Conference Agenda

(Multi)national oil and gas (O&G) companies need to drastically change their business activities to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the context of the current climate crisis. However, despite their sustainability claims, in practice O&G majors maintain the status quo. The literature scarcely covers approaches to corporate transition strategies to phase out fossil fuel (FF). Hence, we address the question: What does the literature say about the transition strategies of (multi)national O&G companies in the context of the current climate crisis and the need to phase out fossil fuels? Based on a systematic review of 85 peer reviewed papers and selected relevant grey literature (22), we see the following trends. Multinational O&G companies are discussed as: (1) diversifying their business activities, (2) fostering a good reputation implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) frameworks and improving reporting strategies, and (3) lobbying. The scholarship presents exogenous and endogenous drivers and barriers influencing company decisions to act or resist change. Endogenous factors can be clustered under corporate governance and shareholders. Exogenous factors include (1) policy; (2) law; (3) competition; and (4) activism whereas policymaking and law are identified to be potentially most influential. The scholarship reveals that the barriers are more powerful than the drivers resulting in O&G companies not keeping up with their transition claims leading to greenwashing; weak climate policy and law unable to affect their strategies; and this may be because many governments and O&G companies are strongly interdependent.

After years of fossil fuel industry interference aimed at diluting and deferring meaningful action on climate change, is it time to formally exclude them from climate policymaking processes? Years of research eventually led governments to formally exclude the tobacco industry from policymaking (i.e., WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Article 5.3). Can this experience inform climate policy debates? By documenting and disseminating tobacco industry policy interference, researchers de-normalised the industry and achieved legislation at the international level that commits signatory nations to formally exclude the industry from health policy. Is this model transferrable to the fossil fuel industry?

Simply asking these high-level questions encourages us to grapple with at least two important sub-questions: 1) Who is the fossil fuel industry and in what ways is the industry similar and different from other industries? 2) Is this type of regulation appropriate for the fossil fuel industry based on its history of policy interference, the nature of the commodity and its markets, and its purported role in a low-carbon transition?

1) We know these are very different industries, with the ‘big four’ transnational tobacco companies being much easier to identify and tobacco products themselves being a much more discreet product category. Thus, I will begin by defining the parameters of the fossil fuel industry, and the implications for regulation.

(2) Though there will be important differences, one commonality between the two industries is policy interference. I will map and compare their approaches.

I use scoping reviews supplemented with elite interviews as a method to achieve these goals. First, I seek to understand the different ways the fossil fuel industry is currently defined in the literature, assessing the implications of various definitions for climate policy. Second, I build an inductive framework of fossil fuel industry policy interference, extracted from existing research papers and reputable groups working in this area. There is precedent for such an approach found in tobacco control research, which has since been adapted for the food and beverage, alcohol, gambling, and pharmaceuticals industries. This is the first adaptation and application of the model in the field of environmental policy.

Climate change mitigation requires a far-reaching systemic transformation and radical innovation. The industry sector is increasingly gaining attention in the climate mitigation and systemic transformation debates. As advised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), falling under all 1.5C scenarios requires that the industry sector reduces CO2 emissions by 58 to 93% by 2050. The industry sector becomes particularly relevant, as it carries a ‘decarbonization burden’ due to its observable polluting and high emissions nature. For instance, in Europe, the decarbonization burden of the steel and iron industry equals 5% of the total European CO2 emissions.

It is widely recognized that having ambitious decarbonization targets accomplished requires placing transformative efforts from all the different industries, globally. Nevertheless, the steel and iron industries become critical sectors that can potentially bring about radical emission reductions.

Adopting a particular technological approach, for instance, carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) or Green Hydrogen, comes hand in hand with specific decarbonization challenges (e.g. Technological Readiness, business cases, or up-front investments). The availability of effective policy instruments helping to support its adoption is one of the key entry points. The limitations of policy supporting industrial decarbonization are widely discussed in the scientific literature. For instance, the high levels of energy consumption and GHG emissions are key major challenges to address by both industries and industrial policymaking.

The objective of this article is to identify and evaluate potential Policy Instruments supporting the adoption the industrial decarbonization. This raises questions on what and whether current policy instruments can provide enough incentives to support industrial decarbonization and to stimulate a net-zero emissions reduction target in the European Union (and the UK). To shed light on these interrogatives, this paper offers a Multi-Criteria Analysis to evaluate 5 different industrial decarbonization policy packages in The UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Sweden.

This article contributes with a set of policy recommendations and lessons to help fall under all 1.5C scenarios, from the perspective of policy and the industry. This article suggests further improving the environmental and economic effectiveness, distributional effects, side effects, institutional requirements, and transformative potential criterion of the 5 national policy packages analyzed.

requires that the industry sector reduces CO2 emissions by 58 to 93% by 2050

The energy-intensive industries (EIIs), which produce basic materials such as cement, steel, paper and pulp, fertilisers and plastics, account for approximately 20% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. As the sector is responsible for a significant share of global emissions, the decarbonisation of industry is a central requirement to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Despite this, there is considerable variation in how far states have progressed in decarbonising industry, as well as their level of ambition. There are, however, few large-scale country-comparisons focusing on policymaking to decarbonise the industrial sector. The aim of this first paper draft is therefore to examine the role of the state in decarbonising the industrial sector and explore why some states have higher ambition than others. To capture and analyse ambition, two factors will be considered: presence of policies (policy density) and type of policies (policy stringency). It will thereby contribute to the existing literature with both descriptive and explanatory analyses. By conducting a longitudinal cross-country comparison, it will map out the development of green industrial policies over time, and the steering mechanisms employed by states. This is a useful contribution as it will hopefully provide a clear overview of which countries are taking the lead in decarbonising their industries and in what way they are doing so. The paper will also examine explanatory factors, building on previous research, by analysing the impact of economic structure, industry structure, EU membership and government ideology on green industrial policymaking. These factors have been highlighted as important features for climate ambition and for playing a significant role in the policymaking process. By attempting to pinpoint what drives green industrial policy change in the industrial sector and engaging in the discussion on why some states are more ambitious than others, the paper will aim to clarify what states are ‘pace-setting’, ‘fence-sitting’ or ‘foot-dragging’ in the decarbonisation of industry. Methodologically, longitudinal data will be collected from the International Energy Agency (IEA) Policies and Measures Database, London School of Economics Climate Change Laws database and the Climate Policy Database. A broad conceptualisation of policies will be used; in addition to regulatory policies, also frameworks, roadmaps and voluntary measures will be included. For the independent variables, data from the Comparative Politics Dataset, the World Bank and the Detlaf Jahn’s PIP Time-Variant Corporatism Index will be used.

Achieving the decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries (EIIs) by mid-century is technically possible and essential to achieve the aims of the Paris Agreement. However, decarbonising EIIs, such as steel, cement, chemicals and aluminium, faces significant economic, political and structural barriers across all levels of governance. To address these and accelerate industrial decarbonisation, far-reaching and comprehensive public policies and support are needed. Against this backdrop, this paper analyses the national policy frameworks of 13 major EII producers to assess whether they are fit for advancing the decarbonisation of EIIs by mid-century. First, we identify general sectoral mitigation barriers, challenges and opportunities to the decarbonisation of EIIs and analyse how these are manifested at national level, based on country case studies conducted or reviewed by national experts. Second, we determine if national policy frameworks are fit for purpose to decarbonise EIIs by mid-century. To do so, we assess to what extent existing policies address national mitigation barriers and compare them to best-practice industrial policies identified in the literature.

Our findings show that mitigation barriers differ significantly across countries, while economic (e.g. high investment costs, long investment cycles) and structural barriers (e.g. insufficient clean energy supply) are identified as the most crucial common challenges. At the same time, the analysis indicates that most major EII producers in principle have favourable framework conditions enabling a timely sectoral transformation, such as high potential for clean energy or carbon storage. To exploit this potential and accelerate the decarbonisation of EIIs comprehensive but context-specific sectoral policies are needed. However, national policy frameworks vary significantly, both in terms of existing policies and approaches to industrial decarbonisation. While most countries have some form of sector specific mitigation targets and economic support measures in place, strict regulations on EII emissions remain scarce and existing policies have so far failed to trigger sustained mitigation efforts. At the same time, we observe a strong dynamic towards proactive industrial policies in industrialised countries that could potentially drive the decarbonisation of EIIs globally. However, developing and emerging economies seem to be unable to provide the needed support measures due to a lack of financial means. This risks a strong divergence in industrial decarbonisation across regions and highlights the need for international cooperation. The article concludes by providing policy recommendations to advance national climate policy frameworks, as well as general lessons learned to advance the decarbonisation of EIIs.