Capturing the stories of corporations: A comparison of media debates on carbon capture and storage in Norway and Sweden
Research highlights
► Firms make regular media statements on CCS either to foster legitimacy or respond to criticism of CCS. ► The social framing of corporate CCS activities is not necessarily linked to technological success or failure. ► Interpretations of the technology take different forms depending on whether the related activity occurs in domestic or foreign markets. ► Media framings of CCS also depend on domestic energy situation and politics.
Introduction
Regardless of one's opinion on carbon capture and storage (CCS), it is hard to ignore its entry into the climate and energy debate in recent years. Having been promoted by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and G8 leaders as a technology having significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while allowing the further exploitation of fossil fuels, CCS is linked to the urgent question of how to address climate change and the energy challenges of the twenty-first century. In several parts of the world, CCS has rapidly become part of the political agenda and is becoming part of the broader public debate. CCS involves a range of potentially influential actors, such as companies and their trade associations, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), the public, governments, and politicians. The evolving framing of the issue is essential for corporations investing in CCS because it provides a foundation for how public perceptions are shaped, which, in the long term, is the key to gaining acceptance and legitimacy. Indeed, CCS technologies have several characteristics that make them highly controversial because of uncertainties ranging from the strictly technical to financial requirements and environmental risks.
As highlighted by Meadowcroft and Langhelle (2009), CCS-related issues are country specific, despite being interwoven in an international debate. To date, there have been several empirical studies of CCS politics and policy in a national context (Meadowcroft and Langhelle, 2009, Shackley and Gough, 2006). While these studies convey important lessons regarding how CCS is developing in certain countries, we need to broaden our understanding of how these national debates treat the entities that ultimately operate the CCS technologies (i.e., corporations). Research demonstrates that businesses are dominant actors in the CCS community in terms of, for example, funding and the number of people involved (Stephens et al., 2011, van Alphen et al., 2010); therefore, the media portrayal of business actions and investments will likely affect societal debates. A comparative perspective can cast new light on firms’ embeddedness in these national debates.
This study presents a comparative analysis of the CCS media debate in Norway and Sweden, focusing on the central corporations involved with CCS in each country: Statoil1 and Vattenfall. Despite being based in two neighboring countries with many cultural similarities, some of the challenges and opportunities concerning CCS that Statoil and Vattenfall face differ considerably. We primarily use news articles for empirical data to grasp the national CCS debates in these two Scandinavian countries and analyze them in light of their national context. In this sense, we build on previous studies (Bradbury and Dooley, 2004) expanding upon the perception that firms are vocal actors in CCS media articles. In the remainder of this paper, we explain the rationale for selecting the two corporations for a comparative study and examine their national contexts within energy and climate issues and, more specifically, CCS. After describing the methods and materials underpinning the study, we present the empirical results and analysis. We conclude the paper with cross-country analysis and conclusions.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
News articles were used as our primary empirical data to study how public debate on corporate CCS activities in Norway and Sweden developed between April 2005 and December 2009. Several previous studies of CCS have relied heavily on media coverage for their empirical basis (Bradbury and Dooley, 2004, Mander and Gough, 2006, van Alphen et al., 2007, Gough and Shackley, 2005). These studies mainly applied quantitative content analysis methodologies to classify positive/negative statements
Comparing the national context of corporate CCS activities
The two corporations selected for this research are interesting for several reasons, in light of the national climate and energy situation from a comparative perspective. Statoil and Vattenfall are headquartered in countries, which, at first glance, have similar political approaches to climate change and CCS. Both Norway and Sweden have explicit ambitions to link their CCS activities to the European Union's climate change policies and CCS plans, even though Sweden is a member state and Norway
Legitimacy claims
Statoil has frequently had the opportunity to make statements and distribute press releases in the Norwegian press regarding their CCS activities. These statements have usually conveyed a sense of pride, responsibility, and even courage. Statoil seems proud to pave the way for CCS and to show how it can be done: “Everyone is talking about reducing CO2 emissions to meet climate change–well we are doing something about it.”3 In the
Cross-country analysis
A cross-country analysis illuminates a number of aspects. The two countries’ media approaches to Statoil's and Vattenfall's CCS activities are similar in several respects, though there are a number of key differences. This in turn mirrors the overall debate on CCS, which diverges between the Swedish and Norwegian media. In Norway, there is more agreement as to the feasibility of CCS. In addition, the Norwegian media describe the technical, financial, and practical procedures involved in
Conclusions
By studying CCS media debates, we have captured how two corporations have been depicted in national media debates. Previous research into CCS in the media has not focused on specific actors, such as firms, involved in the debate but rather described the characteristics of the debate as a whole using quantitative methodological approaches. By placing two companies involved in CCS at the centre of a qualitative analysis and remaining aware of their societal context, we have enriched the current
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mistra, The Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, for funding this research through the initiative “The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage” and the international climate policy research program Clipore. One of the authors is also grateful for funding from Handelsbanken's Research Foundation. A number of people have contributed with useful comments on early drafts of this paper and we are particularly grateful to the participants of “The
References (38)
The internationalization of the European Electricity Industry: the case of Vattenfall
Utilities Policy
(2009)- et al.
Stakeholder perceptions of CO2 capture and storage in Europe: results from a survey
Energy Policy
(2007) - et al.
Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment: an integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(2008) - et al.
Characterizing the international carbon capture and storage community
Global Environmental Change
(2011) Escaping carbon lock-in
Energy Policy
(2000)- et al.
Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies
Energy Policy
(2007) - et al.
Accelerating the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies by strengthening the innovation system
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
(2010) - Asp, K., 1986. Mäktiga massmedier: Studier i politisk opinionsbildning, Doctoral Thesis, Department of Political...
- et al.
Who's talking? What are the issues? The Media's portrayal of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration in the United States
- Buhr, K., Buhr, H., 2010. Mediaöversättningar av en ny teknik: CCS i svensk press. In: Pallas, J., Strannegård, L....