This chapter intends to present a practical approach to strategically facilitating sustainable, low-carbon transformation. The recommendations that can be made are presented while using a Weberian understanding (Verstehen) of various variables and dynamics that has been crystalized through this book’s theoretical foundation (chapters 2 to 6), methodological tools (chapters 7 and 8), case studies (chapters 9 to 12), simulation game (part of chapter 12), and the theoretical claims through the conceptual framework (chapter 13). A major contribution of this book is a set of recommendations that aim to support an inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative, and integrative facilitation of the transformation process. Reflexivity is itself a form of intervention that allows systems to adapt while preventing ruptures. An analysis of reflexivity can help better structure institutional, functional, and bargaining interactions from the negotiative perspective on context, agencies, and audiences of transformation towards sustainability. Reflexivity analysis is a matrix or collection of concrete questions that resonate at the (meta-level) theoretical/conceptual, methodological, and practical challenges relevant for each analytical level (actors, issues, structures, processes, and outcomes).
Serving as a roadmap, the stakeholder engagement plan is furthermore introduced in this chapter. As a practical example of application the engagement plan, this chapter looks at the transformation of the transport sector towards sustainability in Germany. The matrix is a decision tool that equates the typical ‘hypothetical’ analysis in legal studies. Hypothetical analysis pertains to the use of fictional but still realistic and feasible accounts when analyzing the potential actions of protagonists. The matrix demonstrates, for example, how narratives are tailored to make points without being burdened by doubts about the incompleteness of information. Hypothetical accounts can answer some questions that are unanswered by real-life case studies, because these accounts, including motivations and interactions, are described in an imaginary fashion (Green 2000 p. 991). Fictional vignettes may be useful to help identify situations where particular rules may apply and explore the ambiguity of rules (Green 2000 p. 995). Finally, unlike real-life case studies, hypothetical accounts can recognize the sensitivity of decision-making towards moral nuances and complexity.
Anzeige
14.1 Reflexivity Analysis—Developing Perspectives for Stakeholders’ Engagement
The reflexivity analysis of the multi-level and polycentric sustainable, low-carbon transformation towards sustainability can be conducted using the five different analytical levels (actors, issues, structures, processes, and outcomes). The use of these levels highlights the systems analytical approach. For this purpose, concrete questions and elaborating questions are formulated to help identify the conceptual (theoretical), methodological, and practical issues that need to be addressed when facilitating the transformation process. The questions summarize the insights and impulses gained from the previous chapters. The theoretical assumptions, knowledge tools such as theoretical models (ideal types), case studies, simulation, as well as the conceptual framework have not only contributed to the meta-level conceptual understanding of sustainable, low-carbon transformation and to explaining complex issues and dynamics, they have also identified methodological and practical issues that should be concretized and elaborated when facilitating sustainable, low-carbon transformation. These questions constitute the strategic approach that needs to be pursued by each stakeholder when preparing their strategies and when participating in various functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions (Table 14.1).
Table 14.1
Reflexivity Analysis—Questions and Issues
Actors: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Elaborating Questions | Meta-level theoretical and conceptual Issues | Methodological Issues | Practical Issues |
Power | How can power and which type of power can compel or prevent actions? How can power asymmetry prevent or enhance cooperation? How can weaker actors maintain leverage against stronger actors? How can powerful actors be motivated to participate and honor agreements? How can weaker parties achieve their goals and refrain from challenging the same outcomes once they become more powerful? How is power related to rational choice? How can actors adapt to the changing sources of power as well as the changing meanings and implications of power asymmetry? | Conceptualization of power asymmetry; the linkage between power asymmetry and behavioral preference; a pronouncement of the linkage between power (asymmetry) and cooperation; a conception of power-based decision-making; an extrapolation of issue complexity in power assessments; the ascertainment of power in terms of vulnerability (and vice-versa); an explication of the linkage between power and the status quo/change | An assessment of power structures vis-à-vis the potential behavior of actors; the predictability of actions using the analysis of power structures; the adaptation to the impacts of power asymmetry and to preferences and negotiation strategies; the calculation of one’s power leverage and that of the others; the designation of power relations vis-à-vis the emergence of more powerful actors | Designing the appropriate strategy management of power games; the establishment of communication channels; the facilitation of negotiations; the identification and constitution of the mandates of chairs and conveners; the identification of different types of leverages; the adaptation of accountability mechanisms to changing power relations |
How does power define actors’ preferences and collective actions? | ||||
Rationality and interests | How are these interests defined and driven and by which factors? How can these interests be concretized and fulfilled? Which shared interests can be bundled together? Which interests are indifferent to whose interests? Which interests are incompatible with the others? How can interests be modified and made compatible? How are these interests aligned or adversarial to the principles and requirements of sustainable, low-carbon transformation? Are there third parties whose interests should be considered? | An analysis of the impacts of the ontological and epistemological baggage of the concepts and principles of targets and ambitions; affirmation of linkage between targets/ambitions and interests; the conception of interests based on rationality functions; an explication of the link between targets/ambitions and sustainability principles; the contemplation of purposive rationality (Zwecksrationalität); a pronouncement of the linkage between rationality and reference frames | An assessment of zones of possible agreements between multiple targets and ambitions; the identification and evaluation of appropriate targets and ambitions based on interests; the reference of targets and ambitions to local conditions (the local context); designing and measuring benchmarks & milestones; the qualitative and quantitative valuation of the human factor in rational choice; the costing out or converting of different values to make them relevant or quantifiable and therefore comparable | The establishment of mechanisms of generating, maintaining, implementing, modifying, and verifying targets and ambitions; the enhancement of the capacity to identify efficient, reliable, and realistic targets & ambitions; the improvement of interest-based bargaining; overcoming information asymmetry; designing decision tools to identify and concretize targets; designing and implementing a game plan based on reference frames |
What are the interests and targets of both state and non-state stakeholders? | ||||
Leadership and facilitation | Are leaders necessary for transformation processes? What are the responsibilities of leaders? How can biased actors with clearly vested interests still be able to facilitate agreement-building processes? What are the intentions and possible pay-offs for potential leaders and facilitators? How can the intentions of leaders and facilitators be aligned with sustainable, low-carbon transformation? Which strategies are available to motivate other parties to accept leadership and facilitation? | The ascertainment of the procedures and process-related impacts of impartiality and neutrality; the weighing of effects of facilitation and mediation against power asymmetries; the affirmation of links between interests and actions; an understanding of the role of reciprocity | The measurement of asymmetry; a performance assessment of facilitation and mediation; the valuation of conflicts of interest and bias; the valuation of the pay-offs of facilitation and mediation; the evaluation of existing conflicts of interest | The enhancement of mechanisms of identifying, mandating, and verifying leadership and facilitation; the determination of appropriate profiles for leaders, facilitators and mediators; establishing procedures for empowering leaders; the improvement of accountability and transparency; the demonstration of leadership by mobilizing strengths and addressing weaknesses |
Which actors can act as leaders or facilitators/mediators to support various deliberation processes? | ||||
Cooperation with partners, allies and spoilers | What are the motivations behind cooperation? How are potential cooperation partners identified, chosen and tested? Is a cooperative partnership emergent or purposive? Which actors are potential spoilers to the outcome and adversaries to the process/procedure? Is there a third or further category of actors (e.g., non-aligned)? Which existing networks can serve as pools of partners? | An analysis of reciprocity and cooperation; a conception of the balance of power and power equalization through strategic
partnerships; the extrapolation of links between strategic partnerships and outcomes, particularly between partnerships and transformations towards sustainability; the development and trajectory of emergent and purposive cooperation; the re-visitation of simplistic and misleading dichotomies; the pronouncement of the meaning of multilateralism and bilateralism for cooperation | The performance assessment of partners; the performance and impact assessment of spoilers; the operationalization and exposure of sociotechnical and sociolinguistic narratives on partners and spoilers; the prediction of the future behavior of partners and spoilers; the evaluation of networks | The identification of dependable patterns of cooperation; the validation of the role of emotionality when working with spoilers; the establishment of communication channels with partners and spoilers; the establishment of discourse with opposition and spoilers; the management of networks |
Which actors can be valuable partners or allies? Who are the potential spoilers? | ||||
Contestation between change agents and status quo agents | How is relevance defined or not defined by proximity to stakes? Are epistemic communities and knowledge experts relevant? If yes, are they pay-off seeking stakeholders? Does relevance automatically constitute stakeholder status? How can stakeholders influence decision-making in authoritarian regimes? Is the inclusion of stakeholders a prerogative of democratic regimes? How can excluded or non-relevant actors still assist in realizing goals? How can they help achieve sustainable developmental goals without distorting the transformation process? How can an actor be relevant to the procedure but not to the process (and vice-versa)? Which frontlines represent which conflict cleavages? | The re-conceptualization and contextualization of policy models; the examination of the link between goal implementation and system cohesion; understanding the symbiotic relationship between change and status quo agents; the contemplation of the demonization tendencies in mutual relations between change and status quo agents | An integrated impact assessment of epistemic communities, technologies, and bargaining strategies; the process-tracing of policy models and policy outputs; a diffusion assessment of the innovative, market-based, political, ecological, socio-cultural, and technological drivers of transformation; the evaluation of conflict cleavages between change and status quo agents | The engagement of change and status quo agents; the establishment of new rules conducive to transformation towards sustainability; the attribution of changes in collective actions and interactions to technologies, particularly to knowledge tools and information technologies; the constitution of new forms of the (de) legitimation strategies of lock-ins; the establishment of reliable knowledge management |
Which actors are relevant to the realization of transformation towards sustainability? Who are the change agents? Who are the status quo agents? | ||||
The representation of collective groups and constituents | How is a mandate given by constituents to representatives at bargaining tables? Who should be chosen as a representative? Are these representatives really pursuing the interests of the constituents? How can a conflict of interests be identified? How can genuine representation be guaranteed? How can representatives be monitored and if needed replaced during the process? How do NGOs represent collective interests? Which governance structures can best promote the representation of constituents? Is representation inherent to democratic structures? Can authoritarian regimes come up with appropriate representation? | The conceptualization of collective decision-making; the conception of the collectivity; the explication of the link between deliberation and effective decision-making; the anticipation of consensus-building according to policy models; an analysis and weighing up of the different local modes of collective decision-making; grasping with the cultural aspects of representation; the resolution of the representation of spoilers and counter-movements; the conceptualization of agencies and agents | A performance assessment of representation and agency; the consolidation of the link between legitimacy and representative authority; the measurement and evaluation of the material, expressive, and solidarity benefits of NGO engagement; an assessment of social change through NGO participation | The establishment and maintenance of communication and network channels; the verification of performance of representatives; the identification of required benchmarks for effective representation; the design and organization of managerial mechanisms of representation; the attribution of changes in collective actions and an intervention into effective representation |
How can collective groups be effectively represented and by whom in joint decision-making? | ||||
The monitoring and verification of commitments | Should monitoring and verifying actors be neutral and/or impartial? Can biased actors be impartial to the process/procedure? What standards and indicators are available and relevant to assess compliance? Who have developed these standards and indicators? Are these standards reproducing or reinforcing structural imbalances? How should outside intervention into monitoring and verification be evaluated? Under which authority are commitments made? | An analysis of the link between process and implementation; an affirmation of the link between compliance and verification; the conceptualization of neutrality and impartiality; the ascertainment of the mandate/justification for external intervention | The assessment of neutrality and impartiality; the evaluation of bias; the measurement and assessment of the performance of monitors and controllers; the impact assessment of verification methods | Due diligence in terms of the potential monitoring and verifying of actors; the management of monitoring and verification; the identification of acceptable actors as monitors; the identification and formalization of benchmarks and indicators; improving the evaluation of monitory and verifying actors |
Which actors are eligible and credible enough to conduct monitoring and verification of commitments and compliance? | ||||
The keepers of data, information and knowledge | What qualifications are needed for these actors? With which instruments should these actors manage and process data and knowledge? How are attitudes and preconceived values affecting the gathering and selection of data and information? Which values need to be resonated in the assessment? Which indicators lead to which judgments? How much flexibility and how long a ‘grace period’ should and could be given to actors? How is bias affecting the assessment of data and information? How can actors adequately provide value assessment and data interpretation? How can a heavy reliance on one form of information (anchoring or focalism) when making decisions affect the efficiency of decision-making? How can this be addressed? | The examination of human capital and the required skills/competencies; the attribution of the achievement of anticipated outcomes through skills; the affirmation of a link between normativity and data processing; the conceptualization of relevant biases and distortions; the grasping of links between knowledge and reality and an understanding of the link between flexibility and outcome; an analysis of the link between ambiguity in assessments and the validity criteria (objectivity, reliability and applicability) | The assessment of required qualifications; the performance evaluation of knowledge intermediaries; a causality assessment between values and data management; the evaluation of data management tools; an impact assessment of value orientation/normativity; a performance assessment of the recipients of flexibility and ambiguity in assessments; the calibration of theoretical models and projections to ensure the applicability of resulting knowledge | The enhancement of reliability and the
availability of data; the improvement of data management; the selection of appropriate data management tools; the establishment of the management of data collection, data processing, and data interpretation; the calibration and application of theoretical knowledge; the management and verification of first and second opinions; the identification and resolution of gaps between and misjudgments of interpretations; the accountability of management; the drafting of political mandates and actions from empirical data |
How do expert decision-makers gather, distribute and interpret data, information, and knowledge? | ||||
Relationships | What type of relationship is needed for a long-term transformation process? Which types of relationships are conducive to achieving sustainable, low-carbon policy goals? How can relationships positively and negatively influence institutional designs and agreement-building processes? | The conceptualization of social trust (social capital); the ascertainment of conduciveness; an analysis of the link between cohesion and agreements; the grasping of a link between institutional designs and agreements | The performance assessment of actors according to given relationships; an impact assessment of relationships; the process-tracing between relationships and the achievement of sustainable development | The establishment of personal relationships between actors; the enhancement of evidence-based decision-making; the recognition of cultural differences |
Which relationships between actors matter for sustainable, low-carbon transformation? | ||||
Choice and behavioral change | How does emotion affect behavior and behavioral change? How can behavior be changed? How can ideology-based opposition to transformation towards sustainability be reverted and persuaded? How can narratives empowering carbon lock-ins be refuted? Can behavioral change be initiated without “pain” and “shocks”? Through which tools and premises can choices be made, altered or maintained? How conducive or detrimental are the human factors to transformation? | The ascertainment of the utility of behavioral change; the pronouncement of the trajectory of paradigm shifts; the affirmation of regressions from changes; an examination of the pay-offs of structural changes; an analysis of the link between behavioral change and system ruptures; an explication of linkages between behavior and the view of human nature (Menschenbild) and of the world (Weltbild) | The operationalization of methods of analysis of policy instruments and of behavioral change; the assessment of the effects of structural changes to behaviors; a narrative analysis of lock-ins; an integrated impact assessment of the potential shocks leading to behavioral change; the measurement of distortions or the manipulation of choices | The promotion of changes to routines and habits to address contingencies; the organizational and institutional management of shifts; the revision of social mandates following shifts; the establishment and revision of compensatory mechanisms during transition periods; the establishment of flexibility measures and adaptation; the improvement of compensatory actions to ideology-driven opposition |
How can actors’ behavior and preferences be influenced and, if needed, shifted? | ||||
Interactions and participation | How do actors constitute collective actions? Which types of collaborations between policy-makers and non-state actors, including the private sector, are needed and are feasible when advancing sustainable developmental goals? How can communication channels be established? How can jurisdictions be clarified when dealing with diffuse and cross-cutting issues? | The examination of the social mandate of policy entrepreneurs, including profit and non-profit entities; the conceptualization of policy entrepreneurship; the identification of existing power asymmetries; the conceptualization of public ownership of collective ownerships; an understanding of the political, economic, socio-cultural, and environmental barriers and caveats to and for policy entrepreneurs; the ascertainment of trade-offs between participation and efficiency | An interaction analysis; a policy analysis and comparative policy analysis; an impact assessment of inclusive participation; an analysis of the organizational characteristics of individual policy entrepreneurs; an assessment of political instruments to entice certain behavior from policy entrepreneurs | The determination of the practical implications of change in the routines and habits of policy entrepreneurs; the management of policy entrepreneurship; the equalization of the distorted asymmetry of resources among policy entrepreneurs; the identification and management of the actions and behavior of change and status quo agents; the establishment of a dialogue space between policy-makers and policy entrepreneurs |
How do policy-makers interact with policy entrepreneurs, including the private sector? | ||||
Issues: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Elaborating Questions | Meta-level theoretical and conceptual Issues | Methodological Issues | Practical Issues |
Relevance | Is relevance a concept that can only be determined under normativity? Does relevance change over time? How can relevant components of non-relevant issues be adequately addressed? How can non-relevant components of relevant issues be sorted out? How can relevance be objectively measured and evaluated? How does the coupling and decoupling of issues promote transformation? | The conceptualization of relevance; the affirmation of the effects of the coupling and decoupling of issues; an understanding of the impact of advocacy in the determination of relevance; the ascertainment of indifference; the pronouncement of linkages with circumstantial relevance to outcomes; the assertion of the relevance of audience | An integrated assessment of the relevance of the issues; an analysis of non-relevant issues; the exposition of interdependences between issues; the evaluation of double–counting, which could distort the degree of relevance; the measurement and evaluation of indifference; the evaluation of the interdisciplinarity of issues and its effects on measuring the relevance of data | The identification and formalization of indicators and benchmarks of relevance; fact-checking on relevant issues; accountability management; the monitoring of the emerging relevance of up-to-date non-relevant issues; the identification and evaluation of key strategic issues; addressing the immeasurability of some stakes |
How is the relevance of issues determined and by whom? | ||||
Prioritization | How are the ontological and epistemological conceptions of relevant issues aligned with the overarching principles of sustainability? How is this conception creating or reinforcing existing inequalities? How are variations and discrepancies between concepts and connotations among developed and developing countries inhibiting cooperation? How can hyperbolic discounting (or the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate pay-offs) distort prioritization? How can it be
contained? | The conceptualization of sustainability; the resolution of distortions; the explication of the linkage between disruptions and system rupture; the extrapolation of the linkage between global visions and local concretization; the postulation of the implementation of sustainability principles; the affirmation of the role of rationality in prioritization; the explication of the relations between prioritized and non-prioritized issues; the explication of the relevance of time frames | An assessment combining modernist approaches and sustainable technology studies; an evaluation of the importance of the issues for prioritization; the weighing of policy instruments in terms of their effectiveness in achieving sustainable development goals; the quantification of sustainability; an integrated performance assessment of sustainability measures; an impact assessment of sustainability policies; an understanding and the resolving of methodological obstacles to analyzing technology and modernity | An appraisal of the specificities of the local context; the management of sustainability indicators; the attribution of prioritization to individual issues vis-à-vis collective sustainability goals; the empirical substantiation of transformations and the sustainability debate; the embedding of non-Western notions of sustainability; the establishment and improvement of knowledge management; the monitoring of non-priorities that can potentially change |
How do different ranges of the definition of ‘sustainability’ determine and guide the significance and prioritization of issues? | ||||
Entry points | How can these entry points be identified? How is the securitization of issues effective in pushing relevant issues onto the political agenda of policy-makers? At what point can securitization inhibit sustainable, low-carbon transformation? Can de-securitization help unlock stalemates? How does the interconnectivity of issues result from assorted problems? Which issues of a policy can be altered or even taken out without undermining the overall effectiveness of this policy? | The conceptualization of capacity-building and policy transfer; the pronouncement of network effects; an understanding of the impacts of securitization on norms and norm diffusion; the justification and elaboration of the role of agents, the audience and its context in securitization; the contemplation of the generation of political agendas for political contestation; an examination of the link between lock-ins and stalemates | Process tracing and causality testing between entry points and the achievement of sustainability; an integrated impact assessment of individual and a combination of entry points for sustainable development; the measurement of the securitization of issues; a performance evaluation of selected processes; a causality assessment between securitization and policy implementation; an evaluation of synergies, feed-backs, co-benefits, and trade-offs between entry points | The translation of sectoral knowledge into sustainable development; the identification and preparation of entry points to the achievement of individual goals, leading to a transformation towards sustainability; integrated and systematic management of entry points; the verification and monitoring of entry points; advocacy for data-driven SD policies; the identification of champions of change (change agents) and spoilers for each entry point; dispute resolution between trade-offs; the management of negative synergies from interconnectivity issues |
Which issues can be identified and operationalized as entry points for sustainable, low-carbon transformation? | ||||
Agenda-setting | How is the ability to set the agenda a source of power leverage? Should agenda-setting be inclusive or exclusive? Which items on the agenda are non-acceptable, to which actors, and why? | An understanding of the power behind agenda-setting; the conceptualization of agenda-setting as a process and a procedure; the assertion of agenda vis-à-vis legitimacy | The process tracing of how adequate agenda-setting promotes adequate outcomes; data collection; a performance assessment of agenda-setting, an impact assessment of the agenda; the measurement of shifts in power leverage through agenda-setting | The management of agenda-setting, logistics, and the organization of implementation; the elaboration and execution of monitoring and verification; the establishment of accountability management |
How is agenda-setting initiated and by whom? | ||||
Collective actions | How does an issue elicit action and/or inaction? Which issues lead to stalemates? How should ‘toxic’ issues be addressed and by whom? Should the participation of actors be restricted depending on the issue, where indifferent actors should be prevented from using their indifference to gain leverage in other issues? Under which conditions might individuals cooperate to pursue common goals? Are collective actions emergent or purposive? | An understanding of rationality systems for value judgment; the conceptualization of epistemological borders and crossings between relevant issues; an understanding and a pronouncement of the processes and structures of assessing issues; an examination of distortions of realities resulting from one-sided narratives and discourses; the conception of structural and process-related imbalances against “invisible” periphery actors when addressing issues; the extrapolation of mechanisms of self-reflexivity | An assessment of the impacts of adequately addressing issues; an evaluation of data and the information defining prioritization; evaluation methods; the determination of priorities; the process tracing of prioritizing and the success of implementation and the achievement of goals; an evaluation of the precariousness and distortions in an understanding of the issues; an evaluation of opportunity costs resulting from misleading prioritization | A collection of perceptions, value judgements and narratives related to the issues; the monitoring of changes in the perceptions of issues; the establishment and maintenance of communication mechanisms related to the exchange of perceptions; the deconstruction of existing discourses and narratives; the allocation of resources corresponding with prioritization; the promotion and facilitation of empowerment and capacity-building |
How does the definition, understanding, concretization, and evaluation of each issue compel collective actions? | ||||
Bargaining and policy games | Are the issues connecting actors or dividing them? Which issues provide incentives and opportunities? How are cross-cutting issues addressed, by whom, and under which jurisdiction & mandate? How do bargaining games influence the behavior of actors in policy games? | An understanding of the dynamics of bargaining processes; the assertion of linkages between bargaining procedures and outcomes; the conceptualization of a “Weitsicht” (long-term view) as a strategic approach; an explication of incentives and containment; an examination of the bargaining and policy mandate; a position analysis | An impact assessment of individual issues on policies; the calculation of the aggregation of issues to policy design and implementation; a performance evaluation of bargaining actors vis-à-vis policy promotion; the critical evaluation of bargaining and policy performance under the terms of the mandate; the evaluation of the cross-cutting elements of bargaining and policy-making; the quantification of benefits and opportunities resulting from linking issues | The validation of regressions as learning tools for future decisions; the translation of the meaning of bargaining issues to policies; the revision and adaptation of mandates; the formulation and distribution of incentives and sanctions; an analysis of competitors; the development of bargaining and policy-making strategies that emphasize resources, skills, and collective competencies |
How are the issues being processed in various bargaining and policy games? | ||||
The relevance of data and information | How are data and information filtered and validated? How are optimality and equilibrium determined? How can decisions be made based on incomplete and/or unreliable information? How is uncertainty to be addressed when assessing the meaning of data and information? How can access to information be ensured to guarantee fair playing fields? How can social science respond to the challenges of providing useful future scenarios? | The conceptualization of optimality and rational choice; an understanding of the meaning of data and information for collective actions; the pronouncement of uncertainty and its effects on decisiveness; the conception of “equitable access” to information; an understanding of the social embeddedness and social utility of models and scenarios | An assessment of optimality and equilibrium; the evaluation of real-world conditions using optimality approaches; the measurement of identified benchmarks and indicators of optimality; the evaluation of the completeness of data and information; the evaluation of access to information and performance | The design and implementation of filtering and validating data and information; a comparison between optimality and real-world conditions, the management of data collection and the interpretation of resulting information; the improvement of qualifications and capacity of data providers |
Which data and information are relevant for each issue? | ||||
Confidentiality, complexity and uncertainty | How should complicated and complex issues be addressed where substantial expertise is difficult to develop? How are visions or scenarios of the future embedded in discourses? Which mechanisms can help actors cope with uncertainty? How are lies and deceptions to be prevented? What constitutes a lie or a deception? Can lies and deceptions be acceptable, particularly when concealing data and information would prevent self-incrimination and other disadvantages in various bargaining and policy games? How do confidentiality measures in agreements lead to abuses and structural imbalances? | The conceptualization of confidentiality vis-à-vis deliberation and agreements; the understanding of complexity; an examination of tolerance towards lies and deceptions in the context of collective decision-making; the pronouncement of learning potentials; grasping the link between dystopian or utopian thinking and decision-making or policy-making | The measurement of the degree of complexity and uncertainty; an assessment of the adherence to the confidentiality of the stakeholders; an impact assessment of the lies and deceptions; an evaluation of the barriers to confidentiality; an evaluation of the impact of uncertainty when effectively addressing issues; an impact assessment of confidentiality measures for accountability and inclusive consensus-building | The management of the audience’s approval or rejection of the outcomes emerging from confidential measures; the forging of tolerable areas of lies and deceptions; the management of complexity and uncertainty; the design and implementation of contingency measures to address complexity and uncertainty; the differentiation between the issues and processes of complexity/uncertainty |
How can stakeholders deal with confidentiality, complexity and uncertainty when addressing issues? | ||||
Incrementalism and leapfrogging | How is incrementalism creating direct and latent caveats for decision-making? How are these caveats preventing the implementation of effective policies? Which elements of the incremental value is a lock-in? When capacity-building in sustainable, low-carbon transformation depends on incremental values (e.g., best practices), should these values be a public good? How can incrementalism allow the formal protection of intellectual property rights? Should institutions such as supreme courts seek to end structural bias at once, or should they opt for a strategic course, taking aim at one issue at a time? Which specific stages of trajectories can be circumvented in leap-frogging without sacrificing technological and social maturity in different subsystems (e.g. the education system)? | The conceptualization of incrementalism and of incremental value; the measurement of the degree of the manifestation of increments; an understanding of lock-ins that can be useful for or detrimental to the transformation towards sustainability; a definition of emerging issues using existing knowledge; an explication of the different phases of trajectories; the pronouncement of the linkage between learning and risk-aversion | The evaluation of increments; an impact assessment of incremental learning; the quantification and measurement of caveats; an impact assessment of lock-ins; an assessment of incremental values such as best practices; the measurement of the benchmarks and indicators of leapfrogging; the optimization of incrementalism; the regulation of leap-frogging; the evaluation of missed opportunities due to leap-frogging and incrementalism | The identification and collection of incremental values and knowledge; a comparison between increments and new knowledge; the implementation of effective policies using incremental knowledge; the verification of incremental values; the strategic management of corrective measures; the coordination between complementary and competing subsystems |
How are issues re-defined by its incremental value? | ||||
Knowledge gaps | Which gaps can be bridged at low cost and risk and how? How can actors identify knowledge gaps when they are not conscious of missed knowledge? How can these knowledge gaps be bridged and by whom, both in the short- and long-term? What are the effects of these gaps on the overall objectives and the achievement of sustainable, low-carbon transformation? How can information asymmetry between actors be addressed to allow the creation of contracts covering all necessary contingencies? | An understanding of knowledge gaps and their causes; the link between knowledge gaps and trade-offs/co-benefits; the conceptualization of uncertainty; the conceptualization of precautionary principles (decision-making under uncertainty); the rumination on the unknown; the ascertainment of contingencies; the postulation of information asymmetry and its effects on transformation processes | The evaluation of material and intangible loss & harm resulting from knowledge gaps; an integrated impact assessment of knowledge gaps; the quantification of the unknown; an evaluation of the distribution of information; process tracing of the causes of information asymmetry | The identification and monitoring of knowledge gaps; the bridging of knowledge gaps; the adaptation to new knowledge that can bridge gaps; the verification of new knowledge that aims to bridge knowledge gaps; the implementation of actions and decisions in the context of the precautionary principle; the management of institutional memory |
Are there knowledge gaps preventing an integrated outlook on issues? | ||||
Trade-offs and co-benefits | Which linkages are fatal? How do trade-offs and negative externalities increase the complexity of issues and processes? How can trade-offs be resolved? How can trade-offs lead to distortions of perceptions? How can trade-offs and co-benefits reduce or increase the zone of possible agreement in negotiations? How are processes able to transform trade-offs into stumbling blocks, and co-benefits into enabling factors to delay/block or achieve necessary outcomes? How can trade-offs (e.g., energy efficiency for emissions reduction) be addressed by flexibility and creativity? | The conceptualization of the emergence of new bargaining leverage through resulting trade-offs and co-benefits; an understanding the role of agency in determining trade-offs and co-benefits; the pronouncement of the linkage of trade-offs and co-benefits with behavioral change; the
conceptualization of ‘fatality’ in the context of system ruptures; the extrapolation of the dynamics behind synergy effects; the prediction of the course of the negotiation process with trade-offs and co-benefits defining leverage and zones of possible agreement | The evaluation of material and intangible loss and harm resulting from trade-offs as well as from material and intangible gains from co-benefits and synergies; the measurement and identification of pay-off redistribution mechanisms and compensation for losses as well as “equalizing” contributions for others negatively affected; the collection of relevant data and information on trade-offs and co-benefits; the attribution and valuation of “guilt” into compensation; process-tracing to analyze causalities, leading to trade-offs, co-benefits, and synergies | The identification and verification of the practical impacts of multiple trade-offs, co-benefits, and synergies; data and evidence-supported determination of equalizing or compensatory mechanisms; the management of compensations contingent upon additional responsibilities; the verification of compensation payments; ensuring the clarity of institutional and formal jurisdictions on issues |
Which trade-offs, synergies, and co-benefits between relevant issues can be useful in achieving the necessary outcomes? | ||||
Structures: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Elaborating Questions | Meta-level theoretical and conceptual Issues | Methodological Issues | Practical Issues |
Standards and reference frames | How are objective standards reached and by whom? Does objectivity guarantee acceptability? Are these standards open to political negotiations? If yes, how is their optimality undermined? Which flexibility measures and compensation payments can be tapped to bridge the gaps between optimality and the political acceptance of standards? Which reference frames (e.g., power, rationality, democracy, or adaptability) are needed to promote the transformation towards sustainability? | The conceptualization of objectivity as validity criteria; the understanding of structural imbalances that prevent or distort credible data and information collection; the pronouncement of the linkage between flexibility measures and policy implementation; the understanding of standardization as a contingency measure; the conceptualization of credibility | A performance assessment of objective standards; scoping for information; an assessment of available data; the formulation and impact assessment of standards and benchmarks; the evaluation of objective standards vis-à-vis policy implementation and the achievement of goals; an assessment of credibility | The verification of mechanisms and objective standards; the formalization of objectivity as the standard; accountability management and due diligence; the identification and justification of flexibility measures; the convergence management of standards; data management; the logistical management of information scoping and collection |
Which objective standards are available to allow credible and reliable decision-making? | ||||
Decision Frameworks | How do multiple decision-making levels enhance polycentrism? How does polycentrism promote or prevent cooperation? How can the differing mandates for each level or subsystem be integrated? How can ‘forum shopping’ in decision-making be prevented? How should actors create alliances to enhance their capacity to participate in relevant sub-systems? Which regimes are better suited in forging and implementing multi-level decisions? How are rules and norms established in each decision framework? | The conceptualization of an integrated approach to assessing multi-level decision-making; the examination of the linkage between diversity and polycentric decision-making; an analysis of the linkage between polycentrism and cooperation; decision analysis; an explication of the integration and coordination of coherent actions at various levels and subsystems | An impact assessment of polycentrism; a performance evaluation of partners and allies; the tracing of causalities and interdependencies between modular sub-systems; the measurement of synergies arising from linking decision (sub)frameworks; a critical outlook on policy frameworks | The enhancement of adaptive strategies to polycentrism; the monitoring and verification of polycentric cooperation; the allocation of tasks and accountability at relevant levels; the establishment of coordination mechanisms; addressing the historicity of decision frameworks |
Under which frameworks can multiple decision-making levels or fragmented decision-making in modular sub-systems be integrated and facilitated? | ||||
Institutions and organizations | Which institutional arrangements can ensure participation and compliance? How big or lean should the organization be to ensure functionality? How can the works of the organization be checked without hindering the organization from achieving their goals? What kind of mandate is needed to ensure the legitimacy of the organization? How can this mandate adapt to changes without causing ruptures? How can the organization equalize the leverage of strong parties and build the capacity of weaker parties? How can organizations and institutions effectively respond to ecological changes (feedbacks)? | The conceptualization of participation; an examination of the linkage between mandate and legitimacy; an understanding of the role of power in designing organizational structures; an explication of the linkage between social mandates/contracts and organizational settings; an understanding of the role of organizations and institutions as formative spheres; an analysis of the classification and typologies of institutions and organizations; the creation and maintenance of institutional and organizational identities | A performance evaluation of organizational design; an impact assessment of organizational reforms and changes; an impact assessment of mandates; the evaluation of organizational dynamics as power leverage | The establishment of effective quality management; the implementation of accountability management; monitoring and verification; the management of the self-defense mechanisms of organizations; bridging organizations and paradigms; the verification of mandates and social contracts; the management of linking citizen forums with scientific assessment; the management and verification of the outreach activities of institutions and organizations; the management of the opening of organizational and institutional structures to deliberation; the democratization of deliberation across different types of expertise, experts, and politics (the democratization of experts) |
Which organizational structures can best support the transformation process towards sustainability? | ||||
Regimes and policy models | How are democratic regimes in a better position than authoritarian and totalitarian regimes to produce significant environmental and sustainable developmental commitments? Which ideal types of democracy (liberal, deliberative, socio-liberal) can most effectively pursue environment policy stringency (e.g., an environmental tax, environmental standards)? How do hybrid regimes deviate from ideal types in terms of policy implementation? | The definition of democracy and authoritarianism; an understanding of social welfare in the context of policy models;
the conceptualization of legitimacy in various policy models, including hybrid types; an understanding of the historical and cultural contexts of regimes and policy models | The measurement of input and output legitimacy; a comparative analysis of policy design and implementation according to policy models; a narrative analysis; a performance assessment of the principles of democracy and authoritarianism; the evaluation of innovation according to policy models | Regime transition management; the implementation of due diligence; the improvement of accountability management; the attribution of outputs to individual principles (e.g., the authoritarian elements of a democratic regime and vice-versa) |
Which political regime/system is best suited to implementing sustainability policy goals? | ||||
Risks, threats and coincidences (luck) | How do emerging risks and threats lead to changes in governance? How can risks lead to system ruptures? Which preventive and contingency measures can be effective in reducing risks? Which risks are unacceptable? How are threats changing the dynamics and rules of the system? Are the costs of preventive measures justifiable as intangible and theoretical risks? How can risks be attributed to perpetrators to determine responsibilities and remedial actions? Which moral responsibilities can result from coincidences and luck? How can threats and sanctions initiate escalation? How do threats constitute legitimacy gaps? How do threats change relationships and interactions? Are blaming and shaming effective strategies for persuading laggards and spoilers? | The conceptualization of risks and volatility; the pronouncement of linkages between risk reduction and the quality of collective decision-making; the conceptualization of behavioral change when averting risks; the explication of the linkage between luck and moral responsibilities; an understanding of acceptable and unacceptable risks; an examination of the possibilities of reversing past decisions | A performance assessment of structures and mechanisms; the evaluation of opportunity costs resulting from both the failure of preparing for risks and from risk-aversion; the measurement of the value of preventive and contingent measures; the definition of scenarios of the future; the evaluation of self-fulfilling prophecies in actions; the evaluation of the acceptability of risks and threats | The anticipation of potential risks; accountability management; the verification of risks; the attribution of risks to factors, actors, and dynamics; the management of compensatory actions resulting from risks and coincidental misfortunes; the diversification of activities and measures to spread risks and promote system stability |
How do perceptions of risk, threats, and luck constitute responsibilities, accountabilities, and commitments? | ||||
Dispute management | Which mechanisms are needed to resolve future disputes? How can mechanisms of dispute resolution be modified over time to adapt to changes in the nature and intensity of disputes? How should inevitable disagreements be handled? | An understanding of the reasons behind disputes; the conceptualization of disputes as spheres of deliberation and consensus-building | An assessment of mechanisms; a performance assessment of procedures; an impact assessment of conciliators; the evaluation of dispute settlements; a comparative analysis between scenarios of settlement and non-settlement | The management of disputes; the selection of conciliators; the identification of relevant stakeholders; the management of institutional memory; the verification and accountability of management; the inclusion of dispute resolution measures in agreements; the anticipation of potential dispute issues |
Which mechanisms are viable when resolving disputes over time? | ||||
Paradigm shifts | Which paradigms require shifting? Why are paradigms shifting? Which paradigms need to be maintained to ensure sustainable, low-carbon transformation? Why do most SDG mechanisms lack representation from non-state actors? Are paradigm shifts emergent or purposive? How can legislation and social norms adjust to paradigm shifts? Are paradigm shifts technologically, norm, or actor-driven? | The conceptualization of paradigms; an understanding of the processes behind paradigm shifts; an explanation of triggers and points of no return; an extrapolation of linkages between critical junctures and lock-ins to individual decisions or policies; a conception of complacency and an aversion to change | An integrated impact assessment of paradigm shifts; the evaluation of opportunity costs resulting from the failure to achieve paradigm shifts; process tracing and the assessment of causalities; the designing of benchmarks and indicators; the measurement of convergences between sub-systems | The attribution of shifts to individual policies and decisions; the management of risks; the establishment of compensatory mechanisms; accountability management |
How can paradigm shifts be initiated and executed? | ||||
Policy instruments | How can incentive and sanction systems produce the appropriate behavior and actions? How can policy-makers retract or revise existing policies to further advance sustainability policy priorities without losing political credibility? | Linkage between incentives/sanctions and behavior/actions; the attribution of functionality to policy instruments; the conceptualization of a social mandate to institutions and agencies designing and implementing policies; the conceptualization of deliberation and consensus-building | The measurement of pain/pay-offs leading to specific decisions and actions; the measurement of system tolerance; the evaluation of missed opportunities resulting from the non-existence of policy instruments; the impact and performance evaluation of policy measures; an integrated assessment of policy instruments | The monitoring and verification of policy instruments; accountability management; the inclusion of non-state actors when designing and implementing policy measures; the establishment of compensatory mechanisms; the design of membership in policy and decision-making bodies |
Which policies, including market instruments, are needed and are available to achieve concrete goals (e.g., local community development, innovation, usage of waste materials) and commitments? | ||||
Structural constraints | Is the geopolitical context a crucial factor in decision-making? How does polycentrism and the monolithic architecture of the system promote or inhibit sustainable, low-carbon transformation? What are the determinants of success and failure of non-state groups such as NGOs when promoting sustainable development? How can structural and systemic inefficiencies be bypassed, if not corrected? How can the inability of existing institutions to resolve structural and systemic problems be effectively addressed? | The conceptualization of latent and evident structural bias; an understanding of contextual elements; an explanation of the self-suffocation of systems; the pronouncement of the linkage between polycentrism and low-carbon development | The measurement of influence; an impact assessment of constraints; the evaluation of missed opportunities due to the self-engagement of the system; the quantification and justification of claims of structural bias; the evaluation of context; the design and measurement of benchmarks and indicators | Verification management, the implementation of due diligence and accountability; the interpretation of local conditions defining the geopolitical context; the identification of constraints and explanations of their
causes; the attribution of constraints to individual structures; the differentiation of constraints caused by structures and actors’ misjudgment |
Which structural and systemic constraints can influence the transformation process? | ||||
Drivers, triggers and tipping points | What are the triggers of actions? Which factors obstruct or delay actions? Can decisions driven by technology, market, or culture be aligned with the principles and goals of sustainable, low-carbon transformation? If not, which adjustments are needed? If yes, how can technological and societal innovation be supported and by which policy instruments and social capital? How can technology utilities provide values beyond their products and services (e.g. a car company providing mobility impulses, such as car sharing)? Which tipping points are relevant for transformation? Which factors and events are game changers? | An understanding of the role of pioneers, first movers, multipliers, and champions; linking technological, market and cultural innovation with societal change and human well-being; linkages between drivers of decisions and procedures; the conceptualization of disruptive events or agencies; an understanding of the role of recipients’ lifestyles on the emergence of innovation | An assessment of realistic and speculative scenarios; the determination of relevant indicators and benchmarks; impact assessments; process tracing; the evaluation of complementary and competing technologies; the assessment of required complementary infrastructures (e.g. digitalization) and policy instruments (e.g. fiscal policies) | The promotion of social acceptance of technologies; the adaptation of technologies to structural changes; purpose planning for drivers; the management of technological, societal, market, and cultural trade-offs, co-benefits, and synergies; the identification of tipping points |
What drives decisions (e.g., technology, market, culture)? | ||||
Self-enforcement | How can self-enforcement promote or inhibit sustainable, low-carbon transformation? How can self-driving dynamics be predicted and controlled? Who is to be held accountable for the negative externalities brought by self-reinforcing structures? Who can take credits over the positive contribution of self-driving dynamics vis-à-vis rewards and entitlements? Should structures be independent from human cognition? If yes, how? Which structures can be (re) developed to reduce risks and volatility in decision-making? How can decision frameworks be resilient and adaptive? | An understanding of relationships between resilient and adaptive capacities; the conceptualization of self-enforcement; the conceptualization of accountability over self-enforcement; an explication of apparent contradictions; the pronouncement of the linkages between self-driving dynamics and free-will | An impact assessment of self-enforcement; the measurement of resilience and adaptation through benchmarks and indicators; an assessment of the adaptive capacity of the system; the measurement and attribution of accountability converted into sanctions and moral responsibilities | The accountability management of effects resulting from self-enforcement; the establishment of early warning and response systems; monitoring and verification; the attribution of rewards and sanctions; the improvement of reaction time for self-enforcement |
How can structures promoting a transformation towards sustainability reinforce themselves? | ||||
The nexus of global-local | How is the global interconnected with the national and local spheres? How is learning across the levels of analysis helpful to transformation? How can regional powers or middle powers assume a regional leadership role in sustainable development? Can regional bodies such as the APEC or ASEAN play a more pronounced role in advancing sustainable developmental policy goals? Can regional “champions” of sustainable development be identified to serve as catalysts of transformation? How can regional success stories be useful for other regions? How can local/regional issues be effectively addressed globally (and vice-versa)? How can the inability of local actors to participate in global decision-making be effectively addressed and resolved? | An understanding of the meaning of locality in globalization; the postulation of a connection between local, regional, and international bodies and a conceptualization of their relationships; an understanding of the links between global and local; conceptualization of “glocalization”; an explication of the core-periphery dichotomy in the context of global-local relations; the pronouncement of norm diffusion across the levels of analysis; an analysis of the linkage between “glocality” and legitimacy | A performance assessment of “glocalized approaches”; the differentiation between indigenous and exogenous interventions; the evaluation of global visions for local actions; an assessment of the inclusion of local actors in global decision-making; an evaluation of local impulses (e.g. aboriginal water governance, the Taloana concept for climate negotiations); the quantification of the benefits of the scaling up and scaling down of best practices | The justification of global decisions vis-à-vis local audiences (and vice-versa); the management of social mandates; accountability and transparency management; the addressing of NIMBY and free-drivers; the bridging of global visions with local actions; the coordination of distinct processes and dynamics at various governance levels; the integration and coordination of coherent actions at various levels |
Are there local, regional and/or international frameworks or agencies that can be tapped to advance capacity-building? | ||||
Processes: | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Elaborating Questions | Meta-level theoretical and conceptual Issues | Methodological Issues | Practical Issues | |
Inclusion and exclusion | Does inclusion promote predictability in decision-making? How is justice relevant to sustainable, low-carbon transformation? How do inclusive processes affect the extent of other processes? How does the opening of deliberations promote the achievement of goals? How do the reactions of other processes further influence the course of one process? How can feedbacks be identified and measured? Which feedbacks between processes need to be properly addressed? How are “political subjects” identified and embedded in specific contexts? How do processes mobilize agents and audiences? Which rebound effects require attention? What prevents accountability? How does the maintenance of patriarchal values create structural imbalances, or are these patriarchal values themselves symptoms of structural imbalances? How does the promotion of women’s rights promote other societal goals? How does culture define practice? How does addressing gender gaps promote environmental and climate protection as well as other sustainable development goals? How are gendered injustices the outcomes of changes in institutions? | The conceptualization of rewards and sanctions for injustices; an understanding of the mechanisms of bestowing respectability; an explication of inclusiveness and exclusiveness in decision-making processes; an analysis of the linkage between change and status quo processes; an understanding of feedback; the conceptualization of silence and complicity; an explication of free-riding and the public good dilemma | An assessment of relevance; an impact assessment of processes; the measurement of feedback, the rebound effect and its externalities; the methodological instruments used to study (in)justices, including gender-related abuses; the measurement and prediction of the possibility of being excluded; the evaluation of counter-movements and other responses to change; the evaluation of the competitive advantage of being “in” and the competitive disadvantage of being “out” | The formalization of atonement; the monitoring and verification of benchmarks and indicators; the attribution of outcomes to processes; accountability management; the distribution of the costs and pay-offs of inclusion and exclusion; the establishment of capacity-building measures to promote inclusion; the determination of strategies of exclusion; the prevention of free-riding | |
How can inclusive processes strengthen patterns of justice and fairness? | |||||
Discourses and Perspectives | Do the positions of stakeholders depend on which processes they are participating in? Which positions are developed a fortiori during the bargaining processes? How are multi-level perspectives reflected in decision-making processes? Which opportunities are available through sectoral approaches? How can the coherence of various relevant levels and modular subsystems be achieved? How can the convergence of principles and norms be facilitated? How can all levels of governance be designed so that they include the perspectives of the most vulnerable? How do discourse entrepreneurs communicate and interact with each other and with norm entrepreneurs? How can an actor not only understand the perspectives of the others but also make one’s perspective be understood by the others (the reverse perspective)? How should public spheres be constituted to promote public discourse? Which agencies (e.g. the church, NGOs, universities) can serve as hosts of public discourse? Can effective public discourse occur in authoritarian states? | The conceptualization of relationships between discourse entrepreneurs; an understanding of the importance of consensus-building and deliberation to transformation processes; an affirmation of the linkage between diversity and value; an examination of participation; an understanding of sectoral perspectives; the conceptualization of the convergence and diffusion of norms and principles | An impact assessment of diversity in perspectives; the evaluation of perspectives; the measurement of opportunity costs in monolithic decision-making processes; the operationalization of reverse perspectives; an assessment of appropriate actions that are locally rather than universally approved by the audience | The identification, creation and management of agencies or spheres that connect perspectives; the empowerment of weaker actors; the establishment of new norms; accountability management; the development and concretization of principles for common but differentiated responsibilities; the translation of access to perspectives into empathy; the overcoming of barriers and caveats for societal dialogue; the integration and coordination of coherent actions at various levels | |
How can different perspectives in each process be addressed and used to expand value? | |||||
Process legitimacy | How important is the approval of the audience? How and why is legitimacy inevitable? What constitutes an audience? Which external audiences can be relevant? What happens when the audience disapproves of policies? How can the outcome of collective decision-making be justified in front of constituents? How can social mandates frame collective actions or prevent certain actions? How does legitimacy ensure compliance? How is climate skepticism linked with right-wing populism? How can legitimacy be made more culturally pluralistic? | The conceptualization of internal and external transparencies and accountabilities; the conception of the linkage of process legitimacy to outcome legitimacy; an explication of the audience and its leverage against agents; an understanding of social mandates and their ramifications for social cohesion | The quantification and measurement of approval; an impact assessment of process legitimacy on the effective implementation of policy goals; the optimization of processes vis-à-vis goals; the measurement of the adaptability of those processes on unravelling changes | The formalization of legitimacy; verification and accountability management; the establishment of reconciliatory mechanisms between audiences and agents; the management of diversity and the complexity of processes (branching points); the implementation of corrective and compensatory mechanisms | |
Which factors can provide legitimacy to the transformation process? | |||||
Communication | Which structural conditions are needed to allow communication? What is the role of language as a tool of communication? How is language a barrier or a bridge to sustainable development? Which communication mechanisms can provide opportunities for collaborative exchanges? How does power define the communication process? How can communication resolve coordination problems? How does communication resolve the prisoner’s dilemma? Are there limitations on the need for communication? How does communication enhance or inhibit bargaining? How can the dependence on the English language as the dominant carrier of scientific knowledge be addressed? Which problems in communication can inhibit cooperation? | The conceptualization of language as the carrier of information and knowledge; an understanding of the role of sociolinguistic narratives in the transformation processes; an assertion of the link between capacity-building in communication and participation in decision-making processes; the conceptualization of coordination and coordination problems; an explication of the linkage between communication and bargaining, as well as between communication and deliberation | An impact assessment of communication channels; the measurement of communication skills; an analysis of collaborative exchanges; an evaluation of the effects of communication on coordination and collaboration; an assessment of communication skills; an analysis of rhetorical preferences, depending on power-base reference frames | The management of exchanges of knowledge; the fact-checking of sociolinguistic narratives; a comparison of the meanings and interpretations of terminologies; the improvement of translation and the use of communication and information technologies; the improvement of listening skills | |
How can communication among actors, between representatives and constituents as well as between agents and audiences be established? | |||||
Learning | How does experiential learning constitute practice and define actions? How do actors assess information and use it to modify their behavior and decisions? How can learning lead to pragmatic decisions? Is learning possible for all relevant actors? How does learning promote cooperation? How does learning resolve coordination and collaboration problems? How can actors learn from bridging the gaps between discourse and materiality? How can regressions and set-backs lead to learning? How is it possible to reverse learning and unlearn erroneous learning materials? | An explication of the linkage between learning and incrementalism; the conceptualization of experiential learning; an assertion of the linkage between learning and cooperation; an understanding of the value of regressions and set-backs (discriminative constraints) to decision-making; the grasping of learning from big bangs and/or incremental changes | The measurement of learning among actors and agents; a comparison between learning goals and learning outcomes; an analysis of regressions and their impacts; causality tracing between learning and the resolution of the indecisiveness dilemma; the assessment of experiences as inputs for learning; the measurement of the usefulness of learning outputs for transformation towards sustainability | The management of learning
institutions; the verification of learning materials; the orientation of learning to policy goals; the sharp-edging of multi-disciplinary profiles of global transformations towards sustainability; the translation of learning into shorter thinking and reaction times | |
How does the learning of actors and agencies resolve which challenges to transformation towards sustainability? | |||||
Persuasion and advocacy | How does persuasion change behaviors and utility preferences? Which persuasion techniques can be used in a highly competitive environment? How can decision-makers, confronted by high uncertainty, be persuaded? How are persuasions creating more value for transformations? How does the demonization of others inhibit persuasion? From where do advocacy groups derive their social mandate? How do policy entrepreneurs resolve power asymmetries between them and their target actors? Which types and venues of cooperation among policy entrepreneurs can promote a transformation towards sustainability? | The conceptualization of changes in beliefs and value systems due to persuasion; an understanding of advocacy as a means of fulfilling interests; an examination of policy change due to advocacy; the presumption of the connection between advocacy and larger public policy concerns; an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of advocacy with regards to the reversal of past decisions; a rumination on social mobilization; the grasping of the significance of venues and platforms (public spheres); the conceptualization of codes of conduct and rules for policy entrepreneurs | The evaluation of arguments made for persuasion; an impact assessment of persuasive measures; an assessment of the tactics of advocacy groups; a performance analysis of NGOs and other policy entrepreneurs; a measure of advocacy that covers a broad range of actions; a comparison of viable venues for advocacy (courts, the streets); the measurement of policy changes due to advocacy; the evaluation of the game plan of policy-making and policy implementation | The accountability of advocacy groups and interest surrogates; the verification of promises; the accountability and transparency of the audiences and constituents of policy entrepreneurs; the development of appropriate game plans and competitive gambits | |
How can actors achieve their goals through persuasion and advocacy? | |||||
Morality and Normativity | How can ‘good’ intentions produce ‘bad’ results? How can valuable silver linings be identified and enhanced? What is the role of luck, coincidences and circumstance in determining moral responsibilities? How do luck and coincidences define individual preferences, decisions, and actions? How can individual actions that fall within social norms like driving cars or having a big family be blamed for aggregated values that are detrimental to environmental integrity? How do power relations define responsibilities? How can the naming, blaming and shaming of the divergent actors from the norms resolve the prisoners’ dilemma? Are value-free trajectories of sustainability possible? | The conceptualization of remedial actions; an understanding of the attenuation of blame; an understanding of the complex and neglected aspects of moral responsibility judgments; an explication of the shifts in moral understanding and responsibility; the definition of a political interpretation of responsibility; an understanding of cumulative effects; an analysis of the acceptance of normativity in decision frameworks; an explication of the reproduction of the frames of reference in reinforcing accepted beliefs and norms | The evaluation of regret; the measurement of fault and guilt; an assessment of the impacts of guilt on actions; a comparative analysis of narratives on moral responsibility; the evaluation of power in determining blame and guilt (“history is written by the winners”); culpable causation; the evaluation of the value adaptiveness of agencies and audiences | The justification of interventions using moral principles; the attribution of commitments and contributions to circumstantial luck; accountability management; the justification of sanctions and compensatory measures; the attribution of blame to perpetuators in complex issues; the attribution of blame and responsibilities based on uncertainty; engagement in arguments and fights over moral responsibilities | |
How does morality and normativity define functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions? | |||||
Identity and ownership | How can ownership promote transformation processes? How can the recipients of technological transfer and capacity-building efforts entail process ownership? What does ownership mean to international assistance efforts? How are intellectual property rights addressed in collaboration efforts? How does identity provide rallying points for collective actions? What can mobilize “eco-identity”? How are identities, ideas and narratives being (re)produced, and in which ways? | The conceptualization of policy transfers vis-à-vis norm diffusion; an understanding of mobilizing processes leading to identities; the pronouncement of the linkage of changes to the loss of identity; the adjudication of identity narratives; the conceptualization of ownership; an explication of the linkage between ownership and transformation processes | The quantification of ownership; an impact assessment of identity-based measures; the evaluation of process ownership vis-à-vis the achievement of policy goals; the scoping of the boundaries between identities; the consolidation of identity-building measures | The identification of champions; the formalization of rallying points for transformation; the institutionalization of measures promoting the ownership of the recipients of technology transfers; the modification of narratives; the translation of ownership into responsibility and commitment; the prevention of polarization tendencies | |
How can the consolidation of identity and ownership of sustainable development further advance the transformation process? | |||||
Outcomes: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Elaborating Questions | Meta-level theoretical and conceptual Issues | Methodological Issues | Practical Issues |
Post-agreement opposition | Who are the potential post-agreement challengers and opposing actors? What are the motivations of these actors? Which arguments are typically used by former participants to discredit the agreements? Why did they initially support the agreement but later withdraw support? How can post-agreement opposition be an accepted part of the process? | The promotion of opposition as an accepted norm of deliberation; the conceptualization of “evolving deterrence”; an understanding and promotion of the credibility of agreements | The evaluation of process resilience; an impact assessment and the measurement of preference functions in collective decision-making; a comparative analysis of different interpretations of the same issues | The establishment of early warning and response management; the promotion of the reliability of outcomes; an improvement in dialogue and communication management with stakeholders; compensation for emerging contingencies |
How can agreements effectively address post-agreement
opposition and challenges?effectively address post-agreement opposition and challenges? | ||||
Alternatives | Which alternative outcomes are available and feasible for each actor? How can the BATNA be aligned with the principles and goals of sustainable, low-carbon transformation? How can the clarification of alternatives prevent actors from cheating? How can tangible outcomes be compared to theoretical alternatives? How can judgements about acceptable risks be made? How could potentially unrealistic expectations be tested? What are some ways to use differing interests to create value? | The conceptualization of BATNA; an examination of the narratives and a romanticizing of the alternatives; an understanding of one’s reservation value and that of the others; an analysis of utopian/dystopian thinking; the conception of the idealization of theoretical alternatives | A comparison between real outcomes and hypothetical alternatives; a comparison of BATNA and outcomes; the modelling of alternative scenarios; the measurement of acceptability of alternative outcomes; the calculation of the risks of the alternatives; an assessment of options to enhance value-creating performance | The reliable comparison of options; the establishment of fact-checking and correction management related to a nostalgic memory of past regimes; fact-checking in the post-truth era; the identification of strategic alternatives in response to issues; the establishment of analytical frameworks to assist the creative development of alternatives |
Which outcomes can improve the ‘best alternative to a negotiated agreement’ (BATNA) of all actors? | ||||
Ambiguity and flexibility | Which ambiguities are embedded in outcomes? How do ambiguities constitute the flexibility and acceptability of agreements? Which types of ambiguities are detrimental to the long-term transformation process? How do ambiguities affect relationships and interactions? How does ambiguity promote trust and cooperation? Are ambiguity and flexibility the prerogatives of powerful actors? How much ambiguity can be achieved without sacrificing efficiency? How does ambiguity promote participation and inclusion? How can creativity and imagination be sustained? | The extrapolation of the linkage between complexity and ambiguity; an explication of the linkage between ambiguity or flexibility and efficiency; the pronouncement of the linkage between ambiguity or flexibility and power; an understanding of the difference between ambiguity and entitlement | The conversion of principles of justice and fairness into ambiguity and flexibility; the evaluation of ambiguity vis-à-vis system shocks; the differentiation of ambiguity from free-riding; an assessment of creative solutions in terms of them being realistic; the evaluation of improvisation skills drawn on (life) experience and institutional memory | The attribution of vulnerabilities to compensatory mechanisms through ambiguities and flexibilities; accountability and verification management; bridging ambiguity and reciprocity in cooperative relationships; the collection and implementation of creativity in agreements |
Which ambiguities are useful for ensuring the implementation of negotiated outcomes? | ||||
Interests | How far is the negotiated agreement from the (technically) optimal solution? How can the resulting gaps be compensated to ensure the efficiency of agreements? How can the integrity of negotiated agreements be established when they are far from optimal? How can multiple, individual, optimal solutions be aligned or aggregated to resolve coordination and collaboration problems? How can short-term interests be made compatible with long-term interests? How useful is the use of power in coercing the reconciliation of interests? | An understanding of biases that distort interests; the justification of compensatory measures; an understanding of the role of emotions; the conception of interests based on the context of power asymmetry | The depiction of short-term and long-term interests; the modelling of interests; the anticipation of others’ interests; the evaluation and measurement of interests for comparison purposes | Access to information about one’s interests and those of the others; setting up objective standards and indicators to elaborate interests |
What possible agreements or pieces of an agreement (outcomes) could satisfy the interests of all actors and audiences? | ||||
Divergence | How are differences be tolerated or addressed in the outcome? How can diversity be useful in expanding the value of agreements? How can differences be connected, and by which social mandate? How can gaps between technically optimal solutions and negotiated agreements be addressed? While the convergence of principles and norms can promote transformation, how can divergence resolve the locality and contextuality of various problem issues? Can divergence promote expert specialization? Which political skills are needed to reconcile divergent interests? | The conceptualization of reactive devaluation (devaluing proposals only because they originated from an adversary); the pronouncement of the linkage between divergence and convergence; an explication of the linkage between divergence and flexibility; an understanding of divergence in the context of cooperation | A critical assessment of the variations among sectors and technologies; the evaluation of best practices; an impact assessment of diverging norms and principles; an evaluation of sub-optimal compromises resulting from the reconciliation of divergent interests | The delegitimating of counterfactual claims on global transformation towards sustainability; the establishment of the connection between divergence and the application of solutions; the design of interventions to reconcile interests; the creation of balance between harmony and dissent; the establishment of mechanisms to combat polarization tendencies; the integration and coordination of coherent actions considering divergent principles and mandates |
How can the divergence of interests be used to create additional value in outcomes? | ||||
Expectations and pay-offs | Which expectations are inhibiting or promoting which outcomes? How do self-fulfilling prophecies affect the present behavior of actors? How do too optimistic and too pessimistic expectations limit the real potentials of the achieved agreement? How can potentially unrealistic expectations be tested and corrected? | The conceptualization of expectations; an understanding of self-fulfilling prophecies; an explication of cognitive lock-ins | An assessment of the ontological and epistemological baggage of ideas and principles; an evaluation of methods of coupling and decoupling; the conversion of collective pay-offs to individual pay-offs (and vice-versa) | The collection, attribution and distribution of pay-offs from outcomes; the bridging of individual and collective pay-offs |
How can present behavior be framed by expectations of future outcomes? | ||||
Outcome legitimacy | How can externalities be fairly distributed to the actors causing them? How can the value of the externalities be converted to become significant to policy-makers? Are all relevant negative externalities properly addressed? How do negative externalities affect cooperation? How do these affect one’s utility function? What external criteria might plausibly be relevant? How can outcomes be justified to constituents? | An explanation of causalities between outcomes and legitimacy; an explication of narratives vis-à-vis legitimacy;
the presumption of system adaptation and latency; the pronouncement of implementation and verification as tools of outcome legitimacy | The evaluation and measurement of transition costs vis-à-vis transition pay-offs; the assessment of the verification systems in place; the evaluation and measurement of public acceptance | The management of heterogeneous and fragmented public opinion; fact-checking management; the application of outcomes to local conditions; the elaboration of the details of the outcome; the management and improvement of information campaigns |
How do the negative externalities of the outcome or individual elements of the outcome affect the legitimacy of the whole outcome? | ||||
Contract regimes and implementation | Which organizational resources are needed to support implementation? Which roadmap or timeline can be used to implement policies? Does the process require mediation through an impartial third-party? Which additional roles can stakeholders take on as the outcomes are implemented? Which benchmarks and indicators can be used to monitor and, if needed, correct the implementation of outcomes? Should contract regimes be centralized or decentralized? | A conception of system ruptures; an understanding of the degree of institutionalization associated with contract regimes | An assessment of the benchmarks behind critical junctures; the evaluation of alternative regime arrangements; an assessment of the adaptive capacities of contract regimes; the optimization and calibration of benchmarks and indicators; the evaluation of implementation plans and roadmaps | The distribution of the costs and benefits of implemented policies; the adjustment of contracts and mandates; the concretization and elaboration of stipulations in contracts; action planning and implementation |
How are outcomes logistically and materially implemented? | ||||
Post-agreement modifications | How can unpopular outcomes be retrospectively justified? How can new provisions and stipulations be added into the agreement without requiring a default on negotiations? How can shifts and changes in power resources during the course of negotiations and after settlements be addressed in anticipation? How can the outcome be stable enough to allow minor modifications? | An understanding of the sources of stability; an explication of the link between system stability and outcome stability; the conceptualization of flexibility and creativity in responding to new conditions; the conception of system ruptures | An assessment of the adaptive capacities of implementing regimes; the measurement and evaluation of system ruptures and disruptions; an impact assessment of disruptive governments | The establishment and verification of rules on post-agreement modifications; the management of early-warning and rapid-response mechanisms; transparency and accountability management |
How can provisions in the negotiated outcome be modified without endangering the implementation of the outcome? | ||||
14.2 The Stakeholder Matrix and Engagement Plan
The insights and lessons gained from the theoretical, methodological, and empirical chapters of this book are used to come up with a stakeholder matrix and engagement plan that can help decision-makers structure their strategies and adapt to the various dilemmas and self-driving dynamics when making important decisions. The previous section empowers stakeholders to understand the questions that need to be asked to “master” the transformation process towards sustainability. The identification of meta-level theoretical, methodological, and practical issues allows integrated and systems analytical thinking that promotes the expansion of values. This expansion of values promotes collective decision-making by highlighting the ‘positive sum’ character of the transformation process.
The following figure illustrates an empty template of a matrix that summarizes and applies the outputs of all the chapters of this book. The stakeholders are first categorized according to their role in the policy-making process. Tier 1 are the direct agents that directly come up with policy instruments that could promote or inhibit transformation towards sustainability. Tier 2 refers to context-related policy entrepreneurs that include both enablers and spoilers which are not directly involved in policy-making but can enable or hinder (delay or obstruct) decision-making. Tier 3 (audience) pertains to entities that bestow different types of legitimacy on the transformation process through their direct or indirect approval or disapproval not only of the whole transformation process, but also of different (sub)processes (Table 14.2).
Table 14.2
The Stakeholder Matrix and Engagement Plan. (Source: own representation)
The different aspects of the matrix include the system and process-related role of these stakeholders, conflict analysis (how these stakeholders define conflict and how they see this conflict being resolved), and the type of engagement that can be utilized to produce specific outputs from this engagement. In addition, the matrix highlights the entry points to transformation towards sustainability, the caveats to support this transformation process, as well as the possible positions of stakeholders for further actions (which type of actions are most likely to be pursued).
Anzeige
To demonstrate the use of the matrix, a preliminary draft of the stakeholder analysis and engagement plan for the transformation process towards sustainability of the German transport sector (Verkehrswende) will be introduced. Some impulses were taken from current discussions among relevant stakeholders participating in various public discourses on sustainable transport in Germany. The draft suggests, for instance, how asking appropriate reflexive questions can explain why some stakeholders are ambivalent to sustainable transport. This highlights why one stakeholder or even a policy-making agent produces a series of actions that are contradictory. This is not necessarily an argument for the unpredictability or irrationality of this actor, but rather suggests existing entry points and caveats or barriers.
The Tier 1 agents refer to the different relevant government bodies as stipulated by the federal system, as well as Germany’s membership in the European Union. While the federal ministries tend to be the major agenda-setting actors in the negotiation process, the state governments (Bundesländer) employ other venues of participation. The city governments and local councils (Gemeinde) are also involved through various means and are considered the policy-makers nearest to the citizens. The Tier 2 agents are the policy entrepreneurs who have varying degrees of influence over Tier 1 agents. They also contribute different types of inputs that allow Tier 1 agents to efficiently address certain issues while maintaining legitimacy. They include the different “advisory councils” (Beiräte) such as the Deutsches Ethikrat (German Ethic Council), the Rat für nachhaltige Entwicklung (Advisory Council for Sustainable Development), the Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (Advisory Council of Evaluators for the Evaluation of Total Economic Development) and the Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für globale Umweltveränderung (the Scientific Advisory Council for Global Environmental Change). These councils have become important pillars of policy-making in Germany. Other Tier 2 agents include research institutions, businesses and industry agents (either individually or as proponents of Verbände (associations)), the public transportation sector (represented by either individual entities or by associations) and labor unions. Foundations are considered Tier 2 agents, because they influence power relations between Tier 2 agents through their capacity-building activities. The media is considered here as a policy entrepreneur, because it often pursues its own interests, such as the accountability of policy-makers and the capacity-building of other policy entrepreneurs, and even of the audience by providing information. Political parties have been categorized as Tier 2 agents. Although they set the pace and direction of government policies and are often even political parties building the government or its coalition, as the German political party culture demonstrates, they can pursue other interests. In addition, government ministries can pursue policies that are the results of compromises with coalition partners, which can be unacceptable to the political base of the party. Furthermore, groups within a political party that control different levels (federal, state and local) may pursue contradictory views. Moreover, referring back to the “the efficient” and “the dignified”-dichotomy presented in the previous chapters, in this context, Tier 1 represents the “efficient” while Tier 2 the “dignified.” Finally, Tier 3 refers to the different audiences that assess the interplay between the efficient and the dignified. It includes the German audience, the EU audience, the global audience, as well as the distinct constituents of Tier 2 agents.
The matrix also demonstrates the system and process roles of Tier 1 and Tier 2 agents in the transformation process towards sustainable transport. While some agents can either push for change (change agents), others are more interested in ensuring stability by minimizing change (status quo agents). For example, the transportation ministry can be regarded as a change agent. Responding to structural changes in the transport sector, which may include new technological innovation that favors the sustainable development of the sector, it sets the agenda for different negotiations with other Tier 1 agents. Other Tier 1 agents, such as the Finance Ministry, may be keen on ensuring that the propositions of the change agents will not undermine the fiscal health of the country, thus initially acting as a brake to changes, at least until uncertainties about the future costs of transformation can be calculated and managed. In addition, some agents can be both a change and a status quo agent due to the complexity of the issues involved, where in some issues they seek change and in some they resist. For example, the Ministry of Economy and Energy can both push and pull the process depending on the issues involved. This might be initially seen as contradictory or even irrational behavior on behalf of the agent. In this situation, this ministry is dependent on how issues can be decoupled. For example, the Ministry of Economy and Energy on the one hand limit the pace of fuel switch from diesel to electric cars to protect the German car industry (pull), but on the other hand implement policy instruments to unlock carbon lock-ins in the car industry (push).
Moreover, the process roles of the agents refer to how each agent from every tier can contribute or inhibit the transformation process. For example, scientific communities as Tier 2 agents can provide inputs for evidence-based decision-making that ensure the effectiveness of transport policies and thus the legitimacy of relevant procedures. Other agents, such as the car industry, can be learners in the process, which, once persuaded through interactions with other agents, will be important game changers in the process. Scientific communities and think tanks can accelerate this learning process through partnerships and networks. Agents such as foundations and think tanks are relevant to the process, as providers of resources and proponents of capacity-building. They can, for example, increase funding to universities and research institutions that focus on public acceptance of public transportation systems.
The power base identifies the different sources of leverage for each agent. Some agents, through their access to expert knowledge, depend on procedural power to pursue their interests when interacting with the others. For example, the credibility of the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development vis-à-vis foreign partners is defined by the know-how it can provide to other countries. Few agents can employ leverage through negative power, which can successful increase the costs and efforts needed to implement certain policies. For example, individual federal states (Bundesländer) can decide to block bills proposed by the federal government irrespective of their political party affiliations. Citizen groups that believe that building new train stations in their communities could attract criminals, drug addicts, and “cheap” tourism have different ways of blocking decisions or increasing the costs of implementing projects.
The negotiation analysis refers to the interests and anticipated negotiation style of agents when engaging in various levels of bargaining. The interests reflect the social mandate of these agents. Understanding these interests promotes flexibility and creativity in forging agreements. For example, in understanding that consumer protection will most likely be in the interests of the Ministry on Justice and Consumer Protection when it comes to sustainable transport, other agents wishing to achieve its support will need to include proposed stipulations ensuring consumer protection. Other interests of this ministry may include ensuring security and safety in transit infrastructures. Moreover, agents are anticipated to employ specific negotiation styles, which often depends on the agents’ role in the transformation process. For example, the European Commission might be highly competitive in the process to compensate for its position of merely responding or reacting to decisions made in Berlin (or Bonn). Other agents, such as federal state governments and local governments that employ negative power, will very likely be competitive in negotiating with the federal government, because veto power has the initial logic of preventing something. Agents such as the Ministry of Economy and Energy may tend to employ an avoidant negotiation style, because of its ambivalence to sustainable transport. With uncertainty, these actors will very likely be trapped in an indecisiveness dilemma. Thus, they will very likely avoid agreeing to much-needed, immediate commitments.
The conflict analysis pertains to the definition of conflict cleavages or the threshold where confrontation becomes more acceptable or desirable than inhibition. The conflict can refer to issues, processes, and procedures. In addition, conflict analysis summarizes each agent’s understanding of viable methods to achieve resolution of conflicts. For example, labor groups may see the conflict as resulting from inequitable procedures due to hierarchical relationships in the context of mutual dependence. For these labor groups, resolving procedural inequities will very likely employ context-sensitive approaches and will specifically target compensatory mechanisms for specific imbalances. The Federal Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs may see the conflict arising because of unclear jurisdictions, which can be resolved through deductive approaches through which acceptable principles are initially achieved, and then applying these principles to concrete issues. For example, this Ministry will very likely focus first on reconciling workers’ rights for employees of both the public transport sector and the car industry to the principles of sustainable transport.
‘Engagement’ refers to the ways in which agents can be mobilized in a process from the perspective of Tier 1 agents. Engagement is highly differentiated, depending on their role and their potential inputs into the transformation process. Tier 1 agents can empower, collaborate, consult, involve, or inform Tier 2 agents. For example, Tier 1 agents may choose to collaborate with selected Tier 2 agents such as scientific communities and think tanks. These selected agents can provide policy briefs and policy recommendations during consultations, or even appoint Tier 2 representatives to various expert committees. Others Tier 2 agents can be empowered through capacity-building measures (e.g., funding, access to information), because the fulfilment of their interests is to the benefit of Tier 1 agents. This empowerment can vindicate the social mandate of Tier 2 agents and help reinforce their identities as policy entrepreneurs are eventually able to reciprocate, which further legitimizes the process.
Tier 1 agents might also decide to limit or prevent the participation of certain Tier 2 agents due to a number of political and logistical reasons. These Tier 2 agents are merely informed. Nevertheless, those policy entrepreneurs who are merely informed will very likely still seek other means of influencing Tier 1 agents, depending on the capacity and autonomy of state institutions—from producing position papers to mobilizing street protests and boycotts through the media. Some will seek to influence public opinion and deliver sociolinguistic narratives to the audience which might be successful in gaining the attention of Tier 1 agents. For example, the Stuttgart 21 movement in Germany targeted the German railway corporation (Deutsche Bahn), leading not only to a loss for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)-led conservative state government in Baden-Württemberg, but also to the massive increase in the costs of re-building the central station in the city of Stuttgart. The costs increased from 4 billion euros to 9 billion euros due to delays and additional provisions stipulated by later court orders that were successfully demanded by citizen groups. The Stuttgart 21 case proves that public acceptance can be a huge barrier in pursuing the Verkehrswende.
Entry points to transformation towards sustainable transport reflect the opportunities for each agent during and after the transformation process. These entry points may result from positive externalities, co-benefits and synergies. Some entry points are purposive, and others are emergent. Purposive entry points refer to benefits for each agent from additional measures to support sustainable transport that are in anyway planned to achieve other developmental goals. For example, the German Environmental Ministry (BMU) seeks to mitigate climate change through emission reduction. Because Verkehrswende seeks to decouple transport emissions from GDP growth, the BMU will most likely be motivated to support the Verkehrswende. Another example is the Ministry of Finance (BMF), which will most likely support the introduction of new taxes, such as fuel taxation and carbon pricing, needed to implement the Verkehrswende, because these new taxes could help the BMF maintain the fiscal health of the government. Emergent entry points are the direct, positive effects of sustainable transport that could motivate the support of agents. For example, the expectation that the Verkehrswende will very likely lead to the reduction of massive public investment in road infrastructure construction and maintenance will persuade the BMF to support the Verkehrswende.
Caveats to support transformation are the reasons behind the agent’s reluctance or opposition to sustainable transport. Most caveats refer to perceived future disadvantages as direct results of redistribution, double contingencies, political risks or even redundancy. For example, because of the redistribution for the EU Community (as an audience), the German Verkehrswende might further constrain EU wide electricity transmission lines, as well as put vehicles from other EU countries transiting in Germany in a disadvantageous position should fees for road use be introduced on German highways to motivate the use of public transportation (redistribution). As an example of double contingencies, the Media as a Tier 2 agent might be confronted with additional uncertainties and credibility problems due to its lack of technical expertise in issues relevant to Verkehrswende. Political parties might estimate the political risks of the Verkehrswende and refrain from pursuing unpopular measures such as the introduction of road use fees or the increase of a car tax and of a speed limit on all parts of the German Autobahn. In addition, private households might be indifferent to the sentiments of other private households in other areas directly affected by the construction of necessary infrastructure, the limitation of parking spaces, or the closure of city centers to car use. They are, in this case, essentially redundant and will most likely be supportive when they have direct benefits or be adversarial when personally confronted by negative effects (the ‘not-in-my-backyard, but yes if in the backyard of the others’ mentality).
Positions for further actions are demanded of agents to materialize their purpose as the transformation process unfolds. These positions have direct implications for the various levels of functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions. Some positions will call for more generic outcomes, which might enable different understandings of guiding principles and formulas. For example, some agents will look at the impact of the Verkehrswende on the egalitarian public space. Will the Verkehrswende promote interactions between citizens from different backgrounds or will it further reinforce segregation? Policy-makers will need to revisit and, if necessary, modify the compatibility of the principles of the Verkehrswende to those existing local narratives that frame principles. Will the construction of new rail networks be compatible with local identities (and traditions), particularly when gentrification through suburbanization arises? Will the increased property value and accessibility of real estate eventually drive out vulnerable, poor households?
Other positions may call for more time and flexibility to find technical solutions within the problem frame. For example, creating more opportunities for interdisciplinarity and systems thinking might allow the improvement of the intermittency problems of renewable energies that are significant for electric and hybrid cars. In addition, improving access to modern forms of transportation depends on income levels and income distribution. However, levels of income are also dependent on access to affordable and reliable transportation technologies. This ‘vicious cycle’ reiterates the limitations of technical solutions. Therefore, technology-driven policies need to work in concert with other development policies such as employment, income, institutional structures, social objectives, environmental integrity, and regional or local development.
Some positions might demand the targeting of the development of relations and communication channels, while others may focus on policy and bargaining games. Dialogue processes have wide applicability in Verkehrswende. Not only can they support the maturity of relevant technologies through provider-user support systems, they can also enhance input and output legitimacy. Through mechanisms for feedback and flexibility in programs and projects, dialogue becomes an investment and not a cost. The establishment of networks and cooperation bodies can help create and maintain various centers of excellence as spaces for knowledge-sharing on different issues that cut across policy priorities.
As a disclaimer, the example of the matrix and stakeholder engagement plan for the German Verkehrswende is, to date, merely conceptual, but still useful in many ways. While assumptions of the profiles of the stakeholders were made based on interpretations of the existing literature and on anecdotal analysis, there are still open issues that require further research. Nevertheless, it demonstrates how emerging coordination and collaboration problems, as well as planning issues can be anticipated. In addition, it identifies the areas of the German Verkehrswende that may not yet be fully understood (Table 14.3).
Table 14.3
Stakeholder Matrix and Engagement—Transformation towards Sustainable Transport (source: own representation)
Stakeholders | Roles | Power base | Negotiation analysis | Conflict analysis | Engagement | Entry points to transformation towards sustainable transport (selection) | Caveats to support transformation towards sustainable transport | Positions for Further Actions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
System role | Role in the process | Interest | Negotiation style | Definition of conflict | Understanding of the methodology for resolution | Type of engagement | Output of engagement | ||||||
Tier 1 (Agents) | BMU (Environment) | change agent | decision-maker; leader | procedural power through expert reviews, agenda-setting); positional power; negative power (refusal of permits) | environmental integrity | collaborative | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip or principle of ministerial autonomy (structure) as well as from variation in rationales (processes) | move directly toward what seems to them most significant; use of the principle of joint cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | reduction of air pollution; finding how transport emissions can be strongly decoupled from GDP growth; reduction of fuel, waste, chemical, oil spill, and other hazardous particulates discarded from aircrafts, cars, trucks, ships, and trains or from port and airport terminal operations that can contaminate hydrographic systems. | new environmental concerns through the importation of raw materials for batteries; expansion of grid systems needed for electric cars; some biofuels being environmentally poor and causing inequalities by inducing increases in food prices; political costs due to perceived political opposition of constituents; negative transport-related impacts of the development on areas of designated landscape importance; transport-related impact of the development on areas of nature conservation or biodiversity and Earth heritage interests (such as geology) where they interact with roads; loss of fertile lands due to transportation infrastructure constructions; endangered animal species as a result of changes in their natural habitats and the reduction of ranges | prevention of harm to biodiversity; inclusion of sustainable transport into sustainable urban environment planning; understanding the key environmental barriers to effectively identifying, managing and implementing equitable, affordable, low-carbon and innovative transportation systems; the consolidation of mitigation efforts in the transport sector; revalidation of new vehicle and fuel standards vis-à-vis environmental integrity; |
BMVI (Transport & Digital Infrastructure) | change agent | decision-maker; leader; agenda-setter | power through the control of resources (transportation as service); information power; procedural power (expert knowledge) | mobility | collaborative | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip or principle of ministerial autonomy (structure) as well as from variation in rationales (processes) | inductive approach by dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties and underlying principles may become discernible only in the end; use of the principle of joint Cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | reduction of traffic congestion; decrease of upfront costs; elimination of barriers to market entry for electric vehicles (especially those related to range anxiety) | high costs of immediate construction of infrastructures such as the expanding grid systems and rapid construction of charging stations; political costs due to perceived political opposition of constituents | strategic partnership between BMU and BMVI; reduction of complexity; clarification of mandates and jurisdictions in the context of cross-cutting issues; improvement of security of transport infrastructures; addressing inherent weaknesses of the transport planning processes—national or urban (basically have remained “technical processes” | |
BMJV (Justice & Consumer Protection) | status quo agent | decision-maker; guardian of tolerable window; reminder of existing norms and principles | sanctioning power; power through control of (human) resources; procedural power (agenda-setting); power through association ("in the name of the law") | consumer protection | collaborative | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip or principle of ministerial autonomy (structure) as well as from a variation in rationales (processes) | scoping for precedent cases and interpretation; normative activation by appealing to fairness, procedural and substantial justice; use of the principle of joint cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | change in lifestyle and consumer behavior among the youth | opening of new precedents for compensatory mechanisms (e.g., compensation for loss of property value in near proximity to new infrastructures such as transmission lines); political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | behavioral/lifestyle change; demand reduction through behavioral change | |
BMBF (Education & Research) | change agent | decision-maker; mediator; enhancer of the negotiation capacities of other stakeholders | procedural power (expert knowledge); referent power (connector); information power | legitimacy through evidence-based policy-making | collaborative | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip (structure) as well as from variation in rationales (processes) | division of labor and scoping for experiences from various stakeholders; use of the principle of joint cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | need for evidence-based decisions; technological spill-overs | lack of trust in expert knowledge; political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | strategic partnerships between research communities and BMVI; reduction of contingency and complexity; identify the knowledge gaps responsible for barriers and caveats; improvement of institutional capacity and incentives to translate good knowledge into effective actions | |
BMF (Finance) | status quo agent | decision-maker; learner; spoiler; brake; controller of sociolinguistic narratives | power through the control of resources; negative power; formal power | improvement of fiscal health | competitive | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip or principle of ministerial autonomy (structure) as well as from variation in rationales (processes) | inductive approach by dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties and underlying principles may become discernible only at the end; use of the principle of joint cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | introduction of new taxes such as fuel taxation and carbon pricing; financial profitability of mass transit options; reduction of regressive car use that requires massive public investment for road infrastructure construction and maintenance | high upfront costs for new infrastructures; austerity measures; Schuldenbremse (debt ceiling); political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | market incentives and finance instruments; fuel taxation and carbon pricing; elimination of vehicle subsidies; de-linkage between planning and financing | |
BMWi (Economy and Energy) | change agent/status quo agent | decision-maker; learner; spoiler; brake; controller of sociolinguistic narratives; focal point of interests of economic groups | power through the control of resources; negative power; formal power; reward power; coercive power | economic competitiveness of Germany (e.g., through energy security) | avoiding | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip or principle of ministerial autonomy (structure) as well as from variation in rationales (processes) | inductive approach by dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties and underlying principles may become discernible only at the end; use of the principle of joint Cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | increase in demand for energy; impulses for battery technologies and their technological maturity; enhanced energy security; decreased dependence on fossil-fuels | existing carbon lock-ins in industries; concerns about increased import dependence on Asia for batteries; large unmanageable redistributive consequences leading to distorted market signals; political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | sectoral approaches; coupling sustainable transport and economic development | |
BMZ (Economic Cooperation & Development) | change agent | decision-maker; mediator; enhancer of capacities; monitor and verification agent; focal point of German interests in other countries | expert power; procedural power (agenda-setting); referent power | protection of economic well-being | collaborative | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip or principle of ministerial autonomy (structure) as well as from variation in rationales (processes) | inductive approach by dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties and underlying principles may become discernible only in the end; use of the principle of joint Cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | increased pool of inputs for Germany's international development assistance projects; increased partnership with foreign governments; finding how transport emissions can be strongly decoupled from GDP growth | lack of clarity around jurisdiction; political costs due to perceived political opposition of constituents | clarification and improvement of technology transfer schemes; inclusion of sustainable transport into sustainable economic development planning; assessment of the key economic barriers to effectively identifying, managing and implementing equitable, affordable, low-carbon and innovative transportation systems; formulation of integrated policies reflecting the multi-sectoral nature of transport and the necessity of the vertical and horizontal coordination of
actions | |
BMAS (Employment and Social Affairs) | status quo agent | decision-maker; reminder of existing norms and principles related to social issues and workers' rights | negative power; referent power; expert power; power through control of resources | labor protection | avoiding | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip (structure) as well as from variation in rationales (processes) | deductive approach by looking first for acceptable principles and then applying them to concrete issues; use of the principle of joint cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | decrease of travel time from home to work; increase of employment in the transportation and energy sectors | labor interests of workers in the car industry; political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | protection of labor rules and norms; pronounce the key social barriers to effectively identifying, managing and implementing equitable, affordable, low-carbon and innovative transportation systems; addressing the gender-related challenges of sustainable transport | |
BMG (Health) | change agent | decision-maker; focal point of possible co-benefits | referent power; expert power; negative power | health protection | collaborative | conflict arising from diffuse jurisdictions and mandates challenging the Ressortprinzip or principle of ministerial autonomy (structure) as well as from variations in rationales (processes) | inductive approach by dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties and underlying principles may become discernible only at the end; use of the principle of joint cabinet decision-making | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan; draft bill | savings from prevented health costs due to lower air pollution and dust (Feinstaub) as well as savings from avoided sickness related absences of employees; promotion of personal physical activities leading to increased public health benefits from more physical activities | health risks arising from complementary technologies and infrastructures; political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | improvement of measurement of savings for public health | |
EU Commission | status quo agent/change agent | brake; accelerator; reminder of existing norms and principles (e.g. EU norms on subsidies) | negative power; positional power (hierarchy) | protection against unfair subsidies | competitive | conflicts arising from differences on procedures of implementation of directives | cognitive approach by moving directly toward what seems to them most significant (for example the interaction itself) | collaborate | workplan, implementation plan; directives | setting the pace for other EU countries in sustainable transport; elimination of vehicle subsidies | dominance of Germany in the EU electricity market; volatility of electricity prices in certain EU countries; Maut fees in German highways causing disadvantages to other EU countries; political costs due to perceived political opposition of constituents | guarding against national subsidies; implementation of EU-wide standards on vehicle emissions; formulation of integrated policies reflecting the multi-sectoral nature of transport and the necessity of vertical and horizontal coordination of actions | |
Bundesländer (Federal States) | status quo agent | decision-maker; implementing body; brake; agenda-setter; discourse entrepreneur | negative power through veto (Bundesrat); positional power; procedural power (implementing bodies of policies) | fiscal health | competitive | conflicts arising from top-down interventions (process and procedure) as well as from structural imbalances and privileges (structure) | inductive approach by dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties and underlying principles may become discernible only at the end | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan | sustainable mobility solutions resolving problems of economies of scale in rural areas; equitable mobility access between federal states | high upfront costs for new infrastructures; austerity measures; Schuldenbremse (debt ceiling); political costs due to perceived political opposition of constituents | ownership of sustainable transport; formulation of integrated policies reflecting the multi-sectoral nature of transport and the necessity of vertical and horizontal coordination of actions; decentralization of powers and responsibilities | |
Gemeinde (Local governments) | status quo agent | decision-maker; implementing body; direct contact for citizens; discourse entrepreneur | negative power; positional power (implementing bodies); informational power; control of resources | fiscal health | competitive | conflicts arising from top-down interventions (process and procedure) | inductive approach by dealing pragmatically with encountered difficulties and underlying principles may become discernible only in the end | collaborate | strategy paper, position paper, workplan, implementation plan | sustainable mobility solutions resolving problems of economies of scale in rural areas; sustainable transport can curb tourism in their areas; reduction of the conversion of scarce pedestrian spaces to car parking; bringing communities together/social inclusion | space problems due to need for 36,000 public charging stations and 7,000 public fast charging stations; NIMBY dilemma; political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents; negative transport-related impact of the development of the townscape; severing of social and economic cohesion through new
transport facilities that cut across an existing urban community | ownership of sustainable transport; highlight and expand the benefits of sustainable transport to local community development; addressing of existing urban patterns as lock-ins; formulation of integrated policies reflecting the multi-sectoral nature of transport and the necessity of the vertical and horizontal coordination of actions; decentralization of powers and responsibilities | |
Tier 2 (Context-related Policy Entrepreneurs) | Think Tanks (e.g., AGORA) | change agent | providers of scientific inputs; discourse entrepreneur | procedural power (expert knowledge and expertise) | evidence-based decision-making, establishment of sustainability principles | collaborative | diverse: lack of structure (e.g., demand for sustainability principles) | systemic and integrated approaches | consult | policy briefs; policy recommendation; side-events; informal events; publications; reports | increase of demand for analyses resulting from cross-cutting issues | example of diverse caveats: loss of social mandate for think tanks either rejecting transformation in general or specific issues | examples of diverse positions: appraisal of a range of transport policies and instruments for promoting sustainability at national, regional and local levels; decoupling car segment purchase from income (circumventing status symbol of luxury cars); investment in quality transit infrastructure; promotion of the use of ICTs for sustainable transport that support travel substitution, efficiency movements, organizational structure, retail structure, and location flexibility |
Science Platforms and Beiräte (advisory councils) representing Universities and Research organizations | change agent/status quo agent | providers of scientific inputs; discourse entrepreneur | procedural power (expert knowledge and expertise) | evidence-based decision-making | collaborative | conflict arising through knowledge gaps on issues | both inductive and deductive approaches | consult | Public joint declaration, inputs in expert committees; policy briefs | diverse entry points for scientific communities: adequate calibration of models through application; solution-oriented research through solution-seeking research funding | diverse caveats: loss of scientific independence due to research mainly catering to in-demand issues; loss of credibility due to mainstreaming; accountability issues due to participation in closed-door meetings; lack of maturity of scientific results due to orientation towards the cycles and time frames of policy-makers | examples of diverse positions: critical analyses of sustainable transportation planning with an outlook to the future, aspects of e-mobility; infrastructure for e-mobility like solar charging stations and renewable fuel opportunities; full accounting of life cycle assessment (LCA) emissions from a transport-perspective requires the inclusion of emissions from the construction and maintenance of infrastructures such as bridges, tunnels | |
ÖPNV (Bus, tram, taxi, carsharing) | change agent | provider of best practices; agenda-setter; discourse entrepreneur | power through control of resources; referent power | mobility | collaborative | conflicts arising from structural imbalances and privileges (structure) | context-determined approaches | consult, empower | position paper | increased importance of public transport in urban development policy; reduction of exposure to oil price volatility and shocks | high upfront costs; low public acceptance of car-sharing; theft and vandalization of infrastructures; diffuse legislation; dependence on state subsidies | Revalidation of new vehicle and fuel economy standards; ensuring public safety within the premises of public transportation (train stations, bus stops); improvements to the local public transport network, walking, and cycling facilities; elimination of under-pricing of car use which distorts consumer choices (most road infrastructure is subsidized as it is considered a public service) | |
Car Industry (both through Verband or as individual companies) | status quo agent | spoiler; brake; learner; agenda-setter; discourse entrepreneur | referent power; power through control of resources; procedural power (technical expertise) | revenues | competitive | conflicts arising from top-down interventions (process and procedure) | context-determined approaches | consult | position paper | electric mobility and new technologies as drivers for growth; prognosis of decreasing costs through improved battery technologies; less accidents due to improved efficiency of the vehicle fleet with more stringent standards adopted along with improved efficiency standards | decrease of revenues from conventional vehicles, particularly from cars with diesel motors; prices of electric vehicles and batteries still high (although reducing); lack of infrastructure, and recharging standards not uniform; vehicle range anxiety; lack of capital and electricity in some areas | improvement of the protection of intellectual property rights; incentives and market instruments to important transport technologies such as exhaust heat recovery systems; creative regulation and policy instruments that allow changes without excessive costs in emission standards | |
Political Parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, Die Linke, Die Grünen, AfD) | change agent/status quo agent | focal point in various types of antagonism; agenda-setter; discourse entrepreneur | power through associations (in the name of justice etc) | electoral victory | competitive | conflicts arising from procedure and differences in ideologies (issues, processes) | deductive approach by looking first for acceptable principles and then applying them to concrete issues | inform | position
paper | electoral gains through resolution of traffic congestion and mobility constraints | electoral loss due to unpopular measures such as speed limitations; political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | mixed positions due to the diversity of political parties such as universal access provided for the elderly, children, and people with disabilities; noise reduction; including transportation in planning the of egalitarian public spaces | |
Energy Utilities (predominantly conventional energy (both through Verband or as individual companies)) | status quo agent | provider of resources; discourse entrepreneur | referent power; power through control of resources; procedural power (technical expertise) | revenues | competitive | conflicts arising from top-down interventions (process and procedure); deficits or overproportioned outcomes of rules | context-determined approaches | consult | position paper | Revenues from electric cars; new legislation; increased flexibility and resilience | lagging of battery/storage technologies; grid management for mobility technologies | Gradual transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy; improvement of intermittency problems of renewable energies; improvement of grid infrastructures; supply differentiation | |
Renewable Energy Sector (both through Verband or as individual companies) | change agent | provider of resources; discourse entrepreneur | referent power; power through control of resources; procedural power (technical expertise) | revenues | competitive | conflicts arising from structural imbalances and privileges (structure); deficits from unequal playing fields | context-determined approaches | consult, empower | position paper | Revenues from electric cars; new legislation | intermittency problems; cultural barriers; lack of appropriate infrastructure; speculation of investors; lack of public acceptance | fair playing field in the energy sector; support of technological breakthroughs in car batteries and energy storage | |
Business & Industry Companies, Investors (banks) and Employers (including the freight and shipping industry) (both through Verband or as individual companies)) | status quo agent | spoiler; brake; learner; agenda-setter; monitoring and verification; discourse entrepreneur | referent power; power through control of resources; procedural power (technical expertise) | revenues | competitive | conflicts arising from top-down interventions (process and procedure); deficits in rules | context-determined approaches | consult | position paper | savings from avoided sickness-related absences of employees; increased revenues from tourism; savings from decreased costs of transport; increased distribution activities through sustainable transport supporting e-commerce; new business opportunities | levies to equalize playing fields between conventional and sustainable transport providers; slow and unreliable or volatile policy-making; lack of appropriate infrastructure; relatively low risk-return profile of sustainable transport infrastructure; lack of opportunities relative to fossil-fuel based alternatives, due to market and government failures that fall short of accounting for the full costs of carbon-intensive transport modes (externalities, public goods dilemma); public investment still skewed towards carbon-intensive road transport modes (including infrastructures) discouraging private investment’s shift towards sustainable transport; lower investment opportunities for private companies; lower returns on investment, high upfront costs for rail and metro investments and long development timelines and payback periods relative to road projects; larger-scale carriers operating on extensive networks that often need to be managed on a network basis; high risks or perception of risks faced by private investors throughout the life of projects | exemption of business and industry players from potential levies to promote sustainable transport; addressing the aversion of consumers to new types of vehicles with significantly different attributes such as size, range, length of refuelling or recharging time; | |
Foundations | change agent/status quo agent | provider of resources | power through control of resources; referent power | social legitimacy | collaborative | conflicts arising from imbalances in resources available to interest groups (agenda-setting) | context-determined approaches as implied by distinct interests | inform | position paper; funding of chosen projects deemed relevant | diverse | diverse caveats such as a lack of public acceptance and cultural barriers; negative impacts to the heritage of historic resources where they interact with development-generated transport measures | diverse positions: coherence of policies to achieve sustainable transport | |
Media (conventional) | change agent/status quo agent | provider of communication; maker of sociolinguistic narratives; keeper of institutional memory; accountability and transparency manager | annoyance and inconvenience power; referent power; coercive power (naming, blaming and shaming) | public access to information; accountability | competitive | conflict arising through gaps in communication (process) | context-determined and inductive approach | inform | newspaper articles; commentaries both in print and live; journals; blogs | diverse entry points: coverage of best practices, examples of personalities | diverse caveats: coverage of worse practices; sensational journalism with a tendency towards
exaggerating problem issues; lack of technical expertise from journalists claiming absolute knowledge | diverse positions: transparency of various decision-making processes and consultations; access to information and data about measures | |
Citizen Groups (including neighbourhood associations) | change agent/status agent | direct contact with private households, recipients of programs/policy instruments; discourse entrepreneur | negative power (boycott) | protection of properties; protection of liberties | competitive | conflicts arising from top-down interventions (process and procedure); deficits or over proportional outcomes of rules | context-determined approaches as implied by distinct interests | inform/consult | protests, boycott, electoral results, support of alternative political groups | creation of new jobs, access to more opportunities; decrease of travel time; improvement of physical health; improvement of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution | increase of conventional transport expenses due to levies; unsafe infrastructures; cultural barriers such as the lack of a culture of walking; electric vehicle range anxiety; increase of price and accountability gaps due to privatization and diffuse private-public partnerships | safety; reduction of costs for private households; prevention or adequate compensation for displacement (e.g. expansion of train tracks, transmission lines); appropriate consultation of citizens; prevention of gentrification resulting from increased values of real estate after investment in public transportation | |
Labor Unions | status quo agent | reminder of existing norms and principles; spoiler; brake; | negative power (strikes); referent power; procedural power (expert reviews, agenda-setting) | protection of workers' rights and safety | avoiding | conflicts arising from hierarchical relationships (actors and processes) | context-determined approaches | consult | position paper | creation of new jobs from public transport; promotion of far-reaching opportunities, reduced access time, travel costs and trip uncertainty | job loss in the car industry sector; political costs due to perceived political opposition from constituents | transition schemes for workers moving from one sector to another; adaption of working hours scheme to transport realities (work from home); affordability (percentage of income used to pay for transport) of transitions in the transport sector | |
Tier 3 (Audience) | EU Community | n.a. | approving body (legitimacy) | reward power | stability and economic progress | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | inform | declaration; legal challenges | reduction of upfront costs due to Germany's pioneering role in sustainable transport; access to best practices; contribution of Germany's transport sector to EU-wide emission reduction | Germany's Verkehrswende as further accelerator of the deployment of renewable energy further straining the energy security of other EU countries; further constraints on EU wide transmission lines; further competitive advantage of Germany's car industry through German policy instruments that benefit local car sector | vis-à-vis Germany: demands that most likely relate to subsidies from the German State to the German car industry as well as to the hasty deployment of renewables, further reducing the price of renewables and pressuring EU countries that depend on fossil fuels |
German Public | n.a. | approving body (legitimacy) | reward power | human well-being | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | inform | protests (demonstrations or election of protest parties; participation in consultation events | reduction of traffic congestion; decrease of upfront costs for public transportation; reduction of costs of hybrid and electric vehicles; elimination of range anxiety due to the development of technology; decrease of barriers to opportunities; more time for other activities | similar to those of the Energiewende, additional levels merely forwarded to private consumers; loss of space due to the need to construct charging stations; lack of participation and accountability | diverse positions: transparency of various decision-making processes and consultations; access to information and data about measures | |
Global Community | n.a. | approving body (legitimacy) | reward power | human well-being | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | inform | declaration; legal challenges | diverse entry points to sustainable transport | diverse caveats | diverse positions | |
Investors and shareholders | n.a. | approving body (legitimacy) | power through control of resources; referent power | revenues | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | inform | further investment or pull-out | diverse entry points to sustainable transport | diverse caveats | diverse positions | |
Stakeholders of Interest
Groups | n.a. | approving body (legitimacy) | power through control of resources; referent power | diverse interests including protection of public goods including cultural goods | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | inform | inter-group dialogues or pull-out | diverse entry points to sustainable transport | diverse caveats | diverse positions | |
Base of Political Parties | n.a. | approving body (legitimacy) | negative power; referent power; information power | achievement of societal well-being according to their ideologies and principles | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | inform | inter-party dialogue; change of leadership | diverse entry points to sustainable transport | diverse caveats | diverse positions | |
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.