Search

There is growing recognition that the United Kingdom’s ageing infrastructure systems are unable to deliver the radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. As such, there is an imperative to transform our infrastructure systems towards alternatives that deliver services reliably but within environmental limits. There are significant challenges to achieving this transformation but most current analysis focusses on the technical and economic challenges of infrastructure transition. This thesis examines two under-studied challenges to low-carbon infrastructure transition: one principally physical; the constraints posed by the disruption in supply of critical materials embedded in low-carbon energy technologies; and one institutional; the constraints to alternative modes of infrastructure operation from current policy and regulation in water and energy infrastructure. It aims to not only characterise these constraints but also to identify policy responses to alleviate constraints. The two constraints differ greatly in character and contrasting methods were used to analyse the nature and scale of each constraint. Material criticality constraints were examined using a quantitative, indicator-based method developed in this thesis to dynamically assess the risk of critical material disruption to low-carbon electricity generation. Policy and regulatory constraints were analysed using theory building from case study analysis to identify the mechanisms by which development of alternative modes of operation were constrained by policy and regulation. Despite the differing scale and nature of the constraints, there are some striking similarities in the potential policy responses to constraints. The results of both analyses emphasize the importance of diversity in the future infrastructure system, the need for a more targeted approach to policy and stress the need for integrated action across policy areas. The dual focus on understanding and responding to constraints forced a balance between dealing with complexity and enabling action. This highlighted the importance of adaptive policy, which takes action in the face of uncertainty but is able to modify its course as system understanding develops.

Energy impacts our lives in a multitude of ways. Some of these impacts can drastically improve our lives, others can be detrimental to the things we value in life. In this thesis, I develop a space through which to connect energy to the things we value to better understand and articulate the impacts of energy systems. To develop this space, I explored the ways through which we have commonly connected energy systems to the things we value and investigated the efficacy of more recent attempts to understand these connections through ideas of energy justice. To assess the efficacy of these approaches, I outlined the role moral and political philosophy can plausibly play in describing the things we value and their relations to energy systems. I found a substantial divergence between my own account of the role of moral and political theory in describing the impacts of energy systems and the uses of moral and political theory in existing approaches to energy justice. I argued this divergence limits the capacity of energy justice approaches to draw on moral and political philosophy to articulate and analyse the impacts of energy system in a meaningful way. I produced a series of outputs which form a foundation for a viable account of energy justice. I developed a capabilities-based framework to articulate the impacts of energy consumption and production and the tensions between them. I outlined a pluralistic approach of testing the ability of different moral theories to reflect the dynamics underpinning energy dilemmas. I presented arguments detailing how trivalent conceptions of justice, which pre-date energy justice discourse, can form a viable basis for an account of energy justice. In concluding, I point towards future avenues of research, conceptual and procedural, through which to develop this foundation into a reflexive account of energy justice.

Material demand reduction is a major global challenge that requires actions at individual, organisational and systemic levels. Businesses are considered the key players in making significant contributions towards material demand reduction and sustainability through business model change. Despite increasing research into this area, it remains unclear what factors enable sustainable business model change. This research explores factors at organisational and individual levels influencing business model change for sustainability by using a multiple case study research strategy to answer three research questions. First, internal factors at the organisational level (e.g. culture, leadership and top management team) and the individual level (e.g. adversity to change and open mindedness) influence business model change. Furthermore, external factors at system level (e.g. governmental affairs and public policies) also influences business model change. However, less is known about factors influencing business model change in the context of sustainability. Therefore, the first research question is what internal and external factors influence business model change for sustainability? Second, there is an empirical gap in understanding the role of individuals' cognitive models in decision-making about business model change for sustainability. From here, the second research question is what sustainability issues influence decision-making for business model change to improve sustainability performance? Furthermore, the third question is derived: how do cognitive models of sustainability issues differ in the context of sustainable business models? The research questions were addressed using a mixed-methods approach in four case studies. The first one was a pilot project in which a developed cognitive mapping method was tested using an online survey to elicit cognitive models. Resulting cognitive models were validated and adjustments were made to the method. The method was applied to the remaining case studies with additional data collection methods. First, document analysis was used to better understand the background of organisations selected as cases and site visits and observations were carried out. Second, interviews with key informants were used to explore factors influencing business model change for sustainability at the organisational level. Furthermore, participatory cognitive mapping was used to explore sustainability issues driving key informants' decision-making at the individual level. Findings suggest that resource-based businesses can do more to achieve material demand reduction and improved sustainability performance. However, a number of factors will influence their success; for instance, companies' research and development, sustainability approaches, and the context in which they operate. Cognitive models of sustainability issues can help managers to better understand and manage business model change for sustainability. Significant changes are likely to happen when changes at individual, organisational and systemic level occur simultaneously. The research findings address the empirical gap regarding factors enabling business model change for sustainability. Specifically, findings across the four cases showed diversity in individuals' cognitive models of sustainability issues in relation to content and structure. These findings give an indication of the type of decision-making stance managers tend to use when considering business model change for sustainability. Links were found between individuals' cognitive models and components in sustainable business models. This research contributes to the current debates in business model change within the contexts of circular economy and sustainability. This research makes three key contributions. First, it makes an empirical contribution to the research field of sustainable business models, focusing on the business model change for sustainability. More specifically, it provides insights into cognitive models of sustainability while also considering other internal, external and contextual factors influencing business model change for sustainability. Second, it provides a methodological contribution by developing a survey method to explore cognitive models of sustainability. Third, the integrative, conceptual framework designed in this research can be used in further theoretical and practical research to identify paradoxical tensions that could hinder business model change for sustainability.