@article{7ce534f168b1473abc209b787da8ada6,
title = "Petrochemical transition narratives: Selling fossil fuel solutions in a decarbonizing world",
abstract = "Being integral to the fossil-based energy order and as a key driver of multiple and intersecting ecological crises, the petrochemical industry faces increasing pressures to transform. This paper examines how major petrochemical companies navigate these pressures. Drawing from literatures on discursive power, narratives, and neoGramscian political economy, we introduce the concept of narrative realignment as a nuanced iteration of corporate discursive power that reframes problems of and solutions to green transitions. Specifically, we identify and explore common transition-related narratives, analysing climate and sustainability communications from the largest producers in the petrochemical sector. We argue that these strategic narratives portray the petrochemical industry as key to a successful transition and fend off criticisms by reducing them to misunderstandings. This framing works to reduce pressures for deep mitigation while repositioning the industry as part of the solution. Building on these findings, we demonstrate how petrochemical transition narratives relate to but also diverge from the position of fossil fuel extractors. Despite relying on fossil feedstock and being solidly placed in the fossil economy, petrochemical majors increasingly focus on repositioning themselves proactively as transition enablers. The argument illustrates the work of downstream actors to legitimize the existing energy order.",
keywords = "Petrochemical industry, Energy transition, Accommodation, Discursive power, Narratives, Hegemony",
author = "Tilsted, {Joachim Peter} and Alice Mah and Nielsen, {Tobias Dan} and Guy Finkill and Fredric Bauer",
note = "Funding Information: To reinforce this narrative, proponents often reference life cycle assessment studies that promote the embedded emissions benefits of plastics compared to alternatives [84,89]. For example, a report sponsored by the American Chemistry Council [90] finds that emissions related to plastic packaging could increase significantly if all plastic packaging in the US was replaced by alternative materials. Claiming benefits by referencing a benchmark with higher emissions is a relative rather than absolute assessment, meaning that the chosen benchmark matters a great deal to this line of reasoning (for example, one could imagine “reduced use” reference scenario). Moreover, this argument does not say anything about whether the unit of analysis performs “well enough” given ecological limits [91], a tendency that is mirrored in corporate sustainability reporting more generally [92]. Quantifying “avoided emissions” requires consistency, or else it results in incoherence [93]. For example, in the quote above, Linde makes it accounting in reference to a hypothetical scenario in which customers do not apply Linde products, seemingly assuming that no relevant substitutes exist. In attributing these reductions to Linde, double counting occurs when their customers report lower direct emissions. Use of “creative accounting” is not unique but rather a widespread tendency in the industry, especially in relation to life cycle assessment [41].The research was supported by funding from the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) through the “STEPS – Sustainable Plastics and Transition Pathways” programme. Funding Information: The research was supported by funding from the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) through the {"}STEPS – Sustainable Plastics and Transition Pathways{"} programme. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Author(s)",
year = "2022",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.erss.2022.102880",
language = "English",
volume = "94",
journal = "Energy Research & Social Science",
issn = "2214-6296",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
}
