Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Steven Yearley
(University of Edinburgh)
Anita Engels (University of Hamburg)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
In transitioning to low-carbon energy systems, heavier industries are among the most difficult sectors to decarbonise. This panel examines how novel strategies in these sectors can involve sharing resources between industries and adjacent or related communities, and new forms of employee-engagement.
Long Abstract:
In the drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to lower carbon energy systems it is acknowledged that heavier industries are among the most difficult sectors to decarbonise. But national policy-makers, unions and industry groups often do not wish to let these industries decline or relocate entirely; they thus face a policy dilemma. It is becoming recognised that an important aspect of the low-carbon transition across these sectors can involve novel forms of engagement with employees and/or sharing resources between industries and adjacent or related communities, where we consider resources in the widest possible sense of people, skills, materials and energy. The existence of various kinds of communities – including local, civic, technical, or knowledge – also suggests a range of interactions between industries and the world “beyond the factory fence”.
Industrial actors are often thought of as rather homogenous entities, characterised by sprawling estates with cumbersome infrastructure, commonly in geographically dense clusters. While this may be the case for some, our research at Edinburgh and Hamburg has suggested that a number of contextual factors can result in companies with diverse ranges of characteristics, influenced by differing ownership models, degrees of local agency and employee participation, internal environmental oversight, and relationship to place. We contend that these factors are instrumental in making and doing transformations, shaping interactions between companies and their communities, and affecting how decarbonisation can be imagined and pursued.
This panel seeks to foster discussion on the ways that making and doing transitions can be enabled, or impeded, by interactions between industry, employees and community. We invite contributions from participants undertaking research into the social relations between companies and communities, how these are shaped by people, place and policy, and what effects these have on making and doing transitions to lower-carbon futures in various national policy contexts.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Solange Annaik Commelin (Universität Hamburg)
Long abstract:
Corporations lag in rapid decarbonization efforts, prompting studies on their climate change responses. These studies assess internal and external factors influencing sustainability transformation, with many focusing on stakeholders.
Climate movements, despite their influence on the climate change debate, have been largely overlooked. Their lack of formal stakeholder role, their call for urgency, and lack of power vis-à-vis corporations confines them to the stakeholder fringe, despite their potential to support corporate transformation processes (as they have in politics, consumption patterns, etc.). With respect to their potential as drivers of decarbonization, this paper moves them from the fringe, placing them at the center of a stakeholder assessment from a multinational perspective (Japan and Germany). A grounded theory approach is implemented using data from 20 interviews and social media feeds.
Activists emphasize corporations’ significant role in the climate crisis. They describe areas in need of change (within and around businesses) and provide insights into how protest activity could drive this transformation. Observations carry individual, place-based nuances with varying approaches between the two countries. Moreover, activists' reflections on corporations lead them to reject careers in unsustainable or growth-oriented firms, adding a long-term dimension to their influence.
Although organizations may sideline movements, movements closely monitor corporations. Activists not only evaluate corporate impact but also devise strategies to pressure transformation. This assessment hints at a promising relationship but underscores the need for more in-depth and diverse evaluations of those beyond (but also willing to break down) the factory fence.
Matthew Eisler (University of Strathclyde)
Short abstract:
This paper introduces the concept of greenwork, defined as the material practices and social relations of environmental society, a landscape of ubiquitous environmental regulation and governance shaped by the disconnect between environmental science and marketized energy and environmental policies.
Long abstract:
Over the last 30 years, observed the historian Etienne Benson, environmental regulation intensified, touching every facet of life so that by the early 2020s nearly everyone in US society could be considered an environmentalist, whether willing or unwilling (Benson 2020). This intriguing proposition assumes major social change, yet relatively little is known of how enviro-regulations co-produce labor, business, and consumer practices and the material substrata of a society of environmentalists. We could refer to these practices collectively as greenwork and the society that gives rise to them and is co-constructed out of them as environmental society.
This paper outlines a project exploring regulatory, labor, business, and consumer greenwork in contemporary environmental society. Greenwork will be importantly conditioned by the disconnect between environmental science and marketized energy and environmental policies. Green discourse models society as an ecosystem, and while other forms of biological essentialism align with and reinforce the capitalist social order, with its ontology of morally acceptable imbalance, implementing the energy/materials ecosystem faces serious practical challenges. The costs and complexities of closing the circle of the energy/materials conversion chain have led policymakers to focus on particular infrastructural arcs of the notional closed circle and signify the idealized objects in these precincts as technologies of environmental care worthy of public support. These objects constitute the clean technology that capital can see (a variation of the idea of the nature that capital can see, deployed by Robertson in a critique of ecosystems services; 2006).
Lisa Claussmann (Mines Paris-PSL)
Short abstract:
The paper focuses on carbon capture and storage (CCS) to achieve decarbonisation objectives in France. I discuss the implementation of a “down-to-earth decarbonisation”, with reference to underground CO2 storage and alliances between experts, policy-makers and carbon-emitting industries.
Long abstract:
This paper looks at how experts, policy-makers, and carbon-emitting industries work together to achieve decarbonisation objectives. It focuses on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a technical ‘solution’ to tackle climate change. This technique has been identified as a credible option for decarbonising industry throughout Europe.
In France, CCS has gone through several phases of integration into CO2 emissions management methods. Two sets of actors emerged since the 1990s: the oil and gas industries prioritizing offshore storage, and government experts seeking to diversify smaller technical initiatives (Chailleux 2022). The paper discuss their promise to exploit the underground as part of a transition toward lower carbon production processes. It will start by examining the way in which government experts present the underground as a space able to absorb surplus carbon emissions. I show that this particular type of "politics of strata" (Clark 2017) is then mobilised to implement CCS in France as part of an energy transition policy, and to promote what I call “down-to-earth decarbonisation”. The paper ends with a discussion on the implementation of a down-to-earth decarbonisation, with reference to underground CO2 storage and alliances between political and industrial actors.
This paper is based on ongoing postdoctoral research in STS on the valuation processes of the underground in the context of climate change policies. It is part of a wider research project on the possible development of onshore CCS in France and draws on qualitative empirical resources, such as interviews and policy reports.
Kyle Parker (University of Edinburgh) Steven Yearley (University of Edinburgh) Mark Cassidy (University of Edinburgh)
Short abstract:
Informed by several UK case studies where industry is located in close proximity to non-industrial communities, our work explores heat sharing from both the industrial and community perspectives to understand the lack of integration in terms of policy uncertainties, interdependency and lock-in.
Long abstract:
Achieving Net Zero and transitioning to a greener economy are urgent issues for UK policymakers, industrial actors, and the public at large. While different industrial sectors will need to tailor decarbonisation and dematerialisation strategies to their unique circumstances, nearly all industrial activity generates excess heat through normal operations. Significant work exists outlining the size and scope of this thermal resource, often focused on technical approaches and engineering solutions for its capture and reuse within the industrial estate. However, there are also opportunities to utilise excess heat “beyond the factory fence”, such as local heat networks, providing heat for local communities. While such opportunities have often been employed across Continental Europe, they are uncommon in the UK.
Informed by several case studies where industry is located in close proximity to non-industrial communities, our work explores heat sharing from both the industrial and community perspectives. Our starting point was the social, economic, and policy barriers preventing UK industrial actors from sharing their excess heat with surrounding communities, or indeed viewing this thermal energy as a potential resource that could be better valorised ‘outside the factory fence.’ This revealed a paucity of industrial-community integration on this issue, which is noteworthy given the demands on local governments to decarbonise heat systems in their communities. We turned to the perspective of surrounding communities, local governments, and heat network operators to understand this lack of integration in terms of the risks of uncertain policy, interdependency and lock-in, and the implications these would have on community-industrial relations.
Shazia Imam (Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi)
Short abstract:
This paper delves into the profound impact of deindustrialization on Sounda, a once-thriving coal-based census town in Jharkhand, India. Using in-depth interviews and FGDs with key stakeholders, this paper examines the intricate relationship between deindustrialization and local life.
Long abstract:
This paper delves into the profound impact of deindustrialization on Sounda, a once-thriving coal-based census town in Jharkhand, India. Sounda's trajectory from a bustling economic hub, characterized by coal mining activity and vibrant local communities, to its current decline is a poignant example of the complex consequences of deindustrialization. The closure of all four coal mines in Sounda, driven by economic unviability and resource depletion, has caused a series of unprecedented challenges. The town, closely intertwined with the coal mining industry, now relies on the grim prospect of a single functioning coal siding. This study conducted 25 in-depth interviews and 03 focus group discussions involving diverse local stakeholders, including community members, political representatives, civil workers, and trade union leaders, to understand the complexities of deindustrialization in coal regions. The closures have led to mass migrations, unemployment, business closures, crumbling public infrastructure, and severed connectivity. The landscape is now a remnant of old industrial sites that stirs up memories of its vibrant past.
Nevertheless, communities are finding innovative ways to reconnect with the natural ecology amidst deindustrialization. Abandoned mining pits have become opportunities for fish culture, demonstrating some resilience in the face of industrial decline. This paper explores the multifaceted effects of deindustrialization in coal regions, unveiling the intricate relationship between industrial decline and local life. Additionally, it provides insights for future transitions away from coal, informing us on the impacts and navigating the challenges of deindustrialization.
Sue Black (Durham University) Jo Stansfield (Inclusioneering Limited)
Short abstract:
In this paper we explore the similarities and differences between EDI and sustainability in the context of transformational change. We compare and contrast both areas to investigate what we can learn from each strand to inform and increase impact across them both.
Long abstract:
There appear to be many commonalities between the business drivers and enablers for Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), and the business drivers and enablers for sustainability. External drivers such as the murder of African American man George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis, USA in 2020 and the protests of climate activist Greta Thunberg from 2018 onwards which have been shared and amplified by social media have changed the way that society and businesses behave. Since George Floyd’s murder much more attention has been paid to EDI within companies, it is now taken seriously rather than being seen as a “nice to have”, the same could be said of sustainability since Great Thunberg started campaigning. This is just one example of these commonalities that show how EDI and sustainability are two strands of the much bigger picture of transformational change within organisations.
In this paper we explore the similarities and differences between EDI and sustainability in this context, including variations in language and how concepts are expressed. We explore links to transition theory, just transitions and paradigm shifts then compare and contrast both areas to investigate what we can learn from each strand to inform and increase impact across them both. Finally we look at the business case and benefits to companies who implement our approach.