I have been prompted to produce this entry due to the large and increasing numbers of publications that adopt forms of WPR to engage critically with climate change. The questions I address include: does WPR contribute usefully to considerations of climate change policy? If so, what can it add to those conversations? Where can it be applied? How can it be applied? 

I have selected four articles to guide the discussion. I’ll tackle two in this entry: 

Christiansen, K. L. and Lund, J. F. 2024. Seeing the limits of voluntary corporate climate action in food and technology sustainability reports, Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103798

Reimerson, E. et al. 2024. Local articulations of climate action in Swedish forest contexts. Environmental Science and Policy, 151 (2024) 103626

and two next time:

Olsson, D., Öjehag-Pettersson, A. & Granberg, M.2021. Building a Sustainable Society: Construction, Public Procurement Policy and “Best Practice” in the European Union. Sustainability, 13, 7142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137142.

Fischer, K. et al. 2024. Progress towards sustainable agriculture hampered by siloed scientific discourses. Nature Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01474-9 

I found all four articles useful and stimulating. Unfortunately, I had to cut content to make the entry size workable and therefore lose some of the nuance of the arguments. 

To be clear, the Fischer et al. (2024) article does not specifically mention WPR or list the WPR questions as they appear in Tables introducing the approach (Bacchi and Goodwin 2016, p. 20). As a result, I am unable to list it in the comprehensive list of WPR references (at this link:  Welcome to the WPR Network! | Karlstad University (kau.se); see this list for numerous other articles applying WPR to environmental politics and climate change). Still, the authors reference Analysing Policy (Bacchi 2009) in relation to the questions they produce (see Box 1). I intend to show the connection between their questions and WPR thinking in the next entry. 

Significantly, all four articles are produced by researchers in Scandinavia, one in Denmark (Christiansen and Lund 2024) and three in different parts of Sweden (Reimersen et al. 2024, Olsson et al. 2021 and Fischer et al. 2024). I say “significantly” because it is noteworthy to recognise Scandinavian countries leading the field in broadening the parameters of climate change discussions. The connection with Scandinavian countries raises questions about the context in which such discussions become possible – topics for another day. 

I intend to follow the lead of the four selected articles in accepting the relevance of a topic designated as “climate change” (though I probably would have preferred “global warming”). In other words, I accept the relevance of the category “climate change”. Instead of debating its existence (topics for elsewhere) I examine how “climate change” and “politics” are brought together using WPR. What do these articles hope to accomplish? Does WPR assist in the selected tasks? 

A distinction needs to be drawn between the articles by Christiansen and Lund, Reimerson et al. and Olsson et al. on the one side and Fischer et al. on the other. Specifically, the first three articles engage directly with policy interventions directed at climate change, while the last (Fischer et al. 2024) offers a form of systematic review of articles that target climate change or rather “sustainability” (discussed in more detail in next entry). By examining these four applications of WPR we can identify commonalities in the findings, specifically that it is relevant politically to consider deep-seated assumptions about the nature of the world, knowledge and political change in reflections on climate change. In this way the four articles help us to see the kind of thinking, analysis and politics associated with WPR as an analytic strategy. 

To begin, I tackle each article separately. I offer a brief summary of each article. Next, I indicate the variety of materials analysed in the article. The goal here is to indicate just where WPR can be applied. I then take some time to show how the selected article “reads” and applies WPR. Specifically, I want to draw attention to the ways in which the articles work with what I call “WPR thinking” – starting from proposals (of a variety of forms) and “working backwards” to identify how the “problem” is represented. As the discussion progresses, I will highlight relevant distinctions among the articles and the specific interpretations they offer of WPR. Finally (next entry) I hope to draw together the insights produced in the selected articles. This intervention should allow us to say something useful about WPR as a critical analytic strategy. To make my contribution usable, I keep the comments brief and hope that in the process I do not misrepresent the arguments.

Article 1: Christiansen, K. L. and Lund, J. F. 2024. Seeing the limits of voluntary corporate climate action in food and technology sustainability reports, Energy Research & Social Science 118 (2024) 103798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103798

Brief summary

The analytic target in this article is corporate climate action. The authors want to know how companies represent the “problem” of climate action. To this end they examine corporate sustainability reports. They find that companies, across the two sectors of agriculture and technology, emphasise solutions aimed at improving efficiency and substituting carbon-intensive inputs in production processes, yet remain largely silent on solutions which could transform or reduce current consumption and production patterns. The companies also frame their products and services as necessary for society, legitimizing their continuing production of emissions. 

Materials analysed 

Christiansen and Lund make an important contribution by highlighting the possibility of applying WPR to forms of material other than Government reports and legislation. Note: they target companies’ sustainability reports. They offer therefore an analysis that illustrates the relevance of a governmentality approach, broadening our conception of “governance” (Bacchi and Goodwin 2016, pp. 41-44). Corporate entities are clearly involved in governing practices. 

Applying WPR thinking

In Christiansen and Lund (2024) there is a strong and useful focus on “proposals”, designated as the starting point for a WPR analysis. Let us recall the key premise in WPR: what is proposed as an intervention (proposed solution) reveals a target for change and hence the way the “problem” is represented and produced (Bacchi 2022). The authors clearly articulate this point: 

“we examine corporate sustainability reports to illuminate how companies’ proposed solutionsboth constitute what they consider their own climate impacts and contribute to identifying and delimiting possible and reasonable corporate responses. (Christiansen and Lund 2024, p. 2; emphasis added)”

Here I offer a few examples of selected proposals and how problem representations are “read off” from them.

  •  P. 3 – “All the food companies highlight investments in electrification, energy efficiencies and production of renewable energy, for example, from biogas and solar panels, as key avenues towards reducing their climate impact. JBS [a large meat-producing enterprise] writes: ‘Upgrades include switching out equipment with more energy-efficient alternatives, such as replacing gas boilers with heat pumps and optimizing refrigeration systems. The business also already has local solar projects at many of its sites’ (p. 58)”. Based on these proposals, the authors (p. 3) conclude: “the companies frame the problem of their climate impact, as one of inefficiency in energy use and use of fossil fuels”. Having identified the problem representation [as “inefficiency”], the authors proceed to examine underlying assumptions and the limitations of the problem representation.
  •  In relation to the technology companies in their sample, the authors note: “The companies often emphasise the need to increase the awareness of and information about emissions, both for themselves, their suppliers and their clients”. It follows that “Emphasis on these solutions partly frames climate change as an information deficit problem, where we need to know more about our emissions and need new tech to address them” (p. 6). The authors proceed to query the grounds of this problem representation [information deficit], pointing out for example how such an approach can produce a “fixation on metrics and data” (p. 6).

For both the agriculture and technology sectors the authors stress the “unquestioned pursuit of efficiency” and how such a frame of reference “legitimises and depoliticises energy-intensive production and consumption patterns” (p. 7). The depoliticization of climate change identifies an important theme that arises in the other articles selected for this discussion.

The authors distinguish what they are doing in their WPR analysis from studies of “greenwashing”. They describe “greenwashing” as “strategic framings that obscure discrepancies between what actors say they do to address climate change and what they actually do” (p. 2). Rather, they want to consider how the communications of the targeted companies contribute to “producing perceptions of possibility and responsibility for mitigating climate change” (p. 2). This distinction between strategic framings and the unintended effects of corporate communications illustrates a useful understanding of WPR. The target is not deception on the part of companies but the operation of deep-seated assumptions in producing “problems” as particular sorts of problem. 

Insights generated 

Connected to the previous point, the authors produce a useful discussion of frame theory and include WPR as part of “the framing and discourse theories we build upon” (p. 2). They describe both frame theory (drawing on Entman 1993) and WPR as following “Foucauldian ideas of how discursive practices contribute towards defining and delimiting what is seen as legitimate and sensible to say”.

This postulated association between WPR and frame theory is debatable (see Research Hub entry 29 January 2025). I describe frame theory as more interested in interpretations of “problems” while WPR targets how specific interventions constitute or produce “problems” as particular sorts of problem. The authors recognise that in WPR “policies are constitutive of problem framings that, in turn, come to shape broader understandings of what constitutes societal problems (and not)” (p. 2; emphasis added). The contrast between interpretive and constitutive approach to “problems” is important and deserves more attention. It comes up again in the discussion of Reimerson et al. 2024 (below) and in Olsson et al. 2021 (next entry). 

Here I note that the authors state their decision to emphasise questions 1, 2 and 4 of the WPR approach because “Responding to questions 3, 5 and 6 requires engagement with other empirics” (p. 2). I suggest that this delineation indicates the interpretive focus in this article while the other “empirics” draw attention to the constitutive effects of problem representations. Since I stress that all the WPR questions are interconnected, I would advise against drawing this distinction. 

Article 2: Reimerson, E. et al. 2024. Local articulations of climate action in Swedish forest contexts. Environmental Science and Policy, 151 (2024) 103626

Brief summary

This article brings an innovative use of WPR to the study of “local articulations” of climate action. I say “innovative” because most common applications of WPR target forms of Government policy or the directives of other organisations (see the targeting of corporations and their reports in Christiansen et al 2024 above). In this article, the target group is “local actors”. The authors connected with this “broad range of stakeholders in two case study locations in Sweden to explore potential course of action for local climate action in relation to forests” (Abstract). The expressed hope is that “forests might offer a way to connect climate change as an abstract, global dilemma to concrete actions on the local level”. A grounding premise is that “local actors are recognized as key drivers for climate action”. 

Materials analysed

To study “local articulations” the authors conducted a series of four consecutive workshops with two groups of forest stakeholders in two different locations – one in northern Sweden and one in southern Sweden (p. 3). Thirty-one forest stakeholders participated in the process. The “pairs of workshops” aimed in the end at presenting “prioritized targets” for local decision-makers and public officials. This article focused on Workshop 2 and “participants’ development of local and societal pathways towards their envisioned futures”. The material from the workshops “was transcribed, translated from Swedish to English, and coded by the first author”. For the coding process, the authors “used a software for qualitative text analysis (NVivo 12) to enable detail and complexity in the coding and analysis, inductively developing themes and sub-themes following an analytical framework based on poststructural policy analysis (see Section 3.4 below)” (p. 4; emphasis added).

I have italicized the point about applying the software “following an analytical framework”. This analytic approach fits my suggestion that to use coding in relation to WPR it is necessary to apply the theory (WPR) first (see Research Hub entries 28 Dec 2023 and 29 January 2025). Also, the treatment of the transcripts as “text” may provide a way to use WPR in other scenarios based on group discussions. The suggested way forward here shares family resemblances with Postructural Interview Analysis (PIA) (Bacchi and Bonham 2016). Forecasting their clear understanding of a WPR analytic strategy, the authors note that the analyzed material “includes all proposals put forward by the participants” (p. 4; emphasis added). 

Applying WPR thinking

The authors state at the outset that the “aim of the paper is to critically analyse these local articulations of climate action”. To this end they ask: 

  • What is the problem represented to be in local forest stakeholders’ articulations of climate action? 
  • What assumptions underlie these problem representations? 
  • What are their potential effects and consequences for local and forestry-related climate action? (p. 2)

Note here the uptake of Questions 1, 2 and 5 from the WPR template, compared to 1, 2 and 4 in Christiansen et al. 2024 above). I comment on the significance of this distinction below.

I was struck by how consistently and how effectively the authors identified “proposals” as starting places for the analysis. In other words, they clearly grasp and use WPR thinking in their analysis. They begin the analysis with recognition that 

“The participants presented both concrete, detailed proposals for forest and natural resource management (e.g., “triad forestry – intensive cultivation 33%, ‘normal’ management 33%, protect 33%”2) and abstract, visionary targets for the environment, the climate, or natural resources in general (e.g., ‘use our resources in the right way’; ‘climate- smart targets for the use of forests). (p. 6; emphasis added)”

They proceed to identify specific proposals and how they represented the “problem”. For example, 

“Among the proposals addressing landscape use and forestry on the local (municipal) and regional (county) levels, several targets indicate a desired move towards a different perspective on landscape use (including the creation of ‘new functional areas’, and a target stating that ‘[a] landscape perspective [is] needed in natural value assessments’). (p. 6; emphasis added)”

As one more example: “A number of proposals targeted resource use by addressing construction, consumption and waste, and energy”. (p. 6; emphasis added)

The authors thus use identified proposals to launch the analysis. Proposals provide access to the problem representations that require analytic scrutiny for their deep-seated assumptions and for their effects. 

Insights generated

Paralleling the argument in Christiansen et al. 2024, this article describes local climate action as “contingent on overarching discourses that affect understandings of possible actions, possible actors, and their opportunities and limitations on all levels of politics and administration” (p. 2). Their close analysis indicates that “Apart from some proposed targets indicating a more radical shift towards local autonomy and self-sufficiency, the participants’ proposals tended to stay close to current policies and practices”. (p. 7) They elaborate:

“For example, among the proposals concerning transportation, most seemed to assume continued high mobility of people and goods – just with different modes of transportation (public transport; railways) and/or different (fossil free) fuel sources. The detailed policy content of more radical transformation (e.g., significant decreases in mobility) remains rather quiet, if not completely silent, in the material. There is also a tendency of silence around concrete alternatives for land- and resource use. (p. 7)” 

And finally:

“Through proposals of, for example, more wood construction and increased use of bioenergy – and through the silences on concrete alternatives for land- and resource use – the participants’ pathways assume a continued use of forest resources. They seem to remain largely within the confines of – and further reiterate – dominating market-oriented and administrative- managerial rationalities.” 

Importantly, this article probes the “discursive effects” produced by these problem representations (Question 5 in WPR; Bacchi and Goodwin 2016, p. 20). That is, it moves beyond an analysis of competing interpretations (see Christiansen and Lund 2024, above) to consider the political fallout produced through the problem representations they identify. They emphasise “the discursive and positioning effects of assumptions of politically neutral (or apolitical) knowledge as necessary for action” and conclude on the need “for continued critical scrutiny of the underlying premises and choices of climate action on all levels (cf. Hulme, 2015) (p. 10; emphasis added). Through this perspective they demonstrate the usefulness of WPR as an analytic strategy.

I pursue articles 3 (Olsson et al. 2021) and 4 (Fischer et al. 2024) in the next entry. 

References

Bacchi, C. 2009. Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to be? Pearson Education.

Bacchi, C. 2022. Keynote Address, Karlstad International WPR Symposium. https://www.kau.se/en/political-science/forskningsprojekt/welcome-wpr-network

Bacchi, C. and Bonham, J. 2016. Appendix: Poststructural Interview Analysis: Politicizing “personhood”, in C. Bacchi and S. Goodwin, Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 113-122.

Bacchi, C. and Goodwin, S. 2016. Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Entman, R. M. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51-58.

Hulme, M., 2015. (Still) disagreeing about climate change: Which way forward? Zygon® 50, 893–905