Alleviating or institutionalizing greenwashing? – The inclusion of nuclear energy into the EU taxonomy from a narrative discourse perspective

Alleviating or institutionalizing greenwashing? – The inclusion of nuclear energy into the EU taxonomy from a narrative discourse perspective | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Alleviating or institutionalizing greenwashing? – The inclusion of nuclear energy into the EU taxonomy from a narrative discourse perspective Carsten Elsner This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850703/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Dec, 2024 Read the published version in Energy, Sustainability and Society → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper analyses the discourse around the inclusion of nuclear energy into the EU Taxonomy which promises to provide standards for the question if an economic activity is sustainable or not. The idea is to guide financial means into sustainable areas of the economy and accumulate private investments for the transformation of the economy against climate change. In this regard, the question whether nuclear energy is sustainable was heavily debated and fought over. Through the application of a narrative discourse analysis, relying on expert interviews and media articles, this paper finds that the discourse shifted throughout the process. While a general sustainability discussion around the question if the technology nuclear energy is sustainable characterized the early discourse, a shift towards a process related discussion around how nuclear energy found its way into the EU Taxonomy can be observed at a later stage. Furthermore, the discourse was structured by several key events which provided focal points for discussion and influenced the storylines of proponents and opponents of nuclear energy. Narrative Discourse Analysis Nuclear Energy EU Taxonomy Sustainable Finance Background The green new deal is the answer of the EU commission to the ongoing climate crisis. In order to further institutionalize the Paris agreement in the European Union, the so-called EU taxonomy is promised to be a key cornerstone through which financial means are directed towards green and sustainable goals. With the growing interest in this issue, the call for a clear and binding definition of green finance gets more attention. Moreover, the taxonomy pledges to reduce greenwashing, help decarbonizing the EU economy and thus meet the 2050 net zero emission goal. While starting off with a certain enthusiasm carried by the pledges of the Green New Deal, criticism towards issues framed as technical such as the recent inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy have been raised. Corporate as well as retail investors look for investment opportunities entailing some form of sustainability, while companies adopt sustainable strategies and improve their communication regarding corporate social responsibility [ 1 ]. However, with the growing interest in this issue, the call for a clear and binding definition of green finance gets more attention [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]. In this regard many, mostly private and international actors proposed some form of standard for sustainable or green financial activities, which resulted in a confusing array of different guidelines and standards. The concepts with the biggest outreach in the field in recent years are the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria for sustainable investment decisions. Furthermore, with the greater international call for green activities, a discourse around the phenomena of window-dressing and greenwashing among firms and financial actors evolved [ 5 ] [ 6 ]. In recent years, some governmental entities have therefore seen the need to start their own more serious efforts for standardizing green financial activity, with the hope for a great push in mobilizing green financial resources through the obligational character of binding standards. Thus, the green new deal is the answer of the EU commission to the ongoing climate crisis including the promise to provide standards for sustainable finance through the EU taxonomy. Furthermore, the taxonomy intends to reduce greenwashing, help decarbonizing the EU economy and thus meet the 2050 net zero goal [ 7 ] [ 8 ]. Developed through a stakeholder process, supervised by the European Commission, the taxonomy promises to provide clear definitions for assessing whether an economic activity can be considered as sustainable. The taxonomy will then underpin more specific efforts in the standardisation of green finance, such as the planned EU Ecolabel on Retail Financial Products, or the EU Green Bond Standard [ 9 ]. As such, the taxonomy will have widespread economic implications not only for the economic sectors and entities within the EU but also beyond. The taxonomy puts other countries under pressure to come up with an own approach it they want to have a voice in global harmonization processes for green finance which are already starting [ 10 ]. While starting off with a certain enthusiasm carried by the pledges of the green new deal, criticism towards issues such as the recent inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy have been raised. One line of critique questions the EC’s decision to assign the task of evaluating the sustainability of nuclear energy to the Joint Research Centre (JRC) on the ground of its structural ties to nuclear deployment in Europe starting with the Euratom Treaty in 1957 [ 11 ]. Another layer of critique unfolds around the significantly higher levelized costs of electricity compared to renewables [ 12 , p. 269]. While opponents thus question the sustainability and environmental safety of nuclear energy, proponents point towards the low-carbon electricity generation of nuclear energy and its contribution to climate mitigation [ 13 ]. Simultaneously to the contestations on nuclear, raised in the context of Chernobyl and Fukushima, a “nuclear renaissance” rhetoric appeared at the start of the 2000s mostly pushed by the associated industry [ 14 ]. The discourses on accelerated climate change and energy transitions fed this rhetoric further and thus proponents of nuclear energy often point at the contributions of nuclear to climate mitigation. This perspective is also shared by the IEA, the IAEA and the IPCC who have influential power over global energy decisions. Furthermore, the IAEA and the IPCC engaged in a framework for assessing the sustainability of nuclear energy called INPRO [ 15 , p. 174]. The INPRO effectively assumes prior to the assessment that nuclear energy is needed and therefore the sustainability issue is reduced to best practice scenarios of nuclear energy systems while a more comprehensive approach for assessing sustainability is still missing [ 15 , p. 175–178]. In this regard, it is the object of this paper to ask which narratives and key events accompanied the decision process to include nuclear energy into the EU Taxonomy and thus analyse how the view that nuclear energy is sustainable in the EU Taxonomy became hegemonic. Although, the final decision was arguably a result of the power structure and the position among countries within the EU and especially between France and Germany, the result was not certain throughout the process, which makes the analysis of the discourse and its storylines insightful. This will be done by examining the discourse around this contested issue, the institutional structure in which the reform takes place and finally the narratives and storylines which may legitimize or delegitimize the inclusion of nuclear energy. In this regard, a narrative discourse analysis will be employed focusing storylines as a signifier for narratives in the discourse [ 16 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ]. Through the combination of expert interviews as well as text analysis of media reports and official publications, this paper will shed also light on questions of inclusion or exclusion of certain topics and groups in the discourse. There is a rich tradition of research on discourses, which exists across many forms and disciplines. According to Keller [ 20 ], there are four distinct features of discourses which are shared among researchers: First, discourse theories and discourse analyses engage in the use of language and other forms of symbolic interactions which can be found in social practices. Second, discourse researchers acknowledge that the actual meaning of phenomena reflected through language is socially constructed. Third, single interpretations are part of a larger discourse structure. This structure can be subject to change, while it is created and temporarily stabilized by the specific institutional context in which the discourse happens. Fourth, discourse researchers assume that the use of language follows distinct rules which can be analysed and reconstructed [ 20 , p. 9]. In this regard, one of the most important features in the research on discourses is the aspect that the meanings of certain phenomena are socially constructed. Hajer and Versteeg [ 21 , p. 175] define discourses “as an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” . As such, the practices through which a discourse takes place, differ with the context and the topic of the specific discourse and they can be used to construct identity among the actors involved [ 22 , 23 ]. According to Viehöver [ 17 , p. 283] discursive actors and especially mass media have the capacity to transform the meaning of narrations and select certain aspects while dropping others. As such a certain narrative can deviate from the previous intentions of the actors which put it in the place at first. The analysis of mass media publications should therefore be in the centre of an analysis focusing on public discourses [ 17 , 24 ]. Furthermore, key events can have a decisive effect on a discourse since narratives may change or even vanish as a consequence to an event [ 25 ]. The Russian attack on Ukraine provides a good example for such an event as it changed the way in which the discourse on nuclear energy sustainability and subsequently also affected the narratives in use. Therefore, a discourse analysis along events can deepen the understanding about the twists and turns of political processes. Storylines are a condensed form of narrations for example in the form of a sentence or a catch phrase commonly used to simplify and order complex narratives often in the context of limited time or space to lay out a narrative in detail [ 26 , p. 69]. The concept of storylines was first introduced by Davies and Harré [ 27 ] and re-used and shaped by Hajer [ 16 ]. They are ‘flags’ of identification under which different actors can rally up and form discourse coalitions which are defined as “the ensemble of (1) a set of story-lines; (2) the actors who utter these story-lines; and (3) the practices in which this discursive activity is based” [ 20 , p.65]. In line with social constructionism, the assumption behind storylines is that they provide agency through the simplification of complex discursive systems and the narratives within. Thus, storylines can be understood as giving condensed definitions of problems which functions as a tool to compete in discourses over a specific topic [ 26 , p.69]. The way people talk about certain phenomena in the form of storylines is also a reflection of the power relationships in this particular sphere [ 16 , p. 57]. If everybody agrees implicitly through their articulations on a certain mode of talking about things, thus following a particular storyline, this narration can be considered as dominant. In this regard, the term discourse structuration applies, when actors follow a certain mode of talking about a problem in order to remain their credibility in the discourse [ 16 , p. 61] [ 28 , p. 3]. An example here would be the widespread acknowledgement of climate change and the need for decarbonization in the wording of actors in energy discourses. However, there are actors who define this as a problem of management that can be solved through technical solutions (eco-modernist perspective) while others define it as a problem of our economic mode (capitalism) which has to be changed [ 29 ]. This example shows that different definitions of the same problem lead to different possible pathways of political change. Storylines can be a key element of political change and have direct impact on politics if they reach a certain degree of dominance in a discourse [ 16 , pp. 56, 65 ]. However, this does not imply that actors using similar storylines do so by necessarily sharing the same understanding of it. On the contrary, Hajer and Versteeg point out that the ‘effect of misunderstanding’ is a major reason why political coalitions form in the first place [ 21 , p. 177]. Storylines can appear in various forms such as metaphors, “analogies, historical references, clichés, appeals to collective fears or senses of guilt” [ 16 , p. 63]. Actors may also decide to challenge a certain storyline through an alternative way of talking about a particular issue. With reference to the non-existence of actors who fully understand all aspects of the acid rain issue, Hajer argues that the “political power of a text is not derived from its consistency (…) but comes from multi-interpretability” [ 16 , p. 61]. This means first that narrative instruments such as metaphors subsuming a particular issue can provide more discursive power and impact than a detailed but long analysis of a certain issue. Second, this also means that actors can offer different and conflicting explanations to a single event. In this regard, discourses in the political sphere usually do not happen between independent individuals, but they are rather embedded in the institutional structure in which the discourse takes place [ 16 , p. 57–58]. In the case of the taxonomy this allows for two basic observations. First, the emergence of the taxonomy highlights the aspect of institutional reproduction and change through actual discursive practices, within the exacerbated discourse on climate change and the Paris agreement. Second, the process of defining specific technical issues happens within an established institutional sphere granting scientific neutrality to a research centre, which has a long history in nuclear safety research. This example further underlines the importance of analysing storylines and narrations with regard to the actors who engage in discourses within an institutional structure. Hence, if a theoretical concept or an idea translates into a concrete policy, the term discourse institutionalization applies [ 16 , p. 61]. So far, the analysis of storylines in the environmental sphere has reached a new degree of popularity among researchers in recent years and there are certain distinct features which have been established in the literature over time. One feature is the research focus on different understandings of a single term, such as biodiversity [ 30 ] or sustainability [ 15 ] [ 19 ]. Another feature already introduced by Hajer [ 16 ] includes the actual extraction of a number of different storylines. Those can range from 3 different storylines in the case of the biomass discourse in Europe [ 19 ], 5 storylines in the case of the Swedish forest-based bioeconomy [ 31 ], to 6 storylines in the case of Germany’s forest-based bioeconomy which are further subcategorized [ 32 ] or even 7 storylines in the case of regional planning policies in South East Queensland, Australia [ 33 ]. Another feature is the allocation of actors to different discourse coalitions which happened in a discourse analysis on circular economies in Norway [ 34 ]. Discourse analysis and the role of storylines are also getting more attention in the sphere of transition studies [ 35 , p. 316]. In this regard, the creation of legitimacy for a certain technology through the domination of transition discourses becomes important as legitimacy is a vital key for the access to “mobilize financial, human and material resources as well as regulatory support” [ 36 , p. 330]. With reference to nuclear energy, Markard et al. [ 36 , p. 331] point out that the technological legitimacy faced ups and downs in various time periods and regions. In this regard, Bern and Winkel [ 37 ] argue that discourses on nuclear energy show regional differences usually depending on the degree of institutionalisation of pro- or anti-nuclear positions. While the anti-nuclear movement in Germany achieved a certain degree of institutionalisation of their positions, the French movement remained politically marginalized [ 37 , p. 285]. Thus, legitimacy for the technology only remained stable in France, where anti-nuclear positions could not be institutionalized. Methods In terms of methods, this paper consists of a combination of text analysis and expert interviews. The methodology is a simplified version employed from the procedure developed by Hajer [ 26 ] motivated by the application by Funcke and Ruppert-Winkel [ 38 ]. In a first step, relevant documents regarding the case of nuclear energy under the EU taxonomy are identified through web-based research using the search terms “EU taxonomy nuclear energy”. More than 100 documents have been identified including mostly web-based news articles from various media platforms as well as policy statements. A list of all documents will be provided in the annex of the paper. In step two, those documents are analysed in order to get an overview of the research field and first indications of storylines that are used. After the document analysis a first list of key events and storylines was generated and then translated into interview questions for the in-depth interviews. In the interviews the meaning of certain events for actors and their position towards the issue of nuclear energy were in the research focus [ 26 ]. The anonymity of the interview participants was assured and consent for recording and usage of the material was requested prior to the start of the interview. The full list of ethical and interview questions is provided in the annex. Simultaneously the web-based research for documents continued with a specific focus on argumentative exchange in the form of questions or debates in the environment of the European parliament and the EC. Afterwards, all documents including the transcripts of interviews were analysed. Finally, the interpretation followed, in which the arguments, the line of key events and the actors in the contestation on the inclusion or exclusion of nuclear energy under the EU taxonomy are brought in an interpretative order. From this point, the main pro- and anti-nuclear storylines are derived which are displayed in Table 1 . Results and Discussion: The EU taxonomy and the role of nuclear energy The “Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088” entered officially into force on 12 July 2020 [ 7 ]. This regulation abbreviated as EU Taxonomy was developed with the attempt to provide a definition for whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable or not. Furthermore, the taxonomy is intertwined with regulations on environmental disclosure among firms such as the Non-Financial Reporting Directive and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation [ 39 ]. To further standardise financial behaviour, the EU taxonomy will underpin more specific attempts such as the EU Ecolabel for Retail Financial products and the EU Green Bond Standard. But how does the taxonomy actually intends to work? In this regard, the regulation entails four essential criteria for economic activities, which (1) should contribute to at least one of six environmental objectives, (2) must not significantly harm any other environmental objective (DNSH), (3) should comply with minimum safeguards, and (4) should comply with technical screening criteria [ 7 ]. Under point (1) the taxonomy includes six environmental objectives which are (a) climate change mitigation, (b) climate change adaption, (c) the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, (d) the transition to a circular economy, (e) pollution prevention and control, (f) the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems [ 7 , p. 17]. In order to measure the taxonomy alignment of an economic activity with a certain environmental objective, technical screening criteria (TSC) are currently being developed. The work on the TSCs is most advanced with regard to the first two environmental objectives “climate change mitigation” and “climate change adaptation” and will enter into force by 1st January 2022, while the TSCs for the other four objectives are still under development and will apply one year later on 1st January 2023 [ 40 , p. 20]. In essence, the TSCs will provide the detailed thresholds to determine whether an economic activity is sustainable in the sense that it “contributes substantially” to an environmental objective [ 41 , p. 5]. Categories form another important part of the taxonomy as different technologies could be labelled with “substantial contribution”, “transition” or “enabling”. In this regard, substantial contribution means that the economic activity substantially contributes to at least one environmental objective while fulfilling the DNSH principle, the social safeguards and the specific technical screening criteria. Meanwhile, an economic activity is considered to be transitional if there are no other more sustainable, technically and economically feasible options available in the specific sector. Additionally, a transitional activity must not lead to a lock-in of high carbon assets and must not interfere with the development of more sustainable options. Finally, an activity is enabling if it is a direct pre-condition for other activities that substantially contribute to one of the environmental objectives [ 7 ]. While the Technical Expert Group on sustainable Finance (TEG) was responsible for developing the TSCs for the first two environmental objectives, the Platform on sustainable Finance (platform) is now responsible for the development of the TSCs for the remaining four objectives [ 41 ]. After receiving the advice on the TSCs either by the TEG or the platform, the commission then updates the regulation through delegated acts, which will also be used in the future, when the taxonomy may be updated towards more stringent criteria. This provides the possibility to rule out certain economic activities which were initially taxonomy-aligned [ 41 ]. In this regard, the work of the TEG or the platform provides potential for influencing the TSCs in different ways. The current approach towards the evaluation of sustainability regarding various energy types is technology agnostic and has an initial emission threshold of 100g CO2e/kWh [ 42 ]. This threshold will then be reviewed and reduced every 5 years in order to achieve net-zero CO2e in 2050 [ 41 ]. 1 With regard to the thresholds in general, some argue that the TEG made the mistake to already lay the foundation for political contestation through the politicization of the thresholds themselves in their reports. Thus, the thresholds were not solely understood as being bound to biophysical realities but rather to be treated as objects of future political interest considerations [ 43 ]. Finally, the institutional setup of the EU Taxonomy sets the scene in which the discourse around nuclear energy happens. The European Commission is entitled to update the existing law on the EU taxonomy at a later stage through so-called delegated acts in order to implement the detailed TSCs which are not finally developed yet [ 7 ]. These delegated acts are sub-legal processes which should supplement the EU Taxonomy law and have specific rules for acceptance. After the EC adopted the delegated act, the European Parliament and the Council can object this decision. Only if a majority of 20 member states vote against the delegated act and/or if the European Parliament vetoes the delegated act with a majority of its members, it is rejected [ 44 ]. This is especially important in contested cases such as the question of nuclear energy or gas. Regulating the energy sector in the EU taxonomy – the case of nuclear energy The development of the EU taxonomy is a very complex and detailed process and as such cannot be layed out within the boundaries of a scientific paper. However, the process of the inclusion of nuclear energy can illustrate the development of a specific aspect with the taxonomy and thus sheds light on the discourses and interests behind the development of the EU taxonomy. In this regard, this chapter will introduce the storylines that are used along the decision-making process. Within this process several key events structured and changed the discourse on nuclear energy with its storylines and shaped the way in which actors argue. Thus, differences in the argumentation with regard to key events arose over time. A general finding with regard to the discourse is that it happened in a highly polarized environment with proponents and opponents of nuclear energy as actors. While the lack of discursive arenas characterized the beginning of the discourse with scarce exchange between anti- and pro-nuclear positions who basically dropped arguments through the media without listening to one another, the discourse became more driven by political arguments carried out by actors in higher positions with more visibility as soon as a decision was looming [ 45 ]. Furthermore, other factors such as the start of the war when Russia invaded Ukraine had a great impact especially on debates around energy security and geopolitical independency. In terms of the time span covered in this analysis, this paper will start with the blockade of the early version of the EU Taxonomy in December 2019 and end with the vote on the matter in the European Parliament in July 2022 and the direct reactions to it. Table 1 Key Events and Storylines. Own Compilation Year Key event Storyline Proponents Storyline Opponents December 2019 The blockade of the early version of the EU Taxonomy • Positive contribution to climate change mitigation • Nuclear waste issue well managed and regulated • New technologies (transmutation, SMRs) • Climate change mitigation requires both: Nuclear and renewables • Provision of finance for nuclear • Carbon-intensive in life cycle • Nuclear waste issue not solved, no long-term repository • New technologies nascent and too late to contribute • Safety problems and risk of serious incident • Nuclear energy not competitive and very expensive • Long planning and construction phases March-June 2021 The publication of the JRC, TEG and SCHEER reports • JRC decision is science-based and this enhances EU Taxonomy credibility • Taxonomy should allow for technology neutrality • Nuclear energy important for climate neutrality in 2050 • Nuclear does not do more significant harm than other energy types in taxonomy • JRC is not objective and has strong ties to nuclear industry • Nuclear lobby influenced decision process • Nuclear energy fails to meet DNSH requirements • EU Taxonomy credibility is endangered • Nuclear inclusion through delegated act is illegal January 2022 The announcement of the inclusion of nuclear and gas into the EU Taxonomy through a delegated act • Delegated act is a very good compromise • Nuclear Energy should be more than a transition technology • Regulation for nuclear is too strict in EU Taxonomy • Climate neutrality in the EU is under threat • Credibility of EU Taxonomy in danger • Path dependencies of nuclear (and gas) • Taxonomy is result of European powerplay and not biophysical realities February 2022 Start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine • Nuclear energy ensures independence from Russian imports • Reconstruction in Ukraine requires green label for nuclear and gas • Risk of serious incidents (war and nuclear power plants in Ukraine) • Green label for nuclear and gas supports Russian war efforts July 2022 Approval by the European Parliament • Announcement of filing a lawsuit (Austria and Luxembourg) • No compliance with DNSH principle (e.g. nuclear waste and use of fresh water) The blockade of the early version of the EU taxonomy Probably one of the most important events in the early stages of the discourse was the blockade of a preliminary version of the EU taxonomy in mid-December 2019 by 9 member states [ 9 ]. After intense negotiations a compromise was reached stating that the question on nuclear and gas should be decided at a later stage [ 46 ]. This decision had big impacts on the publication of the final TEG report in March 2020. The blockade of the early version of the EU taxonomy which intended to exclude nuclear and gas in principle from the taxonomy was mainly orchestrated by nine member states (France, UK, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia). The compromise was then to neither include nor exclude nuclear energy from the taxonomy at this stage and rather evaluate the contested issue on the basis of the contribution to one environmental objective and the DNSH principle [ 9 ]. The EC originally appointed the task to evaluate taxonomy alignment for the first two environmental objectives to the Technical Expert Group on sustainable finance (TEG) formed in July 2018. In the technical annex to the final report, the TEG argued that nuclear energy could contribute to climate mitigation. However, the TEG also stated that nuclear energy cannot fulfil the DNSH requirements especially due to the lack of a “ viable, safe and long-term underground repository” for nuclear waste anywhere in the world [ 47 , p. 210]. The TEG thus concluded that they cannot recommend the inclusion of nuclear energy at this stage and more technical work on the issue is required [ 47 , p. 211]. Furthermore, with regard to nuclear energy the TEG did not evaluate the whole life cycle and limited itself to the aspect of carbon intensity during the energy generation. The reason was that the TEG realized early that the question of gas and nuclear in the EU taxonomy would become very political so they refrained from evaluating this question in detail and rather focused on other less controversial aspects [ 45 ]. Despite the concern about the looming political character, the TEG report fuelled the contestation on nuclear energy since the technical annex argued that more research with regard to the DNSH and especially on the fifth environmental objective (circular economy) is required [ 47 , p. 208]. Additionally, the technical annex mentioned that in the feedback round to the report by the TEG, some stakeholders expressed their wish for a stronger acknowledgement and inclusion of nuclear energy [ 47 , p. 208]. As the discussion intensified over the case of nuclear energy, the task was drawn away from the TEG in with regard to nuclear energy and gas. The EC then decided in September 2020 to mandate the JRC with the role to evaluate whether nuclear energy is sustainable enough to be taxonomy aligned [ 40 , p. 13]. With regard to the general sustainability discussion, a major storyline in favour of nuclear energy is its positive contribution to climate mitigation as a low-carbon energy source and the inability to reach the climate targets without nuclear energy [ 48 ]. In terms of sustainable finance regulation, this argument continues further in stating that finance for nuclear energy needs to be provided in a reliable manner also by private investors [ 48 ]. Even in these early stages of the discourse this perspective was challenged by opponents of nuclear energy with the argument that from a life cycle perspective, nuclear energy was not carbon-free [ 49 , p. 18]. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the nuclear waste issue is still not solved and there is no long-term depository [ 11 ]. This perspective was challenged by proponents who argued that the nuclear waste sector is highly regulated and well managed [ 50 ] [ 51 ]. Additionally, proponents of nuclear energy argued that new technologies like transmutation and the widespread deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) can provide a clean and safe energy source. These technologies promise answers to two major problems of the nuclear sector, first the issue on nuclear waste (transmutation) and second the high costs due to the current inability to deploy blueprinted nuclear power plants on an industrial scale. One of the main arguments against the inclusion has been the safety problems regarding radioactivity and the possibility for a serious incident . The second and closely related argument evolves around the problem of processing nuclear waste since no long-term solution is in place this stage anywhere in the world [ 11 ]. Furthermore, Schneider and Froggatt [ 12 , p. 269] point out that nuclear energy is far more expensive than Coal, Gas, Solar or Wind. Nuclear energy with its long construction phases and their nascent technologies like SMRs and transmutation is too late to play a major party in combatting climate change when those technologies are expected to reach maturity and industrial scalability in several decades [ 52 ]. With regard to the second process-related discussion the focus was now on the actual credibility of the JRC to make an objective recommendation. As mentioned before, opponents of nuclear energy argued that the JRC has strong ties with the nuclear industry and its institutional structure within the EU since the establishment of the Euratom Treaty in 1957 [ 11 ]. On the other hand, proponents applauded to the EC decision to appoint the JRC with the evaluation and argued that it is imperative for the credibility of the EU Taxonomy to be based on science [ 53 ]. Additionally, it was argued that the only effective way to slow down climate change is to rely on both, nuclear energy and renewables while phasing out fossil fuels [ 54 ]. The publication of the JRC, TEG and Scheer reports While there was little discussion about the comparatively low emissions caused by nuclear energy during the energy generation process, it is the major task of the JRC to evaluate whether it is possible to handle nuclear waste in a safe way. The important aspect here are the aforementioned DNSH requirements, which ensure that the economic activity of producing energy through atomic fission does not significantly harm any environmental objective [ 55 ]. The JRC then published their “Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)” in late March 2021. Essentially the report concluded that nuclear energy does not do more environmental or health related harm than other energy sources which are already taxonomy aligned [ 56 , p. 7]. This case functions as a good illustration for the multi-interpretability aspect of storylines as mentioned earlier in Hajer [ 16 , p. 61]. While proponents emphasize the neutral and science-based position of the research institute , this view is challenged by opponents who argue that the JRC cannot be neutral due to its long history of nuclear safety research [ 57 ] [ 58 ] [ 59 ]. Thus, different storylines attempted to condense the narratives around nuclear energy, in order to either legitimize or undermine the JRC report which can also be understood as a political attempt to influence the decision-making process on the sustainability controversy regarding nuclear energy. This decision shaped the discourse in the sense that it became more prominent and accessible through mass media. The JRC report was now the main focal point and opponents of nuclear energy argued that this decision was made due to heavy lobbying by nuclear proponents and emphasized that civil society organisations should have been included in the evaluation study [ 60 ]. After the decision to mandate the JRC with a report on nuclear energy and the taxonomy, the storyline of science-based reasoning was also used, e.g. through headlines such as: “EU Returns to Science-Based Decision-Making in Landmark Nuclear Report” [ 61 ]. This argument should first underline the integrity and objectivity of the JRC report and second suggests that debates before were largely driven by emotional subjectivity rather than scientific reasoning. Another argument is made in terms of technological neutrality . Nuclear proponents argue that an exclusion of nuclear energy would lead to a disadvantage against other energy types and hence to market distortion [ 62 ]. Followed by the JRC report two other groups were tasked with an evaluation of the taxonomy alignment of nuclear energy: The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) and the Group of Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty (TEG31) [ 63 ] [ 64 ]. The latter report broadly confirmed the evaluation of the JRC report and thus the taxonomy alignment of nuclear energy against one opposing opinion [ 64 ]. While the SCHEER report confirmed the results as well, they formulated doubts about the comparative approach of the JRC report with other energy types in terms of the DNSH principle. Instead, a more nuanced evaluation on the impacts of nuclear energy on the 6 environmental objectives would be needed especially in terms of a circular economy and in the lights of the early stage of nuclear waste recycling which is not operative on an industrial scale at the moment [ 63 , p. 12]. It has to be noted that this evaluation did not take place until this moment in a form which would have direct impact on the decision process. Meanwhile, on the state level, a pro-nuclear faction which consisted mostly of France, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia articulated their interests. They either expressed their concerns about the delayed decision on nuclear (and gas) through a public letter [ 65 ] or they pointed towards the importance of nuclear energy for CO2 neutrality in Europe [ 66 ]. Additionally, a group of MEPs formulated a letter to the EC in support of the inclusion [ 67 ]. One expression of a group of states against the inclusion was through a letter that was sent by 5 environmental ministers from Germany, Denmark, Luxemburg, Austria and Spain [ 68 ]. The letter summarized various critical points towards the decision at this stage of the process. First it opposed the JRC decision by arguing that “ nuclear power is a high-risk technology and wind energy is not ” [ 69 ]. This is a reaction to the findings of the JRC which stated that nuclear energy does not do more significant harm than other energy types included in the EU Taxonomy [ 56 ]. Furthermore, the letter argued that the decision to include nuclear power will harm the credibility of the EU Taxonomy [ 68 ]. This storyline corresponds to the actual intention of the EU Taxonomy to provide guidance for private investments in sustainable activities. The argument is here that if nuclear (and gas) are included, investors will continue to have uncertainty regarding sustainable investments which defeats the whole purpose of the EU Taxonomy [ 45 ]. The engagement of German environmental minister Svenja Schulze in this letter also shed light on the conflict between the German Economic Ministry and the Environmental Ministry regarding the role of gas in the taxonomy. This conflict was not solved until the new election in September 2021 which resulted in an overall inactive position of the German government regarding the delegated act including nuclear and gas [ 70 ]. Furthermore, Austria and Luxemburg announced that they would file a lawsuit before the European Court of Justice against a possible decision to include nuclear energy into the taxonomy [ 71 ]. After the German parliamentary elections in September 2021, while the traffic light coalition was still forming, the acting government under Chancellor Angela Merkel refrained from taking an active stand against the inclusion of nuclear power into the taxonomy during the European Council meeting and instead advocated for a rapid inclusion of the new taxonomy with nuclear and gas [ 71 ]. In a press conference, Merkel herself argued that it is very complicated to take action against the delegated act since it requires a majority of 20 out of the 27 member states to stop such an act on the European Council level [ 72 ]. In the aftermath of the council meeting, the president of the EC, Ursula von der Leyen announced that gas and nuclear are a requirement for the EU if it wants to pursue a low-carbon economy. Additionally, the French president Emmanuel Macron advocated strongly for the use of nuclear energy and its role for climate change mitigation [ 73 ]. Meanwhile, the coalition talks in Germany were affected, not so much by the question which role nuclear energy should play, but by the role of gas in the taxonomy. While the green party advocated against the inclusion, the social democrats were in favour. This resulted in an overall neutral or inactive official position of the forming government regarding the delegated act since both energy types were supposed to be included in a combined way [ 74 ]. Despite this state of abeyance, the green ministers of the new government formulated their opposition against the looming decision to include nuclear [ 75 ]. Furthermore, von der Leyen took matters regarding the delegated act including nuclear and gas in her own hands which was another sign for the high political dimension of the decision within the EU [ 76 ]. The announcement of the inclusion of nuclear energy by the European Commission On the 1st of January 2022 the European Commission then announced the Complementary Delegated Act to the EU taxonomy including nuclear energy as complying with Article 10(2) of the taxonomy regulation and hence granting it the character of a transitional activity [ 77 , p. 10]. In order to justify this decision, the European Commission argued that a technical assessment of nuclear energy was carried out by the JRC which came to a positive conclusion. Thus, a more detailed impact assessment would not be needed [ 78 , p. 5]. After the announcement of the complementary delegated act including nuclear and gas into the taxonomy, the German government was divided regarding the opposition to the act. While the government spokesperson emphasized the legal capability of the EC to regulate in this regard, the ministers of the green party announced that they would join the lawsuit of Luxemburg and Austria if a further challenge of the legal aspects has a chance of success [ 71 ]. This again showed the power play behind the inclusion of nuclear energy with Germany not opposing the act with all means because the inclusion of gas was tied to the inclusion of nuclear in the EU Taxonomy. In terms of criticism to the decision, it was argued that climate neutrality in the EU is under threat if nuclear and gas are now included [ 44 ]. Additionally, voices from the financial sphere were concerned because a taxonomy including gas and nuclear might undermine investors trust into the taxonomy and lead to lower financial volumes for sustainable economic activities [ 78 ]. Furthermore, EU parliamentarians announced to veto the delegated act in the EU parliament [ 44 ]. Finally, the politicization of the process was criticized and it was argued that nation state power play triumphs over the idea of a taxonomy which reflects sustainability after biophysical realities [ 43 ]. Nuclear proponents mostly welcomed the decision although some voices emphasized that nuclear energy should be more than a transition technology as currently displayed in the taxonomy. Furthermore, stricter regulations regarding nuclear waste and the use of ‘accident tolerant fuel’ by 2025 were criticized as well [ 79 ]. The start of the war and the vote in the EU parliament The Russian invasion of Ukraine also had impacts on the nuclear energy discourse. The war caught the EU in a situation where a major energy transition towards renewables and low-carbon energy generation should take place. Now, the need for more independence from Russian fossil fuel imports and especially gas became important [ 80 ]. In this regard, the argument arose that nuclear energy should now play an even larger role within the EU in order to ensure energy security. However, this argument is rather focusing on the long-term perspective. Due to long planning and construction times of new nuclear power plants the energy type is not able to immediately contribute to the current energy crunch in the EU [ 80 ]. After the decision on the inclusion of nuclear energy into EU taxonomy by the European Commission the debate now evolved around the remaining hurdles, namely the pending confirmation by the EU parliament and the member states. While the confirmation by the member states is not considered to be a major hurdle since 20 of the 27 member states would have to oppose the decision, the confirmation by the EU parliament is less certain as the opinion on nuclear energy varies within different factions and groups [ 44 ]. Furthermore, some trade unions across Europe urged the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to not vote against the delegated act, labelling the delegated act as “best compromise that could be reached” [ 81 ]. On the 14th of June 2022 two European Parliament committees (Environment and Economic) voted against the delegated act thus in favour of excluding nuclear and gas from the taxonomy [ 82 ]. However, on the 6th of July 2022 in a historic vote on the delegated act the European Parliament decided to not object the delegated act, therefore labelling nuclear and gas as green [ 83 ]. The vote was preceded by an intense debate on the role of gas with the argument that labelling gas sustainable would benefit Russia. Furthermore, the import of Uranium from Russia played a role in the discussion. Voices from the Ukrainian side indicated first an opposition against the delegated act, however on the 5th of July the Ukrainian Minister of Energy expressed support for the delegated act and suggested its implementation [ 84 ]. Despite many voices against the inclusion from Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, the letter from the Ukrainian Minister was arguably the decisive moment where previously undecided MEPs decided to not veto against the delegated act [ 85 ]. In this regard, European Commissioner Maired McGuinness cited the letter from the Ukrainian minister: “I strongly believe that the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy is an important element of the energy security in Europe , especially with a view to replacing Russian gas ” [ 85 ]. As a response to the inclusion of nuclear and gas, environmental groups as well as Austria and Luxembourg challenged the decision legally [ 86 ]. The argument against the inclusion is mainly based on the DNSH principle and emphasizes that other environmental goals are significantly harmed for example due to the unclear perspective around nuclear waste and the usage of vast amounts of fresh water for nuclear power plants [ 87 ]. Although the final decision in court is still pending, the inclusion of nuclear energy has already international impacts. In the South Korean taxonomy draft, nuclear energy was first excluded and then included again with specific reference to the decision in the EU Taxonomy [ 88 ]. This is just one example which underlines the far-reaching consequences of this highly contested political decision. Conclusion In this paper the question which narratives and key events accompanied the decision process to include nuclear energy into the EU Taxonomy was examined. To this end a narrative discourse analysis was conducted which aims at the extraction of storylines, key events, the institutional setup (arena) and their actors. In terms of methods, the analysis in this paper was based on the examination of media articles and expert interviews. It became clear through the analysis of the process that the question whether nuclear energy should be labelled sustainable was negotiated and discussed in a highly political context. A major finding of this paper is that the discourse on nuclear energy is a highly polarized one which leaves little room for mediating positions, especially in the context of how the topic is discussed through media and expert discussions. Proponents and opponents of nuclear energy used various arguments to support or discredit nuclear energy and its future role. Key events structured and changed the discourse, which was at first dominated by arguments around sustainability and the use of nuclear energy for decarbonization. With the intensification of the process and the report by the JRC, the general discussion around the sustainability of nuclear energy stagnated while the process-related and political discussion became more important. The Russian aggression against Ukraine marked a key shift in the discourse with new arguments and motives appearing in favour or against the inclusion of nuclear energy. Furthermore, the question why nuclear energy was finally included cannot be solved without the focus on the political interests of the EU member states, especially France and Germany. While France and other likeminded European countries advocated actively for the inclusion of nuclear energy, Germany chose to not to oppose this decision to their fullest capability, which is connected to the ambition of several German actors to include gas into the taxonomy. Thus, the decision to stay rather passive besides rhetorical opposition through statements marked an active political stand for the taxonomy in the current version. Fierce opposition to the inclusion of nuclear energy only came from environmental organisations as well as Luxemburg and Austria who decided to challenge the decision in court after the European Parliament did not object to the delegated act. To conclude, this paper shed light on a specific process within the implementation of the EU Taxonomy with the attempt to contribute to the literature around sustainable finance regulation. It is paramount for the economic transformation to have reliable sources of sustainable finance and the question what is actually sustainable is prone to political contestation. Although, the final decision as to whether ‘greenwashing’ practices are alleviated or institutionalized though the EU Taxonomy is left to the reader, this paper showed that further research on discourses around sustainable finance regulation from a social science perspective is required. Possible future directions could include the examination of discourses around other regulation processes as well as the international impact of regulations such as the EU Taxonomy. Abbreviations EU European Union PRI Principles for Responsible Investment ESG Environmental, Social, Governance EC European Commission JRC Joint Research Centre IEA International Energy Agency IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change INPRO International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles TSC Technical Screening Criteria DNSH Do No Significant Harm Principle TEG Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance CO2e CO2 equivalents SMRs Small Modular Reactors SCHEER The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks TEG31 Group of Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty MEPs Members of the European Parliament Declarations Ethics Approval and consent to participate All interviewees expressed consent to participate and that the content of the interview can be used in a paraphrased way as well as that they appear anonymized in the paper. More on ethical questions can be found in the interview guideline provided in Appendix A. Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The analysed media articles are provided in Appendix B. Competing Interests The author declares that he has no competing interest. Funding The author received funding from the research project ‘Glocalpower’ at the University of Kassel, funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education (BMBF). Furthermore, the author received funding from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy gGmbH. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the paper. The author would also like to thank the interviewees for their substantial contributions and insights to this paper. References Leins, Stefan (2020) ‘Responsible Investment’: ESG and the Post-Crisis Ethical Order. Economy and Society 49(1): 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2020.1702414 . Lindenberg, Nannette (2014) Definition of Green Finance. German Development Institute: 3. https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/Lindenberg_Definition_green_finance.pdf . Kahlenborn, Walter et al. (2017) Defining “Green” in the Context of Green Finance. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/sustainable_finance/pdf/studies/Defining Green in green finance - final report published on eu website.pdf (accessed 9 January 2024). Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (2016) Green Finance and Climate Finance. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung: International Politics G20 Themes: 1–5. Yu, Ellen Pei yi, Bac Van Luu, and Catherine Huirong Chen (2020) Greenwashing in Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures. Research in International Business and Finance 52 (September 2019): 101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192 . Pimonenko, Tetyana et al (2020) Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(4): 1–15. European Commission (2020a) Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32020R0852 (accessed 11 October 2023). Alessi, Lucia, Stefano Battiston, Ana Sofia Melo, and Alan Roncoroni (2019) JRC118663 JRC Research Center Technical Reports. The EU Sustainability Taxonomy: A Financial Impact Assessment. Nicolás, Elena Sánchez (2019) EU Reaches Deal to Define ‘Sustainable Investment. https://euobserver.com/green-economy/146949 (accessed 20 October 2023). ISO (2020) News Building a Framework for a Sustainable Future. (January): 1–5. https://www.iso.org/news/ref2469.html . Greenpeace (2021) Nuclear Industry Ties Call EU Research Body ’ s Impartiality into Question. https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45537/nuclear-industry-ties-call-eu-research-bodys-impartiality-into-question/ (accessed 9 January 2024). Schneider, Mycle, and Antony Froggatt (2020) The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2020. https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry -Status-Report-2020-.html (accessed 12 October 2023). Nuclear Engineering International (2021) European Union Say Nuclear Must Be Part of European Taxonomy. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newseuropean-union-say-nuclear-must-be-part-of-european-taxonomy-8500431 (accessed 20 October 2023). Tarasova, Ekaterina (2018) (Non-) Alternative Energy Transitions: Examining Neoliberal Rationality in Official Nuclear Energy Discourses of Russia and Poland. Energy Research and Social Science 41 (June 2017): 128–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.008 . Verbruggen, Aviel, and Erik Laes (2015) Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Power: Discourse Analysis of IAEA and IPCC Frameworks. Environmental Science and Policy 51: 170–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.011 . Hajer, Maarten A. (1997) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (Oxford, 1997; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Nov. 2003), https://doi.org/10.1093/019829333X.001.0001 (accessed 8 January 2024). Viehöver, Willy (2001) Diskurse Als Narrationen. Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse - Band 1: Theorien Und Methoden, eds. Reiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland, Werner Schneider, and Willy Viehöver., 177–206. Kurze, Kristina (2018) Die Etablierung der Energiepolitik für Europa: Policy-Making in der EU aus konstruktivistisch-diskursiver Perspektive. Springer. Mather-Gratton, Zachary James, Søren Larsen, and Niclas Scott Bentsen (2021) Understanding the Sustainability Debate on Forest Biomass for Energy in Europe: A Discourse Analysis. Plos One 16(2): e0246873. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246873 . Keller, Reiner (2011) Diskursforschung: Eine Einführung Für SozialwissenschaftlerInnen. Springer 4. Auflage. Hajer, Maarten, and Wytske Versteeg (2005) A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7(3): 175–185. Fisher, Walter R. (1985) The Narrative Paradigm: In the Beginning. Journal of Communication 35(4): 74–89. Somers, Margaret R. (1994) The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach Author. Theory and Society 23(5): 605–649. Viehöver, Willy (2004) Die Wissenschaft Und Die Wiederverzauberung Des Sublunaren Raumes. Der Klimadiskurs Im Licht Der Narrativen Diskursanalyse. Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse - Band 2: Forschungspraxis, eds. Reiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland, Werner Schneider, and Willy Viehöver., 233–70. Reyes, Angela and Stanton Wortham (2017) Discourse Analysis Across Events. Discourse and Education, 71–84, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7_7 . Hajer, Maarten (2006) Doing Discourse Analysis: Coalitions, Practices, Meaning. Words Matter in Policy and Planning: Discourse Theory and Method in Social Sciences. Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harré (1990) Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1): 43–63. Leipprand, Anna, Christian Flachsland, and Michael Pahle (2020) Starting Low, Reaching High? Sequencing in EU Climate and Energy Policies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 37 (August): 140–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.006 . Wilson, Mark (2019) The Green Economy: The Dangerous Path of Nature Commoditization. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development 21: 86–99. Gustafsson, Karin M (2013) Environmental Discourses and Biodiversity: The Construction of a Storyline in Understanding and Managing an Environmental Issue. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 10(1): 39–54. Fischer, Klara, Tove Stenius, and Sara Holmgren (2020) Swedish Forests in the Bioeconomy: Stories from the National Forest Program. Society and Natural Resources 33(7): 896–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1725202 . Giurca, Alexandru. 2020. Unpacking the Network Discourse: Actors and Storylines in Germany’s Wood-Based Bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics 110(May): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.009 . Matthews, Tony, and Gregory Marston (2019) How Environmental Storylines Shaped Regional Planning Policies in South East Queensland, Australia: A Long-Term Analysis. Land Use Policy 85(March): 476–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.042 . Ortega Alvarado, Isaac Arturo, Thomas Edward Sutcliffe, Thomas Berker, and Ida Nilstad Pettersen (2021) Emerging Circular Economies: Discourse Coalitions in a Norwegian Case. Sustainable Production and Consumption 26: 360–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.011 . Markard, Jochen, Adrian Rinscheid, and Linda Widdel (2021) Analyzing Transitions through the Lens of Discourse Networks: Coal Phase-out in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 40(April): 315–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.08.001 . Markard, Jochen, Steffen Wirth, and Bernhard Truffer (2016) Institutional Dynamics and Technology Legitimacy - A Framework and a Case Study on Biogas Technology. Research Policy 45(1): 330–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.009 . Bern, Mari R., and Georg Winkel. 2013. Nuclear Reaction to Climate Change? Comparing Discourses on Nuclear Energy in France and Germany. Methodologie Und Praxis Der Wissenssoziologischen Diskursanalyse, 283–314. Funcke, S., and C. Ruppert-Winkel (2020) Storylines of (de)Centralisation: Exploring Infrastructure Dimensions in the German Electricity System. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121(November 2019): 109652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109652 . European Commission (2021) Corporate Sustainability Reporting. https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en (October 1, 2021) (accessed 11 October 2023). European Commission (2020) FAQ about the Work of the European Commission and the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance on EU TAXONOMY & EU GREEN BOND STANDARD. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/200610-sustainable-finance-teg-taxonomy-green-bond-standard-faq_en.pdf (accessed 11 October 2023). Watson Farley & Williams (2021) The EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Investments - Energy. https://www.wfw.com/articles/the-eu-taxonomy-for-sustainable-investments-energy/ (accessed 11 October 2023). European Commission (2022) DRAFT COMMISSION NOTICE on the interpretation and implementation of certain legal provisions of the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act establishing technical screening criteria for economic activities that contribute substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and do no significant harm to other environmental objective. https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/law/221219-draft-commission-notice-eu-taxonomy-climate.pdf (accessed 11 October 2023). Thurm, Ralph (2022) Die Geister, die man rief: Wie die EU- Taxonomie sich ad absurdum führt. https://background.tagesspiegel.de/sustainable-finance/die-geister-die-man-rief-wie-die-eu-taxonomie-sich-ad-absurdum-fuehrt (accessed 11 October 2023). Brussels, Marina Strauss (2022) EU declares nuclear and gas to be green. https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990 (accessed 11 October 2023). Interview with Member of Advisory Committee with regard to the EU Taxonomy. Date: 9 September 2021. Simon, Frédéric (2021) The Green Brief: Europe’s Green Finance Taxonomy Wars, Part 3. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/the-green-brief-europes-green-finance-taxonomy-wars-part-3/ (accessed 11 October 2023). Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (2020) Taxonomy Report: Technical Annex. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-03/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-taxonomy-annexes_en.pdf (accessed 12 October 2023). Atlantic Council (2021) Raising Ambitions The Role of Nuclear Energy in Meeting Climate Goals. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/raising-ambitions-the-role-of-nuclear-energy-in-meeting-climate-goals/ (accessed 12 October 2023). Mraz, Gabriele and Patricia Lorenz (2020) Nuclear Energy and the EU Taxonomy. https://ecology.at/files/pr912_1.pdf (accessed 12 October 2023). Garbil, Roger (2020) Euratom Research and Training in 2019: challenges, achievements and future perspectives. https://www.epj-n.org/articles/epjn/full_html/2020/01/epjn190027/epjn190027.html (accessed 12 October 2023). Interview with Nuclear Lobbyist. Date: 26 October 2021. Interview with Nuclear Industry Expert. Date: 13 July 2021. Costes, Philippe (2020) Viewpoint: The actions of the EU Taxonomy jeopardise its ambitions. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewpoint-The-actions-of-the-EU-Taxonomy-jeopardiz (accessed 12 October 2023). Interview with Expert of Nuclear Engineering from Academia. Date: 5 October 2021. Simon, Frédéric (2021) Nuclear Faces ‘ a Lot of Uncertainty ’ as EU Green Evaluation Looms. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuclear-faces-a-lot-of-uncertainty-as-eu-green-evaluation-looms/ (accessed 19 October 2023). Joint Research Centre (2021) Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the ‘ Do No Significant Harm ’ Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’). JRC Science for Policy Report, JRC124193 852: 387. Schulz, Florence (2020) EU Commission Criticised for Its Reporting on Nuclear Energy ’ s Sustainability. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-commission-criticised-for-its-reporting-on-nuclear-energys-sustainability/ (accessed 19 October 2023). World Nuclear News (2020) JRC to Assess Nuclear ’ s Inclusion in EU Taxonomy. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/JRC-to-assess-nuclears-inclusion-in-EU-Taxonomy (accessed 19 October 2023). O’Sullivan, Kevin (2021) Greenpeace warns European Commission on nuclear energy classification. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/greenpeace-warns-european-commission-on-nuclear-energy-classification-1.4529442 (accessed 19 October 2023). Interview with Anti Nuclear Lobbyist. Date: 11 November 2021. Judd, Victoria, Elina Teplinsky, and Vincent Zabielski (2021) EU Returns to Science-Based Decision-Making in Landmark Nuclear Report. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/eu-returns-to-science-based-decision-making-in-landmark-nuclear-report.html (accessed 19 October 2023). World Nuclear News (2021) Nuclear to Be Included in Delegated Act of EU Taxonomy. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-to-be-included-in-Delegated-Act-of-EU-taxo (accessed 19 October 2023). SCHEER (2021) SCHEER Review of the JRC Report on Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’). https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/210629-nuclear-energy-jrc-review-scheer-report_en.pdf (accessed 19 October 2023). Group of Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty (2021) Opinion of the Group of Experts Referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty on the Joint Research Centre’s Report Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’). https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/opinion_of_article_31_goe_on_the_jrc_report_28_june_2021_0.pdf (accessed 19 October 2023). Djunisic, Sladjana (2021) Eight EU Leaders Unsuccessful at Delaying EC’s Green Taxonomy – Report. https://renewablesnow.com/news/eight-eu-leaders-unsuccessful-at-delaying-ecs-green-taxonomy-report-738727/ (accessed 19 October 2023). Nijhuis, Charlotte (2021) France, Germany at Odds over Role of Nuclear in EU Sustainable Taxonomy. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/france-germany-odds-over-role-nuclear-eu-sustainable-taxonomy (accessed 19 October 2023). Group of MEPs (2021) Letter: Nuclear Energy in the Taxonomy Regulation. https://world-nuclear-news.org/BlankSiteASPX/media/WNNImported/uploadedFiles/MEPLetter_nuclear-power-and-taxonomy.pdf (accessed 19 October 2023). Schulze, Svenja et al (2021) Letter to the European Commission. https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/07/Joint-ministerial-letter_AT_DE_DK_LU_ES.pdf (accessed 19 October 2023). Simon, Frederic (2021) Germany leads call to keep nuclear out of EU green finance taxonomy. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/germany-leads-call-to-keep-nuclear-out-of-eu-green-finance-taxonomy/ (accessed 19 October 2023). Becker, Markus, Ralf Neukirch, and Gerald Traufetter (2022) Wie Berliner Regierungschaos Macrons Atomerfolg Ermöglichte. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/eu-taxonomie-chaos-in-merkel-regierung-ermoeglichte-frankreichs-atomkraft-erfolg-a-77be5daa-191b-4d1c-b0f8-3e370c423ac4 (accessed 19 October 2023). Gordon, Jamie (2022) EU Taxonomy Faces Legal Dispute as Member States Oppose Inclusion of Gas and Nuclear. https://www.etfstream.com/news/eu-taxonomy-faces-legal-dispute-as-member-states-oppose-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear/ (accessed 19 October 2023). Merkel, Angela (2021) Pressekonferenz von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel Nach Dem Europäischen Rat Am 22. Oktober 2021 in Brüssel. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/archiv/pressekonferenz-von-bundeskanzlerin-merkel-nach-dem-europaeischen-rat-am-22-oktober-2021-in-bruessel-1971034 (accessed 19 October 2023). Dalton, David and Kamen Kraev (2021) Europe / Commission President Von Der Leyen Says EU Needs Nuclear Power. https://www.nucnet.org/news/commission-president-von-der-leyen-says-eu-needs-nuclear-power-10-2-2021 (accessed 19 October 2023). Kurmayer, Nikolaus J. (2021) German Coalition Talks Stumble over Role of Gas in EU Taxonomy. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-coalition-talks-stumble-over-role-of-gas-in-eu-taxonomy/ (accessed 20 October 2023). Nietfeld, Kay (2021) Habeck Pocht Auf Nein Zur Atomkraft. https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article235775158/EU-Plaene-Habeck-pocht-auf-Nein-zur-Atomkraft.html (accessed 20 October 2023). Simon, Frédéric, and Kira Taylor (2021) Gas and Nuclear: Fate of EU Green Taxonomy ‘Now in the Hands of von Der Leyen.’ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/gas-and-nuclear-fate-of-eu-green-taxonomy-now-in-the-hands-of-von-der-leyen/ (accessed 20 October 2023). European Commission (2022) Commission Delegated Act (EU) of 9.3.2022 Amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as Regards Economic Activities in Certain Energy Sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as Regards Specific Public Disclosures for Those Economic Activities. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1214 (accessed 20 October 2023). Laidlaw, Jennifer (2022) What the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the EU taxonomy could mean for investors and asset managers. https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/what-the-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-in-the-eu-taxonomy-could-mean-for-investors-and-asset-managers (accessed 20 October 2023). Nuclear Engineering International (2022) EC confirms nuclear and gas as part of European taxonomy. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsec-confirms-nuclear-and-gas-as-part-of-european-taxonomy-9458329/ (accessed 20 October 2023). Alderman, Liz and Stanley Reed (2022) Nuclear Power Could Help Europe Cut Its Russia Ties, but Not for Years. https://www.ekathimerini.com/nytimes/1183081/nuclear-power-could-help-europe-cut-its-russia-ties-but-not-for-years/ (accessed 20 October 2023). World Nuclear News (2022) EU taxonomy: Trade unions urge MEPs not to oppose plan. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EU-taxonomy-Trade-unions-urge-MEPs%C2%A0not-to-oppose (accessed 20 October 2023). European Parliament (2022) Taxonomy: MEPs object to Commission’s plan to include gas and nuclear activities. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220613IPR32812/taxonomy-meps-object-to-commission-s-plan-to-include-gas-and-nuclear-activities (accessed 20 October 2023). European Parliament (2022) Taxonomy: MEPs do not object to inclusion of gas and nuclear activities https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220701IPR34365/taxonomy-meps-do-not-object-to-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-activities (accessed 20 October 2023). Greenpeace (2022) Taxonomy: Ukrainian energy minister contradicts President Zelensky, Ukrainian MPs. https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/46316/taxonomy-ukrainian-energy-minister-contradicts-president-zelensky-ukrainian-mps/ (accessed 20 October 2023). Petrequin, Samuel and Raf Casert (2022) EU lawmakers back gas, nuclear energy as sustainable. https://apnews.com/article/climate-russia-ukraine-legislature-279f49878e8f288d721713cd01218b01 (accessed 20 October 2023). Hodgson, Camilla (2022) Challenge against EU ‘green’ label for gas and nuclear energy steps up. https://www.ft.com/content/42320458-dfeb-4f5e-9655-aba281cef662 (accessed 20 October 2023). Simmons + Simmons (2022) European Commission faces legal challenge to EU Taxonomy. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/cl96yg09s628w0a30jf7hywis/european-commission-faces-legal-challenge-to-eu-taxonomy (accessed 20 October 2023). Kim, Hyun-Woo (2023) Climate and Energy Policies of Korea: Current State and Challenges. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/seoul/20665.pdf (accessed 10 January 2023). Footnotes The details on the TSCs are layed out in Section 4 of the two Annexes to the taxonomy regulation. Furthermore, details of other sections are relevant, such as Section 3 on the manufacturing of renewable energy technologies or energy efficiency [ 47 ]. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixAInterviews.docx AppendixBDocumentsforAnalysis.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Dec, 2024 Read the published version in Energy, Sustainability and Society → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 07 Feb, 2024 Reviews received at journal 25 Jan, 2024 Reviews received at journal 25 Jan, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Jan, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Jan, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 22 Jan, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 22 Jan, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 18 Jan, 2024 First submitted to journal 10 Jan, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3850703","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":267884098,"identity":"9ba615a3-6d5e-463d-a869-b9c21aa77de2","order_by":0,"name":"Carsten Elsner","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carsten","middleName":"","lastName":"Elsner","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-10 15:14:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850703/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850703/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00500-0","type":"published","date":"2024-12-27T15:57:50+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":72641142,"identity":"4c3affe6-42ba-42da-9bce-361892427bd3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-30 16:11:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":974450,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3850703/v1/986e64c9-1191-4bff-b06d-9a2668873270.pdf"},{"id":49968274,"identity":"4b173ad7-2e2b-476d-89a5-5ea0155146fb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-22 12:43:34","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":16950,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixAInterviews.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3850703/v1/aa7c5394e403de2e9e12b82c.docx"},{"id":49968273,"identity":"4dc4e8de-066b-45cd-9bcf-b86df63ae650","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-22 12:43:34","extension":"xlsx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":23409,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixBDocumentsforAnalysis.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3850703/v1/0f7bab62a900d80529224cad.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Alleviating or institutionalizing greenwashing? – The inclusion of nuclear energy into the EU taxonomy from a narrative discourse perspective","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe green new deal is the answer of the EU commission to the ongoing climate crisis. In order to further institutionalize the Paris agreement in the European Union, the so-called EU taxonomy is promised to be a key cornerstone through which financial means are directed towards green and sustainable goals. With the growing interest in this issue, the call for a clear and binding definition of green finance gets more attention. Moreover, the taxonomy pledges to reduce greenwashing, help decarbonizing the EU economy and thus meet the 2050 net zero emission goal. While starting off with a certain enthusiasm carried by the pledges of the Green New Deal, criticism towards issues framed as technical such as the recent inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy have been raised.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorporate as well as retail investors look for investment opportunities entailing some form of sustainability, while companies adopt sustainable strategies and improve their communication regarding corporate social responsibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. However, with the growing interest in this issue, the call for a clear and binding definition of green finance gets more attention [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. In this regard many, mostly private and international actors proposed some form of standard for sustainable or green financial activities, which resulted in a confusing array of different guidelines and standards. The concepts with the biggest outreach in the field in recent years are the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria for sustainable investment decisions. Furthermore, with the greater international call for green activities, a discourse around the phenomena of window-dressing and greenwashing among firms and financial actors evolved [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, some governmental entities have therefore seen the need to start their own more serious efforts for standardizing green financial activity, with the hope for a great push in mobilizing green financial resources through the obligational character of binding standards. Thus, the green new deal is the answer of the EU commission to the ongoing climate crisis including the promise to provide standards for sustainable finance through the EU taxonomy. Furthermore, the taxonomy intends to reduce greenwashing, help decarbonizing the EU economy and thus meet the 2050 net zero goal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Developed through a stakeholder process, supervised by the European Commission, the taxonomy promises to provide clear definitions for assessing whether an economic activity can be considered as sustainable. The taxonomy will then underpin more specific efforts in the standardisation of green finance, such as the planned EU Ecolabel on Retail Financial Products, or the EU Green Bond Standard [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. As such, the taxonomy will have widespread economic implications not only for the economic sectors and entities within the EU but also beyond. The taxonomy puts other countries under pressure to come up with an own approach it they want to have a voice in global harmonization processes for green finance which are already starting [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. While starting off with a certain enthusiasm carried by the pledges of the green new deal, criticism towards issues such as the recent inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy have been raised. One line of critique questions the EC\u0026rsquo;s decision to assign the task of evaluating the sustainability of nuclear energy to the Joint Research Centre (JRC) on the ground of its structural ties to nuclear deployment in Europe starting with the Euratom Treaty in 1957 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Another layer of critique unfolds around the significantly higher levelized costs of electricity compared to renewables [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, p. 269]. While opponents thus question the sustainability and environmental safety of nuclear energy, proponents point towards the low-carbon electricity generation of nuclear energy and its contribution to climate mitigation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Simultaneously to the contestations on nuclear, raised in the context of Chernobyl and Fukushima, a \u0026ldquo;nuclear renaissance\u0026rdquo; rhetoric appeared at the start of the 2000s mostly pushed by the associated industry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. The discourses on accelerated climate change and energy transitions fed this rhetoric further and thus proponents of nuclear energy often point at the contributions of nuclear to climate mitigation. This perspective is also shared by the IEA, the IAEA and the IPCC who have influential power over global energy decisions. Furthermore, the IAEA and the IPCC engaged in a framework for assessing the sustainability of nuclear energy called INPRO [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, p. 174]. The INPRO effectively assumes prior to the assessment that nuclear energy is needed and therefore the sustainability issue is reduced to best practice scenarios of nuclear energy systems while a more comprehensive approach for assessing sustainability is still missing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, p. 175\u0026ndash;178].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this regard, it is the object of this paper to ask \u003cb\u003ewhich narratives and key events accompanied the decision process to include nuclear energy into the EU Taxonomy\u003c/b\u003e and thus analyse how the view that nuclear energy is sustainable in the EU Taxonomy became hegemonic. Although, the final decision was arguably a result of the power structure and the position among countries within the EU and especially between France and Germany, the result was not certain throughout the process, which makes the analysis of the discourse and its storylines insightful. This will be done by examining the discourse around this contested issue, the institutional structure in which the reform takes place and finally the narratives and storylines which may legitimize or delegitimize the inclusion of nuclear energy. In this regard, a narrative discourse analysis will be employed focusing storylines as a signifier for narratives in the discourse [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Through the combination of expert interviews as well as text analysis of media reports and official publications, this paper will shed also light on questions of inclusion or exclusion of certain topics and groups in the discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is a rich tradition of research on discourses, which exists across many forms and disciplines. According to Keller [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], there are four distinct features of discourses which are shared among researchers: First, discourse theories and discourse analyses engage in the use of language and other forms of symbolic interactions which can be found in social practices. Second, discourse researchers acknowledge that the actual meaning of phenomena reflected through language is socially constructed. Third, single interpretations are part of a larger discourse structure. This structure can be subject to change, while it is created and temporarily stabilized by the specific institutional context in which the discourse happens. Fourth, discourse researchers assume that the use of language follows distinct rules which can be analysed and reconstructed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, p. 9].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this regard, one of the most important features in the research on discourses is the aspect that the meanings of certain phenomena are socially constructed. Hajer and Versteeg [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, p. 175] define discourses \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;as an ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e. As such, the practices through which a discourse takes place, differ with the context and the topic of the specific discourse and they can be used to construct identity among the actors involved [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. According to Vieh\u0026ouml;ver [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, p. 283] discursive actors and especially mass media have the capacity to transform the meaning of narrations and select certain aspects while dropping others. As such a certain narrative can deviate from the previous intentions of the actors which put it in the place at first. The analysis of mass media publications should therefore be in the centre of an analysis focusing on public discourses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, key events can have a decisive effect on a discourse since narratives may change or even vanish as a consequence to an event [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The Russian attack on Ukraine provides a good example for such an event as it changed the way in which the discourse on nuclear energy sustainability and subsequently also affected the narratives in use. Therefore, a discourse analysis along events can deepen the understanding about the twists and turns of political processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStorylines are a condensed form of narrations for example in the form of a sentence or a catch phrase commonly used to simplify and order complex narratives often in the context of limited time or space to lay out a narrative in detail [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, p. 69]. The concept of storylines was first introduced by Davies and Harr\u0026eacute; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] and re-used and shaped by Hajer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. They are \u0026lsquo;flags\u0026rsquo; of identification under which different actors can rally up and form discourse coalitions which are defined as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;the ensemble of (1) a set of story-lines; (2) the actors who utter these story-lines; and (3) the practices in which this discursive activity is based\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, p.65]. In line with social constructionism, the assumption behind storylines is that they provide agency through the simplification of complex discursive systems and the narratives within. Thus, storylines can be understood as giving condensed definitions of problems which functions as a tool to compete in discourses over a specific topic [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, p.69]. The way people talk about certain phenomena in the form of storylines is also a reflection of the power relationships in this particular sphere [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, p. 57]. If everybody agrees implicitly through their articulations on a certain mode of talking about things, thus following a particular storyline, this narration can be considered as dominant. In this regard, the term \u003cem\u003ediscourse structuration\u003c/em\u003e applies, when actors follow a certain mode of talking about a problem in order to remain their credibility in the discourse [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, p. 61] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, p. 3]. An example here would be the widespread acknowledgement of climate change and the need for decarbonization in the wording of actors in energy discourses. However, there are actors who define this as a problem of management that can be solved through technical solutions (eco-modernist perspective) while others define it as a problem of our economic mode (capitalism) which has to be changed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. This example shows that different definitions of the same problem lead to different possible pathways of political change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStorylines can be a key element of political change and have direct impact on politics if they reach a certain degree of dominance in a discourse [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, pp. 56, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e]. However, this does not imply that actors using similar storylines do so by necessarily sharing the same understanding of it. On the contrary, Hajer and Versteeg point out that the \u0026lsquo;effect of misunderstanding\u0026rsquo; is a major reason why political coalitions form in the first place [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, p. 177]. Storylines can appear in various forms such as metaphors, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;analogies, historical references, clich\u0026eacute;s, appeals to collective fears or senses of guilt\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, p. 63]. Actors may also decide to challenge a certain storyline through an alternative way of talking about a particular issue. With reference to the non-existence of actors who fully understand all aspects of the acid rain issue, Hajer argues that the \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;political power of a text is not derived from its consistency (\u0026hellip;) but comes from multi-interpretability\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, p. 61]. This means first that narrative instruments such as metaphors subsuming a particular issue can provide more discursive power and impact than a detailed but long analysis of a certain issue. Second, this also means that actors can offer different and conflicting explanations to a single event. In this regard, discourses in the political sphere usually do not happen between independent individuals, but they are rather embedded in the institutional structure in which the discourse takes place [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, p. 57\u0026ndash;58].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the case of the taxonomy this allows for two basic observations. First, the emergence of the taxonomy highlights the aspect of institutional reproduction and change through actual discursive practices, within the exacerbated discourse on climate change and the Paris agreement. Second, the process of defining specific technical issues happens within an established institutional sphere granting scientific neutrality to a research centre, which has a long history in nuclear safety research. This example further underlines the importance of analysing storylines and narrations with regard to the actors who engage in discourses within an institutional structure. Hence, if a theoretical concept or an idea translates into a concrete policy, the term \u003cem\u003ediscourse institutionalization\u003c/em\u003e applies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, p. 61].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSo far, the analysis of storylines in the environmental sphere has reached a new degree of popularity among researchers in recent years and there are certain distinct features which have been established in the literature over time. One feature is the research focus on different understandings of a single term, such as biodiversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] or sustainability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Another feature already introduced by Hajer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] includes the actual extraction of a number of different storylines. Those can range from 3 different storylines in the case of the biomass discourse in Europe [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], 5 storylines in the case of the Swedish forest-based bioeconomy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], to 6 storylines in the case of Germany\u0026rsquo;s forest-based bioeconomy which are further subcategorized [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] or even 7 storylines in the case of regional planning policies in South East Queensland, Australia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. Another feature is the allocation of actors to different discourse coalitions which happened in a discourse analysis on circular economies in Norway [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Discourse analysis and the role of storylines are also getting more attention in the sphere of transition studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, p. 316]. In this regard, the creation of legitimacy for a certain technology through the domination of transition discourses becomes important as legitimacy is a vital key for the access to \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;mobilize financial, human and material resources as well as regulatory support\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, p. 330].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith reference to nuclear energy, Markard et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, p. 331] point out that the technological legitimacy faced ups and downs in various time periods and regions. In this regard, Bern and Winkel [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] argue that discourses on nuclear energy show regional differences usually depending on the degree of institutionalisation of pro- or anti-nuclear positions. While the anti-nuclear movement in Germany achieved a certain degree of institutionalisation of their positions, the French movement remained politically marginalized [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, p. 285]. Thus, legitimacy for the technology only remained stable in France, where anti-nuclear positions could not be institutionalized.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":" \u003cp\u003eIn terms of methods, this paper consists of a combination of text analysis and expert interviews. The methodology is a simplified version employed from the procedure developed by Hajer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] motivated by the application by Funcke and Ruppert-Winkel [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. In a first step, relevant documents regarding the case of nuclear energy under the EU taxonomy are identified through web-based research using the search terms \u0026ldquo;EU taxonomy nuclear energy\u0026rdquo;. More than 100 documents have been identified including mostly web-based news articles from various media platforms as well as policy statements. A list of all documents will be provided in the annex of the paper. In step two, those documents are analysed in order to get an overview of the research field and first indications of storylines that are used. After the document analysis a first list of key events and storylines was generated and then translated into interview questions for the in-depth interviews. In the interviews the meaning of certain events for actors and their position towards the issue of nuclear energy were in the research focus [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. The anonymity of the interview participants was assured and consent for recording and usage of the material was requested prior to the start of the interview. The full list of ethical and interview questions is provided in the annex.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimultaneously the web-based research for documents continued with a specific focus on argumentative exchange in the form of questions or debates in the environment of the European parliament and the EC. Afterwards, all documents including the transcripts of interviews were analysed. Finally, the interpretation followed, in which the arguments, the line of key events and the actors in the contestation on the inclusion or exclusion of nuclear energy under the EU taxonomy are brought in an interpretative order. From this point, the main pro- and anti-nuclear storylines are derived which are displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Results and Discussion: The EU taxonomy and the role of nuclear energy","content":" \u003cp\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088\u0026rdquo; entered officially into force on 12 July 2020 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. This regulation abbreviated as EU Taxonomy was developed with the attempt to provide a definition for whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable or not. Furthermore, the taxonomy is intertwined with regulations on environmental disclosure among firms such as the Non-Financial Reporting Directive and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. To further standardise financial behaviour, the EU taxonomy will underpin more specific attempts such as the EU Ecolabel for Retail Financial products and the EU Green Bond Standard.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBut how does the taxonomy actually intends to work? In this regard, the regulation entails four essential criteria for economic activities, which (1) should contribute to at least one of six environmental objectives, (2) must not significantly harm any other environmental objective (DNSH), (3) should comply with minimum safeguards, and (4) should comply with technical screening criteria [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Under point (1) the taxonomy includes six environmental objectives which are (a) climate change mitigation, (b) climate change adaption, (c) the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, (d) the transition to a circular economy, (e) pollution prevention and control, (f) the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, p. 17]. In order to measure the taxonomy alignment of an economic activity with a certain environmental objective, technical screening criteria (TSC) are currently being developed. The work on the TSCs is most advanced with regard to the first two environmental objectives \u0026ldquo;climate change mitigation\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;climate change adaptation\u0026rdquo; and will enter into force by 1st January 2022, while the TSCs for the other four objectives are still under development and will apply one year later on 1st January 2023 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, p. 20]. In essence, the TSCs will provide the detailed thresholds to determine whether an economic activity is sustainable in the sense that it \u0026ldquo;contributes substantially\u0026rdquo; to an environmental objective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, p. 5]. Categories form another important part of the taxonomy as different technologies could be labelled with \u0026ldquo;substantial contribution\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;transition\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;enabling\u0026rdquo;. In this regard, substantial contribution means that the economic activity substantially contributes to at least one environmental objective while fulfilling the DNSH principle, the social safeguards and the specific technical screening criteria. Meanwhile, an economic activity is considered to be transitional if there are no other more sustainable, technically and economically feasible options available in the specific sector. Additionally, a transitional activity must not lead to a lock-in of high carbon assets and must not interfere with the development of more sustainable options. Finally, an activity is enabling if it is a direct pre-condition for other activities that substantially contribute to one of the environmental objectives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the Technical Expert Group on sustainable Finance (TEG) was responsible for developing the TSCs for the first two environmental objectives, the Platform on sustainable Finance (platform) is now responsible for the development of the TSCs for the remaining four objectives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. After receiving the advice on the TSCs either by the TEG or the platform, the commission then updates the regulation through delegated acts, which will also be used in the future, when the taxonomy may be updated towards more stringent criteria. This provides the possibility to rule out certain economic activities which were initially taxonomy-aligned [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. In this regard, the work of the TEG or the platform provides potential for influencing the TSCs in different ways. The current approach towards the evaluation of sustainability regarding various energy types is technology agnostic and has an initial emission threshold of 100g CO2e/kWh [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. This threshold will then be reviewed and reduced every 5 years in order to achieve net-zero CO2e in 2050 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e].\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e With regard to the thresholds in general, some argue that the TEG made the mistake to already lay the foundation for political contestation through the politicization of the thresholds themselves in their reports. Thus, the thresholds were not solely understood as being bound to biophysical realities but rather to be treated as objects of future political interest considerations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the institutional setup of the EU Taxonomy sets the scene in which the discourse around nuclear energy happens. The European Commission is entitled to update the existing law on the EU taxonomy at a later stage through so-called \u003cem\u003edelegated acts\u003c/em\u003e in order to implement the detailed TSCs which are not finally developed yet [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. These delegated acts are sub-legal processes which should supplement the EU Taxonomy law and have specific rules for acceptance. After the EC adopted the delegated act, the European Parliament and the Council can object this decision. Only if a majority of 20 member states vote against the delegated act and/or if the European Parliament vetoes the delegated act with a majority of its members, it is rejected [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. This is especially important in contested cases such as the question of nuclear energy or gas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulating the energy sector in the EU taxonomy \u0026ndash; the case of nuclear energy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe development of the EU taxonomy is a very complex and detailed process and as such cannot be layed out within the boundaries of a scientific paper. However, the process of the inclusion of nuclear energy can illustrate the development of a specific aspect with the taxonomy and thus sheds light on the discourses and interests behind the development of the EU taxonomy. In this regard, this chapter will introduce the storylines that are used along the decision-making process. Within this process several key events structured and changed the discourse on nuclear energy with its storylines and shaped the way in which actors argue. Thus, differences in the argumentation with regard to key events arose over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA general finding with regard to the discourse is that it happened in a highly polarized environment with proponents and opponents of nuclear energy as actors. While the lack of discursive arenas characterized the beginning of the discourse with scarce exchange between anti- and pro-nuclear positions who basically dropped arguments through the media without listening to one another, the discourse became more driven by political arguments carried out by actors in higher positions with more visibility as soon as a decision was looming [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, other factors such as the start of the war when Russia invaded Ukraine had a great impact especially on debates around energy security and geopolitical independency. In terms of the time span covered in this analysis, this paper will start with the blockade of the early version of the EU Taxonomy in December 2019 and end with the vote on the matter in the European Parliament in July 2022 and the direct reactions to it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Events and Storylines. Own Compilation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey event\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStoryline Proponents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStoryline Opponents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe blockade of the early version of the EU Taxonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Positive contribution to climate change mitigation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear waste issue well managed and regulated\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; New technologies (transmutation, SMRs)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Climate change mitigation requires both: Nuclear and renewables\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Provision of finance for nuclear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Carbon-intensive in life cycle\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear waste issue not solved, no long-term repository\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; New technologies nascent and too late to contribute\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Safety problems and risk of serious incident\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear energy not competitive and very expensive\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Long planning and construction phases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarch-June 2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe publication of the JRC, TEG and SCHEER reports\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; JRC decision is science-based and this enhances EU Taxonomy credibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Taxonomy should allow for technology neutrality\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear energy important for climate neutrality in 2050\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear does not do more significant harm than other energy types in taxonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; JRC is not objective and has strong ties to nuclear industry\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear lobby influenced decision process\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear energy fails to meet DNSH requirements\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; EU Taxonomy credibility is endangered\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear inclusion through delegated act is illegal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJanuary 2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe announcement of the inclusion of nuclear and gas into the EU Taxonomy through a delegated act\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Delegated act is a very good compromise\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear Energy should be more than a transition technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Regulation for nuclear is too strict in EU Taxonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Climate neutrality in the EU is under threat\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Credibility of EU Taxonomy in danger\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Path dependencies of nuclear (and gas)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Taxonomy is result of European powerplay and not biophysical realities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFebruary 2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStart of the Russian aggression against Ukraine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Nuclear energy ensures independence from Russian imports\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Reconstruction in Ukraine requires green label for nuclear and gas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Risk of serious incidents (war and nuclear power plants in Ukraine)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Green label for nuclear and gas supports Russian war efforts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuly 2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApproval by the European Parliament\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Announcement of filing a lawsuit (Austria and Luxembourg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; No compliance with DNSH principle (e.g. nuclear waste and use of fresh water)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe blockade of the early version of the EU taxonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbably one of the most important events in the early stages of the discourse was the blockade of a preliminary version of the EU taxonomy in mid-December 2019 by 9 member states [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. After intense negotiations a compromise was reached stating that the question on nuclear and gas should be decided at a later stage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. This decision had big impacts on the publication of the final TEG report in March 2020. The blockade of the early version of the EU taxonomy which intended to exclude nuclear and gas in principle from the taxonomy was mainly orchestrated by nine member states (France, UK, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia). The compromise was then to neither include nor exclude nuclear energy from the taxonomy at this stage and rather evaluate the contested issue on the basis of the contribution to one environmental objective and the DNSH principle [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. The EC originally appointed the task to evaluate taxonomy alignment for the first two environmental objectives to the Technical Expert Group on sustainable finance (TEG) formed in July 2018. In the technical annex to the final report, the TEG argued that nuclear energy could contribute to climate mitigation. However, the TEG also stated that nuclear energy cannot fulfil the DNSH requirements especially due to the lack of a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eviable, safe and long-term underground repository\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e for nuclear waste anywhere in the world [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, p. 210]. The TEG thus concluded that they cannot recommend the inclusion of nuclear energy at this stage and more technical work on the issue is required [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, p. 211]. Furthermore, with regard to nuclear energy the TEG did not evaluate the whole life cycle and limited itself to the aspect of carbon intensity during the energy generation. The reason was that the TEG realized early that the question of gas and nuclear in the EU taxonomy would become very political so they refrained from evaluating this question in detail and rather focused on other less controversial aspects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite the concern about the looming political character, the TEG report fuelled the contestation on nuclear energy since the technical annex argued that more research with regard to the DNSH and especially on the fifth environmental objective (circular economy) is required [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, p. 208]. Additionally, the technical annex mentioned that in the feedback round to the report by the TEG, some stakeholders expressed their wish for a stronger acknowledgement and inclusion of nuclear energy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, p. 208]. As the discussion intensified over the case of nuclear energy, the task was drawn away from the TEG in with regard to nuclear energy and gas. The EC then decided in September 2020 to mandate the JRC with the role to evaluate whether nuclear energy is sustainable enough to be taxonomy aligned [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, p. 13].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith regard to the general sustainability discussion, a major storyline in favour of nuclear energy is its \u003cb\u003epositive contribution to climate mitigation\u003c/b\u003e as a low-carbon energy source and the inability to reach the climate targets without nuclear energy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. In terms of sustainable finance regulation, this argument continues further in stating that \u003cb\u003efinance for nuclear energy needs to be provided\u003c/b\u003e in a reliable manner also by private investors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Even in these early stages of the discourse this perspective was challenged by opponents of nuclear energy with the argument that \u003cb\u003efrom a life cycle perspective, nuclear energy was not carbon-free\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, p. 18]. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the \u003cb\u003enuclear waste issue is still not solved and there is no long-term depository\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. This perspective was challenged by proponents who argued that \u003cb\u003ethe nuclear waste sector is highly regulated and well managed\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, proponents of nuclear energy argued that \u003cb\u003enew technologies like transmutation\u003c/b\u003e and the widespread deployment of \u003cb\u003esmall modular reactors (SMRs)\u003c/b\u003e can provide a clean and safe energy source. These technologies promise answers to two major problems of the nuclear sector, first the issue on nuclear waste (transmutation) and second the high costs due to the current inability to deploy blueprinted nuclear power plants on an industrial scale. One of the main arguments against the inclusion has been the \u003cb\u003esafety problems regarding radioactivity\u003c/b\u003e and the \u003cb\u003epossibility for a serious incident\u003c/b\u003e. The second and closely related argument evolves around the problem of \u003cb\u003eprocessing nuclear waste\u003c/b\u003e since no long-term solution is in place this stage anywhere in the world [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, Schneider and Froggatt [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, p. 269] point out that \u003cb\u003enuclear energy is far more expensive\u003c/b\u003e than Coal, Gas, Solar or Wind. Nuclear energy with its \u003cb\u003elong construction phases\u003c/b\u003e and their \u003cb\u003enascent technologies\u003c/b\u003e like SMRs and transmutation is \u003cb\u003etoo late\u003c/b\u003e to play a major party in combatting climate change when those technologies are expected to reach maturity and industrial scalability in several decades [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith regard to the second process-related discussion the focus was now on the actual credibility of the JRC to make an objective recommendation. As mentioned before, opponents of nuclear energy argued that the \u003cb\u003eJRC has strong ties with the nuclear industry\u003c/b\u003e and its institutional structure within the EU since the establishment of the Euratom Treaty in 1957 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. On the other hand, proponents applauded to the EC decision to appoint the JRC with the evaluation and argued that it is imperative for the credibility of the \u003cb\u003eEU Taxonomy to be based on science\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, it was argued that the only effective way to slow down climate change is to \u003cb\u003erely on both, nuclear energy and renewables while phasing out fossil fuels\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe publication of the JRC, TEG and Scheer reports\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile there was little discussion about the comparatively low emissions caused by nuclear energy during the energy generation process, it is the major task of the JRC to evaluate whether it is possible to handle nuclear waste in a safe way. The important aspect here are the aforementioned DNSH requirements, which ensure that the economic activity of producing energy through atomic fission does not significantly harm any environmental objective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. The JRC then published their \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the \u0026lsquo;do no significant harm\u0026rsquo; criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (\u0026lsquo;Taxonomy Regulation\u0026rsquo;)\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e in late March 2021. Essentially the report concluded that nuclear energy does not do more environmental or health related harm than other energy sources which are already taxonomy aligned [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e, p. 7].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis case functions as a good illustration for the multi-interpretability aspect of storylines as mentioned earlier in Hajer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, p. 61]. While proponents emphasize the \u003cb\u003eneutral and science-based position of the research institute\u003c/b\u003e, this view is challenged by opponents who argue that the \u003cb\u003eJRC cannot be neutral\u003c/b\u003e due to its long history of nuclear safety research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, different storylines attempted to condense the narratives around nuclear energy, in order to either legitimize or undermine the JRC report which can also be understood as a political attempt to influence the decision-making process on the sustainability controversy regarding nuclear energy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis decision shaped the discourse in the sense that it became more prominent and accessible through mass media. The JRC report was now the main focal point and opponents of nuclear energy argued that this decision was made due to \u003cb\u003eheavy lobbying by nuclear proponents\u003c/b\u003e and emphasized that civil society organisations should have been included in the evaluation study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. After the decision to mandate the JRC with a report on nuclear energy and the taxonomy, the storyline of \u003cb\u003escience-based reasoning\u003c/b\u003e was also used, e.g. through headlines such as: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;EU Returns to Science-Based Decision-Making in Landmark Nuclear Report\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e]. This argument should first underline the integrity and objectivity of the JRC report and second suggests that debates before were largely driven by emotional subjectivity rather than scientific reasoning. Another argument is made in terms of \u003cb\u003etechnological neutrality\u003c/b\u003e. Nuclear proponents argue that an exclusion of nuclear energy would lead to a disadvantage against other energy types and hence to \u003cb\u003emarket distortion\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowed by the JRC report two other groups were tasked with an evaluation of the taxonomy alignment of nuclear energy: The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) and the Group of Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty (TEG31) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. The latter report broadly confirmed the evaluation of the JRC report and thus the taxonomy alignment of nuclear energy against one opposing opinion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. While the SCHEER report confirmed the results as well, they formulated doubts about the comparative approach of the JRC report with other energy types in terms of the DNSH principle. Instead, a more nuanced evaluation on the impacts of nuclear energy on the 6 environmental objectives would be needed especially in terms of a circular economy and in the lights of the early stage of nuclear waste recycling which is not operative on an industrial scale at the moment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, p. 12]. It has to be noted that this evaluation did not take place until this moment in a form which would have direct impact on the decision process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, on the state level, a pro-nuclear faction which consisted mostly of France, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia articulated their interests. They either expressed their \u003cb\u003econcerns about the delayed decision on nuclear (and gas)\u003c/b\u003e through a public letter [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e] or they pointed towards the \u003cb\u003eimportance of nuclear energy for CO2 neutrality in Europe\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, a group of MEPs formulated a letter to the EC in support of the inclusion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e]. One expression of a group of states against the inclusion was through a letter that was sent by 5 environmental ministers from Germany, Denmark, Luxemburg, Austria and Spain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]. The letter summarized various critical points towards the decision at this stage of the process. First it opposed the JRC decision by arguing that \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003enuclear power is a high-risk technology and wind energy is not\u003c/b\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e]. This is a reaction to the findings of the JRC which stated that nuclear energy does not do more significant harm than other energy types included in the EU Taxonomy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, the letter argued that \u003cb\u003ethe decision to include nuclear power will harm the credibility of the EU Taxonomy\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]. This storyline corresponds to the actual intention of the EU Taxonomy to provide guidance for private investments in sustainable activities. The argument is here that if nuclear (and gas) are included, investors will continue to have uncertainty regarding sustainable investments which defeats the whole purpose of the EU Taxonomy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe engagement of German environmental minister Svenja Schulze in this letter also shed light on the conflict between the German Economic Ministry and the Environmental Ministry regarding the role of gas in the taxonomy. This conflict was not solved until the new election in September 2021 which resulted in an overall inactive position of the German government regarding the delegated act including nuclear and gas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, Austria and Luxemburg announced that they would file a lawsuit before the European Court of Justice against a possible decision to include nuclear energy into the taxonomy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the German parliamentary elections in September 2021, while the traffic light coalition was still forming, the acting government under Chancellor Angela Merkel refrained from taking an active stand against the inclusion of nuclear power into the taxonomy during the European Council meeting and instead advocated for a rapid inclusion of the new taxonomy with nuclear and gas [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e]. In a press conference, Merkel herself argued that it is very complicated to take action against the delegated act since it requires a majority of 20 out of the 27 member states to stop such an act on the European Council level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e]. In the aftermath of the council meeting, the president of the EC, Ursula von der Leyen announced that gas and nuclear are a requirement for the EU if it wants to pursue a low-carbon economy. Additionally, the French president Emmanuel Macron advocated strongly for the use of nuclear energy and its role for climate change mitigation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e]. Meanwhile, the coalition talks in Germany were affected, not so much by the question which role nuclear energy should play, but by the role of gas in the taxonomy. While the green party advocated against the inclusion, the social democrats were in favour. This resulted in an overall neutral or inactive official position of the forming government regarding the delegated act since both energy types were supposed to be included in a combined way [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite this state of abeyance, the green ministers of the new government formulated their opposition against the looming decision to include nuclear [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, von der Leyen took matters regarding the delegated act including nuclear and gas in her own hands which was another sign for the high political dimension of the decision within the EU [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe announcement of the inclusion of nuclear energy by the European Commission\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the 1st of January 2022 the European Commission then announced the Complementary Delegated Act to the EU taxonomy including nuclear energy as complying with Article 10(2) of the taxonomy regulation and hence granting it the character of a transitional activity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e, p. 10]. In order to justify this decision, the European Commission argued that a technical assessment of nuclear energy was carried out by the JRC which came to a positive conclusion. Thus, a more detailed impact assessment would not be needed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e, p. 5]. After the announcement of the complementary delegated act including nuclear and gas into the taxonomy, the German government was divided regarding the opposition to the act. While the government spokesperson emphasized the legal capability of the EC to regulate in this regard, the ministers of the green party announced that they would join the lawsuit of Luxemburg and Austria if a further challenge of the legal aspects has a chance of success [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e]. This again showed the power play behind the inclusion of nuclear energy with Germany not opposing the act with all means because the inclusion of gas was tied to the inclusion of nuclear in the EU Taxonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of criticism to the decision, it was argued that \u003cb\u003eclimate neutrality in the EU is under threat\u003c/b\u003e if nuclear and gas are now included [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, voices from the financial sphere were concerned because a taxonomy including gas and nuclear might \u003cb\u003eundermine investors trust into the taxonomy\u003c/b\u003e and lead to lower financial volumes for sustainable economic activities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, EU parliamentarians announced to \u003cb\u003eveto the delegated act in the EU parliament\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Finally, the \u003cb\u003epoliticization of the process was criticized\u003c/b\u003e and it was argued that nation state power play triumphs over the idea of a taxonomy which reflects sustainability after biophysical realities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNuclear proponents mostly welcomed the decision although some voices emphasized that \u003cb\u003enuclear energy should be more than a transition technology\u003c/b\u003e as currently displayed in the taxonomy. Furthermore, stricter regulations regarding nuclear waste and the use of \u0026lsquo;accident tolerant fuel\u0026rsquo; by 2025 were criticized as well [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe start of the war and the vote in the EU parliament\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Russian invasion of Ukraine also had impacts on the nuclear energy discourse. The war caught the EU in a situation where a major energy transition towards renewables and low-carbon energy generation should take place. Now, the need for \u003cb\u003emore independence from Russian fossil fuel imports\u003c/b\u003e and especially gas became important [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e]. In this regard, the argument arose that nuclear energy should now play an even larger role within the EU in order to ensure energy security. However, this argument is rather focusing on the long-term perspective. Due to long planning and construction times of new nuclear power plants the energy type is not able to immediately contribute to the current energy crunch in the EU [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the decision on the inclusion of nuclear energy into EU taxonomy by the European Commission the debate now evolved around the remaining hurdles, namely the pending confirmation by the EU parliament and the member states. While the confirmation by the member states is not considered to be a major hurdle since 20 of the 27 member states would have to oppose the decision, the confirmation by the EU parliament is less certain as the opinion on nuclear energy varies within different factions and groups [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, some trade unions across Europe urged the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to not vote against the delegated act, labelling the \u003cb\u003edelegated act as \u0026ldquo;best compromise that could be reached\u0026rdquo;\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the 14th of June 2022 two European Parliament committees (Environment and Economic) voted against the delegated act thus in favour of excluding nuclear and gas from the taxonomy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e]. However, on the 6th of July 2022 in a historic vote on the delegated act the European Parliament decided to not object the delegated act, therefore labelling nuclear and gas as green [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e]. The vote was preceded by an intense debate on the role of gas with the argument that labelling gas sustainable would benefit Russia. Furthermore, the import of Uranium from Russia played a role in the discussion. Voices from the Ukrainian side indicated first an opposition against the delegated act, however on the 5th of July the Ukrainian Minister of Energy expressed support for the delegated act and suggested its implementation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite many voices against the inclusion from Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, the letter from the Ukrainian Minister was arguably the decisive moment where previously undecided MEPs decided to not veto against the delegated act [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e]. In this regard, European Commissioner Maired McGuinness cited the letter from the Ukrainian minister: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I strongly believe that the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the taxonomy is an\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003eimportant element of the energy security in Europe\u003c/b\u003e, \u003cem\u003eespecially with a view to\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003ereplacing Russian gas\u003c/b\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e]. As a response to the inclusion of nuclear and gas, environmental groups as well as Austria and Luxembourg challenged the decision legally [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e]. The argument against the inclusion is mainly based on the DNSH principle and emphasizes that \u003cb\u003eother environmental goals are significantly harmed\u003c/b\u003e for example due to the \u003cb\u003eunclear perspective around nuclear waste\u003c/b\u003e and the \u003cb\u003eusage of vast amounts of fresh water for nuclear power plants\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the final decision in court is still pending, the inclusion of nuclear energy has already international impacts. In the South Korean taxonomy draft, nuclear energy was first excluded and then included again with specific reference to the decision in the EU Taxonomy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e88\u003c/span\u003e]. This is just one example which underlines the far-reaching consequences of this highly contested political decision.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this paper the question which narratives and key events accompanied the decision process to include nuclear energy into the EU Taxonomy was examined. To this end a narrative discourse analysis was conducted which aims at the extraction of storylines, key events, the institutional setup (arena) and their actors. In terms of methods, the analysis in this paper was based on the examination of media articles and expert interviews. It became clear through the analysis of the process that the question whether nuclear energy should be labelled sustainable was negotiated and discussed in a highly political context. A major finding of this paper is that the discourse on nuclear energy is a highly polarized one which leaves little room for mediating positions, especially in the context of how the topic is discussed through media and expert discussions. Proponents and opponents of nuclear energy used various arguments to support or discredit nuclear energy and its future role. Key events structured and changed the discourse, which was at first dominated by arguments around sustainability and the use of nuclear energy for decarbonization. With the intensification of the process and the report by the JRC, the general discussion around the sustainability of nuclear energy stagnated while the process-related and political discussion became more important. The Russian aggression against Ukraine marked a key shift in the discourse with new arguments and motives appearing in favour or against the inclusion of nuclear energy. Furthermore, the question why nuclear energy was finally included cannot be solved without the focus on the political interests of the EU member states, especially France and Germany. While France and other likeminded European countries advocated actively for the inclusion of nuclear energy, Germany chose to not to oppose this decision to their fullest capability, which is connected to the ambition of several German actors to include gas into the taxonomy. Thus, the decision to stay rather passive besides rhetorical opposition through statements marked an active political stand for the taxonomy in the current version. Fierce opposition to the inclusion of nuclear energy only came from environmental organisations as well as Luxemburg and Austria who decided to challenge the decision in court after the European Parliament did not object to the delegated act.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo conclude, this paper shed light on a specific process within the implementation of the EU Taxonomy with the attempt to contribute to the literature around sustainable finance regulation. It is paramount for the economic transformation to have reliable sources of sustainable finance and the question what is actually sustainable is prone to political contestation. Although, the final decision as to whether \u0026lsquo;greenwashing\u0026rsquo; practices are alleviated or institutionalized though the EU Taxonomy is left to the reader, this paper showed that further research on discourses around sustainable finance regulation from a social science perspective is required. Possible future directions could include the examination of discourses around other regulation processes as well as the international impact of regulations such as the EU Taxonomy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEU \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;European Union\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePRI\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Principles for Responsible Investment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eESG\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Environmental, Social, Governance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEC \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;European Commission\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJRC \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Joint Research Centre\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIEA\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;International Energy Agency\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIAEA\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;International Atomic Energy Agency\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIPCC\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eINPRO\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTSC\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Technical Screening Criteria\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDNSH\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Do No Significant Harm Principle\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTEG\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCO2e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;CO2 equivalents\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSMRs\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Small Modular Reactors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSCHEER\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The\u0026nbsp;Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTEG31\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Group of Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMEPs \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Members of the European Parliament\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics Approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll interviewees expressed consent to participate and that the content of the interview can be used in a paraphrased way as well as that they appear anonymized in the paper. More on ethical questions can be found in the interview guideline provided in Appendix A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysed media articles are provided in Appendix B.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that he has no competing interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author received funding from the research project \u0026lsquo;Glocalpower\u0026rsquo; at the University of Kassel, funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education (BMBF). Furthermore, the author received funding from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy gGmbH.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the paper. The author would also like to thank the interviewees for their substantial contributions and insights to this paper.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeins, Stefan (2020) \u0026lsquo;Responsible Investment\u0026rsquo;: ESG and the Post-Crisis Ethical Order. Economy and Society 49(1): 71\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2020.1702414\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03085147.2020.1702414\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindenberg, Nannette (2014) Definition of Green Finance. German Development Institute: 3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/Lindenberg_Definition_green_finance.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/Lindenberg_Definition_green_finance.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKahlenborn, Walter et al. (2017) Defining \u0026ldquo;Green\u0026rdquo; in the Context of Green Finance. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/sustainable_finance/pdf/studies/Defining\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/sustainable_finance/pdf/studies/Defining\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e Green in green finance - final report published on eu website.pdf (accessed 9 January 2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeinrich-B\u0026ouml;ll-Stiftung (2016) Green Finance and Climate Finance. Heinrich-B\u0026ouml;ll-Stiftung: International Politics G20 Themes: 1\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu, Ellen Pei yi, Bac Van Luu, and Catherine Huirong Chen (2020) Greenwashing in Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures. Research in International Business and Finance 52 (September 2019): 101192. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePimonenko, Tetyana et al (2020) Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(4): 1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission (2020a) Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32020R0852\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32020R0852\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlessi, Lucia, Stefano Battiston, Ana Sofia Melo, and Alan Roncoroni (2019) JRC118663 JRC Research Center Technical Reports. The EU Sustainability Taxonomy: A Financial Impact Assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicol\u0026aacute;s, Elena S\u0026aacute;nchez (2019) EU Reaches Deal to Define \u0026lsquo;Sustainable Investment. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://euobserver.com/green-economy/146949\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://euobserver.com/green-economy/146949\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eISO (2020) News Building a Framework for a Sustainable Future. (January): 1\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iso.org/news/ref2469.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iso.org/news/ref2469.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenpeace (2021) Nuclear Industry Ties Call EU Research Body \u0026rsquo; s Impartiality into Question. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45537/nuclear-industry-ties-call-eu-research-bodys-impartiality-into-question/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45537/nuclear-industry-ties-call-eu-research-bodys-impartiality-into-question/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 9 January 2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchneider, Mycle, and Antony Froggatt (2020) The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e-Status-Report-2020-.html (accessed 12 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNuclear Engineering International (2021) European Union Say Nuclear Must Be Part of European Taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.neimagazine.com/news/newseuropean-union-say-nuclear-must-be-part-of-european-taxonomy-8500431\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newseuropean-union-say-nuclear-must-be-part-of-european-taxonomy-8500431\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTarasova, Ekaterina (2018) (Non-) Alternative Energy Transitions: Examining Neoliberal Rationality in Official Nuclear Energy Discourses of Russia and Poland. Energy Research and Social Science 41 (June 2017): 128\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerbruggen, Aviel, and Erik Laes (2015) Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Power: Discourse Analysis of IAEA and IPCC Frameworks. Environmental Science and Policy 51: 170\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHajer, Maarten A. (1997) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (Oxford, 1997; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Nov. 2003), \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/019829333X.001.0001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/019829333X.001.0001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 8 January 2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVieh\u0026ouml;ver, Willy (2001) Diskurse Als Narrationen. Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse - Band 1: Theorien Und Methoden, eds. Reiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland, Werner Schneider, and Willy Vieh\u0026ouml;ver., 177\u0026ndash;206.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKurze, Kristina (2018) Die Etablierung der Energiepolitik f\u0026uuml;r Europa: Policy-Making in der EU aus konstruktivistisch-diskursiver Perspektive. Springer.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMather-Gratton, Zachary James, S\u0026oslash;ren Larsen, and Niclas Scott Bentsen (2021) Understanding the Sustainability Debate on Forest Biomass for Energy in Europe: A Discourse Analysis. Plos One 16(2): e0246873. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246873\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dx.plos.10.1371/journal.pone.0246873\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeller, Reiner (2011) Diskursforschung: Eine Einf\u0026uuml;hrung F\u0026uuml;r SozialwissenschaftlerInnen. Springer 4. Auflage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHajer, Maarten, and Wytske Versteeg (2005) A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7(3): 175\u0026ndash;185.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFisher, Walter R. (1985) The Narrative Paradigm: In the Beginning. Journal of Communication 35(4): 74\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSomers, Margaret R. (1994) The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach Author. Theory and Society 23(5): 605\u0026ndash;649.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVieh\u0026ouml;ver, Willy (2004) Die Wissenschaft Und Die Wiederverzauberung Des Sublunaren Raumes. Der Klimadiskurs Im Licht Der Narrativen Diskursanalyse. Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse - Band 2: Forschungspraxis, eds. Reiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland, Werner Schneider, and Willy Vieh\u0026ouml;ver., 233\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReyes, Angela and Stanton Wortham (2017) Discourse Analysis Across Events. Discourse and Education, 71\u0026ndash;84, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7_7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7_7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHajer, Maarten (2006) Doing Discourse Analysis: Coalitions, Practices, Meaning. Words Matter in Policy and Planning: Discourse Theory and Method in Social Sciences.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harr\u0026eacute; (1990) Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1): 43\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeipprand, Anna, Christian Flachsland, and Michael Pahle (2020) Starting Low, Reaching High? Sequencing in EU Climate and Energy Policies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 37 (August): 140\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson, Mark (2019) The Green Economy: The Dangerous Path of Nature Commoditization. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development 21: 86\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGustafsson, Karin M (2013) Environmental Discourses and Biodiversity: The Construction of a Storyline in Understanding and Managing an Environmental Issue. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 10(1): 39\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischer, Klara, Tove Stenius, and Sara Holmgren (2020) Swedish Forests in the Bioeconomy: Stories from the National Forest Program. Society and Natural Resources 33(7): 896\u0026ndash;913. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1725202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08941920.2020.1725202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiurca, Alexandru. 2020. Unpacking the Network Discourse: Actors and Storylines in Germany\u0026rsquo;s Wood-Based Bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics 110(May): 1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.forpol.2018.05.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatthews, Tony, and Gregory Marston (2019) How Environmental Storylines Shaped Regional Planning Policies in South East Queensland, Australia: A Long-Term Analysis. Land Use Policy 85(March): 476\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.042\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.042\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrtega Alvarado, Isaac Arturo, Thomas Edward Sutcliffe, Thomas Berker, and Ida Nilstad Pettersen (2021) Emerging Circular Economies: Discourse Coalitions in a Norwegian Case. Sustainable Production and Consumption 26: 360\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkard, Jochen, Adrian Rinscheid, and Linda Widdel (2021) Analyzing Transitions through the Lens of Discourse Networks: Coal Phase-out in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 40(April): 315\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.08.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eist.2021.08.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkard, Jochen, Steffen Wirth, and Bernhard Truffer (2016) Institutional Dynamics and Technology Legitimacy - A Framework and a Case Study on Biogas Technology. Research Policy 45(1): 330\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBern, Mari R., and Georg Winkel. 2013. Nuclear Reaction to Climate Change? Comparing Discourses on Nuclear Energy in France and Germany. Methodologie Und Praxis Der Wissenssoziologischen Diskursanalyse, 283\u0026ndash;314.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFuncke, S., and C. Ruppert-Winkel (2020) Storylines of (de)Centralisation: Exploring Infrastructure Dimensions in the German Electricity System. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121(November 2019): 109652. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109652\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rser.2019.109652\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission (2021) Corporate Sustainability Reporting. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (October 1, 2021) (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission (2020) FAQ about the Work of the European Commission and the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance on EU TAXONOMY \u0026amp; EU GREEN BOND STANDARD. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/200610-sustainable-finance-teg-taxonomy-green-bond-standard-faq_en.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/200610-sustainable-finance-teg-taxonomy-green-bond-standard-faq_en.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatson Farley \u0026amp; Williams (2021) The EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Investments - Energy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.wfw.com/articles/the-eu-taxonomy-for-sustainable-investments-energy/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.wfw.com/articles/the-eu-taxonomy-for-sustainable-investments-energy/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission (2022) DRAFT COMMISSION NOTICE on the interpretation and implementation of certain legal provisions of the EU Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act establishing technical screening criteria for economic activities that contribute substantially to climate change mitigation or climate change adaptation and do no significant harm to other environmental objective. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/law/221219-draft-commission-notice-eu-taxonomy-climate.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/law/221219-draft-commission-notice-eu-taxonomy-climate.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThurm, Ralph (2022) Die Geister, die man rief: Wie die EU- Taxonomie sich ad absurdum f\u0026uuml;hrt. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://background.tagesspiegel.de/sustainable-finance/die-geister-die-man-rief-wie-die-eu-taxonomie-sich-ad-absurdum-fuehrt\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://background.tagesspiegel.de/sustainable-finance/die-geister-die-man-rief-wie-die-eu-taxonomie-sich-ad-absurdum-fuehrt\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrussels, Marina Strauss (2022) EU declares nuclear and gas to be green. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInterview with Member of Advisory Committee with regard to the EU Taxonomy. Date: 9 September 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimon, Fr\u0026eacute;d\u0026eacute;ric (2021) The Green Brief: Europe\u0026rsquo;s Green Finance Taxonomy Wars, Part 3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/the-green-brief-europes-green-finance-taxonomy-wars-part-3/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/the-green-brief-europes-green-finance-taxonomy-wars-part-3/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 11 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTechnical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (2020) Taxonomy Report: Technical Annex. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-03/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-taxonomy-annexes_en.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-03/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-taxonomy-annexes_en.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 12 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtlantic Council (2021) Raising Ambitions The Role of Nuclear Energy in Meeting Climate Goals. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/raising-ambitions-the-role-of-nuclear-energy-in-meeting-climate-goals/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/raising-ambitions-the-role-of-nuclear-energy-in-meeting-climate-goals/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 12 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMraz, Gabriele and Patricia Lorenz (2020) Nuclear Energy and the EU Taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ecology.at/files/pr912_1.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ecology.at/files/pr912_1.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 12 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarbil, Roger (2020) Euratom Research and Training in 2019: challenges, achievements and future perspectives. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.epj-n.org/articles/epjn/full_html/2020/01/epjn190027/epjn190027.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.epj-n.org/articles/epjn/full_html/2020/01/epjn190027/epjn190027.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 12 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInterview with Nuclear Lobbyist. Date: 26 October 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInterview with Nuclear Industry Expert. Date: 13 July 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCostes, Philippe (2020) Viewpoint: The actions of the EU Taxonomy jeopardise its ambitions. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewpoint-The-actions-of-the-EU-Taxonomy-jeopardiz\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Viewpoint-The-actions-of-the-EU-Taxonomy-jeopardiz\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 12 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInterview with Expert of Nuclear Engineering from Academia. Date: 5 October 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimon, Fr\u0026eacute;d\u0026eacute;ric (2021) Nuclear Faces \u0026lsquo; a Lot of Uncertainty \u0026rsquo; as EU Green Evaluation Looms. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuclear-faces-a-lot-of-uncertainty-as-eu-green-evaluation-looms/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/nuclear-faces-a-lot-of-uncertainty-as-eu-green-evaluation-looms/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJoint Research Centre (2021) Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the \u0026lsquo; Do No Significant Harm \u0026rsquo; Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (\u0026lsquo;Taxonomy Regulation\u0026rsquo;). JRC Science for Policy Report, JRC124193 852: 387.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchulz, Florence (2020) EU Commission Criticised for Its Reporting on Nuclear Energy \u0026rsquo; s Sustainability. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-commission-criticised-for-its-reporting-on-nuclear-energys-sustainability/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-commission-criticised-for-its-reporting-on-nuclear-energys-sustainability/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Nuclear News (2020) JRC to Assess Nuclear \u0026rsquo; s Inclusion in EU Taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/JRC-to-assess-nuclears-inclusion-in-EU-Taxonomy\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/JRC-to-assess-nuclears-inclusion-in-EU-Taxonomy\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Sullivan, Kevin (2021) Greenpeace warns European Commission on nuclear energy classification. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/greenpeace-warns-european-commission-on-nuclear-energy-classification-1.4529442\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/greenpeace-warns-european-commission-on-nuclear-energy-classification-1.4529442\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInterview with Anti Nuclear Lobbyist. Date: 11 November 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJudd, Victoria, Elina Teplinsky, and Vincent Zabielski (2021) EU Returns to Science-Based Decision-Making in Landmark Nuclear Report. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/eu-returns-to-science-based-decision-making-in-landmark-nuclear-report.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/eu-returns-to-science-based-decision-making-in-landmark-nuclear-report.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Nuclear News (2021) Nuclear to Be Included in Delegated Act of EU Taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-to-be-included-in-Delegated-Act-of-EU-taxo\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-to-be-included-in-Delegated-Act-of-EU-taxo\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSCHEER (2021) SCHEER Review of the JRC Report on Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the \u0026lsquo;Do No Significant Harm\u0026rsquo; Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (\u0026lsquo;Taxonomy Regulation\u0026rsquo;). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/210629-nuclear-energy-jrc-review-scheer-report_en.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/210629-nuclear-energy-jrc-review-scheer-report_en.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGroup of Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty (2021) Opinion of the Group of Experts Referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty on the Joint Research Centre\u0026rsquo;s Report Technical Assessment of Nuclear Energy with Respect to the \u0026lsquo;Do No Significant Harm\u0026rsquo; Criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (\u0026lsquo;Taxonomy Regulation\u0026rsquo;). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/opinion_of_article_31_goe_on_the_jrc_report_28_june_2021_0.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/opinion_of_article_31_goe_on_the_jrc_report_28_june_2021_0.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDjunisic, Sladjana (2021) Eight EU Leaders Unsuccessful at Delaying EC\u0026rsquo;s Green Taxonomy \u0026ndash; Report. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://renewablesnow.com/news/eight-eu-leaders-unsuccessful-at-delaying-ecs-green-taxonomy-report-738727/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://renewablesnow.com/news/eight-eu-leaders-unsuccessful-at-delaying-ecs-green-taxonomy-report-738727/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNijhuis, Charlotte (2021) France, Germany at Odds over Role of Nuclear in EU Sustainable Taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/france-germany-odds-over-role-nuclear-eu-sustainable-taxonomy\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/france-germany-odds-over-role-nuclear-eu-sustainable-taxonomy\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGroup of MEPs (2021) Letter: Nuclear Energy in the Taxonomy Regulation. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://world-nuclear-news.org/BlankSiteASPX/media/WNNImported/uploadedFiles/MEPLetter_nuclear-power-and-taxonomy.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://world-nuclear-news.org/BlankSiteASPX/media/WNNImported/uploadedFiles/MEPLetter_nuclear-power-and-taxonomy.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchulze, Svenja et al (2021) Letter to the European Commission. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/07/Joint-ministerial-letter_AT_DE_DK_LU_ES.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/07/Joint-ministerial-letter_AT_DE_DK_LU_ES.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimon, Frederic (2021) Germany leads call to keep nuclear out of EU green finance taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/germany-leads-call-to-keep-nuclear-out-of-eu-green-finance-taxonomy/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/germany-leads-call-to-keep-nuclear-out-of-eu-green-finance-taxonomy/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBecker, Markus, Ralf Neukirch, and Gerald Traufetter (2022) Wie Berliner Regierungschaos Macrons Atomerfolg Erm\u0026ouml;glichte. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/eu-taxonomie-chaos-in-merkel-regierung-ermoeglichte-frankreichs-atomkraft-erfolg-a-77be5daa-191b-4d1c-b0f8-3e370c423ac4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/eu-taxonomie-chaos-in-merkel-regierung-ermoeglichte-frankreichs-atomkraft-erfolg-a-77be5daa-191b-4d1c-b0f8-3e370c423ac4\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGordon, Jamie (2022) EU Taxonomy Faces Legal Dispute as Member States Oppose Inclusion of Gas and Nuclear. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.etfstream.com/news/eu-taxonomy-faces-legal-dispute-as-member-states-oppose-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.etfstream.com/news/eu-taxonomy-faces-legal-dispute-as-member-states-oppose-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerkel, Angela (2021) Pressekonferenz von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel Nach Dem Europ\u0026auml;ischen Rat Am 22. Oktober 2021 in Br\u0026uuml;ssel. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/archiv/pressekonferenz-von-bundeskanzlerin-merkel-nach-dem-europaeischen-rat-am-22-oktober-2021-in-bruessel-1971034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/archiv/pressekonferenz-von-bundeskanzlerin-merkel-nach-dem-europaeischen-rat-am-22-oktober-2021-in-bruessel-1971034\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDalton, David and Kamen Kraev (2021) Europe / Commission President Von Der Leyen Says EU Needs Nuclear Power. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.nucnet.org/news/commission-president-von-der-leyen-says-eu-needs-nuclear-power-10-2-2021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.nucnet.org/news/commission-president-von-der-leyen-says-eu-needs-nuclear-power-10-2-2021\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 19 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKurmayer, Nikolaus J. (2021) German Coalition Talks Stumble over Role of Gas in EU Taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-coalition-talks-stumble-over-role-of-gas-in-eu-taxonomy/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/german-coalition-talks-stumble-over-role-of-gas-in-eu-taxonomy/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNietfeld, Kay (2021) Habeck Pocht Auf Nein Zur Atomkraft. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article235775158/EU-Plaene-Habeck-pocht-auf-Nein-zur-Atomkraft.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article235775158/EU-Plaene-Habeck-pocht-auf-Nein-zur-Atomkraft.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimon, Fr\u0026eacute;d\u0026eacute;ric, and Kira Taylor (2021) Gas and Nuclear: Fate of EU Green Taxonomy \u0026lsquo;Now in the Hands of von Der Leyen.\u0026rsquo; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/gas-and-nuclear-fate-of-eu-green-taxonomy-now-in-the-hands-of-von-der-leyen/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/gas-and-nuclear-fate-of-eu-green-taxonomy-now-in-the-hands-of-von-der-leyen/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission (2022) Commission Delegated Act (EU) of 9.3.2022 Amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as Regards Economic Activities in Certain Energy Sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as Regards Specific Public Disclosures for Those Economic Activities. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1214\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R1214\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaidlaw, Jennifer (2022) What the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the EU taxonomy could mean for investors and asset managers. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/what-the-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-in-the-eu-taxonomy-could-mean-for-investors-and-asset-managers\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/what-the-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-in-the-eu-taxonomy-could-mean-for-investors-and-asset-managers\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNuclear Engineering International (2022) EC confirms nuclear and gas as part of European taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsec-confirms-nuclear-and-gas-as-part-of-european-taxonomy-9458329/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsec-confirms-nuclear-and-gas-as-part-of-european-taxonomy-9458329/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlderman, Liz and Stanley Reed (2022) Nuclear Power Could Help Europe Cut Its Russia Ties, but Not for Years. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ekathimerini.com/nytimes/1183081/nuclear-power-could-help-europe-cut-its-russia-ties-but-not-for-years/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ekathimerini.com/nytimes/1183081/nuclear-power-could-help-europe-cut-its-russia-ties-but-not-for-years/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Nuclear News (2022) EU taxonomy: Trade unions urge MEPs not to oppose plan. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EU-taxonomy-Trade-unions-urge-MEPs%C2%A0not-to-oppose\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EU-taxonomy-Trade-unions-urge-MEPs%C2%A0not-to-oppose\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Parliament (2022) Taxonomy: MEPs object to Commission\u0026rsquo;s plan to include gas and nuclear activities. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220613IPR32812/taxonomy-meps-object-to-commission-s-plan-to-include-gas-and-nuclear-activities\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220613IPR32812/taxonomy-meps-object-to-commission-s-plan-to-include-gas-and-nuclear-activities\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Parliament (2022) Taxonomy: MEPs do not object to inclusion of gas and nuclear activities \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220701IPR34365/taxonomy-meps-do-not-object-to-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-activities\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220701IPR34365/taxonomy-meps-do-not-object-to-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-activities\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenpeace (2022) Taxonomy: Ukrainian energy minister contradicts President Zelensky, Ukrainian MPs. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/46316/taxonomy-ukrainian-energy-minister-contradicts-president-zelensky-ukrainian-mps/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/46316/taxonomy-ukrainian-energy-minister-contradicts-president-zelensky-ukrainian-mps/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrequin, Samuel and Raf Casert (2022) EU lawmakers back gas, nuclear energy as sustainable. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://apnews.com/article/climate-russia-ukraine-legislature-279f49878e8f288d721713cd01218b01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://apnews.com/article/climate-russia-ukraine-legislature-279f49878e8f288d721713cd01218b01\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHodgson, Camilla (2022) Challenge against EU \u0026lsquo;green\u0026rsquo; label for gas and nuclear energy steps up. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ft.com/content/42320458-dfeb-4f5e-9655-aba281cef662\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ft.com/content/42320458-dfeb-4f5e-9655-aba281cef662\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimmons\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Simmons (2022) European Commission faces legal challenge to EU Taxonomy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/cl96yg09s628w0a30jf7hywis/european-commission-faces-legal-challenge-to-eu-taxonomy\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/cl96yg09s628w0a30jf7hywis/european-commission-faces-legal-challenge-to-eu-taxonomy\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 20 October 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, Hyun-Woo (2023) Climate and Energy Policies of Korea: Current State and Challenges. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/seoul/20665.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/seoul/20665.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (accessed 10 January 2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The details on the TSCs are layed out in Section 4 of the two Annexes to the taxonomy regulation. Furthermore, details of other sections are relevant, such as Section 3 on the manufacturing of renewable energy technologies or energy efficiency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"energy-sustainability-and-society","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"esso","sideBox":"Learn more about [Energy, Sustainability and Society](https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13705","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13705/3","title":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","twitterHandle":"@OpenEnviron","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Narrative Discourse Analysis, Nuclear Energy, EU Taxonomy, Sustainable Finance","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850703/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850703/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper analyses the discourse around the inclusion of nuclear energy into the EU Taxonomy which promises to provide standards for the question if an economic activity is sustainable or not. The idea is to guide financial means into sustainable areas of the economy and accumulate private investments for the transformation of the economy against climate change. In this regard, the question whether nuclear energy is sustainable was heavily debated and fought over. Through the application of a narrative discourse analysis, relying on expert interviews and media articles, this paper finds that the discourse shifted throughout the process. While a general sustainability discussion around the question if the technology nuclear energy is sustainable characterized the early discourse, a shift towards a process related discussion around how nuclear energy found its way into the EU Taxonomy can be observed at a later stage. Furthermore, the discourse was structured by several key events which provided focal points for discussion and influenced the storylines of proponents and opponents of nuclear energy.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Alleviating or institutionalizing greenwashing? – The inclusion of nuclear energy into the EU taxonomy from a narrative discourse perspective","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-22 12:43:30","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850703/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-02-07T10:03:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-01-25T16:37:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-01-25T14:11:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"cd9ea0d4-b082-4c35-9506-95ad605f8bcf","date":"2024-01-23T09:20:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"551ee328-f0be-4059-a5bc-efd5f7fa1155","date":"2024-01-22T21:30:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-01-22T21:04:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-01-22T19:51:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-01-18T16:54:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","date":"2024-01-10T15:06:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"energy-sustainability-and-society","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"esso","sideBox":"Learn more about [Energy, Sustainability and Society](https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13705","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13705/3","title":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","twitterHandle":"@OpenEnviron","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"47f596a7-bb7b-4af6-a5ec-d8680f19b838","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 22nd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-12-30T16:08:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3850703","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00500-0","journal":{"identity":"energy-sustainability-and-society","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Energy, Sustainability and Society"},"publishedOn":"2024-12-27 15:57:50","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 27th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-22 12:43:30","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13705-024-00500-0","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00500-0","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3850703","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3850703","identity":"rs-3850703","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}