The concept of policy entrepreneurs has gained increasing attention in studies of policy change, including climate policy and governance. It foregrounds the role of agency in understanding policy change. However, agency of policy entrepreneurs in the policy process is political and conceals the power that shapes how public problems and policies are framed and defined. Thus, policy entrepreneurs should be confronted with the challenge of generating legitimacy, accountability, and justice in their actions and the implementation of their targeted policy change. Drawing on political–philosophical theories of liberal and deliberative democracy as well as environmental and ecological democracy this paper outlines a conceptual framework for critical analytical as well as normative research on strategies and impacts of policy entrepreneurs on democratic governance, primarily in climate policy but also more generally. Empirical research on the strategies and impacts of policy entrepreneurs in recent policymaking on climate change mitigation in the EU and Sweden identifies several deficits related to the democratic principles of legitimacy, accountability, and justice. It is found that policy entrepreneurs from different social spheres use cultural–institutional entrepreneurship to influence beliefs and perceptions on problems and policies. In addition, it is found that public sector policy entrepreneurs use structural entrepreneurship on ideological grounds to change existing power relations in climate governance. In all, the paper brings ideology and politics into research on policy entrepreneurs. It is suggested that not only the strategies used, but also the ideologies of the actors that use them, are decisive for the impacts of policy entrepreneurs, and thus, whether their advocacy will adhere to democratic norms and facilitate or hamper a just transition to climate neutrality and sustainability. The paper ends with proposals on how policy entrepreneurs can act more democratically, how to deal with populist policy entrepreneurs wanting to erode democracy, and conditions for climate justice movements to take responsibility and act in a more entrepreneurial way.

At global scale, the building sector accounts for 40% of total energy end use and almost 35% of greenhouse gas emissions. This makes it one of the most important sectors to focus on for reaching the 1.5–2 °C target of the Paris Agreement, to enhance energy security of supply and to alleviate energy poverty. The European Union (EU) is often seen as a leader in climate governance, which is also true for energy efficiency. The improvement of energy performance of buildings has been part of EU public policy for more than 50 years, making the EU a pioneer in the policy domain. Based on a semi-structured review of the scientific literature (N = 90), this paper is aimed at drawing the lessons from research on governance of energy-efficient and zero-carbon buildings in the EU. As for the findings, there is a multitude of policy instruments developed on different levels of governance, more or less integrated and managed by different actors and no single instrument is sufficient to stimulate energy-efficient and zero-carbon buildings. Five key challenges are identified in the governance literature examining the transition towards energy efficiency and zero-carbon buildings. An ambiguous leadership, heterogeneity of implementation, lack of incentives, limitations of non-regulatory policies and market-based instruments, and limited diffusion between governance levels. We also conclude that most policy instruments focus on new buildings which is problematic since the greatest challenge in the transition is the renovation of the large existing building stock.

The recent adoption of the FuelEU Maritime regulation, aiming to decarbonize maritime shipping, is part of the EU clean energy transition to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Based on autoethnographic method and qualitative text analysis, applying the multiple streams framework as a theoretical lens, this article explores and explains the politics and the policy process of FuelEU Maritime. A policy window opened with adoption of the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015, the slow progress on climate policies in the International Maritime Organization, and the subsequent adoption of the European Green Deal in 2019 and the new EU climate law in 2021. Diverging beliefs and narratives of policy entrepreneurs, policy makers, and stakeholders on problems to be addressed and different policy options to be implemented are analyzed. There were mainly two policy entrepreneurs, advocating different problem descriptions and policy options. The European Commission proposed a technology‐neutral, goal‐based approach to reach moderate emission reductions by 2050, while a coalition led by green mobility NGO Transport & Environment advocated a technology‐specific multiplier and subquota for zero‐carbon fuels to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The article explains the agency of Transport & Environment and allies in influencing the European Parliament and several member states in the Council of the EU to stand the grounds against incumbent shipping and fossil fuel industry that influenced the Commission to present a down‐watered policy proposal. Finally, the article exemplifies the complexity of the second‐generation energy transition required for decarbonization compared to the first‐generation transformation focusing on renewable electricity.

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 article combines, in a complementary way, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) with argumentative discourse analysis to analyze the politics of the “energy efficiency first” (EE1) principle as a new legal institute in European Union energy and climate policy. Two different discourses and storylines were identified. The first is where the meaning of energy efficiency policy is to fulfill multiple benefits. It is associated with a strong regulation of EE1. The second is where the purpose of energy efficiency policy is primarily to contribute to mitigating climate change. It is associated with weak regulation of EE1. Four advocacy coalitions with different secondary beliefs regarding the EE1 principle were identified. Analyzing the inter‐discursive communication between different coalitions provides insights to the policy‐oriented learning taking place. It is concluded that studies using the ACF could merit from focusing more on narratives and communication between belief systems.Related Articles: Kanol, Direnç. 2022. “Narrative Strategies for Emerging Disruptive Technologies: A Case Study of Blockchain for Europe.” Politics & Policy 50(5): 952–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12492.Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. “Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control.” Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458.O'Donovan, Kristin T. 2018. “Does the Narrative Policy Framework Apply to Local Policy Issues?” Politics & Policy 46(4): 532–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12265.