Decarbonisation leadership: Disentangling Swedish transformation

pathways and their exemplary roles

Victoria Wibeck, Björn-Ola Linnér, Anders Hansson

Linköping University

Aims and objectives

As societies around the world struggle to address environmental and social challenges through
incremental change, an increasing number of initiatives from governments and non-state actors
aspire to take on leadership for societal transformations with the aim of tackling climate
change, while also addressing other sustainability challenges. Sweden has explicitly
communicated its political ambitions of becoming one of the world’s first fossil free welfare
states. Sweden seeks to take leadership in societal transformations towards decarbonisation by
mobilizing non-state actors and challenging other countries to follow this example [1].

Sustainability transformations imply profound and enduring systemic changes and typically
involve social, cultural, technological, political, economic and environmental processes. But in
spite of the growing interest in societal transformations [e.g. 2-11], two knowledge gaps remain
in scientific and policy literature: 1) A lack of conceptual clarity of the many diverse ways in
which actors make sense of societal transformations [4, 6, 7, 12]; 2) A lack of knowledge on
how international, domestic and non-state actor leadership functions interact in efforts to
achieve sustainable development and how supply of such leadership matches demand, i.e. if
the intended leadership for influencing perceptions, expectations or behaviour of other actors
is recognised [e.g. 13-15].

This project addresses these knowledge gaps through analyses of how leaders in governmental
and non-state Swedish organisations make sense of the why, what and how of sustainability
transformations, and how international actors make sense of the Swedish decarbonisation
efforts. Examining sense-making is important for three reasons: a) from a democratization
point of view, we need to shed light on the inherent but often unexpressed societal and political
choices of transformation pathways; b) organizational problems are likely to arise if we do not
know different actors’ understandings and if their points of view collide; c) clarity what enables
or hinders compliance with policies and decisions will facilitate effectiveness of policies and
measures.

The project aims to examine how decarbonisation leadership and transformation pathways are
envisioned a) by key actors in Swedish environmental politics and administration, businesses
and municipalities, b) internationally, in media reports on Swedish decarbonisation efforts and
by delegates and observers to the UN climate negotiations. The project consists of two sub
projects (SPs), addressing these research questions:
  How do key actors in Swedish environmental politics and administration, businesses
and municipalities make sense of the problems facing contemporary societies, the goals
to be achieved and the pathways for change? (SP 1)
 What drivers and barriers do these actors foresee for different transformative pathways?
(SP 1)
 How are the Swedish efforts to take leadership towards decarbonisation made sense of
internationally? (SP 2)
 What are the implications of the project’s findings for democratization and organisation
of, as well as compliance with, policies and decisions? (SP 2)

Survey of the field

The project contributes to two sets of literature. First, it adds to the burgeoning literature on
sustainability transformations [e.g. 2-3, 6-12] by providing empirical data on different sense-
makings of transformation pathways. Currently, studies are lacking on what societal
transformations toward sustainability actually mean to different groups of actors.

The literature agrees on seeing societal transformation as fundamental system change as

opposed to change through incremental steps [8]. Societal transformations are not new
phenomena. Industrialized countries have, e.g., undergone major, fossil-based societal
transformations in past centuries closely linked to conversions in energy supply and use [16-
18]. Societies have thus far adapted to resource scarcity and environmental degradation with
partial, patchy and unequal success. The question now is thus not whether environmental
change will generate societal transformations, but to what extent these transformations are
influenced by social, political and cultural practices and whether and how they can be
successfully instigated, governed or accomplished, by whom, to what end and with what
consequences for different groups [4,8].

The literature also converges around “transformation as a change that proceeds via a
combination of endogenous and exogenous processes, involving both emergent, inadvertent,
unintended consequences and intended deliberate ones” [7:382], but differs in whether
deliberate or emergent processes are foregrounded. This project will dig into how various
actors perceive of deliberate versus emergent transformations, and into the governance
challenges that follow from these perceptions.

Second, the project contributes to the literature on environmental leadership. Leadership can
be defined as the relationship in which an actor influences the perceptions, expectations or
behaviour of other actors toward a certain goal. Environmental leadership in particular
concerns concerted action on collective action problems [e.g. 13, 19]. Leadership will “be most
effective when supply matches demand” [13:181]. The project adds to the literature by
exploring not only how leaders themselves envision different transformation pathways but also
how their ambitions are perceived by others, as expressed in international media debate, and
by Government delegates and non-state observers at the climate negotiations.

In environmental politics three different modes of leadership are highlighted. Structural

leadership is when a nation or organisations deploy power-resources to create incentives for
actions. Directional leadership provides a model others may be inspired to emulate. Idea based
leadership exercises problem framing, provides solutions and promotes new courses of action
to collective problems [e.g. 13-14, 20].

The importance of leadership for international climate governance is well established [cf. 21].
Non-state actors, including business leaders, are increasingly called upon to assume leadership
on climate change [22,23]. For corporate actors, the literature has highlighted the role of
“collaborative leadership,” where platforms for cooperation between like-minded actors within
industry sectors and public actors facilitate assuming leadership [15,23].
The project particularly contributes to the literature on transnational leadership. Leadership
theory is lacking that connects international with domestic and non-state actors’ leadership.
Studies in climate change adaptation indicate that patterns of leadership play out differently
between non-governmental and governmental actors. Leadership roles differ depending on
what the goal is, e.g. to influence values, political, administrative, networking, implementation,
or dissemination functions [e.g. 24].

Theory
The project uses a dialogical approach to sense-making, emphasising contextual and
interactional features of human thinking, discourse, and action [25-27]. The project develops a
novel combination of two analytical perspectives on sense making: social representations
theory and frame analysis. In simplified terms, frame analysis will be used to categorize
elements of emerging social representations, whereas social representations theory will benefit
frame analysis by providing a framework for analysing the process of sense making.

Framing refers to “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding
strip of events, weaving a connection among them” [28:143]. Framing influences how an issue
is interpreted and how boundaries around an issue are created; frames communicate in what
ways and why particular issues should be seen as problems, how these problems should be
managed and with whom responsibility lies [29-30].

Social representations theory offers tools for analysing joint construction of representations
about the surrounding world, e.g. through anchoring new phenomena in well-known categories
or objectifying abstract concepts through the use of metaphors or prototypical examples [31].
The theory is particularly suitable for analysis of what happens when "new" topics and problem
fields emerge and when different types of knowledge meet [27]. It also provides a framework
for studying implicit assumptions underlying the argumentation in different contexts [32].

Method and performance

Sub project (SP) 1 develops a new approach to focus group interviews, using state-of-the art
ICT-based interactive displays as input to the discussions, as will be further outlined below. To
this end, we will use the facilities of the Norrköping Decision Arena (see Equipment).
Focus group discussions, where a small number of participants (4-8) discuss a given issue under
the guidance of a moderator [33], offer a method for analysing what the participants bring to
the group. They also constitute “thinking societies in miniature” [34:2], where the process of
joint meaning-making in action may be studied [32].
SP 1 encompasses 8 focus groups and addresses the supply side of environmental leadership
(Table 1, App. J). Six focus groups will consist of representatives from three categories
involved in Swedish transformation endeavours: environmental administration, the business
sector and municipalities, respectively. Two subsequent mixed groups will involve participants
from all three types of organisations. This has a two-fold purpose: 1) to present the findings
from focus groups 1-6 to the mixed groups to explore participants’ reactions to and
interpretations of these findings; 2) to enable exchange of experiences between stakeholders
from the different types of organizations addressed in the project.

Focus group participants will be identified in collaboration with the project’s reference group
(see Stakeholder communication). The participants will discuss e.g. broadly what societies they
want in 2050, pathways and actions to achieve this goal, and their reactions to a range of ideas
of societal transformations toward sustainability. They will also discuss how climate change is
most effectively tackled and elaborate on drivers and barriers they foresee for different
transformation pathways. Specific questions on decarbonisation leadership will explore e.g.
how the participants perceive different modes of leadership (e.g. directional, idea based,
collaborative), cooperation between actors from different types of organisations, and the
relations between international, domestic and non-state actors’ leadership.

By using a specially designed software the participants will first individually brainstorm, then
the reflections will be displayed for all participants, categoriesed and regrouped during the
discussion. An interactive voting tool will be used to instantly display the groups combined
preferences of climate response measures for group discussion. In the mixed focus groups,
results from the first six groups will be used as additional input to the discussions.

Data will be audio recorded and transcribed. We will construct a framework for sense-making
analysis which combines elements of ‘dialogical content analysis’, which takes into account
the content of the interview data as well as how this content is formed through talk-in-
interaction [27, 32], and idea analysis [35]. The analytical framework will be developed for
systematic sense-making analysis with the following types of questions in mind: a) what
problems do the participants define? b) how do they diagnose the causes of the problem
(cultural, ethical, political, financial, technical, managerial etc.)? c) what remedies do they
suggest (action alternatives, interventions, rationalities for action)? d) how do they value
different goals (rationalities: normative positions, ideologies, visions, time lines, spatial or
system levels; multiple goals’ relative importance and potential synergisms) e) how are
communicative resources such as metaphors, analogies, distinctions, frames and narratives
used in the participants’ argumentation? f) what arguments are expressed, and what explicit
and implicit premises do they start from? g) how do different types of arguments interact?

SP 2 examines the demand side of decarbonisation leadership and how the exemplary roles of
transformation pathways are perceived beyond the Swedish context. Through an international
media analysis it examins how international news media report on Sweden’s decarbonisation
efforts. For example, the launching of the Swedish Government initiative Fossil Free Sweden
gained media attention in the UK (The Independent 151007, The Guardian, 151126).
International media stories on Sweden will be identified through the Retriever database. SP 2
will provide a novel contribution to the analysis of sense-making by combining frame analysis
[e.g. 30] with analysis of social representations in texts [36].

Through the International Negotiations Survey platform, we will conduct complementing

interviews on decarbonisation leadership preferences among approximately 20 representatives
from Government and non-state actors at the UNFCCC 24th Conference of Parties.
To further contextualize the qualitative Swedish focus group findings, this project will benefit
from collaboration with other projects at Tema Environmental Change, LiU, which analyze
responses from COP delegates through the International Negotiations Survey and cross country
comparisons of Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris agreement on climate change.
We have also initiated a pilot study which conducts focus groups among lay people in Sweden,
Cape Verde, China and Fiji. SP 2 will generate at least one joint publication, synthesizing
results from the proposed Formas project with findings from these other projects.

SP 2 will also explicate the implications of the project’s findings for democratization,
organisation of and compliance with policies and decisions.

Time plan, project organisation and scientific publication

A time plan is found in Table 2, App. J. Wibeck will lead the project as well as SP 1. She will
be responsible for the focus groups. Linnér will lead SP 2 and take main responsibility for the
interviews and synthesis analysis. Hansson will be responsible for the media analysis.

The project will result in a minimum of six scientific manuscripts for peer review journals.,
whereof three will report on the focus group results, one will compare focus group and media
findings, one will compare project results with findings from other studies on societal
transformations, and one will discuss implications of the project’s results for democratization,
organisation of and compliance with policies and decisions.

The project is located at Tema Environmental Change, Tema Technology and Social Change
and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR), LiU, which offer
interdisciplinary research milieus for the study of environmental issues with a distinguished
international network. CSPR also offers ample opportunities for synergies between this project
and other ongoing research on urban climate transition and climate visualization led by Mattias
Hjerpe, Sofie Storbjörk and Tina Neset. Moreover, the project will be instrumental for the
development of LiU’s new research platform Societal Transformation Labs
(www.tema.liu.se/tema-m/forskning/projektinformation/societal-transformations-lab?l=en).
Prof. Victoria Wibeck (Tema Environmental Change, CSPR, LiU) provides expertise in focus
group methodology and sense-making analysis. She has led six research projects on climate
change communication, social representations of sustainability issues and communicative
aspects of environmental management by objectives, funded by e.g. Formas, VR, EU and
Naturvårdsverket.

Prof. Björn-Ola Linnér (Tema Environmental Change, CSPR, LiU) provides expertise in
analysis of transnational governance, climate leadership, as well as idea analysis. He has been
scientific expert in the Swedish delegation to IPCC negotiations and advised several Swedish
and foreign ministries and agencies as well as the EU’s extension services, and the UNFCCC
secretariat.
Docent Anders Hansson (Tema Technology and Social Change, LiU) provides expertise in
analysis of how technical change is woven together with cultural patterns, politics and science.
He has studied the development of novel technologies for managing climate change, and has
experience of various qualitative methods, e.g. media analysis, focus group methods and
interviews.

Equipment
The project will use the new Norrköping Decision Arena (NDA, Figure 1, App. J) for the
enhancement of focus group research (www.cspr.se/nda). NDA builds on advances in
interactive visualization and participatory research. It is the first of its kind in Europe providing
an advanced tool for international, national and local planning and decision-making and a
world-leading research lab. NDA offers an arena for deliberations where each participant may
show and/or react to data, graphics and simulation results simultaneously and in direct
comparison.

Ethics
The project will follow the ethical code of the Swedish Research Council (www.codex.vr.se).
All interviewees will be asked for their informed consent to participate in the study. The
analyses will focus on recurrent themes in the data and not on individual opinions. No specific
ethical examination of the research should therefore be necessary.

Societal value
Societal transformation is one of the most topical concepts in sustainable development research
and policy-making today [5, 37]. For example, “Transforming our world” was the creed when
more than 150 world leaders converged on United Nations to decide on the Sustainable
Development Goals in 2015 [10]. The international research initiative Future Earth mobilizes
thousands of scientists with the ultimate objective to support “the more fundamental and
innovative long-term transformations that are needed to move towards a sustainable future”
[11]. More than 40 countries frame their official contributions to the Paris Climate Agreement
in the language of various versions of societal transformations.

However, as the transformations concept becomes increasingly used in policy and academic
analysis, the apparent consensus is bound to give way to multifaceted interpretations. This
project’s contribution to the exploration of how different actors make sense of problems, goals
and action alternatives is important for increasing our understanding of the processes through
which transformations take place, as well as what drives such processes. Such understanding
is a precondition for knowledge transfer and capacity building across regions and countries.
Since Sweden aspires to be one of the world’s leading countries in decarbonisation and
sustainable development and a role model for other countries, there is a need to clarify the
enabling and hindering conditions for such leadership. In doing so, this project will shed light
on key preconditions for long-term sustainable development both nationally and
internationally.

Moreover, the project takes on a key challenge in the World Social Science Report on
environmental change [5], which points to the need for social science and humanities-led
research initiatives on global environmental change, highlighting analyses of sense-making as
a cornerstone of social science sustainability research.

In the short to medium term, the actor-oriented perspectives on transformation pathways

generated in this project will be a relevant input to at least four ongoing processes:

1) The concretization of Sweden’s visions and climate policy goals, which have recently been
outlined in the report A climate policy framework for Sweden by the Cross-Party Committee
on the Environmental Objectives (Miljömålsberedningen) [1] and in the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency’s Roadmap for a Sweden without GHG emissions 2050
[38].

2) The Fossil Free Sweden initiative, which was launched in 2015 by the Swedish Government
to bring together different types of organisations, including businesses and municipalities, in a
network which showcases how Swedish actors work towards decarbonisation
(www.government.se/government-policy/fossil-free-sweden/).

3) The implementation and follow-up of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
and the domestic efforts to implement and follow up Sweden’s policies and measures towards
the 2030 Agenda [10]. The Swedish government has explicitly stated that Sweden should be
leading in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda [39].

4) The upscaling and review of Sweden's and the EU's commitments to the Paris Agreement.
The review and upscaling of EU's commitments to the Paris Agreement and for the many
countries that express aspirations to assume regional leadership in their Nationally Determined
Contribution.

Plan for stakeholder communication

This project’s primary target audiences are: 1) national, regional and local politicians; 2)
officials in the Swedish environmental administration; 3) Swedish business leaders; 4)
researchers.

The project takes a transdisciplinary approach by allowing stakeholder perspectives to

continuously feed into the analyses. The project ensures continuous stakeholder dialogue due
to its methodological design, where stakeholder perspectives are being examined through the
active participation in focus groups by key actors in the Swedish environmental administration,
businesses and municipalities. Moreover, by offering an arena for the exchange of experiences,
identification of obstacles and sharing of good examples of decarbonisation leadership, the
mixed focus groups will contribute not only to data collection, but also to learning among the
stakeholder participants.

The project’s reference group will be instrumental from start to end. The reference group's
main tasks include giving feedback on the project’s approaches, priorities and results,
suggesting potential focus group participants and participating in a final stakeholder workshop.
The reference group is an important channel for disseminating information about the project
results to other Swedish key actors.
The reference group consists of:

 Anders Turesson, Swedish Ministry of the Environment and Energy, leader of the
Fossil Free Sweden initiative, former Swedish chief negotiator in the UN climate
negotiations.
 Nina Ekelund, programme director of the Haga Initiative, a prominent network of
companies for reducing carbon emission from the business sector.
 Svante Axelsson, secretary general, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SNF).
 Anne Sörensson, klimatsamordnare (climate coordinator) Östersund municipality,
which is part of the network Klimatkommunerna and ranked by SNF as Sweden’s best
climate municipality.
 Anders Wijkman, chair of the All Party Committee on Environmental Objectives.

This project’s research group has a strong track record in stakeholder dialogues and media
participation. We have also published a number of popular science texts and policy briefings,
including accessible science publications in e.g. Formas Focus-series, and Op-Eds in Dagens
Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet. This project will produce: 1) 1-2 policy briefs, 2) periodical
electronic newsletters, 3) highlights through twitter and web sites, 4) an Op-Ed in one Swedish
newspaper, and 5) contribute with input on societal transformations to the development of the
interactive platform “Urban Transition Showroom”, which is being developed at the CSPR for
a target audience of city planners and municipal leaders.

Publications and policy briefs will be highlighted on participating institutes webpages, via
Twitter. The policy briefs will also be distributed at the UNFCCC, 2019. An electronic
newsletter will be distributed to a targeted audience within the Swedish environmental
administration and research community as well as circulated through the International Institute
for Sustainable Development’s Climate-L news list which has global spread among
policymakers and researchers.

The project will arrange a stakeholder workshop in Stockholm in 2019 with the aim of
disseminating project outcomes. In addition to the reference group members, national and local
politicians, scientists, sustainability officers at business enterprises and officials from
Government agencies and ministries will be invited.

References
1. SOU (2016:21). Ett klimatpolitiskt ramverk för Sverige. Stockholm: Walters Kluwer.
2. Grin, J, Rotmans, J & Schot, J (2010). Transitions to sustainable development. New
directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge.
3. Leggewie, C & Messner, D (2012). The low-carbon transformation—A social science
perspective. J. of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 041404.
4. O’Brien, K (2012).Global environmental change II. Progr. in Human Geography
36:667-676.
5. International Social Science Council and UNESCO (2013). World Social Science
Report 2013, Changing Global Environments. Paris: OECD & UNESCO.
6. Chappin, E & Ligtvoegt, A (2014). Transition and transformation. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30:715–723.
7. Feola, G (2015). Societal transformation in response to global environmental change.
Ambio 44:376–390.
8. Nalau, J & Handmer, J (2015). When is transformation a viable policy alternative?
Environmental Science & Policy, 54:349–356.
9. Scoones, I et al. (Eds.) (2015). The politics of green transformations. Abingdon:
Routledge.
10. UN General Assembly (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1
11. Future Earth. Transformation towards sustainability,
www.futureearth.org/themes/transformations-towards-sustainability.
12. Brown, K, O,Neill, S & Fabricius, C (2013). Social science understandings on
transformation. In: World Social Science Report 2013. Paris: OECD & UNESCO.
13. Underdal, A (1994). Leadership theory. In Zartman, W. I. (ed.) International
multilateral negotiation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
14. Parker, C, Karlsson, C, Hjerpe, M & Linnér, B-O (2012). Fragmented climate change
leadership: making sense of the ambiguous outcome of COP-15. Environmental
Politics. 21: 268-286.
15. Gallagher, D (2012). Why environmental leadership? In D. Gallagher (Ed.),
Environmental leadership. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
16. Polanyi, K (1944). The great transformation. New York: Rinehart.
17. Barrett, B (1999). Environmentalism in periods of rapid societal transformation.
Sustainable Development 7:178-190.
18. Pearson, P & Foxon, T (2012). A low carbon industrial revolution? Insights and
challenges from past technological and economic transformations. Energy Policy
50:117–127.
19. Northouse, P (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
20. Malnes, R (1995). “Leader” and “entrepreneur” in international negotiations: a
conceptual analysis. European Journal of International Relations 1: 87–112.
21. Karlsson, C, Parker, C, Hjerpe, M & Linnér, B-O (2011). Looking for leaders:
Perceptions of climate change leadership among climate change negotiation
participants. Global Environmental Politics 11: 89-107.
22. Bulkeley, H et al. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
23. Gallagher, D (2016). Climate Change Leadership as Sustainability Leadership. Journal
of Leadership Studies 9:60–64.
24. Meijerink, S et al. (2015). The role of leadership in regional climate change adaptation.
Journal of Water and Climate Change 6: 25-37.
25. Bakhtin, M (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
26. Linell, P (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and
contextual theories of human sense making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
27. Marková, I et al. (2007). Dialogue in focus groups. London: Equinox.
28. Gamson, W & Modigliani, A (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In:
Braungart R & Braungart M (eds) Research in political sociology, vol. 3. Greenwich:
JAI Press.
29. Entman, R (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication 43:51-58.
30. Asplund, T, Hjerpe, M & Wibeck, V (2013). Framings and coverage of climate change
in Swedish specialized farming magazines. Climatic Change 117:197–209.
31. Moscovici, S (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In: Farr R and
Moscovici S (eds) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Wibeck, V, Öberg, G & Abrandt-Dahlgren, M (2007). Learning in focus groups: an
analytical dimension for enhancing focus group research. Qualitative research 7:249-
262.
33. Wibeck, V (2010). Fokusgrupper [Focus groups] 2:nd ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
34. Jovchelovitch, S (2001). Contextualising focus groups: Understanding groups and
cultures. Laboratoire Européen de Psychologie Sociale, Paris.
35. Linnér, B-O, Mickwitz, P & Román, M (2012). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
through development policies. Climate and Development 4:175-186.
36. Höijer, B (2010). Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on
climate change. Public Understanding of Science 19:717–731.
37. International Social Science Council (ISSC). (2012). Transformative cornerstones of
social science research for global change. Paris: ISSC.
38. SEPA (2012). Underlag till en färdplan för ett Sverige utan klimatutsläpp 2050. Rapport
6537. Bromma: Naturvårdsverket.
39. Government of Sweden (2016). Genomförande av Agenda 2030 för hållbar utveckling.
Dir. 2016:18.