Sweden became an outlier among the Nordic countries in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Nordic countries have historically shared a social democratic welfare state regime, with strong cooperation and harmonization of social policies, their responses to the pandemic showcased fundamental differences to that of Sweden. In particular, Sweden’s prioritization of individual civil liberties over social rights diverged from the more coercive approaches of Finland and Norway, which placed greater emphasis on public health and social welfare. This study examines the media framing surrounding the contrasting Swedish approach and highlights the dichotomy between statist individualism/autonomy and welfare paternalism/interdependence that has been an inherent part of the Swedish welfare state framing. Employing interpretive policy analysis, the study explores the media narratives used by policy actors to frame their pandemic response in terms of individual autonomy and governmental paternalism. We identified two contrasting perspectives on governance regarding the COVID-19 policy strategy. One framing perspective backed the strategy, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding individual autonomy and minimizing central control. The other viewpoint demanded a lockdown and criticized the Swedish response as too lenient. This deviated from usual Swedish political alignments and created a polarized and lively debate around the core values of individual autonomy, agency, and central governmental paternalism.

The Council is the voice of the member states' governments in the EU policymaking process and the institutional setting where member states can enforce their national interest. The literature on Council decision-making has previously mostly used expert interviews or voting patterns. Through a detailed examination of one specific legislative file in the recent 'Fit for 55' climate package in which subsidiarity and varying national conditions is central, this study focus on how disagreements between member states are resolved and how strategic word framing can aid in resolving political controversies in EU energy policy. This article analyses Council working group meeting notes and revisions of the recent recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, providing a unique look behind the curtains of negotiations between member states in the Council within a deliberative intergovernmental framework. A mix of quantitative and qualitative text analysis is applied to deliberations and legislative revisions. The findings show that a fragile consensus is reached despite disagreement through enabling of national flexibility in policy decisions, indicating that the Council determines the speed of European integration in the policy domain.

This paper analyzes through qualitative and quantitative analysis of European Union (EU) policy documents the framing of EU policy on energy-efficient buildings from the 1970s to 2022. We find that it has been framed in different ways over the decades and the framing has expanded to include more and more benefits. Through this expansion, energy efficiency has been linked to other policy areas, such as security, environmental, economic, and social policy. The shifts in framing can be seen as responses to external events. The expansion can also be explained using two metaphors to analyze how the framing differs depending on political positioning. One where policy is seen as a Swiss knife, able to solve multiple political problems, and one where policy is seen as a Trojan horse, where new policy domains are snuck in by policymakers disguising it as energy efficiency policy to increase EU competency in relation to national governments.

This timely Handbook presents the latest knowledge on technological innovation for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Looking beyond technical fixes, it further draws on economics, politics and sociology to explore how modern technology can contribute to effective and socially just sustainability transitions. Examining cutting-edge research on energy, transport and industry, this Handbook argues that we have the technologies and policy instruments needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, for larger-scale implementation the support at the socio-economic and political levels has to be increased. Chapters further analyse the role that technology plays in key sectors, such as agriculture and forestry, in order to become more sustainable. Contributors also reflect on the position of technology in society, illustrating the wider socio-technical systems that determine the impact that new technologies can have. They call for the political will to implement and scale up technological measures to address climate change across the world. The Handbook on Climate Change and Technology will be essential reading for academics and students of climate change, energy, sustainability, and environmental governance and regulation. It will also be an invaluable resource for practitioners and policymakers seeking a deeper understanding of the role of technology in sustainability transitions.

The aim of this article was to use an interpretivist approach to analyse the state-citizen nexus in general and the conflict between civil and social rights imposing restrictions on people's freedom of movement during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Nordic countries: Sweden (restrictions were voluntary and relied on nudging and individual implementation), Norway (restrictions of movement were for everyone and was enforced by authorities), and Finland (restrictions of movement were for the capital region and was enforced by authorities). Sweden focused more on upholding the civil rights vis-à-vis social rights whereas in Norway and Finland social rights have trumped civil rights in the face of the pandemic. Thus, the analysis suggests that the Nordic countries cannot be understood as monoliths in all respects. The article thereby contributes to a greater understanding of how the Nordic governments prioritise civil and social rights differently when they are forced to choose.

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