Framing the Energy Transition: The Case of Poland’s Turów Lignite Mine

ABSTRACT

Climate policies pose serious challenges for the operations of energy companies, especially those strongly dependent on fossil fuels. This study explores the case of one such company, Poland’s PGE Group. In 2021, PGE was instructed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to close its Turów lignite mine for contravening EU decarbonization policy. The company refused to comply and launched a public affairs campaign in support of its efforts to prevent the mine’s closure. Methodologically, the study relies on a linguistically-informed combination of content and frame analysis and shows that strategic frames are more likely to leverage their persuasive potential when they align with the existing cultural frames, resulting in cultural and discursive resonance. In the public campaign, PGE (re-)framed the EU’s Green Deal in highly negative terms and the CJEU’s instruction so as to delegitimize it and the Court itself. In doing so, PGE employed frames used globally by the energy industry, adapting them to tie in with anti-EU sentiment among Polish opinion and decision-makers. This study thus contributes to the body of literature on strategic framing of energy transition and provides relevant insights into the localization of global energy frames.

Introduction

Of course, the mounting climate crisis is above all a threat to the Earth’s future, but it has indirectly placed enormous pressure on energy companies. These face major challenges as a result of decarbonization policies and “the societal pressure to contribute to climate change mitigation” (Halttunen et al., 2022, p. 1), in particular rising stakeholder expectations of energy safety and security, and more sustainable business models. At the same time, such enterprises continue to face the “financial pressure to perform for shareholders via activities that directly and significantly contribute to climate change” (Halttunen et al., 2022, p. 1). Such situations require energy corporations to communicate effectively (Weder et al., 2019, p. 369) in order to “rearticulate possibilities for current and future energy choices” (Kinsella, 2015, p. 352). The communicative challenges are especially great for companies which operate in one of the “controversial industries” that have invested heavily in fossil fuels and are “the subject of polemic through the very nature of their activities” (Pavel & Bell, 2022, p. 232) – and so especially vulnerable to decarbonization policies such as the EU’s Green Deal.

This paper aims to explore how one such company, Poland’s PGE Group, has responded to these challenges in its strategic communication. We situate our study within the field of strategic communication as defined by (Hallahan et al. 2007, p. 3): “purposeful communication by an organization with the aim to achieve its strategic goals”. In the present study, these goals are of a “strategic and decisional“ nature (Zerfass et al., 2018, p. 489) and oriented to securing the “survival and sustained success of an entity [i.e., PGE]“ (Nag et al., 2007). With regard to current debates and strands within the field, we share the broad perception represented by Heide et al. (2018, p. 466), which envisions strategic communication as a wide-ranging and interdisciplinary forum for vibrant discussion. In a broad understanding (Falkheimer & Heide, 2022, p. 3), strategic communication is “connected to the humanities [and social sciences] owing to the interest in language, rhetoric, discourse and communication”.

While the majority of strategic communication research focuses on the USA, China, and Denmark (Werder et al., 2018, p. 341), the research on Central and Eastern Europe is relatively scarce. In particular, there are, to our knowledge, hardly any studies analysing how commercial players communicate in the area of energy transition and climate change.

Previous studies on strategic communication of energy transition (Cha & Pastor, 2022; Kapranov, 2018; Megura & Gunderson, 2022; Rosenbloom, 2018; Weller, 2019) show that energy companies relativize the impact of their operations on the environment or climate change. The global framing of these issues encompasses technical, political and social perspectives (Schlichting, 2013; Supran & Oreskes, 2021). Our study adds to this research by highlighting the role the socio-political context plays in developing and deploying frames in public campaigns embedded in the context of energy transition. Special attention will be dedicated to the socio-economic and socio-cultural dimensions of frames, which are essential to the meaning-making process within strategic framing, as they “help people make sense of complex surroundings and include socially shared assumptions of the meaning of particular events and actions” (Lempiälä et al., 2019). In doing so, we contribute to the existing research on the cultural customization of strategic framing (Geels & Verhees, 2011). Lastly, we seek to provide a – distinctively linguistic – close analytical focus oriented towards the discursive micro level (e.g., lexical choices), which informs our reconstruction of frames.

Specifically, we will examine the framing used by PGE in combating attempts by EU institutions to close down its lignite mining operations at Turów (south-west Poland). In particular, we explore how the global frames are adapted to achieve broad cultural resonance within the given local and socioeconomic context. In doing so, the analysed case integrates the field of public affairs which involves managing relationships between organizations, governments, and the public, as well as public campaigns as a tool for this endeavor, and (strategic) framing as a technique (Schlichting, 2014).

First, we contextualize the analysis theoretically through a discussion of these concepts, namely public affairs, (public) campaigning, and (strategic) framing, and by addressing their entanglement. Second, we identify a number of frames used by the energy industry worldwide in warding off the pressures from climate, and specifically decarbonization policies and point to the importance of socio-economic and socio-cultural dimensions in achieving cultural legitimacy. Third, we describe the background to PGE’s campaign against the closure of its Turów mine and the database we assembled in order to analyze it, as well as the methodology employed in our analysis. The core of the paper is concerned with the results of that analysis, which identified two key frames of the issues involved in the Turów case. The discussion section examines these findings in the context of the framing paradigm and the relevance of the socio-political dimension in interpreting the two key frames in PGE’s strategic communication. Finally, our conclusions point in particular to the benefits of a culturally-informed approach to public affairs and argue in favor of a PR perspective informed by expertise in area studies in order to increase the resonance and cultural legitimacy of strategic communication.

Key concepts: strategic communication, public campaigning, and framing

Bearing in mind our aim of contributing to the field of strategic communication, specifically in the area of strategic framing within a public affairs campaign, we begin by introducing concepts relevant to our analysis. The first, strategic communication, is used by commercial organizations with the intention of “serving the economic needs, forming the political will, and educating citizens” (Zerfass et al., 2018, p. 489). Communication that targets political decision-makers and public bodies resides in the realm of public affairs. According to Madden (2018, p. 665), this concerns the interpretation of “organization’s external environment, or in the case of a corporation, its non-commercial environment, and managing an effective and appropriate response to that environment”. Public affairs typically encompass relations with government and “other activities in the political, public policy, and public perception arenas, such as issue management” (Madden, 2018, p. 665). They can take either a non-public path, in the form of direct lobbying, or a public path which entails running a public campaign, issue advertising or supporting grassroots mobilization. Relevant to our study is that “the public path aims to interpret corporate activities as compliant to social rules in order to foster corporate social legitimacy” (Schlichting, 2014, p. 405).

Within the public path, the relevant concept for our study is that of public campaigning (Althaus, 2005; Röttger, 2021). In general, this is designed to exert an indirect influence on politics and public administration by raising issues relevant to the public agenda and by shaping the way these are publicly negotiated (Röttger, 2021, p. 438). Public campaigns are strategically designed as “series of messages sent to one or more targeted populations for a discrete period of time in response to a positive or negative situation affecting the organization” (Mooffitt, 2018, p. 109). The messages are disseminated in diverse genres and media formats, using a range of communication channels. Bartels (2015, p. 40) and Althaus (2005) show that campaigns are typically characterized by a leitmotiv or storyline which defines the central message, facilitates a specific response, and enhances a particular affiliation with the issue in question. In addition, careful orchestration of the communicative events helps to retain the targeted audience’s attention, boosting the campaign’s chances of success (Bartels, 2015, p. 41). Public campaigns pursue two goals (Röttger, 2021, pp. 443–444). On a cognitive level, they aim to draw attention to a particular issue. On an affective one, they seek to influence emotional perception of that issue, and thus align public opinion about it with the organization’s objectives and enhance corporate social legitimacy.

One technique used to represent corporate actions and activities as compliant with social rules is the strategic use of frames, or strategic framing. Its main aims are to draw attention to an issue, gain perception and shape the way that issue is viewed (Oswald, 2021), and to “telegraph [its] meaning and to focus audience attention on particular portions of a message or aspects of a topic in order to gain a favourable response” (Hallahan, 2008, p. 51).

This approach is concerned with choosing how to represent a particular issue in such a way as to foreground some of its aspects (and background others) (Klein, 2018, p. 290; Matthes, 2014, p. 10). Frames

define problems–determine what a causal agent is doing with what costs and benefits, usually measured in terms of common cultural values; diagnose causes–identify the forces creating the problem; make moral judgments–evaluate causal agents and their effects; and suggest remedies–offer and justify treatments for the problems and predict their likely effects. (Entman, 1993, p. 52; original italics)

Strategic framing involves the selection of a frame that has the potential to mobilize the intended audience. According to research on social movements’ communication, the effectiveness of a frame in achieving mobilization depends on two key factors. Firstly, frame resonance (Snow & Benford, 1988), which refers to the specific characteristics of the frame itself. Secondly, the broader cultural and political environment, often referred to as discursive opportunity structures by McCammon (2013a, 2013b). These structures determine the notions of sensibility, realism, and legitimacy within a particular political context and timeframe (Koopmans & Statham, 1999, p. 228). Frames that align better with such structures have a higher capacity for mobilization.

Snow and Benford’s (1988) concept of frame resonance has been further explored by Geels and Verhees (2011), who identify five mechanisms that enhance the cultural legitimacy of frames, leading to greater acceptance and competitiveness in society. These mechanisms include the credibility of the frame sponsor, the experiential commensurability between the frame and real-world events, and the empirical fit of the frame. Geels and Verhees also emphasize the importance of frame centrality and its ability to generate macro-cultural resonance; frame centrality refers to “the perceived importance of the topic or debate to particular audiences”, while macro-cultural resonance concerns the alignment between the frame and the cultural repertoires (Geels & Verhees, 2011, p. 914).

Other similar terms, such as “cultural resonance” (Lempiälä et al., 2019) or “discursive resonance” (Rosenbloom, 2018), also highlight the successful interplay between strategic framing activities and the socio-cultural context. Irrespective of the terminological variety, this paper addresses the gap pointed out by Lempiälä et al. (2019, p. 4), namely that “much of the field framing literature tends to miss the important step of setting the cultural scene wherein the strategic framing activities make sense and are noticed.”

In the context of strategic framing, various other techniques are used to increase the effectiveness of a frame (see Oswald, 2021, pp. 58–146, for a comprehensive overview). The most relevant for this study is re-framing (see, e.g., Macgilchrist, 2007; Oswald, 2021, pp. 73–77), which Macgilchrist (2007, p. 80) defines as “shifting an issue away from its conventional ‘location’ within one set of shared assumptions and re-construing it within a different set of knowledge. The issue is assigned a different interpretation, i.e., acquires a new ‘meaning’ in its new context.” Re-framing thus refers to a process that changes existing meanings and recasts values. Cognitive structures are re-construed so that they connect with the logic and implications of the existing discourse, while reinterpreting the vocabulary typical of it. In principle, the old version is overwritten in order to align with the goals of the organization in question (Oswald, 2021, p. 74).

A strategically chosen framing organizes campaign content on various levels. Here, the linguistics and communication studies approaches converge (see, e.g., Klein, 22018018, p. 296; Macgilchrist, 2007; for communication studies see, pp. 84–87; Schlichting, 2013, p. 495) as both structure their analysis on three levels:

• At the micro-level, campaigns pivot on especially coined and strategically employed lexical expressions (catchphrases, slogans, etc.), in communication studies referred to as manifest framing devices.

• At the meso-level, campaigns are organized in a strategically-designed conceptual network, which can be analyzed as either a specifically configured frame or a complex argumentative pattern; communication studies label these as reasoning devices.

• At the macro-level, campaigns incorporate knowledge resources unconnected to specific linguistic structures (or, from a communication studies perspective, the implicit cultural phenomenon), with content analysis being used to reveal such knowledge.

All of these levels are apparent in the (re-)framings used strategically by energy companies worldwide in attempting to ward off the threat to their activities posed by climate policies and the energy transition.

Framing the energy transition

Under the pressures of climate policies, especially decarbonization initiatives, and faced with the unsustainable nature of their existing activities, energy companies worldwide – and in particular those that are fossil-fuel based – employ strategic framing in several ways. First, they try to create doubt about the gravity of global warming, claiming that it is scientifically uncertain (Schlichting, 2013; Supran & Oreskes, 2021) and decrying binding climate policies such as the Kyoto Protocol as “alarmist” (Supran & Oreskes, 2021, p. 702). The issue of global warming is presented as a merely technical one that will be solved by technological progress. Such “techno-optimism” (Megura & Gunderson, 2022, p. 4) implies that strict decarbonization measures are not really vital – and so can be postponed. It also implies the need for a transition period, during which fossil fuels will be indispensable, while overestimating the potential of the future technical solutions. A related frame incorporates so-called “bridge technologies”, which are portrayed as essential to the success of a (green) energy transition, as in the notion of gas as “climate Saviour” (Kapranov, 2018, p. 63). In a similar vein, another frame highlights so-called ‘clean fossil fuels’, such as Fossil Fuel Saviour (Supran & Oreskes, 2021) or Clean Coal (Wolsink, 2020), which are in essence regular fossil fuels coupled with the technologies of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The next set of frames used by fossil-fuel companies fall under the heading of “necessitarianism” (Megura & Gunderson, 2022, p. 5). This involves depicting their operations as “a prerequisite for a decent standard of living” and as providing “a necessary and vital service that improves the quality of life for many people”. In this way, part of the responsibility for the operations’ negative environmental impact is transferred to consumers, and companies are enabled to claim a so-called social license to operate.

The flip side of the necessitarianism frame is one that Supran and Oreskes (2021, p. 706) term the “socioeconomic threat”. In it, energy companies claim that binding climate policies, in their present form, represent a threat to prosperity (Supran & Oreskes, 2021, p. 702). The industry typically insists that phasing out fossil fuels in particular will have severe socioeconomic impacts (Schlichting, 2013, p. 498), causing massive financial costs that cripple economies, leading to massive job losses and “restricted lifestyles” (i.e., a decline in household incomes).

Finally, two further frames used to reconcile companies’ core fossil-fuel business with the challenges of decarbonization move away from the socioeconomic arena (Megura & Gunderson, 2022, pp. 5–6). In one, termed “countermeasures”, companies highlight “strategies that counteract or offset the negative [environmental] impacts of fossil fuels”, an example being “monetary investments in environment-related R&D”. The final framing moves into the area of legality or legitimacy by stressing energy producers’ “compliance” with existing regulations and standards.

Furthermore, the literature on framing the energy transition reveals several noteworthy aspects. There is a significant body of scholarly work dedicated to framing the energy transition, focusing on the socioeconomic and sociopolitical implications. This research encompasses perspectives from various angles, including activist and advocacy viewpoints, policy-making perspectives, and mixed approaches that explore the convergence of these perspectives (e.g., Fuller & McCauley, 2016; Rosenbloom, 2018; Weller, 2019; Mijin; Cha & Pastor, 2022). On the other hand, there are relatively few studies that focus specifically on corporate discourse in the context of the energy transition. Existing research in this area primarily revolves around the analysis of corporate advertorials (e.g., Supran & Oreskes, 2021), CSR reports (e.g., Kapranov, 2018; Megura & Gunderson, 2022) or interviews with practitioners involved in the process (e.g., Schlichting, 2014; Halttunen et al., 2022; Fuller & McCauley, 2016; Mijin; Cha & Pastor, 2022). Furthermore, there is a relative scarcity of studies that investigate framing in public campaigns specifically related to the energy transition (see Schlichting, 2014). This leaves a research gap in the understanding of how framing techniques are used in public campaigns concerning the energy transition and what role the cultural frames play in this process. It is important to note that the majority of studies in the literature primarily rely on data from Anglo-American contexts, while there is a limited amount of research available from other regions of the world, as pointed out by Fuller and McCauley (2016, p. 7). Our study contributes to the research in these areas that have received limited attention in previous research.

In what follows, we analyze the predominant frames used by the Polish energy company PGE in its public campaign against the closure of its Turów lignite mine. We examine which of the global frames described above are employed in the campaign, whether and how they are adapted to the Polish context, and which frames are country-specific. We explore how these are made compatible with current Polish political discourse, and how they motivate Polish decision-makers to show their backing for PGE, at both national and EU levels.

The Turów case and our data on it

Our case originates in a dispute about the operations of PGE’s Turów lignite mine in south-western Poland, close to the borders with Germany and the Czech Republic. By 2020 at the latest, operations at Turów had grown so much in extension and depth as to impact negatively on underground water levels across the Czech border, severely limiting or even cutting off supply to some villages. As a result, the Czech Republic sued Poland at the European Court of Justice (CJEU), which issued an injunction to close the mine in May 2021. Poland openly defied the injunction, having also extended PGE’s mining license until 2044 the month before. In response to this defiance, in September 2021 the European Commission imposed financial penalties (€0.5 m per day) on Poland, which again refused to comply¹ This head-on confrontation with the EU reflects the importance of the Turów mine for Poland’s energy production and supply.²

PGE took a proactive approach and ran a public campaign in support of the mine which was structured into three distinct phases. The first ran from April 28 to May 24, 2021, and was launched in anticipation of a coming injunction. Its aims were: to create awareness of the company’s stance towards the EU’s decarbonization policy and PGE’s own, very different interpretation of the Green Deal; and to put pressure on decision-makers by mobilizing support from residents of the Turów region around the mine. This included a local ‘postcard action’; residents of the area around Turów were encouraged to sign postcards preprinted with an image containing the campaign’s slogan Green Deal, not a grim deal (see Example 3a below). The signed postcards were then collected and delivered to Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission. The second phase of the campaign began on June 8, 2021, in reaction to the CJEU’s injunction. It was targeted more broadly: at the Polish public in general and the country’s media, at Polish and EU decision-makers, and at international opinion. The third and final phase of the campaign responded to the imposition of financial penalties in September 2021 and involved providing extensive Twitter coverage of a protest march by Polish miners and politicians to the CJEU building in Luxembourg on October 22, 2021.

During all three of the campaign’s phases, its message was disseminated by means of press releases and social media posts (on PGE’s corporate Twitter account), through the campaign’s dedicated website and, during the second phase, via billboards in Brussels bearing the campaign slogan. The data we have used to analyze the campaign include all relevant texts and documents published between April 2021 and February 2022, when the issue was effectively resolved (see Discussion section). Our database includes messages couched in diverse genres and communicative formats and disseminated via various channels, and so reflects the typical cross-media character of campaigns (Bartels, 2015, p. 40, 438). It also includes all tweets from PGE’s corporate account supporting its public campaign, regardless of whether they were initially sent by the company itself or were retweeted. As regards language, the bulk of the data is in Polish, a smaller share in English (102 tweets; 19 website subpages; the Brussels billboards), and the remainder in Czech and German. All translations are the authors’ own. Table 1 summarizes the database, breaking it down by the type or format of message.

Table 1. Database of PGE’s communication about Turów by type/forma¹

Type/format	Number	Channel
Press release	8	Corporate website https://www.gkpge.pl/
Billboard/postcard motif	2	Billboard: public display, social media Postcard: public distribution
Campaign website (sub-pages)	86	https://turow2044.pl
Social media post	2244	Corporate Twitter-account @Grupa_PGE (harvested via viccinitas.io^2)

Methodology

In order to reconstruct the logic underlying PGE’s public campaigning about Turów and the way in which it was structured, we combined a computer-assisted content analysis of the database (Fraas & Pentzold, 2015) with framing analysis. This is an established method mix in communication studies, particularly in strategic communication analysis (e.g., Matthes, 2014, pp. 43; Oswald, 2021, pp. 191–200). We applied it in a three-step process.

In the first step, we used situational knowledge and preliminary close readings to select relevant seed words (Mahlberg, 2014, pp. 225): Turów, EU, CURIA (the Latin name of the CJEU widely used in Polish sources, where it is also referred to as TSUE), green, Green Deal, (energy) transition, energy security, coal, protest, Pole, Polish, Czech. Using the software Atlas.ti, we coded these in a semi-automatic process that searched for regular expressions (i.e., specified sequences of characters: see Appendix for a full list). Those identified by the software were checked manually by the researchers to ensure objective identification of text fragments relevant for the analysis. The second step involved filtering the data using the seed word Turów, which enabled selection of all relevant text extracts from the various data sources (see Table 1). These extracts pointed to topics whose combination, determined as code co-occurrences, was indicative of conceptual linkages and argumentative patterns. These, in turn, led us to identify thematic strands within the campaign. Finally, in the third step, we used close reading to reconstruct the framing logic within the identified text extracts – a form of meso-level analysis – in terms of Entman’s (1993) four frame elements: problem definition, diagnosis of causes (causal agents), moral evaluation, and suggested remedies (see Key concepts above). Thanks to this analytical procedure, we were able to identify two key framings central to PGE’s Turów campaign.

Key framing 1: re-framing the energy transition

The first frame we identified focuses on the concept of energy transition and contests the EU’s interpretation of this in its Green Deal, which PGE depicts as highly detrimental to the Turów region and to Poland as a whole. The company promotes a rival interpretation, in which the Turów mine contributes decisively to a green transformation that is both socially sensitive and economically rational. In doing so, the company puts forward a coherent argument for continuing lignite exploitation that relies on a particular constellation of frame elements (see Entman, 1993; Matthes, 2014, pp. 43).

In this frame, Entman’s problem lies in the conflict between PGE’s operations at Turów and the EU’s decarbonization policy. On the one hand, this is depicted as constraining PGE’s, and thus Poland’s energy production by requiring the abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of more sustainable energy sources. Specifically, EU policy implies the cessation of mining at Turów. On the other hand, operations there are portrayed as ensuring the region’s stability and welfare, in both economic and social terms, and as contributing to the energy security of Poland as a whole, since the lignite extracted is used to generate electricity in a nearby power station.

This problem definition is closely intertwined with the identification of causal actors, Entman’s second element. Even though the EU provides extensive assistance through the Just Transition Fund to mitigate the consequences of energy transition, the PGE framing points to the EU and its policies as the major cause of economic and social damage to the Turów region and a threat to Poland’s energy security (1).

(1) PGE has launched the second part of its information campaign “Green Deal, not a Grim Deal,” which aims to draw the attention of EU decision-makers and the international public to the problematic nature and consequences of a sudden and unjust transition and the fate of [the] local community in the Turoszów [Turów] region.

Press release 5/10/2021, English original

Jumping now to the fourth of Entman’s elements, the remedy suggested in this frame can be summed up as “Decarbonization OK, but Polish style”. Thus, the framing recognizes the necessity of energy transition as in (2a), but rejects the measures proposed by the EU because they will allegedly lead to the region’s economic and social decay, a consequence characterized in the frame as unjust (2b).

(2a) The ongoing transformation of the #Turow energy complex is a fact, and investments to reduce the mine’s environmental impact are being made in both mining operations and energy production. #justtransformation Read more: https://turow2044.pl

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1398571257893883904 (latest access 8/30/2022)

(2b) “For #energy transformation to be just, it must be a coordinated action, it cannot be a #wildtransformation. Transformation cannot be disconnected from the people. As a state-owned company, we must ensure energy security”, says [PGE CEO] Wojciech Dąbrowski #EUGreenDeal

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1413427043056955394 (latest access 8/29/2022)

With the mention of justice, we have doubled back to Entman’s third frame element, moral evaluation, which is particularly strong in this framing (and of particular interest to us as linguists). This element can be seen clearly in the way the two contrasted transition scenarios – the EU’s and PGE’s – are discussed. The former is heavily criticized for its negative socio-economic impact, being portrayed using a series of highly negative epithets that cast it in a distinctly unfavorable light: predatory, sudden, unplanned, threatening, catastrophic, grim, unjust and lacking in solidarity. Also in this category come descriptions such as wild (or wildcat) as in (2b) above, or green blackmail. Furthermore, the EU strategy is repeatedly the subject of emotional appeals that exploit the scenarios of threat and catastrophe and which portray the socioeconomic consequences for the life of the local community in dramatic ways: for example, in the recurrent motif of a child denouncing the looming loss of their family’s livelihood (3a).

Conversely, the transition scenario proposed by PGE and thus realizing the remedy (in Entman’s terms) is described using a range of positive labels such as planned, coordinated, long-term and solidarity-based. Indeed, in describing its own scenario PGE skillfully hijacks established EU terms such as just transition, which it counterposes with the EU’s unjust one, or Green Deal, which the campaign contrasts mockingly, in a neat wordplay, with the grim deal offered by Brussels. Indeed, a direct juxtaposition of the negative and positive is a frequent feature of the data, as in the following extracts.

(3a) International awareness campaign launched by @Group_PGE in response to the unfounded complaint to the #TSUE and the demand for an immediate halt to the #Turów mine. What is needed is a just and solidarity-based #GreenDeal, not a wild #energy transition ▶https://turow2044.pl

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1387391507980853255 (latest access 7/29/2022)

(3b) We need a fair #EUGreenDeal not a predatory #energytransition

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1390677189683597319 (latest access 8/29/2022)

(3c) In total, there are as many as 10 lignite mines. Five on the Czech side, four on the German side and one on the Polish side, i.e. the Turów mine. They provide work for 50 thousand people. For the energy transition to be fair, it must be planned and executed in a coordinated manner – it must not be a “wildcat” transition.

Press release 7/9/2021, English original

(3d) This is not just a matter of the Turów mine, which before our eyes is becoming a counter-example pointing to a lack of European solidarity and, at the same time, a symbol of disrespect for people who believed that the transformation could be fair.

To nie jest kwestia tylko kopalni w Turowie, która na naszych oczach staje się antyprzykładem, wskazującym na brak europejskiej solidarności, a zarazem symbolem braku poszanowania dla ludzi, którzy uwierzyli, że transformacja może być sprawiedliwa.

Press release 4/28/2021

Key framing 2: delegitimizing the CJEU, challenging the EU

In contrast to our first key framing’s focus on the environmental, economic and social impact of the Turów mine, the second frames the issue as a legal one. Specifically, it is concerned with the legality – or rather, legitimacy – of the CJEU’s injunction ordering a halt to mining at Turów and the lawsuit which gave rise to that order. A particular feature of the messages providing evidence for this framing is that many of them do not originate from PGE itself; rather, they are retweets from its corporate account of messages aligned with the company’s aims. The original authors tend to be widely followed right-wing media platforms or politicians, such as government ministers belonging to the conservative nationalist party (PiS). In analyzing them, and the other relevant data, we will again have recourse to Entman’s four-element structure.

In this case, the first element – the problem – is defined as the opposing views of the EU and Poland as to the legality of mining at Turów. In opposition to the CJEU’s decision that this is prohibited under union decarbonization regulations, this framing argues that the mine’s operations are perfectly legal since PGE is in possession of a license valid under Polish law (4a-c).

(4a) PGE’s CEO Wojciech Dąbrowski had this to say. “The position of @Group_PGE is unequivocal. We cannot agree with the closure of the Turów mine. It has a valid, legally issued license, on the basis of which it has continued and will continue its mining operations”.

Stanowisko @Grupa_PGE jest jednoznaczne. Nie możemy zgodzić się na zamknięcie Kopalni w Turowie. Kopalnia Turów posiada ważną, legalnie wydaną koncesję, na podstawie której prowadzi i będzie prowadzić wydobycie – powiedział WojciechDąbrowski, prezes PGE.

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1398217143532101633 (latest access 8/30/2022)

(4b) “The #Turów lignite mine has a valid, legally issued license, under which it has and will continue to mine. The #TSUE decision is a path to a wild energy transition”, according to Wojciech Dąbrowski, CEO of #PGE Polish Energy Group.

Kopalnia Węgla Brunatnego #Turów posiada ważną, legalnie wydaną koncesję, na podstawie której prowadzi i będzie prowadzić wydobycie. Decyzja #TSUE to droga do dzikiej transformacji energetycznej – mówi prezes Wojciech Dąbrowski, prezes #PGE Polskiej Grupy Energetycznej.

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1395781341648654340 (latest access 8/30/2022)

(4c) We are releasing another document confirming that the #Turow mine conducts mining operations in accordance with the provisions of Polish and European law,” says Wojciech Dąbrowski, CEO of #PGE #justatransformation

Udostępniamy kolejny dokument potwierdzający, że kopalnia #Turow prowadzi działalność wydobywczą zgodnie z przepisami polskiego i europejskiego prawa – mówi Wojciech Dąbrowski, prezes #PGE #sprawiedliwatransformacja

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1396471502854295553 (latest access 8/30/2022)

What about the problem’s causes? These are portrayed as lying partly in the actions of the Czech Republic, whose motives in bringing the case to the CJEU are questioned. Indeed, the lawsuit is labeled unjustified, and there are insinuations that it was filed in bad faith. As a result, the order to stop mining and the fine imposed on Poland for its failure to comply become unjust decisions.

(5) Concerned with [sic - about] the stock photo [i.e., the photo featured throughout the campaign, see (3a)]? We hope the real picture helps you focus on the real issue – the unjustified Czech complaint to #CJEU and demand for immediate closure of #Turów mine. We need a fair #EUGreenDeal not a predatory #energytransition #facts

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1390677189683597319 (latest access 8/30/2022, English original)

However, the great bulk of the blame for the problem is laid at the door of the CJEU, and in particular at that of the responsible judge, CJEU Vice-President Rosario Silva de Lapuerta. Not only the justification but also her integrity, and the integrity of her decisions as a judge, are repeatedly called into question.

(6a) “An unjust, absurd, bizarre decision”: comments made in @tv_info about the CJEU verdict on the Turów mine by the acting mayor of Bogatynia, Wojciech Dobrołowicz #wiesz więcej #Minła20 #Turów

Decyzja niesprawiedliwa, absurdalna, kuriozalna – skomentował w @tv_info wyrok TSUE ws. Kopalni Turów pełniący obowiązki burmistrza Bogatyni Wojciech Dobrołowicz #wieszwięcej #Minęła20 #Turów

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1396185533332828161 (latest access 8/30/2022)

(6b) Today, on @PolsatNewsPL, #JanuszSteinhoff said that the decision of #TSUE Vice-President Rosario Silva de Lapuerta concerning closure of #Turow is completely unjustified, as nothing urgent or of sufficient magnitude has happened to justify such a step.

Dziś w @PolsatNewsPL #JanuszSteinhoff powiedział, że decyzja wiceprezes #TSUE Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ws. zamknięcia #Turow jest całkowicie bezzasadna, gdyż nic takiego nie stało się w trybie nagłym, by podejmować takie kroki.

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1396187452545581064 (latest access 8/30/2022)

In contrast to the first framing, this one does not explicitly include any remedy, Entman’s final element, but it is similarly elaborate when it comes to his third, moral evaluation. In fact, the essential thrust of this framing is persistent negative evaluation, not just of the CJEU’s decision to issue the injunction but also of the Court as an institution. Thus we find the decision described as unjust, groundless, irrational, absurd, peculiar and scandalous – all epithets that add to the highly emotional charge of the discourse.

Indeed, one of the campaign’s key messages is a particularly emotive accusation, leveled here by PGE’s top manager (7). It is that the CJEU’s decision represents nothing less than blackmail, sheer blackmail at that, a description with overtones of immoral pressures on PGE and Poland as a country.

(7) The #CURIA ruling is scandalous. It is sheer blackmail and a total failure of the European Green Deal. […],” said #PGE CEO Wojciech Dąbrowski in the main edition of @NewsTVP

Wyrok #TSUE jest skandaliczny. To zwykły szantaż i całkowita porażka Europejskiego Zielonego Ładu. […] - mówił w głównym wydaniu @WiadomosciTVP prezes #PGE Wojciech Dąbrowski

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1396181839862239243 (latest access 8/30/2022)

Negative portrayals of the Court’s decision are often accompanied by references to the devastating economic and social impact of closure highlighted in the first framing (10a). However, the main theme here is not so much the impact itself but rather the CJEU’s failure to consider the fate of those affected by it, which is portrayed as evidence that the Court is slipshod and unfeeling in its work. Again, negative epithets such as peculiar, arrogant, arbitrary, and blatantly unfair abound, as also do ad hominem-attacks on Judge de Lapuerta (8b). The notion of improper, undemocratic pressures reappears in accusations of “radical judicial activism” (8c).

(8a) Very arbitrary, blatantly unfair #CURIA decision on #Turow not taking into account impact on energy system (energy security), economics (huge losses) and social issues (several thousand employed) @MAPGOVPL

Bardzo arbitralna, rażąco niesprawiedliwa decyzja #TSUE w sprawie #Turow nie uwzględniająca wpływu na system energetyczny (bezpieczeństwo energetyczne), ekonomię (olbrzymie straty) i kwestie społeczne (kilka tysięcy zatrudnionych) @MAPGOVPL

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1395978103428722692 (latest access 8/30/2022)

(8b) Anna Zalewska @AnnaZalewskaMEP in conversation with @ogorekmagda: “The way the decision on Turów was issued – by a single person, arrogantly, without considering the very broad issues involved – is proof that Brussels doesn’t care about what a disaster would unfold in the region after the mine’s closure.

Anna Zalewska @AnnaZalewskaMEP w rozmowie z @ogorekmagda: Sposób wydania decyzji ws. Turowa, jednoosobowy, arogancki, bez przeczytania bardzo szerokiej argumentacji jest dowodem na to, że Brukseli nie obchodzi jaki dramat rozegrałby się w regionie po zamknięciu kopalni.

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1441006004754333696 (latest access 8/30/2022)

(8c) Head of @MSZ_RP @RauZbigniew on #TSUE order speaking about #Turow Mine: “The court order of protective measures [i.e., to stop mining] is very odd, an example of radical judicial activism which will surely go down in #TSUE history”

Szef @MSZ_RP @RauZbigniew o postanowieniu #TSUE ws. Kopalni #Turow : Postanowienie dotyczące środka zabezpieczającego jest kuriozalne, stanowiące przykład radykalnego aktywizmu sędziowskiego i na pewno do historii #TSUE jako takie przejdzie

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1396531984571240449 (latest access 8/30/2022)

From this scathing criticism of the quality of the CJEU’s work and the integrity of its officials, it is but a small step to challenging the legitimacy of the Court itself (9a-b) by re-labelling it the ‘Court of Injustice’. Interestingly, this re-labelling does not originate from PGE but instead in comments by right-wing nationalist politicians and officials of the trade union Solidarność, which are vehemently retweeted by the company’s own corporate account. The undeniable advantage of this procedure is that PGE can reap the benefits of the slur without being held responsible for its authorship.

(9a) @JSaryuszWolski addressed this interpellation to the #EC regarding Turów: Is the action of the #TSUE Vice-President in compliance with the rule of law?

@JSaryuszWolski skierował interpelację do #KE ws. Turowa: Czy działanie wiceprezes #TSUE jest zgodne z zasadą praworządności?

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1441465742113783814 (latest access 8/30/2022)

(9b) Solidarność will go to the CJEU tomorrow with an order to close the court. I wonder if it will be successful. In the words of [prominent union official Piotr] Duda: “We are going to the EU’s “Court of Injustice” in Luxembourg to hand in an order to close the court.”

Solidarność jedzie jutro do TSUE z “postanowieniem” o zamknięciu trybunału. Ciekawe, czy się uda? P. Duda: - Jedziemy pod “trybunał niesprawiedliwości” UE w Luksemburgu, aby wręczyć postanowienie o zamknięciu tego trybunału.

https://twitter.com/Grupa_PGE/status/1451084915060219906 (latest access 8/30/2022)

Discussion

The two framings analyzed in the preceding sections form the basis of PGE’s strategic communication with regard to the Turów case and are designed to enhance the persuasive potential of the company’s public campaign against the EU’s injunction and exploit the “cultural repertoire of frames” in several ways. Their main features in terms of Entman’s four framing elements are set out in Table 2.

Table 2. PGE’s two framings of the Turów-case by Entman’s frame elements.

Framing 1		Framing 2
Problem	Environmental policies (decarbonization) vs. economic, social & political effects (welfare & prosperity of Turów region, Polish energy security)	Problem	Legal & moral status of CJEU injunction: legitimate vs. illegitimate
Causes (agents)	EU (Green Deal)	Causes (agents)	CJEU, Judge de Lapuerta
Evaluation	Emotive lexis (negative re EU Green Deal; positive re PGE approach) Other evocation of emotions (“take away our livelihood”)	Evaluation	Emotive lexis (negative re injunction’s effects) Other evocation of emotions (references to improper interference in Polish affairs)
Remedies	Solution: ‘Green Deal Polish-style’	Remedies	None

The re-framing process involved in Framing 1 takes advantage of cognitively accessible and discursively entrenched concepts (e.g., energy transition) and assigns new, adjusted meanings to those concepts, and to the agents and roles related to them (Macgilchrist, 2007, pp. 85–87). It introduces an understanding of energy transition that is very different from the one promoted by the EU’s Just Transition Fund and Green Deal. In fact, it advances a new meaning of just transition, in which the Turów lignite mine plays a crucial role. The process of re-framing thus changes the conceptual meaning of EU decarbonization policy but, at the same time, retains the positive connotations evoked by the labels just and green – and so also the emotional charge associated with them.

This is a technique widely used in situations where meanings and interpretations are contested. For example, Klein (2018, pp. 324–325) shows how highly esteemed concepts can be hijacked by a political competitor in election campaigns. Since such re-conceptualizations have significant persuasive potential, Stevenson (1938) refers to them as “persuasive definitions”, while Macagno (2022, p. 73) examines such “manipulative use of emotive words’’ in terms of implicit manipulation or violation of common ground.

In its re-framing of decarbonization, PGE draws on several of the frames employed by the energy industry globally to distract public attention from the long-term negative environmental impact of their operations (see section Framing the energy transition above). The most prominent in such framing is the socioeconomic threat, clearly apparent in foregrounding of the (short-term) detrimental socioeconomic consequences of EU decarbonization policy for the Turów region, with persistent references to job losses and families’ being deprived of their livelihood. However, there are also clear reflections of other global frames. Necessitarianism can be detected in references to Poland’s energy security, and in the rejection of an over-hasty (wild, or wildcat) transition; and the notion of countermeasures is introduced in tweets that talk about PGE’s future investments.

At the same time, PGE clearly adapts these framings to the local political and socio-cultural landscape. While it also reflects the frame socioeconomic threat to an extent, the second key framing we have identified – of Turów as a legal case – draws mainly on that of compliance in its insistence that the Turów mining license was issued in accordance with the Polish legal framework. This helps the company to establish a contrast of perspectives (Polish vs. European) and allows PGE to portray the EU as a bogeyman – a portrayal that aligns particularly well with the current Polish government’s framing of various issues (e.g., an ongoing conflict revolving around the EU accusing Poland of an infringement of the Rule of Law interpreted from the Polish perspective as unrightful interference on behalf of the EU). This choice of strategic framing enhances frame resonance and exploits the discursive opportunity structures presented by the Polish context (McCammon, 2013a, 2013b).

The strategic communication employed by PGE relies on frames that tap into ongoing political and media debates (frame centrality; Geels & Verhees, 2011, p. 914). These frames effectively achieve macro-cultural resonance by aligning with the prevailing cultural beliefs and values, particularly the widespread support for coal in society (LaBelle, 2020, p. 93), as well as the policymakers’ hesitance towards adopting a greater share of renewable energy sources (LaBelle, 2020, p. 95). Likewise, the planned phasing-out of coal as part of the Green Deal energy transition initiatives is perceived as an externally imposed measure by the EU, posing socioeconomic threats to the Turow region and sovereignty concerns for Poland as a whole (see also Żuk & Szulecki, 2020).

In these ways, PGE aligns its campaign with the cultural frames in the Polish society, and eventually with the political agenda of the country’s right-wing government. The essential point is the “interplay of socio-cultural factors that interact with strategic framing activities in producing shared meanings” (Lempiälä et al., 2019). The results indicate the alignment between strategic frames and cultural frames, leading to the establishment of cultural resonance, which, in turn, facilitates the mobilization of public and political support.

In fact, both framings used in PGE’s campaign present either an EU policy (the Green Deal) or an EU institution (the CJEU) as unilaterally imposed by the supranational polity on Poland – and hence as an infringement of Poland’s national sovereignty. The idea that sovereignty, and thus the nation, are under threat undoubtedly strikes a chord with much opinion in Poland and with a right-wing government that has come into conflict with EU institutions on other occasions (e.g., in 2021, it was additionally hit with a €1 m per day fine for two other violations of the Rule of Law). As Wyrzykowski (2013, p. 229) puts it: “Sovereignty is the watchword in [the] Polish constitutional debate on European integration in politics, diplomacy and in the courtroom”. It therefore has the potential to mobilize large sections of the Polish public and many political actors. In other words, allusions to this issue entice nationalist politicians to back PGE’s agenda.

But it is not only the company’s pro-sovereignty stance that resonates in Polish society; the same is true of its defense of coal mining (Wiersum, 2022), and its reluctance to comply with EU decarbonization policy and accept the idea of a ‘sustainable EU’ (see also Żuk & Szulecki, 2020). The European Sentiment Compass 2022 found that “in some places the sense could emerge that Brussels and wealthier EU members are imposing costly climate policy on poorer countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, where countries risk being hardest hit by the consequences of the transition” (Zerka, 2022, p. 12). Moreover, repeated denunciation of a lack of European solidarity, and calls for transition to be based on that principle, are in line with the results of a report released by the Dublin European Institute (Wiersum, 2022, no pagination), which argues that the “clashing principles of state sovereignty and EU solidarity” explain much of “the resistance against the Green Deal” in Poland. PGE exploits such euroscepticism by adding a specifically Polish national twist to their corporate spin.

Assessing the success of PGE’s communication strategy is unfortunately not possible on the basis of the data collected for this study. Nevertheless, there is an indirect indication of its impact. Prompted by the imposed fine, the Polish government decided to negotiate with the Czech government. In February 2022, a bilateral agreement was reached as a result of which the Czech Republic dropped its lawsuit over Turów, thereby rendering the CJEU’s injunction and the Commission’s fines null and void, as well as committing itself to make no further financial claims related to the issue. In return, the Polish state paid compensation of €35 to the Czechs. PGE escaped with a much smaller payment (€10 m) and, crucially, it was permitted to continue mining at Turów.

In summary, our analysis demonstrates the significance of the local cultural frames in shaping strategic communication within the energy sector. In more general terms, “[t]he strategic framing activity is, then, interpreted against this initial understanding of what is culturally relevant and appropriate, and what are the social positions of the actors that conduct the framing activities” (Lempiälä et al., 2019). Against this background, striving to harmonize global strategic frames with the local cultural context to attain cultural and discursive resonance can be considered an important learning within the energy sector and beyond.

Conclusions

Our study shows that the Polish energy company PGE has designed its strategic communication about the Turów case to align with the interests of Polish decision-makers and the prevailing cultural frames in Poland. For this, it has drawn both on frames generally used by fossil-fuel energy companies and on frames specifically tailored to the Polish socioeconomic and political context in order to raise the persuasive potential of the company’s message. In particular, framings that exploit Polish anti-European sentiment are fundamental to PGE’s campaign as they facilitate the intervention of political authorities in support of PGE’s interests, while distracting attention from the negative environmental impacts of the Turów mining operations. Its attempts to guide the perceptions of the public and political decision-makers relied on glossing over the undoubtedly negative environmental impacts of mining, and on shifting the focus to areas, such as energy security and national sovereignty, where the company’s legitimacy and credibility are unthreatened, and it was able to score points easily. The overall logic of the campaign concedes the necessity of a green energy transition but re-frames the concept in a way favorable to PGE. The terms of the Czech-Polish bilateral agreement of February 2022 point at least indirectly to the success of this communication strategy because they have enabled PGE to continue running a profitable mine while shifting the lion’s share of the settlement’s financial costs onto the Polish government.

The fact that the data collected do not permit a more direct and precise assessment of success has already been mentioned as one limitation of our case study. Over and above that, it displays a limitation common to all research of this type; its generalizability is constrained by its focus on the strategic communication of one particular company (PGE) in one particular country (Poland). For future research, it would be desirable to explore similar cases in different socio-political contexts, in other CEE countries and possibly worldwide, and to examine how different cultural frames are developed and deployed in strategic communication, and especially in framing energy transition. For future research, it would be desirable to explore similar cases in different socio-political contexts, in other CEE countries and possibly worldwide, and to examine how different cultural frames are developed and deployed in strategic communication, and especially in framing energy transition.

Nevertheless, we believe that based on our findings, it is possible to draw several analytical generalizations:

1. Strategic frames are more likely to leverage their persuasive potential when they align with cultural frames, resulting in cultural and discursive resonance (McCammon, 2013a, 2013b; Geels & Verhees, 2011). Our study has shown that, in the strategic attempts to steer perceptions in favor of an organization, expertise in area studies is invaluable because it alone can enable a culturally-sensitive choice of frame(s) that resonate in a specific, local context.

2. The globally operating strategic communication professionals are thus advised to develop expertise in area studies and acquire essential background knowledge about the region in which they operate. This includes staying informed about ongoing socio-political debates and understanding the broader socio-economic context. Also, when framing their energy transition policies, policy-makers can benefit from aligning them with the local socio-economic, environmental, and political frames.

3. This study revealed the potential of harnessing the synergies between communication studies and linguistics to enhance our comprehension of how framings are linguistically articulated and what rhetorical techniques are employed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ All data are provided in OSF Repository https://osf.io/nsp4v/...

² The data were crawled with the Premium Search API (https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/premium/search-api/api-reference/premium-s), a tool provided by Twitter. Tweets were extracted by a query of the account (@Grupa_PGE) for the relevant time period.

Appendix

Table

Coal	[Ww]ęg.*
Czech	\b[Cc]ze[chs].*
Energy security	[Bb]ezpiecze.* [Ee]nergetyczn.*
EU	\bUE | EU | [Uu]ni.* [Ee]uropejsk.* | [Uu]nijn.* | Uni[aąęi]
CURIA	TSUE | CURIA
Green	[Zz]ielon.*
Polish	pols[kc].*
Pole	\bPola[kc].*
Protest	[Pp]rotest.*
Transition	[Tt]ransformac.*
Turów	[Tt]ur[oó]w.*