Post on 22-Feb-2023
Stakeholders at the centre. Robert MarchandSupervisors: Prof. S.C.L. Koh, Prof. A. Brennan & Dr A. Genovese
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Contents• The Problem of fuel poverty• Critiquing the current measure• The importance of stakeholders• Realising stakeholder-centric fuel poverty measurement
The current picture• 3.5 million households in 2010
• 3 million “vulnerable”• Projected to be 3.9 million by end of 2012
• By 2016 between 3.1 million and 9.2 million• Dependent upon which measure is used.
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Fuel Poverty“ ... a fuel poor household is one which needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use and to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth”
(DEFRA and DTI, 2001:6)21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Fuel Poverty ratio:Required Fuel Costs
(i.e. required usage x price)Income
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Fuel Poverty impacts• Significant health impications
• See Marmot Review (2011), Liddell and Morris (2010)
• Social impacts• Local pride, civic engagement, anti-social behaviour
• Legislative impacts• Achieving CO2 reduction targets (Climate Change Act, 2008 and Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act, 2000)
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
The Hills Review• Commissioned by the UK government
• Emphasised a number of strengths & weaknesses of the current measure
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Strengths WeaknessUses modelled energy consumption
Overly sensitive to energy price changes
Official National Statistic
10% median is arbitrary and based upon 1988 spending
Increasingly utilised internationally
Unduly affected by mis-reporting of low incomes
Hills proposed definition“The Government should adopt a new indicator of the extent of fuel poverty under which households are considered fuel poor if:
• They have required fuel costs that are above the median level; and
• Were they to spend that amount they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line.”
Hills (2012:9)
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Critiquing the critique• Both measures have a technological and economical emphasis.
• Focus on three central drivers:• High required energy bill• Low income• Energy inefficient dwelling
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Critiquing the critique (cont.)
See Fahmy, Gordon, Patsios (2011)21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
ObjectiveMeasures
Subjective
Measures
Stakeholder identification• Traditionally focussed around the firm.• Built upon concerns of maintaining
• Profits• Reputation• Brand etc.
• Move towards participatory processes• Understand needs• Realise positive outcomes
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Stakeholder identification• Policy documents refer to stakeholder needs.
• No attempt in literature to identify, justify or prioritise stakeholders21/10/202
2© The University of Sheffield
Stakeholder engagement• Including citizens in decision processes is beneficial• Increases representation
• Improves policy• But process starts once problem is defined
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Realising stakeholder-centric fuel poverty measurement • Identify fuel poverty stakeholders
• Facilitate development of stakeholder led definition
• Create stakeholder led measure
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Realising stakeholder-centric fuel poverty measurement • Compare with current available measures & new objective measure• EFA, CFA & SEM techniques as appropriate
• Identify best measure to:• Reduce fuel poverty• Allocate resources efficiently• Improve health• Meet WHECA, 2000, CCA, 2008, EU 2020 and EU 2050 targets.
21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield
Robert MarchandCentre for Energy, Environment and Sustainability
(CEES)Logistics and Supply Chain Management (LSCM)
Research Centre
E: rmarchand1@sheffield.ac.ukT: +44 (0)114 222 3496M: +44 (0)779 313 9725
Management School Doctoral Centre, 169-171 Northumberland Road
Sheffield, S10 1DF, UK21/10/2022
© The University of Sheffield