IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/wupstu/282983.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Case study on the German discourse of industry decarbonisation: A discourse network analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hullmann, Charlotte Marie

Abstract

The adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the passing of the Climate Action Law in Germany in 2019 established the legal need for the basic material industry in Germany to decarbonise. For the industry sector, the target is sets at a 49-51% GHG reduction by 2030 compared to 1990. Even though the sector specific targets are likely to become obsolete, a Hydrogen Strategy, Industry Strategy and Climate Protection Contracts are currently being developed or elaborated on. These are to further ensure and enable the basic material industry in Germany to decarbonise. These developments are emphasising the relevance of studying the industry decarbonisation at the time of conducting this research. As the institutionalisation of the industry decarbonisation is influenced by discourse, the analysis of the discourse is an important tool for studying the power effects produced by and built into the discourse. This is the first research aiming to provide a structured analysis of the discourse on industry decarbonisation in Germany. Drawing on discourse analysis and the Multilevel-Perspectives framework, this research investigated the power and dominance of storylines to influence the discourse of the industry transformation towards decarbonisation. In this research insights were obtained into the storylines used in this discourse, the actors who are part of this discourse, the frequency of storylines used and the percentage of actors making use of these storylines. Additionally, insights were generated into the discursive network and potential coalitions. This research made use of the Discourse Network Analysis software in combination with Visone and Excel for data collection, analysis, and visualisation. Based on 117 documents of various categories from the years 2012 to 2023, the discourse on German industry decarbonisation is discovered to be dominated by storylines of mainly technological or economic nature. The general sentiment discovered by the different actors is positive with the storylines focusing on establishing the conditions for the industry to decarbonise and no resistance being communicated. The discourse is furthermore dominated by most storylines. 18 out of 27 storylines are being used by more than 56% of all actors. The high overlap in storyline indicates discursive homogeneity. The homogeneity is further indicated through the lack of emerging discourse coalitions and the therewith connected lack of struggles for discursive dominance. One coalition can be defined with some actors being deeper involved and some being less involved in the discourse. As decisions on the transition path for Germany's industry to decarbonise are still to be taken the lack of discursive struggles has come to my surprise. In the discussion I reflect on how the positive sentiment, the discursive homogeneity and the great number of dominant storylines may come about.

Suggested Citation

  • Hullmann, Charlotte Marie, 2023. "Case study on the German discourse of industry decarbonisation: A discourse network analysis," Wuppertaler Studienarbeiten zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, volume 31, number 282983.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wupstu:282983
    DOI: 10.48506/opus-8476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/282983/1/187723155X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.48506/opus-8476?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    2. Markard, Jochen & Wirth, Steffen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 330-344.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    2. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    4. Razieh Nejabat & Marina Van Geenhuizen, 2019. "Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking in Sustainable Energy: University Spin-Off Firms and Market Introduction in Northwest Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Rohe, Sebastian & Chlebna, Camilla, 2021. "A spatial perspective on the legitimacy of a technological innovation system: Regional differences in onshore wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Danny Mackinnon & Stuart Dawley & Andy Pike & Andrew Cumbers, 2018. "Rethinking Path Creation: A Geographical Political Economy Approach," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1825, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2018.
    7. Magnusson, Thomas & Berggren, Christian, 2018. "Competing innovation systems and the need for redeployment in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 217-230.
    8. Haley, Brendan, 2018. "Integrating structural tensions into technological innovation systems analysis: Application to the case of transmission interconnections and renewable electricity in Nova Scotia, Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1147-1160.
    9. Sinsel, Simon R. & Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2020. "How deployment policies affect innovation in complementary technologies—evidence from the German energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    10. Marina Van Geenhuizen & Razieh Nejabat, 2021. "Municipalities’ Policy on Innovation and Market Introduction in Sustainable Energy: A Focus on Local Young Technology Firms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    12. Dandan Liu & Anmin Huang & Dewei Yang & Jianyi Lin & Jiahui Liu, 2021. "Niche-Driven Socio-Environmental Linkages and Regional Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    13. Ruhrort, Lisa, 2020. "Reassessing the Role of Shared Mobility Services in a Transport Transition: Can They Contribute the Rise of an Alternative Socio-Technical Regime of Mobility?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(19), pages 1-1.
    14. Eleftheria Vasileiadou & Boukje Huijben & Rob Raven, 2014. "Crowdfunding niches? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for financing renewable energy niches in the Netherlands," Working Papers 14-11, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Nov 2014.
    15. Marianne Ryghaug & Michael Ornetzeder & Tomas Moe Skjølsvold & William Throndsen, 2019. "The Role of Experiments and Demonstration Projects in Efforts of Upscaling: An Analysis of Two Projects Attempting to Reconfigure Production and Consumption in Energy and Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-15, October.
    16. Marlous Blankesteijn & Bart Bossink, 2020. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Technological Innovation in the Public Sphere: Recovering Raw Materials from Waste Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    17. Fiona Kun Yao & Kaifeng Jiang & Danielle R. Combs & Song Chang, 2022. "Informal institutions and absorptive capacity: A cross-country meta-analytic study," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 1091-1109, August.
    18. Markard, Jochen & Erlinghagen, Sabine, 2017. "Technology users and standardization: Game changing strategies in the field of smart meter technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-235.
    19. Geels, Frank W. & Kern, Florian & Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Mylan, Josephine & Neukirch, Mario & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 896-913.
    20. David Gibbs & Kirstie O'Neill, 2014. "Rethinking Sociotechnical Transitions and Green Entrepreneurship: The Potential for Transformative Change in the Green Building Sector," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(5), pages 1088-1107, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wupstu:282983. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wikuede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.