Through learning, policy actors can maintain, reinforce, or revise their beliefs and positions about the design and outcomes of policies. This paper critically analyzes factors influencing policy learning by comparing policy processes of two EU laws of the recent "Fit for 55" climate package: (i) revised provisions on increasing energy efficiency in companies included in the recast Energy Efficiency Directive and (ii) the new FuelEU Maritime regulation provided for decarbonizing maritime shipping. Learning across coalitions with competing beliefs was encountered in the first case but not in the other despite similar institutional settings. The difference is attributed to a more politicized debate on decarbonizing shipping, leading to consensus through bargaining instead of deliberation, and a circumscribed leader of one coalition, with a less flexible negotiation mandate. The paper adds to the theory on policy learning, suggesting that levels of politicization and polarization, as well as the mandates of the coalition leaders, influence cross-coalition learning.

This policy report outlines the group research on advocacy, decision-making, and EU policy change towards green energy transition and climate neutrality, focusing on resource- and energy-efficient buildings, as well as energy efficiency more broadly within the EU's Fit for 55 legislative packages. The research also includes analyses of advocacy and decision-making related to EU policy change for decarbonizing maritime shipping. The project explores how stakeholder coalitions shape policies for sustainable environments since decision-making is influenced by stakeholders and conflicts of interest. By providing better insight into EU policy change dynamics, this report offers valuable knowledge that can enhance policymakers' understanding of how to influence future EU policies on energy efficiency and building energy performance, as well as a clean energy transition more broadly, promoting Swedish interests. It highlights the complexity of decision-making in energy efficiency and climate impact reduction within the EU while also underscoring the influence of stakeholders and conflicts of interest. As a result, actors with inadequate grasp of political dynamics can hinder effective energy policy design and implementation, posing challenges to achieving climate goals and sustainable development. Similarly, since negotiations are key to advance regulation, it is found that less politicization and polarization facilitate deliberative negotiations and policy-oriented learning, among other things. Thus, strategic advocacy is crucial for Swedish policymakers aiming to successfully influence future EU energy and climate policies.

Här sammanfattas vår forskning om påverkansarbete, beslutsfattande och förändring av EU:s politik för grön energiomställning och klimatneutralitet. Fokus ligger på resurs- och energieffektiva byggnader, men även energieffektivisering mer generellt och andra områden inom EU:s lagstiftningspaket Fit for 55. Beslutsfattandet kring energieffektivitet och minskad klimatpåverkan är komplext och påverkas av olika faktorer, inklusive intressenter, intressekonflikter och strategier. Bristande förståelse för politiska dynamiker kan hindra effektiv utformning och genomförande av energipolitik, vilket i sin tur kan försvåra arbetet med att uppnå klimatmål och främja hållbar utveckling. I våra projekt lämnas kunskap om processerna kring beslutsfattande och förändring av EU-politiken. Här presenteras ett kunskapsunderlag att dels påverka framtida EU-direktiv om energieffektivitet och byggnaders energiprestanda, dels främja svensk innovation och förbättra implementering av energieffektiviserande åtgärder i byggd miljö i Sverige såväl som EU och globalt. Resultaten visar att en djupare förståelse för sociala, politiska och institutionella faktorer är avgörande för att effektivt driva hållbar energipolitik. Vi betonar även behovet av ökad transparens för lobbyister för att säkerställa en rättvis och öppen politisk process.

The improvement of the energy performance of buildings have been an issue in public policy for more than 50 years. On a global scale, the buildings sector accounts for 40 per cent of total energy end-use and almost 35 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the most important sectors to focus on for reaching the 1.5 °C target of the Paris Agreement. The topic was first incorporated in European Union (EU) energy policy during the 1970’s oil crisis and is now fully immersed in EU architecture of multi-level governance where the actually policy process could be opaque for people outside the system. This paper analyses by a narrative literature review the academic literature on governance and policy processes around EU policy on energy efficient and zero-carbon buildings. The value of this review is its broader consideration of the policy pathways to reduce the building sector’s climate impact, offering new perspectives and pointing to areas for further research considering all components, their interactions and interdependence. 

This paper explores and explains Member State (MS) lobbying on European Union (EU) policy on energy efficiency, with particular focus on legislation on individual metering and billing of heating, cooling and domestic hot water (IMB) in multi-apartment buildings. This legislation has been heavily debated and was amended in 2018 following successful lobbying by the opponents of IMB. The lobbying strategy of Sweden, a small MS of the EU, and its allies in the lobbying coalition opposing IMB is examined, as are different factors explaining the success of their lobbying. A pro-active approach was taken and a broad normative coalition for lobbying was formed, including MSs and interest groups representing building owners and tenants at national and EU level. Lobbying was successful and the IMB provisions were amended. The success of the lobbying was influenced by several factors, i.a. favourable resources, high salience and high complexity of the issue.

This empirical study analyses policy change in the area of EU energy efficiency policy by applying the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). The energy efficiency directive (EED) and its provisions on individual metering and billing (IMB) is used as a case study. IMB provisions have rendered substantial debate for almost a decade and the provisions were amended following successful advocacy work of the coalition opposing IMB. The study confirms recent developments of the ACF theory that internal shocks are important for policy change. Policy change have also been influenced by other factors, such as internal events in the political subsystem, policy-oriented learning and negotiated agreements. As for policy-oriented learning, it was manifested in different ways, e.g. the acceptance of the core beliefs and proposals for amending the IMB provisions put forward by the coalition opposing IMB by a majority of MSs in the Council, the EP and the proponents of IMB. The paper also provides critical perspectives on the ACF, that policy change can happen without changes of external dynamic factors and in shorter time perspectives than the ACF theory proposes. Besides contributing to development of scientific theory, the knowledge provided in the paper can inform various stakeholders to better shape their future strategies in advocacy work in EU policy making and national policy implementation.

Changing EU policy on energy efficiency: Policy change through internal shock and policy-oriented learningEnergy efficiency has been highlighted as a key area to meet high ambitions in EU cli-mate policy. This paper applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework to analyse recent changes of EU policy on energy efficiency, with particular focus on provisions on indi-vidual metering and billing of thermal energy in multi-apartment buildings. This area has rendered substantial discussion for a decade, with EU provisions being substan-tially revised after successful advocacy work by the advocacy coalition opposing indi-vidual metering and billing. The study confirms recent developments of the Advocacy Coalition Framework that internal shocks are important for policy change. The policy change followed other pathways too, e.g. through policy-oriented learning. As for policy-oriented learning, it occurred in different ways, e.g. the acceptance of the core beliefs and proposals for amending the provisions on individual metering and billing put forward by the coalition opposing individual metering and billing by a majority of Member States in the Council, the European Parliament and the proponents of individual metering and billing. Besides contributing to the development of scientific theory, the knowledge provided in the paper can inform various stakeholders to bet-ter shape their future strategies in advocacy work in EU policy-making.

This paper sets out to explore and explain lobbying on EU policy on energy efficiency, with particular focus on legislation on individual metering and billing of heating, cooling and domestic hot water (IMB) in multi-family and multi-purpose buildings. EU legislation on IMB have been heavily debated for a decade. The lobbying strategy of Sweden, a small Member State, and its allies in the the lobbying coalition opposing IMB was examined, as were different factors explaining the success of lobbying. As for the lobbying strategy, a pro-active approach was taken and a broad normative coalition for lobbying was formed, including MSs and interest groups representing building owners and tenants at national and EU level. Lobbying was addressed towards all key institutional actors of EU policy making. Different channels was used in the lobbying, i.e. non-papers, meetings and the organisation of a ground-breaking seminar in the EP. Lobbying was successful and the IMB provisions were amended in accordance with the position of the lobbying coalition opposing IMB. The success of the lobbying was influenced by several factors, such as (i) a concentrated actor, (ii) a relatively large coalition, favourable (iii) resources and (iv) transaction costs of lobbying, (v) high salience of the issue, (vi) high complexity of the issue, (vii) clear reasoning of the lobbying coalition opposing IMB, and (viii) low degree of conflict.