include generating social and ecological value (Jonker, 2014). One of the main issues appointed as responsible for holding back this perspective is the accepted idea that there is a trade-off between economic and social goals. In practice, that idea is even more present since the existing methods to evaluate firms’ performance only take into account their financial performance. Therefore, there is a need to develop new methods that take into account not only financial performance, but also all other values a firm creates (Dembek, Singh, & Bhakoo, 2016). A particularly promising progress in this direction is the development of this model into the direction of a multi-value-multi-actor model (Pennink, 2016) by focusing on the understanding of how the value sharing process can work.

Hence, this research aims to contribute to theoretical developments of the concept of sharing values by empirically advance in the understanding of how different actors interact to create shared value. This topic is extremely relevant because, at this point, despite increasing attention paid to the underlying concept of CSV, there is still a long way to go to clarify its distinction in relation to other (close or associated) concepts and it still “lacks empirical grounding” (Dembek et al., 2016). Consequently, shedding light on how Pennink's (2016) multi-value-multi-actor model can work, may provide a basis for future theoretical advancements on how to measure firm’s performance taking into account other dimensions besides financial measures.

(8)

8 relations and motivations (Šahović & da Silva, 2016; Sovacool, 2014). Thus, the ultimate goal of this study is to answer the following questions: What are the values, which actors are involved and how does their relation look like in the creation of recent solar energy initiatives; and how do these values, relations and number of actors evolve over time and across-countries? The findings show the importance of networks for cooperatives and their constant pursuit to work together with other parties such as governments and companies. Laws and rules established in the “traditional system” are recognized to hinder the development of cooperatives, while bottom-up approaches, informal structures and some level of closeness between members are key for their action. All the initiatives showed the ambition to create other forms of value besides economic, but among cooperatives the purpose of balancing social and economic value was clear.

(9)

9

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The roots of CSR

From its beginning, the nature of business is claimed to be intrinsically selfish. The idea of a free market that favours competition and efficiency to increase society’s overall wealth and that there is a trade-off between that and individual needs goes back to Adam Smith (Smith, 1776). Almost two centuries later, Friedman (1962) and Levitt (1958) argued that business aims to generate wealth for its shareholders, representing a clear opposition to the then recent movement of CSR (Liel von, 2016). During the 1950s, Bowen (1953) was the most notorious CSR researcher advancing the idea that, as powerful institutions, companies have the responsibility to act in accordance to what is desirable for the society (Liel von, 2016). This can be considered the first step to move from a Shareholder to a Stakeholder-oriented approach, the chief predecessor of CSR.

In the 1970s, work done by some authors, including Carroll (1979) and Johnson (1971) significantly advanced the research on CSR, but the attempts were, then, mainly related with “philanthropy or improvements of labour conditions” (Liel von, 2016). Later on, companies started to acknowledge the interest of their stakeholders. It is worth mentioning the work performed by Freeman (1984) on the Stakeholder Approach, Cochran & Wood's (1984) attempt to positively relate CSR with financial performance and Drucker's (1984) claim that companies should “convert social challenges into business opportunities” (Liel von, 2016). In the 1990s, increased pressures to engage on social initiatives and “incorporated new elements such as focus on environment, workforce diversity and transparency in accounting (Carroll, 1999; Lee, 2008)” (Liel von, 2016). It was in this decade that the “positive returns for the business from social activities” started to be recognised (Liel von, 2016). Finally, since 2000, research on CSR has increasingly been linked with business strategy: Kotler & Lee (2005) from the perspective of marketing and Porter & Kramer (2011) advancing the concept of “creating shared value” supporting the idea that economic and societal goals should be integrated. Nowadays, to a greater or lesser extent, consumers and the public in general will pay close attention to firm’s commitment to reduce environmental impact, fair conditions along the supply chain, respect for their employees, among others.

(10)

10 are how a firm’s social responsibility should be delimited and if it is feasible to incorporate ethical concerns and efficient management (Jones & Wicks, 1999; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). In pursuing answers to this matters, researchers have adopted a pluralism of methods and philosophies. In their article, Scherer & Palazzo (2007) claim that there is a need to develop a new approach that effectively meets the challenges faced by contemporary globalized firms. In a global arena, new challenges are brought to the stage and complexity increases: greater array of stakeholder’s expectations; diversity of norms, cultures and values and new political actors such as NGOs and other international organizations (Scherer, Palazzo, & Baumann, 2006). So, roles traditionally attributed to the state, such as providing public goods and guide business for common good through law enforcement, get considerably more limited than before (Scherer et al., 2006). Consequently, in a globalized world, as the division of labour between private corporations, the state and civil society are getting increasingly blurred, other actors are called to actively take a political role in society (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011; van Oosterhout, 2010).

By taking this scenario into account, Scherer & Palazzo (2007) argue that the new approach of CSR should embrace the political activities non-state actors perform and the support needed to make up for the existing regulatory and legitimacy gap in contemporary systems. In doing so, this new approach should slowly shift from a case-wise assessment to determine their voluntary involvement in philanthropic acts as a response to stakeholders’ pressure, to a long-term collaboration with governments and civil society actors (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). In other words, the so-called political co-responsibility consists in involving corporations in the “democratic processes of defining rules and tackling global political challenges” (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). This ideas are consistent with the Citizens, Business and Government (CBG) model presented by Jonker (2016) and his group showing the important interdependence between this three parties within their system. They claim that it is increasingly clear that the government cannot work out everything by itself, which means that it should involve and work together with society at large. Citizens not only should be heard by governments, but they also can or should play an active role in solving social issues. However, for this to happen, the three parties need to cooperate with each other to give shape to a new “system of society” with new forms of collaboration (Jonker, 2016).

(11)

11 paid to this matter in current research, there is still a long way to go and numerous questions to answer (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011; van Oosterhout, 2010). Some examples of CSR initiatives in line with this reasoning may include collaboration with important NGOs to develop codes of conduct; audits, certifications or other kinds of third-party control; enhance civil society discourses into corporate decision-making, without limiting it to current stakeholder pressure (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007; van Oosterhout, 2010).

2.2 Creating shared value - concept

The concept of Creating Shared Value (CSV) arises from the article of Porter & Kramer (2011), as a step forward on CSR. It has been developed has a response to companies’ bad reputation as responsible for society’s problems and to the underlying institutionalized idea that there is a trade-off between business’ goals (economic, profit) and society’s well-being (Porter & Kramer, 2011). The authors argue that such an outdated approach only results in a vicious cycle: firms focus on short-term profit and, consequently, sustainability is left behind.

Sustainability is definied by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It is based in three pillars: “economic growth, environmental stewardship and social inclusion” (World Bank, 2017). Porter & Kramer (2011) claim that current CSR initiatives essentially focus on improving firm’s reputation and cannot be sustained in the long run since they are not connected with the firm’s business and strategy. Instead, firms should bring “societal issues” from the “periphery” to the “core”. The authors suggest three ways by which companies can create shared value: 1) Reconceiving products and markets; 2) Redefining productivity in the value chain; 3) Enabling local cluster development (Porter & Kramer, 2011). The authors define value not just as benefits, but benefits relative to costs. It should be mentioned that this concept is not free from critique. In fact, some argue that it is very close to other concepts (CSR, Corporate Citizenship, Corporate sustainability, etc.) and, consequently, it lacks originality and also some theoretical and empirical grounding (Crane, Pallazzo, Spence, & Matten, 2014; Dembek et al., 2016; Liel von, 2016). Despite those debates, the idea behind this concept seems to open a valuable path for socioeconomic restructuring.

(12)

12 addressed by Jan Jonker and his group on their work on New Business Models (Jonker, 2016). During his pitch in TEDx Zwolle in 2015 and also in his book, Jan Jonker argued that it is necessary to think about mainly three elements: what kind of economy we want for the future (WEconomy), what kind of Business Models we want in the future (New Business Models) and on the value of money (Hybrid Banking). In regard to the WEconomy, it is characterized by six trends: Circular Economy (change the way we design and use resources), Functional Economy (focus on the functionality rather than ownership), Bio-based Economy (transition from fossil fuels to biomass), Collaborative Economy (based on sharing), Self-production (3D) Economy (do-it-yourself) (Jonker, 2016).

2.3 Cooperation – dealing with differences in sharing values

The importance of cooperation and other forms of joint actions (“co-“) between different actors has repeatedly been stressed in the literature (e.g. Austin & Seitanidi, 2012; Jonker, 2016). However, cooperation is a more complex process than just interacting with other people/ actors; it implies sharing motivation towards a common goal and the prospection of working together in the future towards the same shared purpose (Pennink, 2004). While monetary incentives are usually appointed as a very important tool to influence the behaviour of other parties, in the transition defended by Jonker (2016), the value of money should be reconsidered, which implies that other non-monetary incentives should contemplated as a basis for cooperation.

(13)

13 solutions, which will only be possible through dialogue to make people understand new perspectives to enable collaboration (Isaacs, 1999).

The notion of breaking with traditionally accepted trade-offs/ tensions is intrinsically connected to the concept of CSV, by calling for the integration of knowledge that is usually a domain of different kinds of organizations (non-profit vs. businesses) (Corner & Pavlovich, 2016; Crane et al., 2014). Corner & Pavlovich (2016), in their article, present a mechanism (Inner Knowledge Creation, IKC) through which individuals should be able to develop their metacognitive capabilities, leading to enhanced capacity to deal with paradoxes/ tensions and openness to new perspectives. In doing so, they point out a possible answer to Crane’s critic on CSV regarding the lack of a comprehensive understanding of how micro-level responses can shape macro-level problems (Crane et al., 2014). Through IKC, individuals are expected to improve their self-awareness in terms “of habitual patterns in thoughts, emotions and interpretation” (Corner & Pavlovich, 2016), which in turn will lead to self-transcendence. In other words, the ability to recognize our common sense-making schemes enables the capability to better capture other perspectives, avoiding traps and vicious-cycles created by the differences between the actors. Linking individuals facilitates the potential of co-creation of higher level structures (McKelvey, 2004). In the context of CSV, it may include the creation of organizations to address social challenges (Corner & Pavlovich, 2016), which in turn may collaborate with other entities (McKelvey, 2004).

2.4 Cooperatives

(14)

14 A widely accepted definition of cooperative is the one given by the International Labour Organization: “…autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise” (International Labour Organization, 2002). Cooperatives incorporate social principles and ethical values and are guided by seven principles: voluntary and open membership, democratic member control, member economic participation, autonomy and independence, education training and information, cooperation among cooperatives, and concern for community (International Co-operative Alliance - ICA, 2017). In traditional cooperatives, the members elect the Board of Directors, that will be in charge of the daily business operations and may receive a compensation for it (Šahović & da Silva, 2016). There are mainly two aspects that differentiate cooperatives and non-profit organizations: the latter does not allow the distribution of profits among the members (Fici, 2013) and its board of directors are volunteers which means they are not paid for performing such role (Viardot, 2013). There are different business models cooperatives can adopt, but it seems clear that they are present almost across all industries in which they play important roles (Nilsson, 2001).

This form of organization distinguishes itself from shareholder-oriented firms or non-profit organizations. Other than non-profit maximization, in the context of the energy transition, renewable energy cooperatives aim for economic, social and cultural improvement for their members (Yildiz et al., 2015). Additionally, it is a model that matches “social expectations of multi-dimensional sustainability goals of renewable energy projects” due to principles such voluntary membership and democratic control (Šahović & da Silva, 2016).

Previous research has focused, among other subjects, on the institutional framework conditions that encouraged the appearance of energy cooperatives and also for comparison among countries. Tax advantages, feed-in regulation and standardized rules for grid-connection have been appointed to contribute to the emergence of projects in Denmark, Germany and Sweden (Bolinger, 2005; Breukers & Wolsink, 2007). Additionally, the access to capital is also another factor appointed in the form of loans or local private investors with capacity to invest (Enzensberger, Fichtner, & Rentz, 2003; Šahović & da Silva, 2016). Finally, micro-level processes of negotiation, deal with conflicts and building trust have also been addressed (Šahović & da Silva, 2016).

(15)

15 products/ services that were usually in the hands of big corporations and the government. So, in studying cooperatives it should also be taken into account that it is a group of heterogeneous people, so the cooperation also faces challenges brought about by conflict and trust (Yildiz et al., 2015). Additionally, this cooperatives are a group of active citizens playing in the micro-level, but most of them are connected and cooperate in a larger scale through national associations and international federations for renewable energy cooperatives (e.g. REScoop.EU). All in all, cooperatives provide an institutional framework to democratize the energy sector (Yildiz et al., 2015) and by doing so, to create new networks and channels for cooperation with other parties in the direction of creating shared value.

2.5 Creating shared values - measure

Both Jonker (2014) and Porter & Kramer (2011) argue that while firms keep stuck on the current model of focusing essentially on short-term profit, they will keep neglecting the effects on society and unsustainable business models will persist. To reduce the dilemma or trade-off between social and financial goals, some international initiatives have been developed such as industry-based standards (by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) and the Integrated Reporting (by the International Integrated Reporting Council) (Pfitzer, Bockstette, & Stamp, 2013). However, there is still no such thing as a globally accepted framework (Dembek et al., 2016; Pfitzer et al., 2013). There is, though, some guidelines on what the measures of shared value should reflect. Based on the definition of shared value, its measure should mirror the means, outcomes and beneficiaries (Dembek et al., 2016). The same authors also suggest that it should not be a static measure; instead, a continuous flow of information should enable a permanent monitoring system. A similar perspective is provided by another article, which process includes: estimate business and social value; establish intermediate measures and track progress; assess the shared value produced (Pfitzer et al., 2013). In addition, to achieve a framework to evaluate performance, it seems essential to take some intermediate steps to understand how value is created to capture non-monetary value and also to untangle the possible endogeneity of social performance into financial performance (Garcia-Castro, Ariño, & Canela, 2010).

(16)

16 accurately summarizes what has been discussed so far. We should look at the matrix as if it was a map where companies can move along the matrix depending on the actors involved and the different values created. For example, in general, it is expected that a profit oriented company with purely self-interest goals would be located in the top left side of the matrix (e.g. “Cell 1”). Conversely, a social business would be more on the bottom right corner. So, the idea behind this “expectations” is that a “traditional for-profit” business will be focused on creating economic value by interaction mainly with actors within the company, while social businesses will be directing their efforts to create social and ecological value by involving more actors outside the organization.

This matrix is a simple and clear visual representation of the two main elements discussed so far: values (creating shared value; multi-value creation) and actors (involvement and cooperation between different actors that represent distinct social/ economical spheres). This leaves open what happens in the other cells which we will also explore in this study.

Actors within company Actors related to the company Actors without a relation to the company

Economic values Cell 1 Ecological values

Social values Other values

2.6 Research question

(17)

17 What are the values, which actors are involved and how does their relation look like in the creation of companies/ initiatives; and how do these values, relations and number of actors evolve over time and across-countries?

This question can be fragmented in the following sub-questions:

1. Which values drove the first steps on business (economic, ecological, social)? 2. Which actors were involved (owners/ management, employees, government/

municipality, customer, local communities …) and to what extent? 3. How did those values and actors involved change over time?

4. How do the actors relate with each other? [e.g. is there a strict business relation or are they developing more ties regarding bonding and bridging (aspects of social capital development)]

(18)

18

3. METHODOLOGY

This explorative research aims to expand the knowledge on the concept of Creating Shared Value by providing further empirical ground. New initiatives on renewable energy will be analysed so that we can learn more about creating shared values. The majority of those initiatives are social initiatives in the form of cooperatives, but companies in the traditional sense of the word, were also included. The cases selected have both differences and similarities among each other to provide both a diversified and a consistent setting to understand on how values and actors involved differ among solar energy initiatives, over time and across-countries. Moreover, this study will provide data on how new business models have been developing into the direction of contributing to a more sustainable approach. The unit of analysis are Dutch and Portuguese solar energy initiatives (cooperatives or companies).

This section aims to explain the rationale behind the methodology chosen for this study. This justification is important to answer the research question and obtain scientifically qualified conclusions (Thomas, 2004). Finally, it is also important to discuss the limitations and risks posed by those methodology choices and what actions will be taken to mitigate those risks.

3.1 Method type - multiple case studies

The phenomena of CSV will be studied through seven cases to extract explanatory data. A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not evident (Yin, 1984). The aim of this research is not to provide generally applicable science laws, but to have further insight on a contemporary phenomenon, that in turn is dependent on the context and on a variety of actors that come into play. Additionally, this research strategy is useful since the research question is based on open questions (“how”, “why” questions), the events are contemporary and the investigator has little/ no control over them (Yin, 1984).

(19)

19 to the success of the initiative as well as which values the cooperative/ company aims to create and to which extent that is possible and why/ why not. Additionally, how the actors and values have evolved since the creation of the cooperative/ company. So, the level of analysis is at the group level of the cooperative/ company. A comparative cross-country analysis will bring forth institutional and cultural aspects that can work as a driver or barrier in the creation of cooperatives (Yildiz et al., 2015).

The limitations of the case study strategy are mainly associated with its limited ability to provide results prone to scientific generalization (Yin, 1984). This is the case because the aim of this approach is not to make statistical generalization (to populations), instead the goal is to generalize theories (analytical generalization) (Yin, 1984). Furthermore, there are also limitations associated to the data gathering through interviews. The interviewee will inevitably be influenced by the context (setting and interaction with the interviewer) in which the interview takes place. So, findings will be dependent on the information the interviewee decides to share during the interview and his/ her interpretation of the questions. In the case of this research, we should double the attention paid to that issue since part of the questions are about the values the entity stands for, which, depending on the interviewee, may lead to “politically correct” answers rather than factual ones. The researcher tried to address this issue by stressing that this study aims to capture the facts rather than making judgements about the “politically correct” courses of action. Finally, academics are often critical about case studies also due to the lack of rigor, translated into biased views influencing the direction of the findings and conclusions (Yin, 1984). To address that concern, the data was analysed with a systematic approach, which is detailed in the next sections.

3.2 Data gathering - Case study selection

(20)

20 Renewable energy has been progressively part of global leaders’ agenda. In the European Union, the targets for 2020 and 2030 for “climate, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources (RES)” are set (Tomescu et al., 2017). While RES shares have been growing through all EU-28, they vary across countries (Appendix 1.). This setting is particularly promising to this research because there are innumerable new initiatives related with the energy transition to renewable sources (Bauwens, Gotchev, & Holstenkamp, 2016; Viardot, 2013). Firstly, these initiatives not only are expected to make it possible to achieve reduction in the emissions to the atmosphere, but also bring other benefits such as decreasing energy prices. Secondly, they have been pursued by both multinationals that perceived an opportunity, and by local and small scale initiatives (e.g. cooperatives). So, the expansion of these initiatives is important to achieve the “Bio-based Economy” referred by Jonker (2014), and likewise to move into new forms of business models. In other words, since this initiatives are created with a different mind-set when compared to a multinational company and they grow more locally, we expect them to have a different focus when it comes to the value generated and involvement of actors. Finally, it is stimulating to study how these projects arise in a traditionally centralized industry (Bauwens et al., 2016).

For this research, to be able to compare experiences and differences across countries, a series of four interviews in the Netherlands and three in Portugal were carried out. Here follows the reasons why this countries have been selected. In the Netherlands, renewable energy cooperatives are quite common (above 100 in 2014) whereas in Portugal there is only one (Bauwens et al., 2016). When it comes to the production of solar energy, despite Portugal’s incomparable sun exposure, the production of solar energy in the Netherlands considerably higher. At the same time, the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources as percentage of gross electricity consumption is much higher in Portugal than in the Netherlands (Tomescu et al., 2017). These contrasts provide a fertile setting to explore which are the roots of such differences (cultural differences, government intervention, country’s wealth, among others) and how that affects the interplay of several actors involved in this projects and the values they create. In other words, how the context the two countries provide, may lead to different positioning in the multi-value-multi-actor model.

(21)

21 cooperative as organizational model, renewable energy - solar) which are expected to bring close results regarding the aim to produce social and ecological value, active engagement of different actors, among others. On the other hand, the selection also took differences between them into account which are expected to produce contrasting results. For example, the country where the initiative is located is expected to bring different results due to the differing experience with citizen initiatives. Finally, in Portugal, the selection includes one cooperative and two companies, since there is only one Portuguese renewable energy cooperative. The opportunity to also include companies is very interesting for the purpose of this thesis since we expect a different focus regarding values and differences in terms of relations among the different actors involved. In that sense, that will enable a broader setting for the findings.

In this research the data was collected through seven semi-structured interviews. The interview questions were semi-structured to make sure the topics of interest were covered. The guide (Appendix 2.) was designed departing from the sub-questions formulated in section 2.4 of this thesis. However, it was simply a guide that remained flexible regarding formulating the questions and the order by which they were asked. Flexibility is a fundamental requirement of qualitative interviews since the researcher should be open to allow the participant to lead the conversation in unexpected directions to explore his/ her perspective regarding the topics being explored (King & Horrocks, 2010). The interviews took approximately 1 hour each and they were conducted in person.

(22)

22 Table 1. Cases selected

Case study Grunneger Power

Energie Cooperatie Oostwold Energie Cooperatie NoordseVeld Energie Cooperatie Westeinde

Coopérnico Boa Energia Elergone

Energias

Interviewee Steven Volkers Kees Hummelen Richard Ton Ronald Steunebrink

Ana Rita

Antunes Miguel Aroso Carlos Sampaio

Country Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Portugal Portugal Portugal

Type of

Organization Cooperative Cooperative Cooperative Cooperative Cooperative Company Company Year of

(23)

23 3.3 Case study analysis

The data analysis will be conducted based on the process described by (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2010). This process comprises five core analytic tasks:

1. Description – identify and describe the issues faced by individuals and understand how issues are interconnected from the perspective of the individual cases.

2. Comparison – after identifying and describing issues, the next step consists in exploring them to start noticing patterns. Comparison is a refinement process that enables uncovering similar and distinctive patterns in the data collected. In further stages of data analysis, comparison is useful in defining categories of codes and developing explanations;

3. Categorization – is the process of creating broad categories by identifying similarities among codes and grouping them. This requires moving to broader categories for a more conceptual understanding of the data. Those categories will be the main elements in theory development, so they need to be well defined, appropriate, and valid. As we can see, these tasks still require not only the information obtained in the previous stages, but also their strategy. In other words, at this stage, it is still important to use description and comparisons to describe the concept of each category and how categories are distinct;

4. Conceptualization – consists in building the basis for theory development. It consists in understanding the links between individual components and how they come together into a broad conceptual framework that starts to explain the phenomena under study; 5. Theory development – this final task is closely related with the previous. It brings

together all the previous tasks, in which theory development was being slowly built, arising at an inductive theory to explain the issues present in the data collected and how they come together.

Data analysis followed the coding process described by Corbin & Strauss (1990). The following steps can be found in the appendix of this thesis: open coding (appendix 3.), axial coding (appendix 4.) and selective coding (appendix 5.).

(24)

(25)

25

4. CASE DESCRIPTIONS

A summary of the findings by case can be found in appendix 4.

5. FINDINGS

5.1 Case comparison

In this sub-section it will be provided a report and comparison of the 7 case studies. Its structure corresponds to the sub-questions formulated in section 2.4.

5.1.1 Which values are created in the beginning?

Before discussing the values created, the interviewees were asked which was the aim of the cooperative/ company in the beginning. In general, the answers indicate that it was a step to take advantage of what people involved could do together and the fact that they could achieve much more as a group than as individuals. Although the ecological value was not mentioned in some cases and it was even discarded as a priority in others (e.g. see Grunneger Power), it is still present as a goal of the cooperatives. For the four cooperatives interviewed in the Netherlands, the ultimate goal is to make their cities/ villages energy neutral by continuously reducing and ultimately stop using gas and energy produced using fossil fuels. Across the 7 case studies, the technology used is green and saving energy is also part of those initiatives’ aims. So, to a certain extent, we can say that they intrinsically aim to create ecological value.

(26)

26 Attaining social value is stated as the core goal of the cooperatives interviewed. In essence, they aspire at fulfilling social needs and, as a group, gathering knowledge and information to solve social issues. In this regard, one of the forms mentioned to realise social value was the ability to share skills, knowledge and even money among the members enabling larger and well-informed investments that would be much harder if they were operating on their own. This knowledge is also shared within a broader network. For example, this initiatives provide information to the public in general and they believe that they will only be able to inspire and have more people involved if they can teach and diffuse information. In the Oostwold case, since the Zonnewal (Solar wall) was a project born in the mind of a University Professor, it has been used for teaching purposes at the University. Once it takes form, it is expected to be used in more intensive teaching initiatives. Alleviating energy poorness or making the energy bill lighter to poor people was also mentioned as part of activities conducted by some of the cooperatives interviewed. Additionally, in one of the cases (Grunneger Power) the cooperative was also described as a business network that creates labour and innovation for the society. Finally, if we consider efficiency in energy consumption that is achieved through house improvements in terms of isolation, informed citizens with improved behaviours when using energy, as well as efficient investments in the right capacity that is needed, not more, then we can discuss not only the efficient use of energetic resources but also monetary resources.

The third and final type of value created is economic. All five cooperatives stated that economic value was not a priority in itself. It is perceived as important alongside social or social and ecological value. For them, profit is clearly not a goal but money is important to pay for the loans and develop more projects. As the members in cooperative’s Boards are volunteers and, for now, they don’t have many employees, they made it clear that money is not for the people working in the cooperative, it is to invest in new projects in the local community. Asset ownership and building more assets is a goal, but conversely to what was traditionally advocated by capitalism, for cooperatives such ownership is collective since all members are equally owners of such assets. We are making this analysis from the perspective of the cooperative/ company, but if for a moment we look from the perspective of other actors, for example, the clients, we can say that they will capture economic value as well, e.g. through energy savings.

(27)

27 of contract, the solar panels will be owned by that organization. When asked about the conflicts or trade-offs between the three categories of values, the interviewees unanimously stated that they don’t feel them and it is possible to combine them consistently. From the comparison with the experience with his own company, Kees Hummelen (Oostwold) said that it is possible to create simultaneously different kinds of value, but the priorities are different. The company is a conventional business in which the goal is making money and it doesn’t have the same focus on social aspects and on bringing quality of life. Similarly, Richard Ton (NoordseVeld) said that in the field the cooperative operates, the main obstacles are bureaucratic, not intrinsic differences between the three aims which combine well. In the same way, Ana Rita Antunes (Coopérnico) gave two examples of situations – reducing the interest rate paid to investors and setting an hierarchy to sources of money (see appendix 4 for more detail) – when those conflicts could have been evident, but the goals of the cooperative noticeably stood out. In other words, it is possible to find a balance without completely compromising one of value for the benefit of another.

The Portuguese company Boa Energia started with a concept that aimed to combine the financial, environmental and social rational. The company believes that in this sector it is possible to join efforts and create value to all parties involved. By having projects that generate (non-speculative) wealth and objective savings and the possibility to invest in photovoltaic projects – low-risk and appealing interest (around 4%). They also try to be careful and realistic in forecasting to manage customers’ expectations. The environment also wins because it is renewable energy, reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The interviewee stated that they don’t feel any trade-off between the different categories of values due to their focus in combining them from the beginning. They aim at a win-win scenario, a socially fair model in which the company wants to make a profit, but the other parties should have a return as well (investors, landlords, etc.). Circular economy is increasingly a hot topic “and we realize that it makes sense that everything should be reused to re-generate value to re-enter the market”. To achieve success, management should be aligned through a strategy that may not be the easiest to follow in the short-term, but it is the one that allows to have a medium-long-term horizon. Also, be serious, technically competent and focus on client’s best interest.

(28)

28 but also social benefit regarding zero carbon footprint and creation of employment (plant installation and maintenance). When it comes to combining different values (economic, social, ecological) the interviewee said that the extent to which they may be conflicting depends on political obstacles. Since the sector is highly regulated, that depends more on the government and EU decisions than on private initiatives. At the same time, there is a set of values that are already unquestionable. “In this perspective of more social support, respect for people, respect for workers, the environment... it is to comply with that and always above what is the minimum”. There is an effective social responsibility, as long as there is a balance that does not jeopardize the economic profitability of the company. When asked if the company is only selling renewable energy, Carlos Sampaio said that, for the last two years, it is not possible to register guarantees of origin in Portugal due to the pending transition of that competence among entities.

Finally, it is interesting to see how these cooperatives arose. For example, the first step for the creation of Energie Cooperatie Westeinde was mainly of economic interest together with environmental awareness. A group of people in the neighbourhood wanted to install solar panels in their rooftops, so they organized themselves as a group to buy them cheaper. Later on, they decided to start a cooperative with the same aim as the other cooperatives: to make their village (Westeinde) energy neutral. At the same time, if we look at the experience of the Portuguese cooperative which was born, in the first place, in the mind on the four partners who started Boa Energia, we can see that the original aim was to invest in renewable energy. Then, as crowdfunding was not possible at that time and there was the interest of other European cooperatives to invest in Portuguese projects, the legal form was a precondition to enable it. In essence, the different cooperatives stand for the same values and follow the same principles, but the factors which led to their establishment are different.

(29)

29 disruptive with the model that could be found in the market at that time. That in turn could have provided them the necessary openness to take part in an initiative such as a cooperative. It is worth noting that when it comes to selling renewable energy in Portugal, since guarantees of origin are not certified at the moment, as explained above, the source of the energy will only be certified if the customer is asks for it and is willing to pay a little more. So, in this regard, the creation of ecological value is not so clear, but it is not dependent on the business model, it applies to both Coopérnico and Elergone.

While the categories of values and its combinations are similar across cooperatives, some of the ways to deliver them can vary (see appendix 5.). The possibility or ability to capture the value created also depends on the willingness to capture it and on the involvement with the cooperative. Measuring the value captured by the different groups of actors is out of the scope of this study, but we can see that a significant part of it is not measured regarding money. Its value will always be intrinsically dependent on the value perceived and attributed by those who capture it, which makes it more complex and subjective. This suggests the importance of understanding the process of creating shared value (different ways to create/ deliver value and network involved) to advance a more complete framework to measure value and performance in future research. The members are undoubtedly benefited, but so do the other actors within the network. For those who are more involved in the initiative (e.g. Board, volunteers,…) the value they capture for themselves is not monetary. This findings are consistent with core characteristics of NBM, such as, the “creation” of “matters (material and immaterial) which are of value for those involved (e.g. care, energy, a network for vegetables, car sharing, etc.); we do this in a collective way and with the use of our time, our energy, our creativity, and where appropriate, our money.” (Jonker, 2016: 25).

5.1.2 Which actors are involved in the beginning?

(30)

30 someone with meaningful experience in citizen initiatives and who was living in the village for a longer period.

As mentioned before, the cooperatives are initiatives that seek to inspire and bring on board different actors from different spheres of society. Involvement, interaction with the community, inspiring people to understand the power of working together for the common good are words and expressions used throughout the interviews. Intrinsically, it is a shift from individualism to collective entrepreneurship. Consequently, as explained by Steven Volkers (Grunneger Power) citizens are called to play an active role, to be the new actor in the traditional game played between companies and government (from dual to tripartite game).

The cooperative is then formed by citizens for citizens (local community in the Netherlands and with a national scope in Portugal). The citizens involved in the cooperatives as members are responsible for taking important decisions including electing the Board, provide funding, volunteer work, among others. The level of involvement of the different members obviously differs across individuals.

In the Netherlands, the cooperatives can start to provide energy before they have their projects. That is possible through Noordelijk Lokaal Duurzaam (NLD) a cooperative with a licence to trade energy. This cooperative is owned by the three provincial cooperatives (Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe) which in turn are owned by the local cooperatives. This is an important vehicle to trade energy and with that earn money for new projects. At the same time, the provincial cooperatives offer a significant support especially for small cooperatives that are starting their activity. This support includes bringing and sharing knowledge and information, write business plans, give advice on insurance and laws and regulations, Statutory documents to constitute the cooperative (extremely costly if made from the scratch), contacts in the provincial government and banks, and obtaining subsidies. Being connected to other cooperatives enables mutual learning and, as it was said in the interviews, the more they speak with each other, the stronger they get. So, despite the local focus of the projects, they feel the importance of collaborating in a larger scale, by receiving and giving information and teaching each other. Additionally, making the community energy neutral is a step but it is too small to have an impact in making the world better, so only working together can lead to important results.

(31)

31 funding for the first projects. At that time (2013) there was a legal void in crowdfunding in Portugal and there were not enough members that trusted the cooperative and its projects to invest.

These actors are unquestionably crucial in the beginning of these initiatives. Then, other important actors join the network in different stages of development of the cooperative. Depending on the cases, the Universities or people working in the Universities are involved. In the Dutch cooperatives, they have been mentioned not only as sources of technical expertise, but, even more important, in providing social knowledge. Psychologists were appointed as the ones who know how to deal with the transition, how to get people moving, how to negotiate (e.g. what drives and motivates people), which makes them unexpected but crucial actors.

The involvement of the government varies across provinces and countries. Across all cases, the government (local and national) is mentioned as an important actor at least for its role to set the rules of the game and to influence the viability of the projects significantly. From the information collected in the seven interviews, despite the challenges posed by bureaucracy in all cases, the two cooperatives located in Groningen had a better experience in working with the local government. As explained by Steven Volkers (Grunneger Power) the local government has a broad city ambition regarding becoming energy neutral, while the national government has less ambitious or clear goals. So, they encourage participation and they are willing to provide funding. Even if the cooperative and the local government have different ways to achieve that, there is a common ground because they share the same public values. On the other hand, on the other cases it is recognized that the government has targets regarding energy transition, but in practice, they don’t show flexibility to adapt. Furthermore, the excessive and difficult legislation, as well as the involvement of different governmental levels sometimes conflicting between them, are serious challenges. In the Westeinde case (Friesland) it was also mentioned that the local government stimulates the improvements done for energy saving and solar panels through subsidies and the city of Leeuwarden also provides loans with low interest (e.g. Ronald has one for his house with an interest of 1.6%). At the same time, this cooperative is facing some issues due to the heavy taxes they are expected to pay the municipality and the province when they build their solar plant.

(32)

32 also exploit the trust people have in them, since there is a general distrust in government who usually works top-down. Cooperatives have an idealistic goal and want to do something together (bottom-up), hence they also work in teaching the governments who, in general, are not used to citizen initiatives and working bottom-up. Additionally, as mentioned in the NoordseVeld interview, while outside investors are setting up projects, the cooperative/ community tries to act as a coordinating or leading party to guarantee the local community will gain from the project with local investment. On the other hand, in Portugal, Coopérnico’s role with the government is mainly lobbying and having meetings with all parliamentary groups, the secretary of state, etc. It takes a lot of persistence to reach them and that is an ongoing process. The sector is designed for big players and since Coopérnico has less than 1 megawatt installed, the government tends not to listen to them. While the cooperative tries to show that its paradigm is different and for that reason there’s a need for a suitable legal framework, in general, the government is not aware of this initiatives, so they don’t pay attention to it. Being the first and only one seems to make its job even more challenging. Together with RESCoop, they have an important connection to lobby for the cooperatives.

Sooner or later, different companies join cooperatives’ networks as partners, suppliers or customers. Those can be construction companies, installers, grid management companies, among others. They are also important partners when it comes to investment. For example, for the Zonnewal project, in Oostwold, the construction company is buying the land for the cooperative. Big energy companies are at times unexpected but important partners as referred, for example in the first two interviews.

(33)

33 the intersection of A28 with A7 to have that soil, which is a win-win scenario. Otherwise, the excavation company would have to pay to get rid of the dirt. To conclude, financing is an interesting subject because, as profit maximization is not a goal for cooperatives, financing, at least through traditional banking, could be a challenge. From the cases analysed, we can see that this is not the case, especially because there are other sources of financing. In fact, Kees Hummelen mentioned that he felt that it was harder for him to find financing for his company than for the cooperative because the cooperative has the “hugging factor”. In the case of the companies, when the four partners started Boa Energia, they started with a project financed by family and friends to assess the sustainability of the idea they wanted to implement for the company.

To sum up the findings of this sub-section, it is important to frame these results within the multi-value-multi-actor matrix. There is no “one fits all” result, but the results from cooperatives present some similarities. Before the cooperatives were established and on the very early phase of development of the project, only a few people were involved. It starts with a person or with a very small group who begins to explore the idea.. Then, as the project starts to take shape with something more concrete to present, more people are willing to join. Here, personal network seems to play an extremely powerful role as it was appointed as the main tool to reach new members and to broaden the cooperative’s network by creating awareness. Those actors seem to hold the characteristics of innovators based on their abilities to cleverly challenge the status quo, to communicate it to other people and to find a structural basis for their idea/ innovation (Jonker, 2016). Furthermore, already existing associations or federations of cooperatives seem to be crucial especially in the early stages. In the Netherlands there are several cooperatives with a common ground and channels to share and look for information and knowledge and to give more strength to the movement. Conversely, in Portugal there was no such “peer-network” which was only found at the European level through RESCoop, but it still played a very important role.

(34)

34 transactional means are broader than money, including also time and knowledge, for example. This is consistent with the importance of getting the three parties involved in the “new system” claimed by Jonker (2016) and also the new transactional values that come into play suggested by the author and his group.

Simultaneously, cooperatives try to set some standards on the actors with whom they collaborate for the projects, preferably those who stand for similar environmental and societal goals (e.g. commercial banks vs. ethical banks; choice of solar panels installers). While cooperatives may provide knowledge and their volunteers’ time, they also expect the government to facilitate the process by, at least, showing some flexibility on adapting existing rules to the new reality, and companies to invest in the local community.

There seems to be an explicit recognition that the dynamic of sharing information and knowledge is key to catch attention and to get more people and more actors involved. Combining the conclusions of the previous sub-section with this sub-section regarding the process of value creation, they point out into the direction of Jonker's (2016) conclusion that it should be multiple, collective and shared. It also seems to be a dynamic process in which the concept of “shared values” means more than collective value; it is also about the new notions of what is valuable achieved by the collaboration of businesses, citizens and government (Jonker, 2016).

5.1.3 How do the values created and actors involved change over time?

(35)

35 When it comes to the changes in the actors involved, in general, we can say that this initiatives want to attract more people (members and clients) and to have more projects to be able to reach their final aim. What we observe is that with time, the network grows in number but also regarding groups of actors. As mentioned before, some actors have some connection to the initiative from the beginning, but in several cases this connection tends to intensify later on. One example is Coopérnico’s desire to have shortly an even closer relation with non-profit organizations offering special prices for this sector as an energy provider. Furthermore, the partnerships with universities is another clear example. In the cases they were mentioned (5 out of 7), they are perceived as win-win relationships. In the Portuguese initiatives, both the cooperative and the two companies, have plans to have a closer collaboration with Universities or academic organizations. Additionally, new companies also join the network due to new projects (e.g. grid connection, highways management) or new activities (e.g. commercialization of energy). Across all cases, there are also plans aiming to provide services to companies, in particular, Grunneger Power is developing tailored services for them.

Local governments have already been discussed before, but here it is worthwhile noting that Coopérnico has two projects with municipalities. The cooperative would like to have more, but this is a very closed and complex sector, fact also mentioned with some disappointment by Miguel Aroso (Boa Energia). Here, the political cycles are appointed as a barrier since they directs leaders to have anexcessive focus on the short-run. Similarly, as it has been discussed before, across all cooperatives, the involvement with parties that provide funding is dynamic over time.

Finally, three cooperatives mentioned their intention to support the development of local initiatives. That is the case of Coopérnico who believes that in Portugal local cooperatives can arise within the transitional communities. Richard Ton (NoordseVeld) said that in the future, the main goals include setting up and coordinating smaller local units that can become energy neutral and be used as a display case. They are expected to increase closeness and reduce distrust. As Steven Volkers notes, this further decentralization is not perceived as a problem as long as there is a shared vision and communication on a regular basis.

(36)

36 hand, Elergone Energia was acquired by a major Portuguese business group (Sonae) in 2015. While both companies feel that it is important to be connected with business associations, Boa Energia is not very involved yet because, as a small company with only 2 employees, they feel that they don’t have enough time to go to events and to actively be part of those associations, but they aim that in the future as the company grows. In turn, Carlos Sampaio (Elergone Energia) recognized the importance of those associations in passing their message to the government (lobbying in the positive perspective), stressing the excessive legislation in the sector. Carlos Sampaio stated that all actors are important, but the big challenge is the political issue: favourable or unfavourable political context determine what is possible to do. The sector is over-regulated, but there is no clear strategy. It would be important if this uncertainty were reduced (political cycles).

To sum up, new actors and groups of actors join the cooperative’s network with time which also may bring new ways of collaboration and of creating and delivering value. But the ultimate goals to balance the multiple values created and to do it together with the community and the other actors seem to remain stable.

5.1.4 How do the actors relate with each other?

Inside the cooperatives, the relationships between the individuals are in general described as friendly and intimate, more professional in some cases, but always more close and informal than a hierarchical professional relationship. For instance, when comparing the cooperative with his experience within his own company, Kees Hummelen said that the company is hierarchical and he is clearly the CEO. In Coopérnico, they feel the clients like the personal touch because they are tired of call centres. The cooperative “really wants the sense of belonging for those who are here”. Regarding knowledge sharing, Ana Rita Antunes says that it mainly happens when the “core group” creates that space and promotes it. It doesn’t arise by itself, only a very small group of people may proactively do it.

(37)

37 project has incorporated other sources of motivation valued by different actors (e.g. noise reduction, horse trail, etc.).

The differences between people inside the cooperative and among different groups of actors as a source of potential conflicts was also explored during the interviews. In general, inside the cooperatives diversity is perceived as a positive aspect and not as a threat, as long as there is awareness of those differences and people with the appropriate skills to manage them. In fact, in Coopérnico, Ana Rita Antunes feels there is too little conflict and debate in the meetings, people should ask and discuss more. In Boa Energia, people from different backgrounds are welcome as long as they can bring relevant knowledge and they have the capacity and willingness to learn. Sometimes, people, including the two partners don’t agree, but it is important to know how to neutralize the subject and reach an agreement. As long as everyone is aligned on the business model and on what is the core business, “when we have people who challenge us in a smart and polite way, we will win as an organization”. “Sharing knowledge and opinions is important for us to adjust and to go”. When it comes to the interaction between different actors, the main conflicts perceived were among municipalities and provinces. In Elergone, the conflict of interests between the different actors are inexistent according to the interviewee, but that is extremely dependent on technology that is pushing them towards convergence, without any conflicts (towards environmental friendly technologies that bring ecological and social value).

(38)

38 5.1.5 Country comparison

It is clear that, in Portugal, the role of cooperatives in the energy transition is very small. While the Dutch cooperatives operate and have a local focus, the Portuguese cooperative targets the entire country. This movement is almost unknown in Portugal which is strongly demonstrated in the attitude of government. In both countries the individuals interviewed regretted the governmental lack of flexibility and the need for coherence between words and action. In the Netherlands, the strong local traditions regarding community and volunteer initiatives was mentioned (Oostwold and NoordseVeld) as an important engine to start the cooperative and have more people joining it. In Portugal, those traditions are not so common but Coopérnico’s largest groups of members are in Algarve were there are communities of Dutch and Germans and who are used to the concept of cooperatives and don’t understand why their electricity contracts mention fossil fuels (guarantees of origin are not working in Portugal) and where there are more “transition communities” (people come together to know each other and solve some problems (e.g. taking care of each other’s kids)). To involve more people, the cooperative would like to rehabilitate the idea of regional centres. Closeness is important and word-of-mouth works well for all the cooperatives interviewed.

Across the 7 cases, the difficulty in engaging people was clear. However, it seems even more pronounced in the interviews to the 3 Portuguese initiatives when the “Portuguese distrust” or “suspicion” was consistently mentioned. Miguel Aroso goes even further stating that the climate of mistrust starts with politicians: “Therefore, we cannot want to be a country of affection and trust and cooperation when our politicians are the first to distrust everything and everyone, to play those games”. Adding that there should be a balance in safeguarding the interests of big companies (important regarding generating wealth, value and jobs), but also small players that want to dare and enter the market were fair competition should also be preserved. Furthermore, he also perceives an additional issue in this sector: the fact that Portugal and Spain are not connected to the rest of Europe to export energy surplus.

(39)

39 regions and networks is not compatible with the type of organization like cooperatives. For that, someone needs to have that initiative and having a leader in parallel with local government may collide with local government’ egos. The interviewee added that there are still some initiatives, like Coopérnico, and that has an incredible value because they can do some things in spite of everything running against it.

Another aspect that seems different when comparing the two countries is the age of the people who are involved or show more willingness to be involved in these initiatives. Richard Ton (Noordseveld) mentioned that there is a generation gap in which most of the cooperative’s members are pensioners and that the group of people between 25 and 40 years old are too busy to care and are very difficult to get moving. On the other hand, in Portugal, Miguel Aroso (Boa Energia) said that, from his experience, younger generations are more informed and more opened to renewable energy. Even though this is an interesting aspect, we cannot generalize these perceptions to the two countries since they may vary, for example, between different cities (e.g. Grunneger Power).

Finally, all cooperatives mentioned the importance of companies in the energy transition. They argue that cooperatives are important at the local level and in small scale projects, but there are projects of such dimension that only mega industries have the capacity and funds to do it. So, they are not mutually exclusive. In that sense, citizens should facilitate as already discussed. And, in that respect, being close and giving the right information starts to create awareness and people start to get interested and involved.

To conclude, when we compare the two countries, we can see that in Portugal, the citizen movement is still a very recent idea, unknown for most of the country’s population, including politicians. Overall, the country is doing a good job regarding renewable energy but it is mainly through big companies and with the government playing a significant role in setting the direction of private initiative, without, however, giving clear and consistent signs of its goals. On the other hand, in the Netherlands, citizen initiatives are already a very common and solid practice. A sign of that is also the fact that, on average, older generations are pretty active in this area while in Portugal, the few existing initiatives are in the hands of younger generations (as mentioned in the interviews).

Unravelling multi-value creation: the case of solar energy initiatives