Energy initiatives often lead to public contestation, even when all actors support the same underlying values. The reason for contestation can be found in different interpretations of these values. This causes a serious problem in the operationalisation of responsible innovation as this presumes a singular understanding of the values that underlie a new technology. This chapter analyses this interpretive flexibility of values in the Dutch shale gas debate. It concludes that the interpretative flexibility of values pertains to the spatial orientation of the stakeholders originating from the place attachment of different actors. Arguments presented in favour of or against shale gas exploration are connected to the expected effects of this exploration on local/regional spatiality or on the (inter)national spatiality. Arguments that are put forward in either of these frames of reference hardly connect to the other frames of reference. Due to the differences in spatiality of the arguments, a common reference point is lacking, which leads to confusion and miscommunication. This paper concludes that responsible innovation should acknowledge public values in all frames of reference in a symmetrical way. It is also essential to identify a common spatiality on which the discussion can fruitfully take place.@en

In 2010 an initiative was launched to realize a competitive single EU market for natural gas through the use of a future vision. This Gas Target Model (GTM) aimed to provide direction for concrete market development through regulatory structures as well as an overarching scope of what a functioning gas market would entail. This paper assesses the use and impact of such sectoral visions. We develop a framework that builds on the sociology of expectations and foresight studies and distinguish between the envisioning process, vision content, and vision use (output). The analysis follows the development of two versions of the GTM: 2011 and 2015. We find that the GTM has a contradictory nature. The vision that feeds into regulatory structures requires a stable and uniform rule set. The overarching vision requires incorporation of long-term uncertainty and adaptability. Moreover, the sectoral focus requires alignment to adjacent sectors and wider policy considerations. This makes it difficult to set boundaries, to identify relevant actors, and to ensure commitment from these actors. We conclude that the former vision was actively pursued and materialized in Framework Guidelines and Network Codes, while the latter vision is just being identified and framed.

@en