Stewards or sticklers for change? Incumbent energy providers and the politics of the German energy transition

Abstract This paper examines the actions and strategies of Germany's leading energy companies—E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall—in response to the liberalization of the German electricity market and measures to promote renewable energies, market developments as well as exogenous shocks such as the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the economic crisis. The study offers a comparative analysis of these companies from 1998 to 2013, outlining their development from thriving growth at the start of liberalization up to the current state of crisis. It identifies three strategic phases which the incumbents went through nearly synchronously and show how differences between their activities can be attributed to their respective power plant complex, regional positioning and shareholder structure. With a focus on the context of the Energiewende —Germany's commitment to shift toward sustainable energy production—this article contributes to the current debate on the sustainable transformation of the energy supply system. The theory of strategic action fields by Fligstein and McAdam serves as a theoretical framework.

[1]  Mario Richter.  German utilities and distributed PV: How to overcome barriers to business model innovation , 2013 .

[2]  Michael Pahle,et al.  Germany's dash for coal: exploring drivers and factors , 2010 .

[3]  J. Gerring.  Case Study Research: Principles and Practices , 2006 .

[4]  Paul DiMaggio.  Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory , 1988 .

[5]  Bernd Hirschl,et al.  Erneuerbare Energien-Politik : eine Multi-Level Policy-Analyse mit Fokus auf den deutschen Strommarkt , 2008 .

[6]  D. Mcadam,et al.  A Theory of Fields , 2012 .

[7]  Elisha R. Frederiks,et al.  Barriers to green electricity subscription in Australia: “Love the environment, love renewable energy … but why should I pay more?” , 2014 .

[8]  Teresa Haukkala.  Does the sun shine in the High North? Vested interests as a barrier to solar energy deployment in Finland , 2015 .

[9]  A. Yatchew.  Economics of energy, big ideas for the non-economist , 2014 .

[10]  Huseyin Leblebici,et al.  Institutional Change and the Transformation of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the U.S. Radio Broadcasting Industry , 1991 .

[11]  Jochen Gläser,et al.  Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse , 2010 .

[12]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[13]  Andrew J. Hoffman,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION AND CHANGE: ENVIRONMENTALISM AND THE US CHEMICAL INDUSTRY , 1999 .

[14]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology , 2006 .

[15]  Georg Schreyögg,et al.  Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box , 2009 .

[16]  Heinz-J. Bontrup,et al.  Kritisches Handbuch der deutschen Elektrizitätswirtschaft , 2010 .

[17]  D. Mcadam,et al.  Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields* , 2010 .

[18]  B. Sovacool.  What Are We Doing Here? Analyzing Fifteen Years of Energy Scholarship and Proposing a Social Science Research Agenda , 2014 .

[19]  K. Araújo.  The emerging field of energy transitions: Progress, challenges, and opportunities , 2014 .