This article contributes to the increasing traction of social justice in marine spatial planning (MSP) by exploring perceptions and experiences of social justice from the viewpoint of planners and different social groups who were included and (self)excluded in MSP processes. The study builds on empirical material from Poland, Latvia, and Germany consisting of interviews, MSP legislation, and documents that were analysed through the lens of a multidimensional social justice framework centring on recognition, representation, distribution, and capabilities. Results indicate that MSP institutional arrangements constrain possibilities for marginalised and less consolidated actor groups (residents, coastal tourism, and small-scale fisheries) to enjoy the same degree of recognition that is given to groups representing strategic national interests (renewable energy and shipping). We also highlight the role of planners’ self-reflectivity in enhancing/depriving capabilities of vulnerable social groups whose wellbeing and multidimensional relationships with the sea call for institutional responses adaptive to specific planning contexts. 

While blue justice has gained traction, recognition and capability, which are necessary conditions for procedural and distributive justice, remain under-developed. We develop a four-dimensional blue justice framework that builds on recognition and capabilities to critically examine and advance justice in Poland’s marine spatial planning (MSP). We find that misrecognition of differential identities and capacities scripted powerless stakeholders out of participation and reduced possibilities for fair distribution. Conversely, MSP regulation augmented the rights of powerful actors through granting de jure “objecting” rights to some, inviting only strategic sectors to agenda-setting fora and, limiting MSP communication to meeting legal requirements. Several stakeholders also see defence and wind energy as key winners of MSP. While society will benefit from national security and energy sufficiency, especially given Russia’s increased weaponization of energy, many believe that financial profits from wind energy will accrue to developers. We offer governmental and planning measures to enhance capabilities. 

Despite the urgency of decarbonising, the shipping sector has demonstrated a slow-paced response to climate change challenges. Some frontrunner firms are engaged in sustainability-oriented innovation processes. However, there is limited knowledge of how such processes emerge and contribute to societal sustainability transitions and what the role of technology is in companies' (re)orientation towards sustainable business models. This study contributes to filling these gaps through a comparative case study of the ongoing innovation process within an incumbent and a newcomer firm developing wind-powered energy solutions for deep-sea transportation. The study's findings bear implications for theory and practice. This paper's combination of a dynamic capabilities approach and a multi-level perspective from sustainability transitions research is a conceptual novelty, enabling an understanding of the activities involved in the (re)orientation process towards sustainable business from a company's perspective, as well as broader societal and sustainability needs.

Shipping is a cornerstone of global transportation responsible for moving large volumes of traded goods. At the same time, negative environmental impacts of shipping operations have attracted growing concerns. Although recognised as the most energy-efficient mode of transportation compared to air and land-based transport, maritime transportation contributes significantly to air-borne emissions, alongside other types of pollutants. Hence, it is apparent that alternatives to highly polluting conventional marine fuels, i.e., crude oil or diesel, have to be found in shipping, just as in other sectors. Responding to calls for a greater attention to actors’ roles in transitions, as well as for broader sectoral coverage of empirical work in the field of sustainability transition studies, this doctoral thesis explores the role of incumbents (established shipping firms) in the early stages of maritime energy transitions. 

Focusing on incumbents is a relatively recent, yet rapidly evolving, stream of research in sustainability transitions studies, with increasing evidence showing heterogeneity and strategic variety in incumbent activities in various transition contexts. By drawing on a multi-level perspective from the socio-technical transition literature, the dynamic capabilities approach from the strategic management literature, and structuration theory, this thesis contributes new knowledge on “how” and “why” frontrunner incumbent shipping firms engage with maritime niche technologies and alternative energy solutions as well as what strategies they adopt to overcome increasing environmental sustainability pressures. These are the topics that have so far received scant attention in sustainability transitions studies. The thesis utilises a qualitative case study approach to study the selection of firms from passenger, vehicle carrier and container shipping business segments that are active in environmental work. 

The findings of this thesis indicate that the roles of shipping firms in the early stage of maritime energy transitions are diverse and more complex than often accounted for in sustainability transitions literature. It is demonstrated that due to increased regulatory, social and competitive pressures, firms’ activities with regards to engagement in maritime niche technologies and alternative energy have shifted from reactive to a mix of strategies where a portfolio of solutions are pursued at the same time across and within individual firms. While adoption of incremental end-of-pipe technologies reinforces dependence on the fossil fuel energy system, a parallel engagement and experimentation with alternative energy solutions indicates that incumbent firms can also adopt a central role in niche development activities.

Understanding and promoting sustainability is one of the key concerns across research, policy-making and everyday lifestyle choices. At the same time, there is growing acknowledgement that responding to sustainability challenges such as biodiversity loss, climate justice and decarbonisation, among others, is rife with differences about what sustainability transformation means and implies across different settings, including the Baltic. The multifaceted character of the sustainability conundrum highlights a range of interrelated questions. For example, what repercussions the promotion of local solutions may have for long-term sustainability paths at national, regional and global levels? How to value ethical, political, social and scientific views on which problems to prioritise and whose knowledge counts? In response, universities are increasingly partnering with stakeholders in solution-oriented sustainability research projects. We understand sustainability transformations as fundamental to how societal, institutional, and technological domains interact towards just, legitimate and enduring arrangements. This perspective provides opportunities to reflect on the complexities of societal change towards sustainability, including who should be involved in partnering for change, what constitutes positive change in particular contexts, how change could come about as well as who benefits and who loses. We relate to these questions with illustrations from research projects undertaken in the Baltic and beyond.

Despite the challenges of decarbonisation faced by the shipping sector, this topic has rarely been addressed in sustainability transitions studies. This paper questions common views of established firms as agents resisting change and broadens discussions on the role of incumbents and strategic reorientation. Using the dynamic capabilities approach, we provide a deeper understanding of firms’ strategic reorientation over time. Qualitative content analysis is applied to data from interviews, companies’ reports and observations to address questions on how and why incumbent shipping firms in the Baltic Sea region reoriented towards decarbonisation in 2007−2018. We demonstrate that the engagement in decarbonisation has been a gradual process, characterised by a shift from reactive strategies to a mixed portfolio of integrated active and proactive innovation strategies. Although firms experiment with decarbonisation through alternative energy solutions, they simultaneously continue to devote considerable attention to less radical innovations such as increased energy efficiency.

The EU MSP Directive is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room foradaptation to national contexts. The main objective in this article is to identify and analyse potential obstacles toeffective and efficient planning caused by the diversity among national MSP frameworks that the Directive'sbroad regulatory boundaries have led to. It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially betweenneighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across national borders. Divergence betweennational MSP frameworks can also emerge from how political, jurisdictional and, administrative systemsand traditions are organised in different Member States. It is shown that neighbouring countries can divergesubstantially in how the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability are balanced, which canmake transnational coordination challenging. Furthermore, it is shown that stakeholder consultations differamong Member States in terms of, for example, who were invited, how the consultations were undertaken, andthe role they play in relation to political decision-making. Because of these, and other differences in how MSPframeworks are being developed in the Member States, it is suggested that regional integration should bepromoted with discretion. From this perspective, it seems reasonable to embrace diversity, while simultaneouslypromoting the adaptive management of coordination problems at lower levels, when, or if, they emerge or canbe foreseen. Thus, increased integration of national MSP frameworks should be viewed as an instrument toreduce concrete efficiency losses, rather than as an intrinsic good.

This study investigates how the introduction of more stringent environmental regulation regarding sulphur and nitrogen emission control areas induced shipping companies to react to a new situation and opened up a window of opportunity for build-up of niches for alternative vessel energy sources. By drawing on a multi-level perspective from the socio-technical transition literature, the study provides empirical evidence for how realignments in the environmental regulatory regime alter incumbent actors’ positions and produce varying environmental innovation responses to reduce air-borne pollution from shipping. The study illustrates that the stringency of a regional command-and-control regulation in combination with evolving pressures in the external landscape environment and shipping companies’ task environments are essential components shaping the adoption of environmental innovations. Although incremental innovations seem to dominate in a fossil fuel-based maritime transportation socio-technical system, our results demonstrate the role of regulations and the behaviour of frontrunners in the context of regime fragmentation and sustainability transition processes.

The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSP Directive) from 2014 is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. Because of this larger room for adaptation, transposition becomes a process of designing domestic policy frameworks that fulfil the broad requirements of the Directive, rather than a simple and linear implementation procedure. However, allowing Member States to design marine spatial planning frameworks that fit domestic contexts, have thus far meant that regional coherence suffers. Although the pivotal role of transnational coordination is emphasised in the Directive, it does not stipulate how to set up such coordination, and the Member States have not yet been able to achieve much of self-organising in this area.A closer look is in this report taken on four policy-dimensions that are emphasised in the MSP Directive: Planning approach, Organisation, Sustainability, and Stakeholder inclusion. Based on in-depth case studies carried out in the BALTSPACE research project on MSP frameworks in Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden, examples of coordination and coherency challenges are described and discussed for each dimension.It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across country borders. Even though they share the same (EU) regulatory pressures, Latvia and Lithuania, for example, are developing national MSP frameworks based on quite different conceptual foundations. Whereas Latvia has taken the Ecosystem Approach as a point of departure for constructing a new MSP framework, Lithuania has instead chosen to adapt existing functional zoning approaches to management of maritime areas. Such diversity may be possible to explain because of differing domestic contexts, but may nevertheless lead to coordination problems when coordination is needed.Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from different political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions, that is, in societal organisation. In an example based on case studies undertaken in Denmark and Sweden, it is shown that degree of societal centralisation and distribution of political power can be related to differences in how environmental protection and blue growth are prioritised. However, it is difficult to tell whether diverging prioritisations have led to differences on organisation, or of it is the other way around, that differences in organisation have led to diverging prioritisations.It is stated in the MSP Directive that the overarching objective is to promote sustainable development. The focus on sustainable development can be said to reflect the Directive’s new generation characteristics. The concept of sustainable development is broad and imprecise, which facilitates political agreement. However, when more precise details must be addressed, disagreements may surface that make implementation challenging. In cases where neighbouring countries diverge substantially on how ecological, economic and social sustainable ought to be balanced, finding agreements on how to coordinate policies and practices, when needed, can be difficult. Based on case studies in Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden, it is, for example, argued that adoption of functional zoning or the Ecosystem Approach may not say much about how ecological, economic, and social dimensions are prioritised in different countries.Stakeholder consultations of some kind have historically been undertaken in all Baltic Sea countries. However, how such consultations have been undertaken, who have been invited, and the role the consultations play in relation to political decision-making differ, as shown in examples from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Poland. Because the MSP Directive is silent on how to design stakeholder consultations – it only says that they should be held – there is no political pressure on regional coordination. It is not clear from our data if these differences cause efficiency losses due to coordination deficits, but a reasonable assumption is that when, for example, marine natural resources are shared between two or more countries, jointly designed and undertaken consultations on specific transboundary issues potentially can promote transparency, understanding, and coordination.In conclusion, it is suggested that while regional coherency is often called for as a means to reduce inefficiencies, it might not be a good idea to integrate without discretion. Considering that the MSP Directive allows domestic context to matter when Member States design national MSP frameworks and that adaptation to domestic context is likely to reduce implantation gaps and increase the legitimacy of marine spatial planning, a more reasonable objective can be to embrace domestic diversity, while simultaneously adaptively promoting possibilities to solve coordination problems at lower levels, if they emerge or can be foreseen. From this perspective, increased coherence is a tool to reduce efficiency losses, rather than an intrinsic good.