Energy Discourses in Europe
Legitimation of EU Energy Efficiency Policy
Niina Erkama and Sampo Tukiainen
Aalto University, School of Business, Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: Energy, Discourse, Legitimation, EU.
Abstract: The production and use of energy is an important factor in European politics and science. However, we
know little about the discussions that influence how scarce financial resources of governments and
organizations are directed to different projects and action related to energy strategy of EU. Therefore, this
paper studies the discourses that underlie the ‘energy talk’ of EU decision makers. This is important
because discourses are resources that are employed to legitimate governmental and organizational aims and
decision, such as new energy saving projects and policies. This paper is based on discourse theory that
acknowledges that discourses change understanding of social situations, which also makes discursive
activity a form of political activity (Hardy & Phillips 1999). However, there are multiple and contradictory
meanings and realities existing in an organization, or in any discursive space (Hardy 2001) and discursive
actors are commonly embedded in multiple discourses (Hardy & Phillips 2004). The study will be based on
interviews with EU Members of the Parliament. The results are likely to reveal local and EU-level
discourses that influence establishing of new energy policies and projects on EU-level and this way affect
organizations and business in Europe.
1 INTRODUCTION
Production and use of energy on the level of EU is a
business area that has a significant effect on the
economy and wellbeing of all European citizen in
their daily life. Energy related decisions on EU level
require negotiations in which MEPs play a central
role in a way how they create and join certain energy
related discourses and how energy related issues are
framed and defined as important or less central in
the negotiations. These discourses are resources for
the legitimation for energy policies and also for EU
as an institution. Legitimation is needed for
sustaining the support of the constituents, such as
business organizations and citizens. Despite the
importance of this phenomenon we lack knowledge
on the discourses that are central in the ‘energy talk’
of EU decision makers. Therefore this paper studies
the discourses related to energy policy making in EU
with the help of critical discourse analysis and
interviews of MEPs as empirical material.
2 DISCOURSES ON ENERGY
Discourses have been studied in many different
fields and disciplines in social sciences.
Consequently, there hardly exists an unambiguous
definition of ‘discourse’. However, in Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA), that is the
methodological approach we take in this paper, it
has become customary to define discourses as
interrelated collections of texts that construct social
reality and produce a particular way and version of
representing ‘the world’ (Fairclough, 1993, 2005).
From the CDA perspective, discourses are also
understood as social practices. That is, they are not
merely ‘empty rhetoric’ disconnected from other
social action, but instead inherent parts of different
social and material practices that (re)construct our
social structures and relationships (Fairclough,
2005). Texts are integral to the creation of meaning,
but they do not function individually or
independently; instead, meaning is created from
collections of texts— or discourses—that evolve
from the ongoing production, distribution, and
consumption of individual texts. (Maguire and
Hardy, 2009). Discourses provide a language for
talking about a topic and also knowledge about a
topic (du Gay, 1996: 43). They are socially
constructed, not just descriptive. From discourse
perspective there is no single “truth”. “Truth claims”
350
Erkama N. and Tukiainen S..
Energy Discourses in Europe - Legitimation of EU Energy Efficiency Policy.
DOI: 10.5220/0004981603500354
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart Grids and Green IT Systems (IEEHSC-2014), pages 350-354
ISBN: 978-989-758-025-3
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
on the other hand are embedded with certain
worldviews, judgments and preferences (e.g.
Carvalho 2007) that are expressed through
discourses. Discourses shape the way in which we
can speak and act on a domain (Reed, 1998) and
therefore they contribute to institutionalization.
Power is a central in discourses. Power in discourses
is related to ‘subject positions’ and ‘bodies of
knowledge’. Subject position can be based on
bureaucratic or socially constructed contemporary
position. High subject position gives possibility to
legitimately, meaningfully and powerfully to speak
for something. Where as the bodies of knowledge
relate to the power of discourses to normalize certain
ways of thinking and acting. Individuals that
produce, distribute and consume texts can this way
change institutions. (Maguire and Hardy, 2009)
Discourses related to energy policies and
environmental issues have lately raised the interest
of many scholars. After the ‘linguistic turn’ in the
social sciences the constitutive role of language
became focal which made researchers to pay
attention to the discursive processes involved in the
management of science and policy (e.g. Hajer,
1995). In studies conducted in Great Britain and
South Africa the discourses of energy security and
climate change were found central in energy policy
discussions (Rogers-Hayden et al., 2011; Rafey and
Sovacool, 2011). The construction of the discourses
however varied by different groups, leading to for
example to ‘naturalization’ of new clear new build
or focus on lack of energy diversity (Rogers-Hayden
et al., 2011). In this kind of situations competing
movements engage in discursive debates—or
framing battles—over the interpretation of the
problem and the necessity and nature of solutions
(Hoffman, 2011). This is related to the construction
of ‘interpretive packages’ or frames (Gamson and
Modigliani, 1989) that are interpretations of ‘truth’
in which the issues are not just defined but also put
together with broader values. For example in the
case of climate change as the phenomenon is so
complex that there is no ‘one professional logic’ the
credibility the person interpreting the discourse
becomes central. (Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012).
Usually negotiating such complex issues causes ‘us’
versus ‘them’ struggles, or in-group and out-group
distinctions (Gamson, 1992) between different
groups in the negotiations. Groups that have
different reasons for supporting certain discourse
can also implicitly form ‘discourse coalition’, that is,
link up with people that have same goals although
different understanding of the issue (Lefsrud and
Meyer, 2012; Gray and Stites, 2011)
An important perspective is also how common
definitions such as climate change are discursively
framed in the policy negotiations. As a cultural
issue, climate change engages embedded values
around issue categories related to religion,
economics, risk, freedom, national security, and
others (Hulme, 2009). Boykoff (2008) noted that
British newspaper articles on climate change were
predominantly framed through weather events,
charismatic megafauna and the movements of
political actors and rhetoric, while only few stories
focused on climate justice and risk. The news were
usually also brought up with tones of fear, misery
and doom. In policy making public discourses and
media play a significant role in producing,
maintaining and creating discourses. “Depictions of
the world in the media result from a series of choices
such as whether an issue will make the news, the
highlight it will be given, and who is going to speak
for it. Operations of codification of the issue into
media discourse are directed by the perceived
interest and social impact of a topic, as well as other
“news values,” economic considerations and
editorial lines. “ (Carvalho 2007) Interestingly for
example in the case of climate change the scientific
knowledge behind the phenomenon was presented as
uncertain in US, certain in Germany where is in
Britain the readings of uncertainty varied between
newspapers. (ibid)
One of the few studies on this area is a study by
Kratochvil, P. and Tichy, L (2013) about the
discussions around EU-Russian energy relations and
noticed that these discussions were dominated by the
discourses of integration, liberalization and
diversification.
3 LEGITIMATION
Legitimation is closely related to policy-making as
policy-makers must turn to scientists and experts to
justify their lines of action (Lefsrud and& Meyer,
2012). For policy-makers in various organizations
and different organizational actors, legitimation and
gaining legitimacy is crucial (Deephouse and
Suchman, 2008; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). More
specifically, legitimation is a fundamental process in
organizational ‘birth’ and ‘existence’ (Deephouse
and Suchman, 2008). In addition, organizations and
organizational actors engage in legitimation for
responding to social, institutional practices and for
constructing themselves as conformant ‘citizens’ in
the generally accepted cultural worlds (Meyer and
EnergyDiscoursesinEurope-LegitimationofEUEnergyEfficiencyPolicy
351
Rowan, 1977). As a concept, legitimacy can then be
defined as “a generalized perception or assumption
that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or
appropriate within some socially constructed system
of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”
(Suchman, 1995: 574).
Building on these premises, it can be said that
legitimation is very much an interactive process.
That is, by utilizing various substantive and symbolic
practices, organizations and organizational actors
constantly legitimize themselves in relation to other
actors, organizations, and institutional, cultural
environments (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). In addition,
there are multiple factors that affect the ways in
which the external constituents ‘judge’, and for their
part, ‘construct’ the legitimacy of an organization
(Kostova and Zaheer, 1999). Moreover, the
legitimacy of a particular organization can be
increased or decreased by the legitimating activities
of other players in the field (ibid.).
However, for the purpose here, it is crucial to
understand that as legitimacy is socially constructed,
discourses are fundamental for legitimation (e.g.
Kostova and Zaheer 1999; Berger and Luckmann
1966). This has then lead researchers to examine
more closely the discursive practices and processes
constituting legitimation. For example, in the context
of international mergers and acquisitions, Vaara et
al., (2006) have examined different kinds of
discursive strategies used in legitimating such
activities. As another example, Suddaby and
Greenwood (2005) in their seminal study focused on
the rhetorical strategies that contribute to
legitimation. On the other hand discourses can also
work for abandoning previous legitimized and
institutionalized practiced through
deinstitutionalization. Deinstitutionalization can be
started by an internal or external actor in the
organization. Changing a discourse at the macro
level will cause reconfiguring of power/knowledge
relations in the organization and its context.
(Maguire and Hardy, 2009)
Yet, despite these advances in increasing our
understanding of the discursive practices involved in
legitimation, it is clear that we still lack
understanding of the specific discursive struggles
involved in the process of legitimation (cf. Mumby
2004; Zelditch, 2006). In this paper we study
legitimation of EU energy strategy from discourse
perspective.
4 CRITICAL DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
In this study our methodological analysis is based on
Critical discourse analysis. In spite of the existence
of a variety of approaches to Critical discourse
analysis (CDA) (see e.g. Fairclough and Wodak,
1997), focal in these approaches is that CDA
appreciates the centrality of language (Alvesson and
Willmot 1992, 2003) and focuses on the relationship
between discourses, power, and domination,
(Alvesson and Deetz 2000; Fairclough 2005). It is
called ‘critical’ because it does not only concentrate
on lingual perspective but it also questions taken-for-
granted assumptions and perspectives of our social
order, institutions etc. (Alvesson and Willmott,
1992). More specifically, the purpose of CDA is to
examine and unravel the ways in which discourses
shape and are shaped by (unequal) power
relationships; how these are socially constructed,
maintained and changed (Fairclough and Wodak,
1997). In addition, CDA can be seen both as a theory
and a methodology (Wood and Kroger, 2000).
Also, central to CDA is the aforementioned
understanding of the relationship between discourses
and their cultural, economic, historical and political
surroundings. Consequently, in CDA discourses and
discursive practices are tightly coupled with their
social contexts (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000).
Building on these premises, CDA can be said to
focus on examining the (power) effects of discourse
in their wider socio-cultural contexts (e.g.
Fairclough, 1995, Grant et al., 2001). In this way,
CDA builds on social constructivism (Berger and
Luckmann 1966; Grant et al., 2001) as discourses
are seen not only to ‘mirror’ some existing ‘reality
out there’ (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Hardy,
2001), but instead construct a particular version of
‘reality’ in general, and particularly, a ‘reality’ in
terms of power relationships between actors.
Therefore, from this perspective, discourses are not
simply language or a medium for transmitting
knowledge between social actors (Wood and Kroger
2000). Instead, in conjunction with other social and
material practices, they are fundamental in
constructing the structures and relationships between
organizations and organizational actors (Fairclough,
2005). Hence, in CDA the focus of research is in
how discourses relate to the other social and material
practices within a particular social context, and how
these together uphold or change existing power
relations within that context (ibid.)
SMARTGREENS2014-3rdInternationalConferenceonSmartGridsandGreenITSystems
352
Following from this, inherent is that in CDA the
purpose is to make explicit that different ‘truths’
about a particular social structure can exist in
different discourses. Often in social contexts, over
time one ‘truth’ – i.e. one discourse – has become
dominant over others (Fairclough, 2005).
Consequently, this benefits certain groups and their
interests over others (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). It
is also common that this dominance has become
taken for granted and ‘invisible’ for the central
actors in the social context. From this perspective,
CDA attempts to unravel these taken for granted
discursive structures, and bring forth the other
discourses and ‘truths’ alongside the dominant ones
and this was reduce out pre-structured limitations of
thinking (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). Moreover, it
can be said that the purpose in CDA is to highlight
that societal and organizational actors have a high
degree of latitude in selecting the ways in which
‘truth’ is represented, and also that different
discourses can be utilized to challenge the dominant
ones for changing existing discursive, social and
material structures (Fairclough, 2005; Heracleous,
2004).
Following from this, for example, Mumby
(2004) has pointed out that from the CDA
perspective, organizations and organizational actors
are often engaged in dialectical, discursive struggles
of power and resistance. That is, as multiple, often
contradictory, discourses exist in a particular social
context, organizations can be seen as political sites
where different groups utilize different discourses
for promoting one’s own position over others (Hardy
2001; Mumby, 2004; Phillips and Hardy, 2002).
Hence, organizations become discursive sites of
power and resistance struggles, where groups
discursively attempt to gain privilege for the version
of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ that benefits them selves (e.g.
Hardy, 2001; Zoller and Fairhurst, 2007; Mumby,
2004; Hardy and Phillips, 2004).
Thus, in this study CDA offers a perspective that,
firstly, enables us to look at the complementary but
also contradictory discourses that struggle and
produce the political reality that forms the basis of
European energy strategy; and secondly, enables us
to see the power relationships that are influential in
this political and societal context.
5 EMPIRICAL MATERIAL
The empirical material for the critical discourse
analysis is going to be collected by interviewing EU
Members of the Parliament. The Interviews will be
both face to face interviews that will be transcribed
verbatim but also e-mail interviews, all together 30
interviews. Publicly available written documents of
ITRE (Committee on Industry, Research and
Energy) of European Parliament will also be used as
a background information.
6 POTENTIAL FINDINGS
The results are likely to reveal local and EU-level
discourses that influence establishing of new energy
policies and projects on EU-level and this way affect
organizations and business in Europe.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. 2000. Doing critical
management research. Sage: London.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. 2003. Studying
management critically. Sage: London.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. 1992. Critical theory and
management studies: An introduction. In Critical
Management Studies, M. Alvesson and H. Willmott
(Eds.). Sage: London, 1-21.
Ashforth, B. E. and Gibbs, B. W. 1990. The Double-edge
of organizational legitimation. Organization Science,
1/ 2, 177-194.
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social
construction of reality. Treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. Anchor Books: Garden City, NY.
Boykoff, M. T. (2008). The cultural politics of climate
science discourse in UK tabloids. Political
Geography, 27, 549–569.
Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media
discourse on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news
on climate change. Public Understanding of Science,
16, 223–243.
Deephouse, D. L. and Suchman, M. 2008. Legitimacy in
organizational institutionalism. In The SAGE
handbook of organizational institutionalism, R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, and K. Sahlin
(Eds.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, 49-77.
Du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work.
London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Polity
Press: Cambridge.
Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Grant D., Hardy, C., Oswick C. and Putnam, L. L. 2004.
Introduction: Organizational discourse: Exploring the
field. In The SAGE handbook of organizational
discourse, D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick and L.
Putnam (Eds.). Sage: London, 1-36.
EnergyDiscoursesinEurope-LegitimationofEUEnergyEfficiencyPolicy
353
Gray, B. and Stites, J. P. 2011. In search of integrative
logics: Reframing the climate change debate. Strategic
Organization, 9/1, 85-90.
Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental
Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy
Process.
Hardy, C. (2001). Researching organizational discourse.
International Studies of Management and
Organization, 31/3, 25-47.
Hardy, C. and Phillips, N. 2004. Discourse and power. In
The SAGE handbook of organizational discourse, D.
Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick and L. Putnam (Eds.).
Sage: London, 237-258.
Hardy, C. and Phillips, N. 1999. No joking matter:
Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system.
Organization Studies, 20/1, 1-24.
Heracleous, L. 2004. Interpretivist approaches to
organizational discourse. In The SAGE Handbook of
Organizational Discourse. D. Grant, C. Hardy, C.
Oswick and L. Putnam (Eds.). Sage: London, 175-192.
Hoffman, A. J. (2011). Talking past each other? Cultural
framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the
climate change debate. Organization & Environment,
24(3), 3–33.
Kostova, T. and Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational
legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case
of the multinational enterprise. Academy of
Management Review, 24/1, 64-81.
Kratochvil, P & Tichy, L. (2013). EU and Russian
discourse on energy relations. Energy Policy, 56, 391-
406.
Lefsrud, L. M. and Meyer, R. E. (2012). Science or
Science fiction? Professionals’ discursive construction
of climate change. Organization Studies, 33/11, 1477-
1506.
Maguire S. and Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and
deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy
of Management Journal, 1, 148–178.
Mumby, D. K. 2005. Theorizing resistance in organization
studies: A Dialectical approach. Management
Communication Quarterly, 19/1, 19-44.
Mumby, D. K. 2004. Discourse, power and ideology:
Unpacking the critical approach. In The SAGE
handbook of organizational discourse, D. Grant, C.
Hardy, C. Oswick and L. Putnam (Eds.), Sage:
London, 237-258.
Phillips, N. and Hardy, C. 2002. Discourse analysis:
Investigating processes of social
construction. Sage: London.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse and social
psychology. Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage:
London.
Rafey, W, and Sovacool, B. K. (2011). Competing
discourses of energy development: The implications of
the Medupi coal-fired power plant in South Africa.
Global Environmental Change, 21, 1141-1151.
Reed, M. (1998). Organizational analysis as discourse
anal- ysis: A critique. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.),
Discourse and organization: 193–213. London: Sage.
Rogers-Hayden T., Hatton F., and Lorenzoni, I. (2011).
‘Energy security’ and ‘climate change’: Constructing
UK energy discursive realities. Global Environmental
Change, 21, 134-142.
Suchman, M C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and
institutional approaches. Academy of Management
Review, 20/3, 571-610.
Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical
strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 50, 35-67.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J. and Laurila, J. 2006. Pulp and paper
fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global
industrial restructuring. Organization Studies, 27/6,
789–810.
Van Leeuwen, T. and Wodak, R. 1999. Legitimizing
immigration control: a discourse-historical analysis.
Discourse Studies, 1/1, 83-118.
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society. G. Roth and C.
Wittich (Eds.). University of California Press:
Berkeley.
Wood, L. A. and Kroger, R. O. 2000. Doing discourse
analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text.
Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Zelditch, M. Jr. 2006. Legitimacy theory. In
Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, P.J
Burke (Ed.), Stanford University Press: Stanford, 324-
352.
Zoller, H. M and Fairhurst, G. T. 2007. Resistance
leadership: The overlooked potential in critical
organizational and leadership studies. Human
Relations, 60/9, 1331-1
SMARTGREENS2014-3rdInternationalConferenceonSmartGridsandGreenITSystems
354
