IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v215y2025ics1364032125002473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder engagement for co-designing European climate and energy research priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Fejzic, Emir
  • Usher, Will

Abstract

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) constitutes a global commitment that necessitates the development of innovative strategies to integrate research, policy, and practice effectively. In the European Union (EU), multi-stakeholder engagement has become a vital strategy for tackling complex climate and energy research challenges. This approach is crucial to establishing research priorities that effectively address SDGs 7 and 13. Despite its recognized importance, the existing literature offers no comprehensive overview and guidance on effective multi-stakeholder engagement in EU-funded climate and energy research. This study shows that a scoping review, combined with stakeholder co-design workshops, can reveal key gaps and inform guidelines for robust multi-stakeholder engagement. A systematic review of 23 published articles using criteria drawn from the broader stakeholder engagement literature found that engagement terminology is rarely defined and often used interchangeably, indicating a gap between the literature and its real-world application. This study also provides guidelines for conducting effective stakeholder engagement, drawing upon the broader stakeholder engagement literature, the outcomes of the scoping review, and lessons learned during the European Climate and Energy Modelling forum project. Three co-design workshops engaging 85 stakeholders conducted in 2021 and 2022 uncovered 83 research priorities centred on policy, regulation, and using energy and climate models to inform policymaking. These research priorities are provided as an open data set. The findings of the study underscore the need for standardized engagement practices to enhance the impact of EU-funded climate and energy research and guide future policy and research initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Fejzic, Emir & Usher, Will, 2025. "Stakeholder engagement for co-designing European climate and energy research priorities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:215:y:2025:i:c:s1364032125002473
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.115574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125002473
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2025.115574?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toman Michael, 2014. "The need for multiple types of information to inform climate change assessment," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 469-485, December.
    2. Behnam Zakeri & Katsia Paulavets & Leonardo Barreto-Gomez & Luis Gomez Echeverri & Shonali Pachauri & Benigna Boza-Kiss & Caroline Zimm & Joeri Rogelj & Felix Creutzig & Diana Ürge-Vorsatz & David G. , 2022. "Pandemic, War, and Global Energy Transitions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Ilse M. Voskamp & Claudia de Luca & Monserrat Budding Polo-Ballinas & Helena Hulsman & Reinder Brolsma, 2021. "Nature-Based Solutions Tools for Planning Urban Climate Adaptation: State of the Art," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Annette Boaz & Robert Borst & Maarten Kok & Alison O’Shea, 2021. "How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective study across five European countries [Systems Thin," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 361-369.
    5. Rodrigues, Renato & Pietzcker, Robert & Fragkos, Panagiotis & Price, James & McDowall, Will & Siskos, Pelopidas & Fotiou, Theofano & Luderer, Gunnar & Capros, Pantelis, 2022. "Narrative-driven alternative roads to achieve mid-century CO2 net neutrality in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    6. Fahlstedt, Oskar & Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard & Temeljotov-Salaj, Alenka & Huang, Lizhen & Bohne, Rolf André, 2024. "Building renovations and life cycle assessment - A scoping literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    7. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    8. Sandra S. Batie, 2008. "Wicked Problems and Applied Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1176-1191.
    9. Jessica Balest & Simon Pezzutto & Grazia Giacovelli & Eric Wilczynski, 2022. "Engaging Stakeholders for Designing a FAIR Energy Data Management Tool: The Horizon 2020 EnerMaps Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Frank Hüesker & Gerd Lupp & Chloe Begg & Josh Huang & Amy Oen & Zoran Vojinovic & Christian Kuhlicke & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Stakeholder Mapping to Co-Create Nature-Based Solutions: Who Is on Board?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-23, October.
    11. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    12. Henrik Carlsen & Richard J. T. Klein & Per Wikman-Svahn, 2017. "Transparent scenario development," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(9), pages 613-613, September.
    13. Marc Gramberger & Katharina Zellmer & Kasper Kok & Marc Metzger, 2015. "Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): a new approach tested in climate change adaptation research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 201-214, February.
    14. Brown, Donal & Hall, Stephen & Martiskainen, Mari & Davis, Mark E., 2022. "Conceptualising domestic energy service business models: A typology and policy recommendations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    15. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    16. Mariana Mazzucato & Rainer Kattel & Josh Ryan-Collins, 2020. "Challenge-Driven Innovation Policy: Towards a New Policy Toolkit," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 421-437, June.
    17. Zaheer Allam & Simon Elias Bibri & Samantha A. Sharpe, 2022. "The Rising Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine War: Energy Transition, Climate Justice, Global Inequality, and Supply Chain Disruption," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, October.
    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. Emir Fejzic & Will Usher, 2024. "Stakeholder-driven research in the European Climate and Energy Modelling Forum," Papers 2406.01640, arXiv.org.
    2. Nathalie Nunes & Emma Björner & Knud Erik Hilding-Hamann, 2021. "Guidelines for Citizen Engagement and the Co-Creation of Nature-Based Solutions: Living Knowledge in the URBiNAT Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-37, December.
    3. De Nicolò, Michele & Fraccascia, Luca & Pontrandolfo, Pierpaolo, 2024. "How the energy procurement switching strategies (driven by the Russia-Ukraine conflict) impact the global sustainability? The global sustainability dashboard," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    4. Migo-Sumagang, Maria Victoria & Tan, Raymond R. & Aviso, Kathleen B., 2023. "A multi-period model for optimizing negative emission technology portfolios with economic and carbon value discount rates," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    5. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    6. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Geurts, Amber & Geerdink, Tara & Sprenkeling, Marit, 2022. "Accelerated innovation in crises: The role of collaboration in the development of alternative ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    8. Wynen, Jan & Boon, Jan & Kleizen, Bjorn & Verhoest, Koen, 2020. "How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior : Evidence from the Australian Public Service," Other publications TiSEM 4f721d76-0c44-4d72-a494-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Gitelman, Lazar & Kozhevnikov, Mikhail & Ditenberg, Maksim, 2024. "Electrification as a factor in replacing hydrocarbon fuel," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    10. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Valérie Eijrond & Liesbeth Claassen & Joke van der Giessen & Danielle Timmermans, 2019. "Intensive Livestock Farming and Residential Health: Experts’ Views," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Paul A. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2020. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Working Papers 20-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    14. Thomas Pregger & Tobias Naegler & Wolfgang Weimer-Jehle & Sigrid Prehofer & Wolfgang Hauser, 2020. "Moving towards socio-technical scenarios of the German energy transition—lessons learned from integrated energy scenario building," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 1743-1762, October.
    15. Odeh Al-Jayyousi & Hira Amin & Hiba Ali Al-Saudi & Amjaad Aljassas & Evren Tok, 2023. "Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-21, August.
    16. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    17. Richard Taylor & Ruth Butterfield & Tiago Capela Lourenço & Adis Dzebo & Henrik Carlsen & Richard J. T. Klein, 2020. "Surveying perceptions and practices of high-end climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 65-87, July.
    18. Nicos A. Scordis & Yoshihiko Suzawa & Astrid Zwick & Lucia Ruckner, 2014. "Principles for Sustainable Insurance: Risk Management and Value," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 17(2), pages 265-276, September.
    19. Rund Awwad & Scott Dwyer & Andrea Trianni, 2025. "Unpacking Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Emerging Economies: Policy Insights and a Business Model Perspective from Jordan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-26, June.
    20. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:rensus:v:215:y:2025:i:c:s1364032125002473. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.