Content uploaded by Matteo Mandelli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matteo Mandelli on Jul 30, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-024-00381-x
Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels
to Berlin
Katharina Zimmermann · Matteo Mandelli · Anne Gerstenberg
Accepted: 28 June 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract This paper examines the intersection of eco-social policies and multilevel
governance within the framework of the European Green Deal (EGD), focusing on
Germany as a case study. We explore how German stakeholders employ the EGD
as a framing tool for socio-political discourses aimed at addressing the social risks
of the green transition by promoting (or not promoting) integrated social and eco-
logical policies. Applying the ‘usages of Europe’ framework, our empirical analysis
of expert interviews reveals that the EGD serves more as a flexible framework for
ideological contestation rather than a set of prescriptive guidelines, reflecting di-
verging political ideologies and economic priorities. The findings highlight minimal
conflictual politicization, with debates centering more on the choice of instruments
rather than on eco-social policies themselves or the necessity to adopt them at the
domestic level. The study underscores the nuanced interplay between European ini-
tiatives and national policy debates, contributing to a deeper understanding of the
complex governance paradigms that shape eco-social transformations in the age of
the EGD.
Keywords European Green Deal · Green transformation · Eco-social policies ·
Multilevel governance · Usages of Europe
Katharina Zimmermann
University of Hamburg, Welckerstr. 8, 20354 Hamburg, Germany
E-Mail: katharina.zimmermann@uni-hamburg.de
Matteo Mandelli
Laboratoire interdisciplinaire d’évaluation des politiques publiques (LIEPP), Sciences Po Paris, 1
Place St Thomas d’Aquin, 75007 Paris, France
E-Mail: matteo.mandelli@sciencespo.fr
Anne Gerstenberg
Department of Social Sciences, Universität Hamburg, Allendeplatz 1, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
E-Mail: anne.gerstenberg@uni-hamburg.de
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
Zwischen Brüssel und Berlin: sozial-ökologische Politik im
Mehrebenensystem
Zusammenfassung Der Beitrag untersucht die Schnittstelle von sozial-ökologi-
scher Politik und Mehrebenen-Governance im Rahmen des Europäischen Grünen
Deals (EGD) und konzentriert sich dabei auf Deutschland als Fallbeispiel. Wir
beleuchten, wie deutsche Akteure den EGD als Rahmenwerk für sozialpolitische
Diskurse nutzen, die darauf abzielen, die sozialen Risiken der grünen Transforma-
tion durch integrierte soziale und ökologische Politiken zu adressieren. Im Rahmen
der empirischen Analyse von Expert:inneninterviews unter Anwendung des „usa-
ges of Europe“-Ansatzes zeigt sich, dass der EGD mehr als flexibles Rahmenwerk
für ideologische Auseinandersetzungen denn als präskriptive Richtlinie dient, wo-
bei divergierende politische Ideologien und wirtschaftliche Prioritäten eine Rolle
spielen. Die Ergebnisse verdeutlichen eine geringe Politisierung, wobei sich die
Debatten stärker auf die Wahl der Instrumente konzentrieren als auf die Politiken
selbst oder die Notwendigkeit, diese auf nationaler Ebene zu übernehmen. Die Stu-
die unterstreicht das nuancierte Zusammenspiel zwischen europäischen Initiativen
und nationalen Politikdebatten und trägt zu einem tieferen Verständnis der komple-
xen Governance-Paradigmen bei, die die ökosozialen Transformationen im Zeitalter
des EGD prägen.
Schlüsselwörter European Green Deal · Energiewende · Sozial-ökologische
Politik · Mehrebenen-Governance · Usages of Europe
1 Introduction1
In historical analysis, the welfare state’s emergence during the industrial age is
understood not only in terms of its functional attributes—responding to the socio-
economic challenges of the era—but also in its political dimensions. Welfare systems
of the industrial period can be interpreted as instruments that placated emergent class
struggles and to confer legitimacy to market-based democracies, which were, by their
very nature, riddled with inherent social inequalities (Briggs 1961; Marshall 1950;
Esping-Andersen 1990). Transitioning to the contemporary context of environmental
challenges, the welfare state finds itself positioned at a critical juncture. On the one
hand, the welfare state has a considerable “ecological footprint” (Matthies 2017),
given primarily by its economic implications, which enable even most-disadvantaged
individuals to engage in environmentally harmful consumption patterns. On the other
hand, environmental degradation might alter the nature and distribution of social
risks, potentially generating a new wave of social (or rather “eco-social”) risks for
1This paper is a joint effort by all the three authors. The design and writing of the paper were predomi-
nantly steered by Katharina Zimmerman, with support from the other authors. The analytical perspective
was developed by Katharina Zimmermann and Matteo Mandelli. Data collection and analysis was pursued
by Katharina Zimmermann and Anne Gerstenberg.
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
the state to address (Gough et al. 2008; Johansson et al. 2016; Hirvilammi et al.
2023; Zimmermann 2023).
The intricate link between welfare and environmental policies has become in-
creasingly apparent amidst the ongoing climate crisis, highlighting how climate
change intensifies existing disparities within and between countries, as well as in-
tergenerationally (Gough 2017). The less affluent and those contributing minimally
to CO2emissions are most vulnerable to ecological disaster repercussions (Walker
2012). Adding complexity, some climate mitigation policies, such as carbon taxes,
are socially regressive, disproportionately affecting the lower-middle and working
classes (Büchs et al. 2011). Thus, new risks arise directly from environmental degra-
dation and indirectly from climate policies (Gough et al. 2008). Against this back-
ground, eco-social policies are emerging as innovative public policy responses to
such risks, integrating social and ecological goals in different ways (Mandelli 2022).
“Reactive” eco-social policies are constructed by adding a social dimension to an
environmental policy, while “preventive” eco-social policies aim at greening the
welfare state. Moreover, we can also distinguish “protection” from “investment-ori-
ented” eco-social policies, depending on whether they aim to positively contribute
to economic growth. Thus, a variety of eco-social policy preferences are possible.
While research on the functional aspects of welfare states in the context of climate
change proliferates, particularly in developing integrated socio-environmental so-
lutions (e.g., Hirvilammi and Koch 2020), the political dimensions and associated
struggles remain underexplored.
Adding to the political complexity and conflictive potential, eco-social policy
making takes place in an increasingly multilevel setup. Not only does the climate
crisis not stop at nation state’s borders and is accelerated by globalisation, also its
mitigation and adaptation—including the social and welfare dimension—are han-
dled within the complex web of multilevel policy making. Here, the European Green
Deal (EGD) stands out as the, to date, most comprehensive net zero transition plan.
Combining EU Commission initiatives, stakeholder consultation procedures, and
different legislative procedures for different policy fields, the EGD was already
a complicated multilevel endeavour at the formulation and policy making stage,
which is now to be proceeded and implemented at the European- as well as at the
national, regional and local level in EU member states. As the comprehensive Euro-
pean Studies’ literature teaches us, these processes are by far not dry administrative
operations, but highly politicised and carry a vast conflictive potential (Graziano
2024).
In our article, we turn our attention to the interaction of eco-social and multi-
level policy making. As an exemplary case, we will analyse Germany’s eco-social
model in the broader EU context. The magnitude of politicization within Germany’s
eco-social policymaking arena, is inextricably tied to the country’s complex history
and socio-political fabric. Despite its industrial might and professing environmental
commitment (Haas 2020), Germany’s stance on eco-social policies is a reflection
on EU-level political dynamics, especially in the context of the European Green
Deal. We adopt a ‘usages of Europe’ approach to investigate how Germany’s policy
arena mirrors these dynamics. More precisely, we ask how the ‘usages’ within the
German policy arena reflect the underlying political contestations and dynamics in-
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
herent to eco-social policymaking in the context of the European Green Deal. Our
central argument posits that the EGD is more than a policy directive; it is a critical
arena where eco-social policy disputes are evident. It presents a specific eco-social
agenda (i.e. green growth, industrial decarbonisation, specific just transition ambi-
tions; e.g. Mandelli et al. 2021), compelling domestic stakeholders to engage with
its underlying principles and goals.
In exploring the intricate interactions between eco-social policies and multilevel
governance, particularly within the framework of the EGD, this study intersects with
key themes of power, conflict, and coordination as outlined in the special issue. Our
analysis of Germany’s policy arena provides insights into the political practices, ac-
tor constellations, and contentious dynamics that define eco-social transformations.
This perspective contributes to the broader discourse on how eco-social policies are
formulated, adopted, and implemented in complex political landscapes, reflecting
the special issue’s emphasis on empirically grounded, multi-theoretical explorations
of Germany as a critical case study.
The paper’s structure is as follows: commencing with a multilevel perspective on
eco-social policies in the EU, it then introduces the ‘usages of Europe’ analytical
framework. This is succeeded by the research design, a background on Germany’s
eco-social paradigm, and an empirical analysis of the usages of Europe in the context
of Germany’s politicized eco-social policymaking. The study culminates in a dis-
cussion and conclusion, aiming to synthesize the findings and reflect upon the future
trajectory of eco-social policies within the European milieu.
2 Multilevel eco-social policies in the European Union
A growing interest in the socio-ecological nexus can be detected in European studies.
Scholars typically indicate that the 2019 European Green Deal represented a critical
juncture in the history of EU climate policies, paying unprecedented attention to
the social implications of climate policies, which is expressed by emergence of an
EU just transition approach (Kyriazi and Miró 2022; Sabato and Mandelli 2024;
Petmesidou and Guillén 2022; Graziano 2024; Crespy and Munta 2023). In Decem-
ber 2019, the von der Leyen European Commission introduced the EGD, aiming to
transform the EU into “... a fair and prosperous society with a modern, resource-
efficient and competitive economy, with zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
and economic growth decoupled from resource use.” (European Commission 2019,
p. 1). The EGD diverged from previous EU strategies by integrating environmen-
tal ambitions with the economic growth agenda, advocating for “green growth”
and “ecological modernization” (Mandelli et al. 2021). Additionally, it introduced
substantial social policy considerations, stressing the need to balance economic, en-
vironmental, and social objectives (European Commission 2019). It addressed the
socio-economic effects of decarbonization, particularly on low-income households
and workers in carbon-intensive sectors, emphasizing support through mechanisms
like the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) and the Social Climate Fund (SCF) to
ensure no one is left behind (European Commission 2020c, 2021). While the just
transition notion in the EGD is almost exclusively framed as a paradigm to ac-
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
company the transition of carbon-intensive sectors and to fight energy and transport
poverty, this narrow conception of just transition is counterbalanced by linking the
EGD to the European Pillar of Social Rights (European Commission 2017).
The EGD’s developments are not mere administrative actions but are imbued
with significant conflict potential (McNamara 2015). The EU, as a multi-layered
political entity, is inherently characterized by diverse, sometimes conflicting, inter-
ests stemming from its broad membership and intricate institutional framework. The
result is a complex tapestry of political negotiation, coalition-building, and strategic
manoeuvring which needs to be considered when studying any politicization in the
EU context (Schmidt 2019). We therefore suggest looking at multilevel eco-social
policy making from an analytical angle that sees it not only as technocratic exercise
but gives credit to its political character. We argue that, in the case of eco-social
policies, conflicts about the distributional implications of climate policy (in-)actions
might emerge. We thus expect the adoption and formulation of European eco-social
policies, at the intersection between social and climate policies, but also intertwined
in multilevel dynamics, to be embedded within a complex terrain of politicization,
involving negotiations, contestation, and struggles for legitimization (Grande and
Hutter 2016).
To analytically navigate the intricate politics and politicization surrounding EU
eco-social policies and its reception in the domestic political arena in Germany,
we argue that the ‘usages of Europe’ conceptualization by Woll and Jacquot offers
a particularly insightful approach (Jacquot and Woll 2003; Woll and Jacquot 2010;
see also Graziano et al. 2011). This framework moves beyond simplistic institu-
tionalist interpretations, emphasizing the agency and cognitive autonomy of actors
within the broader European transformation debate. It contends that institutional
contexts are not passive backdrops but active arenas for interpretation, contestation,
and reformulation. Actors within this framework are not merely responding to po-
litical stimuli; they are adaptable, learning, and exerting strategic influence, often
transcending structural determinants.
By defining the ‘usages of Europe’ as social practices that tap into the multifaceted
opportunities provided by the European Union—be they institutional, ideological,
political, or organizational—Jacquot and Woll provide a layered lens through which
one can examine the political dimension of the welfare state’s role in the age of
climate change (Jacquot and Woll 2003, p. 9). This challenges functionalist per-
spectives, highlighting the complex interplay of politics, agency, and environmental
challenges.
The ‘usages of Europe’ framework encompasses three main categories:
Cognitive Usages: These are essential during the framing phase of reform, serving
as foundational political resources. Actors utilize these to shape debates and mo-
bilize ideas for persuasion, framing discussions around environmental challenges
and their social implications.
Strategic Usages: Central to the policy and decision-making phase, these usages
function as significant political tools. Actors leverage them to consolidate inter-
ests, form coalitions, and delineate political trajectories, using EU guidelines and
policies to support their eco-social strategies.
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
Legitimating Usages: These come into play when actors seek to validate their
policy positions, invoking the authority of “Europe” to reinforce their stance. The
process is embedded in the communication and justification of choices, with actors
drawing upon EU debates to support their positions.
The ‘usages of Europe’ first gained prominence when the EU expanded its in-
fluence through ‘soft’ forms of governance. This pertains to the mechanisms the
EU employs that are not strictly regulatory but are guiding and supportive, influ-
encing member states without direct coercion (Heidenreich and Zeitlin 2009). Here,
research illustrated how, at various governance levels, actors leveraged EU policies
for domestic political gains, particularly visible for social and employment pol-
icy contexts (Graziano et al. 2011), as well as for EU enlargement processes and
candidate countries (e.g. Günay and Renda 2014). Following this period, EU policy-
making entered a phase dominated by responses to the financial crisis, focusing on
macroeconomic strategies at a high policy-making level. During this time, although
‘usages of Europe’ continued to be relevant, its direct application in scholarly dis-
cussions was somewhat narrowed, concentrated on specific areas (such as defence
cooperation; Béraud-Sudreau and Pannier 2021) rather than broad application.
However, the introduction of the EGD signifies in our eyes a return to a gover-
nance style that emphasizes extensive implementation and involves a wide array of
actors across different governmental levels. The EGD represents a comprehensive
governance package that requires active participation from national, regional, and
local actors within member states. These actors are now positioned to utilize EU
policies for their local and regional political agendas. This shift highlights a renewed
opportunity to apply the ‘usages of Europe’ framework to understand how EU poli-
cies are politically appropriated ‘at home’ for various purposes, mirroring earlier
dynamics seen during the integration and policy adoption phases but in the context
of green and social policy integration. This analysis shows the EGD, not only as
a policy but as a political tool that facilitates the domestic strategic use of EU-level
initiatives and affects eco-social policymaking across the EU.
In utilizing Woll and Jacquot’s ‘usages of Europe’ framework and applying it to
the case of Germany, we therefore aim to illuminate the complex political motiva-
tions, strategies, and justifications underpinning eco-social policy debates within an
EU member state, particularly in relation to the EGD. Given its extensive scope and
normative imperatives, the EGD is expected to serve not only as a policy directive
but also as a focal point of contention and convergence in eco-social policymaking.
This research endeavours to answer the question: “How do the ‘usages of Europe’
within the German policy arena reflect the underlying political contestations and
dynamics inherent to eco-social policymaking in the context of the European Green
Deal?”. Through this inquiry, the aim is to provide insights into Germany’s green
transition and delve deeper into the intrinsic political nature of eco-social policies at
large. The following section will outline the research design and methods employed
in this study.
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
3 Research design and methodology
To answer our research question, we draw on 41 qualitative semi-structured expert
interviews conducted in the context of the projects “The social dimension of the
European Green Deal” and “Perceptions of Climate Policy Instruments” between
2022 and 2023.2Both projects’ questionnaires were developed simultaneously, con-
taining similar questions and thus allowing for shared analysis. The questionnaires
enquired the interview partners’ overarching eco-social orientations, examining their
perspectives on economic growth, the role of social policy, and their commitment
to climate and environmental protection. Furthermore, the focus was on how social
and environmental concerns intertwine within the EGD, opinions on its instruments,
and broader aspirations for Europe’s future. As a further source of background infor-
mation, the article also builds on analyses accomplished by Mandelli et al. (2023),
which included semi-structured interviews at the EU level (for further details, see
Mandelli et al. 2023).
The selection of participants was achieved through a combination of methods.
Initial identification relied on comprehensive document research to pinpoint primary
actors in the EGD domain (Bowen 2009) enriched by the snowballing technique. In
order to be able to portray the different actors and analyze their interests in the field,
the interviews span a broad spectrum of policy-makers and societal stakeholders
in Germany and the EU (elected politicians, ministerial bureaucrats, third sector
organizations and non-governmental organisations [NGOs], as well as lobbyists
representing a variety of interests; see Table 1 in Appendix for a list of interviews).
Recognizing the multi-layered implications of the EGD on member states, the
project is interested in the diverse discourses around eco-social policy integration.
In order to uncover these in the data, information from the interviews was analyzed
through qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz 2019) in order to uncover how differ-
ent societal actors, both within Germany and at the EU level, engage with, interpret,
and harness the EGD to further their distinct goals and objectives. The analysis was
structured into a two-step analysis, with a first deductive coding round, to broadly
structure the data on the actors’ perspectives. Categories of analysis involved the
actors’ perception of EU politics, eco-social policies and their integration, specific
instruments, justice perceptions as well as the description of their own role and goals
within policy making. The coded instances were then re-analysed with a focus on the
‘usages of Europe’ via a combined deductive and inductive approach. Afterwards,
a purely inductive coding round followed to ensure an openness to the data and to
include aspects that were not foreseen in the deductive scheme.
2The project “Policymakers’ perceptions of climate policy instruments” was funded by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany‘s Excellence Strategy –
EXC 2037 ’CLICCS - Climate, Climatic Change, and Society’ – Project Number: 390683824, a contri-
bution to the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN) of Universität Hamburg. For
a detailed account of the research design, data collection and method of analysis, please refer to Gersten-
berg et al. (2024).
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
4 Case selection
Germany represents an interesting case of analysis as the development of Germany’s
Energiewende (energy transition) reflects a complex interplay of historical legacies,
stakeholder influences, and shifting eco-social paradigms. Originating from anti-nu-
clear sentiments in the 1970s, it evolved into a significant political agenda, further
shaped by global incidents like the 2011 Fukushima disaster (Haas 2020). Although
the Energiewende initially symbolized Germany’s commitment to sustainable energy
transition, its journey, particularly towards coal-phase out, has been complex and
influenced by various stakeholders with divergent interests. While industrial entities,
especially from the coal sector, called for a gradual transition to protect economic
stability, environmental groups and the Green Party pushed for a swift move away
from fossil fuels (Tekin and Goßner 2023). Despite its early leadership in sustainable
transitions, Germany now appears to be lagging, showing hesitancy in adapting to
environmental challenges and stakeholder demands. On the social policy front, Ger-
many has maintained its conservative-corporatist traditions, yet the Hartz-reforms
of 2004 marked a significant shift (a “long goodbye to Bismarck” [Palier 2010]),
introducing a dual system of social protection that combined status-protective so-
cial insurance with needs-based, means-tested minimum income provisions. This
dual approach, while broadening coverage, also maintained the focus on protecting
labour market insiders, a trend also evident in the Energiewende policies where pro-
tections for traditional sectors like coal mining and automotive overshadow issues
like energy poverty. Germany’s role as an industrial leader with strong corporatist
interests and its leadership position in the EU make it an interesting case with regard
to multilevel eco-social policy making, from whose analysis further insights could
be drawn for other cases in future research.
5 Findings: Usages of Europe in eco-social policy making
As outlined above, to understand the politicizations of the current stages of Ger-
many’s Energiewende and its broader eco-social framework, we will in a next step
analyse the political usages of the EGD (and related EU policies) in the German pol-
icy-making. By examining how German stakeholders, ranging from policymakers
to industry leaders, engage with, interpret, and utilize the provisions and aspirations
of the EGD, we can glean insights into the likely evolution of the country’s energy
transition. Furthermore, understanding this engagement is crucial as it reflects the
nation’s capacity to balance its historic eco-social models with emerging European
directives. Thus, a dive into the usages of the EGD not only provides a roadmap for
Germany’s eco-social future but also highlights the complex interplay of national
ambitions and supranational commitments.
A first content analysis of our data showed—unsurprising—salient general ideo-
logical lines among respondents: liberals emphasized the significance of economic
growth, left-leaning interviewees prioritized redistribution, trade union representa-
tives focused on worker protection and advocated for the classical just transition,
while bureaucrats’ views tended to reflect the dominant political ideologies of their
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
departments. In further analyses, we then delved into the intricacies of how the
EGD—or European policies in general—was being operationalized within Germany.
All three types of usages—strategic, cognitive, and legitimating—were discernible
in our interviews. We will discuss them in turn.
Legitimating usage of the EGD was very scarce in our interviews. We did not ob-
serve a single case where actors sought to validate or justify specific policy choices
referring to the EGD as a legitimate authority. However, some stakeholders (mainly
liberal and industry-related) framed the EGD as a constraint to national policy mak-
ing; using it to validate the status quo in climate protection, or as a strategy to shift
the German model away from intensified climate action. For instance, arguing in
favour of free ETS3allocations (i.e. providing a certain amount of emission certifi-
cates to companies, rather than requiring them to purchase all of their allowances),
this interviewee essentially adopts a ‘delay strategy’ (Lamb et al. 2020):
“So, IG Metall [...] defended free allocations in the ETS. [...] As Europe, we
have a choice: we either look at how we can transform our foundation industries
and keep jobs in Europe, or we decide, we let them go to other parts of the world
where we can’t guarantee what the environmental footprint is, but we, and we
basically import all of those materials.” (Interview 9, Industry-related Trade
Union, 18).
Another conservative interviewee basically expresses a similar perspective when
framing the EU ETS as a threat to German industry:
“Last year, when we were in the middle of the parliamentary consultations on
the new ETS, we had a number of votes. These had a major impact on indus-
try, for example on the steel industry in Germany. Where the question was,
what [ETS] benchmarks should apply? So, the real question was, does the steel
industry still have a future in Germany under these conditions? Yes or no?”
(Interview 13, CDU EPP, 17).
Transitioning to strategic usage, we found this type of usage especially in the
context of the interviewees’ reflections on specific policy designs. Political actors
and ministries, especially incumbents from the Greens and Social Democrats, har-
nessed the EGD to reinforce their trajectory towards reactive eco-social investment
policies—hence policies channelling green and social investment to address the most
urgent risks of decarbonisation—particularly accentuating the social acceptability of
climate policy. Key in this strategy was their strategic use of monetary resources
from the JTF and the anticipated SCF to foster social acceptance for the green
transition:
“For Germany it is more important at the moment to get it accepted that we
definitely want the ETS2. And if that means that we also have to do the CSF,
then we’ll do it. I think that’s okay anyway, because it [the SCF] simply gives us
3The ETS is the European Union Emissions Trading System.
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
more funds at the national level that have a very clear social focus. That’s why
we are definitely strongly in favour of getting the SCF.” (Interview 3, Ministry
of Labour and Social Affairs, 139).
Moreover, most of these incumbent-related interviewees underlined the signifi-
cance of protective compensatory eco-social policies and educational investments to
ensure the green transformation’s acceptance and legitimacy:
“I think what is very, very important is that climate policy is also education.
And that starts at a very, very early age. And we have to start in the school
system and teach young children that climate policy has a high priority [...]. We
will only achieve acceptance in the long term if we also get this in the children.
The second important thing is how we can get those who cannot afford climate
policy to accept it now. And that’s where it starts, we have to take low-income
households with us.” (Interview 10, SPD, 22).
Cognitive usage, finally, was the most pronounced type of usage we observed.
Interviewees from diverse political backgrounds employed various facets of the
EGD to bolster their conceptions of governing a green transition. As to be expected
for cognitive usage, this took place not in the context of policy implementation,
but interviewees especially displayed it when reflecting on policy formulation and
green transition pathways at a more conceptual level. Interestingly, both proponents
and critics of market instruments, as well as supporters and detractors of regulative
policies, here referenced the EGD—either as a commendable guide or a flawed
touchstone. For instance, a liberal perspective stressed the significance of price
instruments, noting:
“So, from the perspective of the liberals, but also from my personal perspective,
price impulses are very important, extremely important. [...] It is different with
regulatory law, because above all, selected technologies are either promoted
or other technologies are hindered, so to speak. [...] So for this reason, [we
support] decentralized price incentives through price instruments such as CO2
prices. Either via a levy or via EU emissions trading. If one argues here from the
perspective of the currently existing climate policy goals, our focus is clearly
on EU emissions trading.” (Interview 30, FDP/liberals, 10).
Yet, contrasting this stance, another interviewee underscored the urgency for
a structured regulatory approach, asserting:
“I believe that a regulatory, political framework is absolutely necessary. We
have tried for a long time in this area with voluntary action at various levels.
That is, by asking consumers to consume sustainable things in a very simple
way. That doesn’t work, but it works just as little as appealing to the volun-
tariness of companies. [...] What is needed is a legal framework for production
standards, as is now being done at EU level with the Supply Chain Act and the
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.” (Interview 14, Consumer
Advice Centre, 10).
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
Furthermore, some expressed scepticism towards placing the onus solely on citi-
zens, pointing out inherent profit motives:
“Anyone who says: ‘The responsibility lies with the citizens and not with in-
dustry’ does not want climate protection. But he simply wants to secure the
profits of the companies. And that is with the EU. And von der Leyen is also
a leader in this. And that’s why, for me, EU climate policy is hypocrite. It’s still
better than no climate policy at all. But it could be much better if we worked
with legal requirements.” (Interview 22, Die Linke, 30).
In juxtaposition, there were voices praising the strides taken by the EU Commis-
sion, heralding its focus on a just transformation:
“It has been an absolute step forward with the new EU Commission under the
leadership of Ms von der Leyen that attention is being paid to this question of
shaping the transformation in a just way. [...] Ten years ago, when social issues
were discussed in the context of the energy transition, I would say that these
were more consumer policy perspectives [...] This is undoubtedly an important
perspective. It should not be pushed to the back of the queue, but of course
there are no more social issues there. And the question of work, employment,
also questions of democratic policy, I find very important in that sense [...] how
can these political, accompanying measures, so to speak, make a contribution
to faster success. [...] The question was Just Transition Mechanism, so yes, that
is absolutely progress, even if with clear criticism.” (Interview 8, Trade Union
Umbrella Organisation, 29).
“But in case of doubt, the EU is certainly a little further ahead when it comes
to incorporating social issues into climate protection. Yes, so the EU or perhaps
the Commission in particular, but also the EU as a whole in various directives
or regulations, is a bit of a thought leader in this respect.” (Interview 2, Think
Tank, 6)
It therefore becomes clear that stakeholders from varied political orientations
draw upon cognitive usage of the EGD to support their visions of the green tran-
sition. The EGD offers a projection surface for approval or general criticism of
overarching governance instruments, rather than for the evaluation of specific policy
outputs. Interviewees address pricing instruments, regulation, or individual respon-
sibility—and criticise or praise the EU for their instalment. This varied reference to
the EGD not only underscores the multifaceted nature of the EGD itself—as it bun-
dles different policy approaches rather than presenting a singular, coherent policy
direction—but also illustrates how the cognitive usage of political resources can be
somewhat eclectic when framing specific positions.
The eclectic take-up of the EGD within cognitive usages often reflects the above-
outlined deeper ideological divides, as stakeholders navigate between diverse gov-
ernance approaches encompassed by the EGD. Simplifying, the primary fault lines
manifest between those favoring regulatory approaches and viewing the green tran-
sition as a comprehensive, societal project, and those advocating for market-driven
approaches, viewing the green transition as a series of technical challenges addressed
through targeted policy interventions.
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
On one hand, stakeholders like social NGOs and politicians concerned with so-
cial policies often describe eco-social policymaking as a deeply interconnected so-
cietal endeavour. This group employs the cognitive usage of the EGD to emphasize
comprehensive governance strategies that integrate various policy outputs. Their ap-
proach illustrates how the EGD serves as a reflective tool to reinforce the need for
policies that acknowledge and address the complex interdependencies within so-
ciety. By valuing regulatory frameworks and broader distribution effects of policy
decisions, these stakeholders highlight the importance of equity and inclusivity in
the transition, ensuring that environmental advancements do not overshadow social
imperatives:
“If we do not succeed in putting nature, the environment, biodiversity, climate
protection and social aspects above the rights of investors in the EU and world-
wide, then we have no chance. Point. Then we will lose, sooner or later.” (In-
terview 22, Die Linke, 87).
“Wherever someone comes up with a climate protection measure, the question
should always be considered of what the distribution effects are.” (Interview 3,
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, 43)
In contrast, other stakeholders prioritize market-driven mechanisms, often detach-
ing environmental policy from its broader social implications. This second group,
including some liberal policymakers and industry leaders, tends to leverage the EGD
in a manner that emphasizes efficiency and economic viability. Here, cognitive us-
age of the EGD is oriented towards optimizing individual policy instruments, such
as emission trading systems or carbon pricing, as self-contained solutions. This ap-
proach reflects a more segmented perception of governance, where the interplay
between environmental goals and societal effects is less emphasized, reflecting a be-
lief in the efficacy of market forces to drive the green transition independently of
broader social reforms:
“the focus of the debates is sometimes really too strong on [the social dimen-
sion] ... It shouldn’t be the role of the climate policymakers to solve all the
social problems, even when they are an outcome of the climate policy. But
I think, sometimes it would be better to give social policy to politicians who are
in social policy and not just think that we should solve all the social problems
with climate policy.” (Interview 28, FDP/liberals, 68)
Acknowledging the exploration of the EGD’s applications within the German
policy context, our findings highlight a nuanced landscape where stakeholder per-
spectives are not aligned uniformly with EU policies themselves, but are instead
leveraged to frame and reinforce existing ideological and socio-political positions.
This examination reveals how stakeholders politically deploy the EGD more as
a cognitive framework for articulating their specific agendas rather than as a driving
force for direct policy changes. As we transition from this analysis to the ensuing
discussion section, it is imperative to recognize that while the EGD serves as a ref-
erence point within German eco-social policy debates, its primary function appears
to be the provision of a rhetorical tool used to justify or critique positions within
these debates.
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
6 Discussion and conclusion
Our empirical analysis delved into the political usages of the EGD within the German
policy making arena to illuminate the underlying contestations and dynamics of
multilevel eco-social policy making. Applying the analytical approach of ‘usages of
Europe’, we sought to understand how the EGD is deployed as a political resource by
German stakeholders to foster their positions in potentially conflictive policy making
contexts. The data indicates that stakeholders employ the EGD not predominantly
as a direct driver of policy but as a significant instrument for the cognitive framing
of their respective positions on eco-social policy questions. This usage highlights
a broader theoretical point about the politicization of European policies: while the
EGD aims to foster unified European action towards sustainable development, its
actual usage in national contexts can sometimes diverge markedly from this goal,
reflecting entrenched political ideologies and varying economic priorities.
In the detailed analysis, stakeholders from disparate political backgrounds
—ranging from liberals emphasizing economic growth to left-leaning figures fo-
cusing on redistribution and social equity—leverage aspects of the EGD to bolster
their policy arguments and strategies. This not only underscores the EGD as a flex-
ible framework for policy deliberation but also as a battleground for ideological
contestation at the domestic level, reflecting diverging visions of what constitutes
an appropriate and effective eco-social policy. The EGD thus serves more as a ‘pro-
jection surface’ for broader socio-political debates rather than a prescriptive set
of guidelines strictly adhered to. Additionally, the data revealed a scant usage of
the EGD for legitimating specific policy choices. Instead, strategic and particu-
larly cognitive usages were more pronounced, with political actors using the EGD
to reinforce their broader strategic goals or to (re)frame policy debates towards
certain conceptual understandings, such as market efficiency versus regulatory
thoroughness.
With regard to the question of politicization, our analysis of inquiry revealed min-
imal dichotomous politicization separating pro or contra stances on the introduction
of eco-social policies. The core of the discourse was less about a heated clash over
eco-social policies but more a nuanced divergence in the choice of instruments—be
it market-driven, education-centric, or regulatory. The true political contention, it
seems, was not about eco-social policy per se but the foundational ideas of eco-
social governance. Interviewee’s political usages of European resources were not
primarily about the specific policies of the EGD or their eco-social characteristics,
but more about the broader contours of governing the green transition. The de-
bate pivots around a set of dichotomies: should the transition be steered via market
instruments or hierarchical structures? Should the onus be placed on individual res-
ponsibility or should there be a redistribution of resources and responsibilities? In
light of these findings, the engagement with the EGD within the German policy arena
emerges as a complex interplay of political strategies and governance paradigms,
tapping into deeper ideological debates. At the same time, while our study focused
on expert interviews to explore these dynamics, it is worth considering whether sim-
ilar patterns of usages of Europe would emerge from an analysis of public debates
or other more public data sources. Future research could investigate how public
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
salience and politicization in broader public fora might shape the usage of the EGD
in discourse, especially in relation to eco-social policies. This could provide a richer
understanding of how different types of data sources reflect or diverge in portraying
the nuanced interplay between European initiatives and national policy debates.
From a broader perspective, our findings align with historical perspectives on
the welfare state, emphasizing the interlocking nature of environmental and welfare
policies in addressing the complex challenges posed by climate change and socio-
economic disparities. By situating the EGD within Germany’s broader eco-social
policy framework and examining its politicization, our study contributes to a deeper
understanding of how European initiatives, like the EGD, are woven into national
policy debates, shaping and being shaped by the domestic political landscape. Im-
portantly, our findings show that, even in a multi-level context like the EU, domestic
politics matters for the eco-social policies debate, which is characterized by conflicts
between socio-political actors and, hence, it is far from a technocratic debate.
Yet, as comprehensive as our exploration has been, a significant facet remains
outside the purview of this paper—the ‘uploading’ trajectory of Europeanisation.4
Germany, as an influential entity within the EU, has historically managed to trans-
pose its domestic preferences to the broader European framework. As one inter-
viewee insightfully shared, “So, if we push for a national coal phase-out, there’s
also more willingness on the EU level to increase ambition in the ETS because it’s
basically already enabled by the German commitment to do the phase-out. So, this
is an interaction that’s quite important, I think.” (Interview 29, Federal Ministry for
Economic Affairs and Climate Action, 21). This quote underscores the multi-direc-
tionality of influence, suggesting that while the EU often serves as a resource for
domestic stakeholders, the reverse process—of domestic interests influencing EU
policies—also plays a pivotal role. Consequently, the necessity for a more exten-
sive exploration becomes evident. Further research should delve into the reciprocal
dynamics between national preferences and EU-level directives, examining how do-
mestic imperatives may shape the broader European agenda, particularly in the realm
of eco-social policymaking. Only then can we truly capture the holistic panorama of
eco-social governance and its politicization in the age of the European Green Deal.
Finally, while our study focused on the German policy-making arena, the impli-
cations of our findings extend to the study of interactions between multilevel and
eco-social governance in different welfare regimes. The usage of the EGD as a cog-
nitive framing tool rather than a direct policy driver may not be unique to Germany.
One could ask whether the patterns observed are inherently linked to Germany’s
institutional frameworks and socio-political history, or if they also manifest in other
EU member states with varying welfare state and environmental policy characteris-
tics (as shown for EU social and employment policies; Graziano et al. 2011). This
broadens our understanding of the EGD in national eco-social policy debates and
underscores the importance of examining both public and expert discourses to gain
a holistic view of its politicization and usage.
4‘Uploading’ in Europeanisation research refers to the process by which member states, regions, or other
actors actively shape and influence EU policies and decisions, effectively projecting their own preferences
and norms onto the European level (Börzel 2002).
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
Supplementary Information The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-024-
00381-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.
0/.
References
Béraud-Sudreau, L., and A. Pannier. 2021. An ‘improbable Paris-Berlin-Commission triangle’: usages
of Europe and the revival of EU defense cooperation after 2016. Journal of European integration
43(3):295–310.
Börzel, Tanja A. 2002. Member state responses to Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies
40(2):193–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00351.
Bowen, Glenn A. 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2):27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Briggs, Asa. 1961. The welfare state in his torical perspective. European Journal of Sociology 2(2):221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600000412.
Büchs, Milena, Nicholas Bardsley, and Sebastian Duwe. 2011. Who bears the brunt? Distributional effects
of climate change mitigation policies. Critical Social Policy 31(2):285–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0261018310396036.
Crespy, Amandine, and Mario Munta. 2023. Lost in transition? Social justice and the politics of the EU
green transition. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 29(2):235–251. https://doi.org/
10.1177/10242589231173072.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
European Commission. 2017. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Establishing a Eu-
ropean pillar of social rights. COM (2017) 250 final. 26.04 2017.
European Commission. 2019. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Eu-
ropean Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions: The European Green Deal. COM (2019) 640 final. 11.12.2019.
European Commission. 2020. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing the just transition fund. COM (2020) 22 final. 14.01.2020.
European Commission. 2021. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
Establishing a Social Climate Fund. COM (2021) 568 final. 14.06.2021.
Gerstenberg, Anne, Kai-Uwe Schnapp, Johannes Jarke-Neuert, Grischa Perino, Ella Karnik Hinks, and
Sarah Fenske. 2024. Documentation for the dataset of the research project “Policymakers’ perceptions
of climate policy instruments”. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4831980.
Gough, Ian. 2017. Heat, greed and human need: climate change, capitalism and sustainable wellbeing.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gough, Ian, James Meadowcroft, John Dryzek, Jürgen Gerhards, Holger Lengfeld, Anil Markandya, and
Ramon Ortiz. 2008. JESP symposium: climate change and social policy. Journal of European Social
Policy 18(4):325–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928708094890.
Grande, Edgar, and Swen Hutter. 2016. Introduction. In Politicising Europe: integration and mass politics,
ed. Swen Hutter, Egar Grande, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graziano, Paolo. 2024. The politics of the EU eco-social policies. European Political Science 23:27–38.
Graziano, Paolo, Sophie Jacquot, and Bruno Palier (eds.). 2011. The EU and the domestic politics of
welfare state reforms. London: Palgrave.
K
K. Zimmermann et al.
Günay, D., and K. Renda. 2014. Usages of Europe in Turkish foreign policy towards the Middle East.
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 16(1):47–67.
Haas, Tobias. 2020. From green energy to the green car state? The political economy of ecological mod-
ernisation in Germany. New Political Economy 26(4):660–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.
2020.1816949.
Heidenreich, Martin, and Jonathan Zeitlin. 2009. Changing European employment and welfare regimes:
The influence of the open method of coordination on national reforms. London and New York: Rout-
ledge.
Hirvilammi, Tuuli, and Max Koch. 2020. Sustainable welfare beyond growth. Sustainability 12(5):1824.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051824.
Hirvilammi, Tuuli, Liisa Häikiö, Håkan Johansson, Max Koch, and Johanna Perkiö. 2023. Social pol-
icy in a climate emergency context. Journal of Social Policy 52(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0047279422000721.
Jacquot, Sophie, and Cornelia Woll. 2003. Usage of European integration—Europeanisation from a socio-
logical perspective. European Integration online Papers 7(12):1–17.
Johansson, Håkan, Roger Hildingsson, and Jamil Khan. 2016. Climate change and the welfare state: Do
we see a new generation of social risks emerging? In Sustainability and the Political Economy of
Welfare, ed. Max Koch, Oksana Mont, 94–109. London: Routledge.
Kuckartz, Udo. 2019. Qualitative content analysis: From Kracauer’s beginnings to today’s challenges.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs- 20.3.3370.
Kyriazi, Anna, and Joan Miró. 2022. Towards a socially fair green transition in the EU? An analysis
of the just transition fund using the multiple streams framework. Comparative European Politics
21(1):112–132.
Lamb, William F., Giulio Mattioli, Sebastian Levi, J. Timmons Roberts, Stuart Capstick, Felix Creutzig,
Jan C. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, and Julia K. Steinberger. 2020. Discourses of
climate delay. Global Sustainability 3:e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13.
Mandelli, Matteo. 2022. Understanding eco-social policies: a proposed definition and typology. Transfer:
European Review of Labour and Research 28(3):333–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258922112
5083.
Mandelli, Matteo, Sebastiano Sabato, and Matteo Jessoula. 2021. EU economic governance and the socio-
ecological transition: towards a more sustainable european semester? Politiche Sociali 3:619–638.
https://doi.org/10.7389/102759.
Mandelli, Matteo, Maristella Cacciapaglia, and Sebastiano Sabato. 2023. EU Eco-social policies for a “Just
Transition”: comparing the Just transition fund and the social climate fund. Politiche Sociali 1:81–98.
https://doi.org/10.7389/107140.
Marshall, Thomas H. 1950. Citizenship and social class. New York: Cambridge.
Matthies, Aila-Leena. 2017. The conceptualization of ecosocial transition. In The Ecosocial Transition of
Societies: The Contribution of Social Work and Social Policy, ed. Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Narhi,
17–35. London: Routledge.
McNamara, Kathleen R. 2015. The politics of everyday Europe: Constructing authority in the European
Union. Oxford: University Press.
Palier, Bruno. 2010. A long goodbye to Bismarck? The politics of welfare reforms in continental Europe.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Petmesidou, Maria, and Ana M. Guillén. 2022. Europe’s green, digital and demographic transition: a social
policy research perspective. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 28(3):317–332.
Sabato, Sebastiano, and Matteo Mandelli. 2024. Towards an EU framework for a just transition: welfare
policies and politics for the socio-ecological transition. European Political Science 23:14–26. https://
doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023- 00458-1.
Schmidt, Vivien A. 2019. Politicization in the EU: between national politics and EU political dynam-
ics. Journal of European Public Policy 26(7):1018–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.
1619189.
Tekin, Funda, and Christina Goßner. 2023. The fight against climate change in Germany: from En-
ergiewende to Zeitenwende? In Climate change and the future of europe: views from the capitals,ed.
Michael Kaeding, Johannes Pollak, and Paul Schmidt, 45–48. Cham: Springer.
Walker, Gordon P. 2012. Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Woll, Cornelia, and Sophie Jacquot. 2010. Using europe: strategic action in multi-level politics. Compara-
tive European Politics 8(1):110–126. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2010.7.
K
Eco-social policies in a multilevel setup: from Brussels to Berlin
Zimmermann, Katharina. 2023. ‘Varieties of green transitions’? Comparative welfare state research and
the social dimension of green transitions. European Political Science 23:56–69. https://doi.org/10.
1057/s41304-023- 00456-3.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
K
