6. Empirical Analysis of Community Energy Projects in Germany

This question is explored in more detail in the following chapter through an analysis of the survey results.

As this categorization is oriented towards the cases under investigation, other types of community energy projects in Germany are missing, such as those initiated by Volksbanken (people’s banks), ecological groupings, associations of an associative nature with other defining characteristics, which (often) have a connection to sustainable energy production (clubs, associations, etc.), e.g. a women’s energy cooperative.

Status of 2012/2013 data.

In the studies on civic engagement in Germany, the engagement field of community energy presumably falls into the thematic field of “environmental protection and nature conservation”, which with a rate of 4.5% in 2004 (compared to 3.1% in 1999) (Alscher et al. 2009: 29) is an area of engagement that is not pronounced, but which seems to be gaining importance (other sources cite 2.8% for “environment and animal protection” in 2009 (1.8% in 1999 and 2.6% in 2004) (Statistisches JahrbuchBundesamt 2013: 203; Enste et al. 2012: 12). The environmental sector is strongly dominated by organizations (77%), initiatives account for 17% here, governmental/municipal activities are only 6% (Alscher et al. 2009: 31). The Volunteer Survey (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 93) indicates 2.8% for nature and animal conservation (up from 1.8% since 1999), and 1.9% for local civic engagement (1.3% in 1999, but 2.1% in 2004) (data from 2009). Nature and animal conservation as well as local civic engagement have a high potential among people interested in engagement, a strong increase since 1999 was observed (for nature conservation from 9 to 17%, for local engagement from 1 to 7%) (ibid.: 136).

According to their own definition, the committed in Germany describe their activities predominantly as voluntary work (42%, tendency decreasing), volunteering (35%, tendency increasing), less than initiative and project work (8%, tendency unchanged) or civic engagement (9%, tendency increasing) (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 112).

The coding was done with the program MaxQDA. A large amount of qualitative data made this form of analysis necessary. A more detailed content-analytical evaluation follows in parts (see below). Open coding was used (flexible category extraction from the material), which is based on considerations of grounded theory.

In Germany, 907 energy cooperatives are currently recorded (as of 2013/2014), of which 495 are in the photovoltaic sector, 200 in the biomass sector, 76 in the wind energy sector, 29 in the hydropower sector and 8 in the solar thermal and geothermal sectors (Yildiz et al. 2015: 62 f.). Concrete numbers of community wind farm companies and other participation projects that are not organized in the cooperative form are not known. In 2016, the number of energy cooperatives will probably be at least 1000.

Due to the possibility of multiple answers, the respondents were able to make different statements, e.g. to indicate only a doctorate or a university degree and a doctorate.

While men are not very active in the area of working hours with a low time interval (vice versa for women), this then rises sharply for time intervals from 30 to 55 hours per week (for women it decreases correspondingly sharply); the critical area where the ratios overlap is at 30 to 40 hours per week (related to couple households with children) (Alscher et al. 2009: 48). Men who work a lot are thus very committed, women on the other hand very little – and the reverse is true when working hours are low. In the area of sustainable consumption, on the other hand, there are high participation rates among women (see Baringhorst 2016a, 2016b). – In Germany, the distribution between the sexes is: male 49 percent to female 51 percent (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013: 26). In the case of volunteering, according to the Federal Government’s Engagement Report (Enste et al. 2012: 73), the engagement rate for men is 37.9%, while for women it is 31.6% (overall rate: 34.3%). This is reported consistently by the Volunteer Survey (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 19); an overall rate of 36% is formed (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013: 203). The 2013 data report distinguishes between general civil engagement (men: 40%, women: 32%) and engagement tied to organizations as an integrative component, where women are more involved (men: 12%, women 18%) (all data from 2009, Alscher and Priller 2013: 354). The Volunteer Survey (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 19) also presents the differences in terms of age: among young people and in the case of 40–44 year olds, there are hardly any differences between the sexes; strong differences are present in the age spectrums of 20 to 40 years and 55 to 75 years (ibid.). It should be noted that the engagement rate varies greatly in different studies, for example in a survey by the WZB in the 2000s between 18 and 52% (Alscher et al. 2009: 21). In the environmental field, too, there is a gender difference in engagement between 35 and 64%, and in professional advocacy the difference is also 26 versus 74% (ibid.: 38; see also Kersting and Woyke 2012). “In 2010, 5% of men but only 2% of women in West Germany were members of a political party” (Geissler 2014: 392). “West German women are also considerably less likely (8%) to be members of a trade union than men (20%), and they are also less likely to participate in community initiatives (men 2% – women 1%). Instead, their involvement in cultural and charitable activities is more pronounced than for men, and they are also more frequently involved in the environment, nature, health and self-help” (ibid.).

The distribution found here is confirmed by other survey results (survey limited to the region of South Westphalia), in which a share of 20% was determined in the case of wind energy use and a share of 30% in the case of PV use (Fraune 2014; Fraune 2015: 60). In this study, it can be confirmed that in the community wind farms there is an increased share of 85% male gender, the lowest share being in the members of the community energy limited liability companies with 76%. However, a breakdown into energy types (PV, wind, multiple energy types) yields very small variations (PV: 79%, wind: 81%, multiple: 78%). Bauwens (2014b, 2016) investigated in a survey two energy cooperatives in Flanders (number of participants: about 4000). Here, too, the proportion of male members was found to be over 80%. In another study of energy cooperatives in Germany, a male share of 74% was also determined (Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 5).

Bauwens (2014b, 2016) determined an average age of 50 years in energy cooperatives. In Germany, the age distribution is: 0–18 years 16.1%, 18–25 years: 8.2%, 25–40 years: 18%, 40–60 years: 31.1%, 60–65 years: 6%, > 65 years: 20.6% (Statistisches Jahrbuch 2013: 33). In another study of energy cooperatives in Germany, an average age of 59 years was determined (Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 5).

Bauwens (2014b, 2016) determined a share of between 73 and 76 percent of university graduates in energy cooperatives. In another study of energy cooperatives in Germany, a similar figure of 70 percent of university graduates was also found (Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 5).

The average gross income in Germany is 3900 euros (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013: 164). In terms of income, socio-political engagement also shows that people with high net incomes are more engaged than people with low incomes on a graded basis (over 4000 euros net: engagement rate 47%, 2500–4000: 43%, 1500 to 2500: 36%, 750 to 1500: 26%, under 750 euros: 24% (Alscher et al. 2009: 44). Bauwens (2014b, 2016) identified in energy cooperatives a share of about 20 percent with a household income, which is below 2000 euros, 49 percent earn between 2000 and 4000 euros, about 20 percent have over 4000 euros per month. In another study of energy cooperatives in Germany, a net household income of over 2500 euros was determined for 66 percent of the members (related to photovoltaic/heat energy cooperatives; Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 5).

The WZB puts the proportion of committed people among the middle class at 55.3%, among those with high incomes at 26.5%, and among those at risk of poverty at 18.2% (based on the year 2007, Alscher et al. 2009: 56).

In Germany, 44% of the population is employed, of which 11% are self-employed (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013: 339). 5.5% are registered as being in economic inactivity (ibid.: 348), 7% as unemployed (ibid.: 355). Pensioners and people who draw their income from assets make up 23% (ibid.: 342). In terms of occupational positions, white-collar workers make up 67%, civil servants 10% and blue-collar workers also 10% (ibid.: 94). Apprentices make up 1.7% (ibid.), pupils make up 10.5% (ibid.: 82) and students make up 3% (ibid.: 88). The engagement rate of employed persons, pupils and students as well as housewives/husbands is generally higher than among the unemployed and pensioners/retirees; it is slightly lower among the inactive (Alscher et al. 2009: 43, as also in the survey of volunteers, see Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 103). The same picture emerges for the activity requirements (from simple to high level, with sharply rising values for the engagement rate in each case) (Alscher et al. 2009: 44). The 2013 data report distinguishes between general civil engagement (employed: 40%, unemployed: 26%, pupils/trainees/students: 38%, housewives/husbands: 36%, pensioners/retired: 30%) and as an integrative component organization-bound engagement, where persons in training as well as housewives/husbands are more engaged (employed: 13%, unemployed: 15%, pupils/trainees/students: 21%, housewives/husbands: 17%, pensioners/retirees: 14%) (all data from 2009, Alscher and Priller 2013: 354).

In Germany, 39% of the population have a “low-level” secondary school-leaving certificate (Hauptschulabschluss), 24% have a “mid-level” secondary school-leaving certificate (Realschulabschluss), 30% have a “high-level” secondary school-leaving certificate (Abitur), and 4% have no qualifications (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013: 76). 73% of the population have a vocational qualification (accordingly, 27% of the population have no vocational qualification (ibid.: 78). Of the graduates, 69% have completed an apprenticeship, 10% technical college, 7% have a university of applied sciences degree, 11% have a university degree, 1.5% a doctorate (ibid.). With higher education, civic engagement tends to increase, and in the context of environmental protection and community initiatives/civic associations to an even larger extent (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 54). The involvement of people with a high level of education is much higher (rate: 43%) than for those with a medium level (37%) and basic level (26%) (Alscher et al. 2009: 43). The Volunteer Survey (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 54) reports that members in non-profit organizations are composed of 32% persons with simple education, 35% persons with medium education, and 43% with higher education. Again, persons with higher education are more represented in environmental organizations (7% compared to 3% simple education and 5% medium education) and community initiatives and associations (5% compared to 3% for simple and medium education) (2009 data). The same applies to activities through participation in citizens’ meetings (total 41%, high education 44%, low 36% and medium 41%) and community initiatives (total 27%, high education 32%, low 18% and medium 27%) (2009 data) (ibid: 55). This is equally true for differences between “low-level” secondary school (Hauptschule) and “mid-level” secondary school (Realschule) students and “high-level” secondary school (Gymnasium) students, as well as students at universities versus those in company-based training or vocational schools (ibid.: 150). The 2013 data report distinguishes between general civic engagement (simple educational level: 23%, medium educational level: 37%, high educational level: 45%) and engagement tied to organizations as an integrative component, where the values are more levelled (simple educational level: 11%, medium educational level: 14%, high educational level: 15%) (data from 2009, Alscher and Priller 2013: 354).

By way of comparison, 40.5% of the population in Germany live in one-person households, two-person households make up 35%, households with three or more persons form 24%, and the average is 2.01 members (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013: 48 f.). Overall, 28% live in families (ibid.: 51). People in large households are more active communally than those in 2- or 1-person households (80% participating actively in civil society infrastructure among 4- and 5-person households, 72% among 3-person households, 69% among 2-person households, and 65% among 1-person households (total: 71%) (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 76).

This is reflected in the engagement of Germans: especially in rural towns (2000–5000 inhabitants), small towns (5000–20,000 inhabitants) and among village populations (less than 2000 inhabitants), engagement is more pronounced than in medium-sized and large cities (engagement rates of 38 to 42% compared to 30%) (Alscher et al. 2009: 37). According to the Volunteer Survey (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 26), engagement is higher both in the densely populated surrounding areas of cities and in rural areas than in the core cities.

In Germany, 35% of the population live in cities or densely populated areas (more than 500 inhabitants per km²), 23% in rural areas (less than 100 inhabitants per km²) and 42% semi-urban (100–500 inhabitants per km²) (Statistisches Bundesamt 2013: 29, 2011 data).

This finding is consistent with the results of a study of energy cooperatives in Germany, according to which 52% of members are also members of an environmental protection organization (referring to photovoltaic/heat energy cooperatives; Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 10).

In 2009, the Volunteer Survey counted 36% voluntarily engaged (taking on tasks, work or functions in civil society over the longer term), 35% publicly active (only participating in events, for example) (i.e. a total of 71% engaged) and 29% not publicly active among those engaged (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 6). Engagement has increased slightly over the last few years, with only 27% of the population not engaged (ibid.: 8). The proportion of committed people has risen from 23% in 1985 to 33% in 2011 (Alscher and Priller 2013: 352). Regular engagement (at least monthly) has increased (19% in 2011), with 11% engaged on a weekly basis (ibid.). The 2013 data report distinguishes between general civic engagement (overall rate: 36%) and engagement as an integrative component of organizational commitment, which is much less pronounced (overall rate: 15%) (all data from 2009, Alscher and Priller 2013: 354).

Associations are also the most pronounced organizational framework within the nationwide commitment (number in 2011: 580.000, strong increase since 1960, stagnating since 2001, Alscher and Priller 2013: 350), quantified in 2004 at a share of 43%, followed by churches and religious associations (15%), self-help groups, initiatives and projects (15%), state and municipal institutions (12%), associations (7%), private institutions and foundations (3%), political parties (2.8%) and trade unions (1.8%) (Alscher et al. 2009: 30). Other studies with data from 2009 state: clubs (46%), church/religious association (14%), groups and initiatives (13%), state or municipal institutions (9%), associations (7%), parties and trade unions (4%) and private institutions, foundations and others (7%) (Enste et al. 2012: 16). Similarly, data from the 2009 Volunteer Survey: clubs (47%), church/religious association (14%), groups or initiatives (13%), state or municipal institutions (9%), associations (7%), parties and trade unions (3%), and private institutions, foundations, and other (7%) (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 28). According to the data from the Survey of Volunteers, membership figures in associations, state or municipal institutions, and parties and trade unions are declining slightly (also according to Alscher et al. 2009: 51, 69), remaining constant in churches/religious associations and federations, but showing growth in groups and initiatives as well as private institutions, foundations, and other (ibid.). Civil society organizations cite ageing, a declining sense of community, a lack of planning security due to unclear revenue trends, and increasingly market-like structures, efficiency and cost pressure as the main problems (Alscher and Priller 2013: 353). While the first two points are essential for associations and cooperatives, the latter two aspects play a greater role for nonprofit community energy limited liability companies (ibid.).

The Federal Government’s engagement report (Enste et al. 2012: 73) states that high engagement rates exist in the age ranges 30–45 years (37%) and 45–55 years (40%) (average: 34%). People between 16 and 30 engage less (especially among 25–30 year olds the rate is 29%), also people over 65 engage less (26%) (see in agreement Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 20, where it is shown, however, that the engagement of older people increased strongly from 2009 compared to 1999: among 65–69 year olds from 29 to 37%, among 70–74 year olds from 24 to 30%. It also points out that the high engagement from 35 to 49 year olds is due to family status (ibid: 17)). The 2013 Data Report distinguishes between general civic engagement (14–29 years: 35%, 30–69 years: 40%, 60 and older: 31%) and engagement tied to organizations as an integrative component, where younger people are more engaged (14–29 years: 19%, 30–69 years: 14%, 60 and older: 12%) (all data from 2009, Alscher and Priller 2013: 354). The rate of engagement has been increasing slightly overall in Germany since the 1980s, which mainly concerns regular engagement (Alscher et al. 2009: 34). The involvement of older people aged 60 and over has risen sharply overall since the 1980s (ibid.: 41). In terms of age cohorts, it can be seen that it is the so-called ‘68 generation (1939–1950), the baby boomers (1951–1969) and also the younger people (from 1983) who are disproportionately committed (ibid.).

More recent findings on engagement in the context of civil society activities related to the environmental field can be found in relation to protest movements (Marg et al. 2013). According to these findings, more than 25%of participants in these groups are between 46 and 55 years old, and even more than 30% between 56 and 65 (ibid.: 304). Almost no participants are found in the range between 16 and 25, only 2.5% are between 25 and 35 years old. However, only a few older people are also found (13% between 66 and 75, 4% over 75). The 35 to 45 age group is not well represented at 16%. Walter points out, however, that in the past no older persons were involved at all (ibid.: 305). The social structure is strongly characterized by academics: 45.8% have a university degree, 9% even a doctorate (ibid.: 308). Only 0.6% do not have a degree and 0.6% have a “low-level” secondary school-leaving certificate (Hauptschulabschluss). At 16%, the “high-level” secondary school-leaving certificate (Abitur) is more strongly represented than the “mid-level” secondary school-leaving certificate (Mittlere Reife/Realschulabschluss) (5.4%). 14% have completed vocational training, pupils and students are not strongly represented (8.4%). Significantly more men are active (68.6% are male), and a conspicuously large number of people are non-denominational (61.5%) (ibid.: 314, 316). Among the study groups, one third are active in the field of energy and urban development, and the education/school sector is the most pronounced (75%) (ibid.: 315).

According to the extrapolation of fowid (Forschungsgruppe Weltanschauungen in Deutschland 2015), 34% of the population in Germany are non-denominational. The 2013 data report indicates 18% non-denominational for western Germany, 68% for eastern Germany (2012 data, Statistisches Bundesamt and WZB 2013: 347). People with a denominational affiliation are much more committed than those without (73% compared to 27%) (Alscher et al. 2009: 45).

The data also suggests that the respondents understand commitment here primarily as membership. In this sense, the question on active membership puts actual engagement beyond silent membership into perspective (44 percent of respondents).

Unconventional engagement is usually not recorded in studies, and the attribution and definition is still unclear in some cases, which is why a wide variety of forms can fall under it – however, according to data from 2008 (ALLBUS), the WZB assumes that, for example, 23% of respondents are members of informal groups (such as discussion groups and regulars’ tables) (Alscher et al. 2009: 32). Informal participation behavior is supposed to be complementary to formal involvement, as this is presumably strongly influenced by the social middle classes.

See also similar results of a survey in Heidelberg by Kreß et al. (2014b: 15): “The results of the questionnaire survey show: 11% of the respondents from Heidelberg state that they own their own RE system. Owners are more likely to be found in the middle age segment, often have a middle to higher level of education and a net household income of over 3500€. Of those who say they do not own a RE system, about a third (31%) of respondents say they are interested. A further 19% are ‘partly’ interested, while almost half (44%) express ‘little’ or ‘no’ interest (...). Interest is mainly expressed by younger people; citizens with low household incomes tend to be negative. Only just under 3% of respondents have a financial stake in a community RE system. Of those who do not currently have a financial stake, 4% are ‘fully’ interested, 11% are ‘fairly’ interested and a further 21% are ‘partly’ interested in participating in a local community scheme in the future. Trends emerge here depending on the gender, age and income of respondents: the lower the income, the lower the interest of respondents. Women and older people are also more likely to express a negative opinion. 9% of the citizens surveyed have or had money invested in renewable energies in general. This does not apply to 87%. Of those who have not yet invested, 11% would be interested, and a further 25% ‘partly’. Older people tend to be opposed to the idea”. – Similar results emerged from the same survey in the district of Steinfurt (Rubik et al. 2014: 13 f.): “The results of the questionnaire survey show: A quarter of all respondents say they own their own RE system (...), although these tend to be middle-aged respondents, while older people are the least likely to own their own system. Moreover, the tendency to own a RE system increases with education and income. About a quarter of non-owners would be ‘quite’ interested in owning their own RE system; for another 11% this is ‘completely true’. Younger people and those with a higher level of education and income were the most likely to express interest. Only 7% of respondents are or have been financially involved in a community RE system. Of those who are not yet involved, 20% are interested in participating in the future, just over 19% are interested to some extent, and 55% of all respondents reject possible participation altogether. There are tendencies here depending on the gender, age and income of the respondents: the lower the income, the more likely the respondents are to reject participation; women and older respondents were also more likely to reject participation. 8% of the citizens surveyed have or had already invested money in renewable energies in general. However, this does not apply to the majority, 14% of this group would be interested in investing their money in renewable energies, the approval increases here with the level of education and income, women and older people tend to express themselves rather “reserved” again.

This finding is consistent with the results of a survey of energy cooperatives in Germany, according to which the most important motives for a decision to join were contribution to independent energy production (81 percent), environmental protection (79 percent), contribution to the community energy transition (78 percent), contribution to long-term cost-effective energy (73 percent); less important, however, was contribution to strengthening the regional economy (57 percent) and making a difference in society (56 percent) Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 7 f.). At the same time, the motives were queried with regard to general agreement, whereby the motives of making a difference to society (67 percent), participation in the energy transition (63 percent), strengthening the regional economy (68 percent) and contribution to long-term cost-effective energy (66 percent) are particularly striking. In contrast, the values for the two highly rated motives contribution to independent energy production (84 percent general agreement) and contribution to environmental protection (77 percent) are similar. Apparently, the immediate effects of community energy on site are less essential for concrete participation. Incidentally, non-members rated the motive of making a difference in society by far the highest with regard to the decision to join, which is the least relevant motive among cooperative members. Apparently, this motive represents a kind of starting point, which, however, plays less of a role with regard to topic-specific reasons (such as environmental protection and energy transition) with regard to concrete participation. For non-members, just as for members, the community energy turnaround and environmental protection are the most important motives for a possible decision to join (ibid.). With regard to the evaluation of the return on investment, interestingly enough, the results are reversed for members and non-members: While members assess energy cooperatives quite predominantly as profitable (69 percent), only 5 percent of non-members do so. Accordingly, 5 percent of members rate energy cooperatives as very or somewhat low in terms of return on investment, but 38 percent of non-members do. Fifty-seven percent of non-members guess a return on investment as partly-somewhat, while only 27 percent of members do so (ibid.: 9). Accordingly, cooperative members indicated that for 28 percent the return aspect is rather or very unimportant, 34 percent consider it to be partly important and partly unimportant, in contrast to 38 percent who consider it to be rather or very important. Also, 75 percent of non-members state that the return aspect does not play an outstanding role (ibid.).

The main motivation for socio-political involvement is shaping society, at least on a small scale, and getting together with other people (60% fully agree); acquiring qualifications, prestige and influence, and professional advancement are seen as less important (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 12). Above all, the activity should be fun, help other people, serve the common good, serve the community and offer input as well as the development of knowledge and experience (ibid.: 13). The Volunteer Survey therefore summarizes these statements under three types of motivation: Common good-oriented (strongly increasing tendency, especially among older persons), sociability-oriented (strongly decreasing tendency, similarly distributed in all age groups) and interest-oriented (slightly increasing tendency, especially more pronounced among younger persons) (ibid.: 122).

Bauwens (2014b, 2016) distinguishes as motivational conditions for participation in an energy cooperative on the one hand public benefits (1. reduction of CO₂ emissions, 2. reduction of commodity dependencies), and on the other hand private benefits (1. Monetary benefits: Return on investment or discounted electricity tariffs, 2. Non-monetary benefits). It was found that in two of the energy cooperatives studied, non-monetary motives for participation were decisive, in particular ecological orientation as well as interpersonal trust and social identification. Distributive justice/fairness (i.e. the enjoyment benefits of energy use) and procedural justice/fairness (procedures and processes of implementation and administration of energy use) were analyzed as not decisive. Again, social identification and distributive justice are the main explanatory factors for the level of contribution. The financial incentive is also in this study only a partial factor for the participation decision, here high values are in the midfield between strongly shaping the decision and not shaping at all. In this case, however, the two differently oriented energy cooperatives studied differ considerably from each other in terms of the maximum deviating approval or disapproval values (in the case of the energy cooperative with many small participations (on average 2000 euros, 47,500 participants), the value of low return orientation is about 12 percent (9 percent full approval for return orientation), while in the case of the energy cooperative with fewer participants (on average 4000 euros, 2400 participants), it is about 27 percent (18 percent full approval for return orientation), see Bauwens 2014b: 6). Similarly strong differences from case to case can also be found within this survey (especially with regard to size, participation orientation/distribution (many small vs. a few large shares), bottom-up initiatives or top-down participation offerings).

See also similar results of a survey in Heidelberg on motives for investing in renewable energy systems by Kreß et al. (2014b: 15): “The main motives for investing in renewable energy systems are to make a ‘contribution to climate protection’ and to ‘protect the environment’. More than 70% of the respondents agree with these motives. 58% of the respondents want to be ‘independent of energy suppliers’ through RE systems or give financial motives. Slightly more than one third would like to ‘strengthen the regional economy’. The interviews and the focus group came to similar conclusions: investments in community renewable energy systems are seen as financially secure by active citizens. Other important motives are self-determination, ecological and technical interest as well as regionality, because it is “a nice thought that this is close by”. In the case of investments in their own plants, ecological or normative motives are more prominent among those involved, but are also linked to financial aspects: ‘not only to take account of the energy transition now or to be part of it, but of course return considerations also play a role’.” – Similar results – albeit with a stronger emphasis on the return aspect – emerged from the same survey in the district of Steinfurt (Rubik et al. 2014: 14 f.): “The main motives for investing in RE systems are to ‘contribute to climate protection’ and to ‘protect the environment’: more than 60% of respondents agreed with these motives in each case. 68% of respondents would like to gain financial advantages through RE systems and 62% would like to be ‘independent of energy suppliers’. Slightly more than one third would like to ‘strengthen the regional economy’. The interviews and the focus group came to similar results: In addition to the need to do something for the region, the advancement of the local energy transition and the real practice of citizen participation are further motives. In addition to financial gains, these aspects also convey a good feeling: ‘You are a member and that just feels very good!’ The participants in the focus group were more focused on financial gains. When it comes to investing in one’s own investments, financial motives come first among the committed, but they are also linked to normative aspects: ‘for my children I have to do something someday.’ That was an investment in the future. That wasn’t about money’.”

The data used here is based on the status of 2012.

The issues of the right of control and possible influence on shareholders’ meetings will be discussed further in the next section, “Participatory Arrangements”.

Information on this was also found in the minutes of meetings in case study 3 (urban solar cooperative), where one member showed interest in serving on a committee; this aspect was also discussed in case study 8 (supra-regional energy cooperative).

The function of a “think tank” or advisory function is known in almost all case studies: this is the case in case studies 3 (socio-ecological association), 4 (environmental working group), 5 (environmental association itself), 7 (local active group of committed citizens) and 8 (cooperation with local civil society groups).

Thus, the theoretical approach of this case study is very similar to the community wind farm case study, which focused on similar motivations in a comparably costly energy project.

This configuration is also found in all other cases examined, with the exception of the community solar plants of the environmental association, where, however, there is a participation approach that is not comparable with the other cases.

Note: This assessment contradicts the practice of larger energy cooperatives in Germany. However, the employee presumably relates this view exclusively to the situation in the federal state of Bremen.

This was found to be the case in all the case studies in this research.

Compare the similar consideration and practice in case study 3 (urban community solar cooperative), where the cooperative emerged from an association and this continues to function as a “think tank”. In case studies 6 (rural community solar cooperative) and 7 (citizens’ geothermal community energy initiative), a civic Local Agenda 21 group or a climate protection working group also represents a kind of ideal basis for the community energy projects.

This is in line with the results of other surveys commissioned by the Renewable Energies Agency, where increased acceptance is also assumed (see Wunderlich and Vohrer 2012; Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien 2014; CARMEN e.V. 2014).

Hoffman and High-Pippert came to similar conclusions in a survey (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2005: 397 f.). Overall, the survey also found that participants consider a high degree of informedness (about technologies and renewable energies) to be very important. In terms of relevance, the development of strong communities, energy security, construction of energy technology, opportunity for participation, identification of costs of energy production, staff involvement, local jobs, small-scale energy technology, threats of climate change, change in public issue area, structure of locally-owned energy projects were highlighted in particular. Less important were lower electricity costs, the possibility of having one’s own energy project, and the possibility of having one’s own financial advantage was considered to be of particularly low relevance, which is in line with other results in the literature.

The community energy limited liability companies are not represented on this issue.

The two characteristics identification and sense of community were surveyed with the following questions:

A change in personal attitude since participation in the energy project was surveyed with the following question:

Ever since I joined XY Community Energy Project…

In a survey of energy cooperatives in Germany, 82% of members expressed satisfaction with the participation opportunities, 80 percent also expressed satisfaction with the provision of information, and a further 78 percent stated that they were satisfied with the handling of conflicts (Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 6). However, 22% also reported back being only partly-satisfied with the handling of conflicts, and 10% were even rather or very dissatisfied (ibid.). However, this survey showed that significant differences exist in the environmental behavior of members of energy cooperatives compared to non-members: They buy more organic food, talk more with acquaintances about environmental problems, and obtain more information about environmental problems (ibid.: 10). Similar to the results of the present study, energy cooperatives generate for participants a strengthened sense of belonging among members (61 percent agree), a strengthened sense of belonging locally (52 percent agree), and a sense of being more a part of the local community (51 percent agree) (ibid.: 11).

This case is reminiscent of the urban solar cooperative case study, where the initiators are also interested in members’ ideas for new projects.

Conflicts between working groups and the boards of cooperatives could also be observed in von Blanckenburg’s study of climate protection cooperatives, according to which the “grassroots understanding” of the working groups could come into conflict with the board (von Blanckenburg 2014: 264). In the cases studied here, it was possible to identify a problem with regard to a competition of competences in particular, in that in one case study the board felt ignored by the working groups and restricted in its work as well as not supported; the problem ultimately amounted to a question of trust, as a result of which the working groups ultimately lose influence and motivations tend to be reduced.

See the case of the urban solar cooperative, where one member showed interest in serving on a committee.

High numbers of participants in some of the cases studied are known (community wind farm, wind cooperative and employee cooperative) and are evidenced by survey data, interviews, protocols and observations.

Hoffman and High-Pippert (2005: 399) were able to determine in case analyses that only a very small number of participating citizens in community energy projects were strongly involved in the topic area of renewable energy or the political process. At the same time, however, they found sustained enthusiasm for the issues, stable formats of deliberation, extended social contacts and information exchange, and a belief in success among the members (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2010: 7572). However, in the cases studied here, the number of participants is very low in each case, and particularly low in the case of long-term projects. In addition, in the projects studied there are very strongly committed citizens who, although in the absolute minority, have the ability to incite less committed citizens and integrate them into the community program (ibid.). Thus, according to the authors, community energy projects can be an example of how the transformation from individual to collective or community action can succeed. Based on the empirical results, this thesis is maintained by the authors, although many citizens do not make any efforts regarding participatory procedures. Community energy initiatives thus bring together people who have different “backgrounds”, giving the initiative experience in very different ways (ibid.).

In a study of energy cooperatives in Germany, it was found that 56 percent of members subscribe to shares up to 2500 euros, another 15 percent subscribe to shares between 2500 and 5000 euros, and 13 percent subscribe to shares between 5000 and 10,000 euros, although 17 percent subscribe to shares above 10,000 euros (referring to photovoltaic/heat energy cooperatives; Rauschmayer et al. 2015: 6).

This aspect was surveyed with the following questions: 

According to the Volunteer Survey (Gensicke and Geiss 2010: 34), the main content of activities in voluntary organizations are: organizing and running events (64%), practical work (58%), personal assistance (41%), public relations (39%), interest work and participation (37%).

According to the results of a study on climate protection cooperatives by von Blanckenburg, there is usually little participation of members within the forums of cooperatives: “The opportunities for participation in cooperatives are largely evaluated positively by the members, even if in almost all cooperatives (...) they are limited to participation in the general assembly or the election of representatives for the general assembly. In fact, often only a minority exercises its democratic rights. This sometimes takes a contradictory form: people support participation and even see it as a special merit of the cooperative, but do not participate” (von Blanckenburg 2014: 263). – In case analyses, Hoffman and High-Pippert (2005: 399) found that only very few citizens were strongly involved in the issue area or the political process. At the same time, however, they found sustained enthusiasm for the issues, stable formats of deliberation, extended social contacts and information exchange, and a belief in success among members (Hoffman and High-Pippert 2010: 7572). However, in the cases studied here, the number of participants is very small in each case, and particularly low in the case of long-term projects. In addition, in the projects studied there are very strongly committed citizens who, although in the absolute minority, have the ability to incite less committed citizens and integrate them into the community program (ibid.). Thus, according to the authors, community energy projects can be an example of how the transformation from individual to collective or community action can succeed. The finding can be confirmed although many citizens do not make any efforts regarding participatory procedures. Community energy initiatives thus bring together people who have different “backgrounds”, giving the initiative experience in very different ways (ibid.).

A further survey confirms these results. In a comparison between GmbH & Co. KGs and cooperatives, a stronger return motive is noticeable in the first case. In both forms of organization, the two most important motives are “energy transition” and “environmental protection”: “The main motives of many citizens are environmental protection and the advancement of the energy transition, whereby financial motives cannot be completely neglected (Leuphana University Lüneburg and Nestle 2014: iv).

Respondents’ statements here are: “concept of democracy is hardly applicable to companies” (line 1585). “A company is not democratic” (line 1383). “I find it difficult to link a business enterprise with democracy” (line 1635). “overall hard to judge, in the end (...) [note: the community energy company] is a business” (line 1574). “democratic is an inaccurate term in this context” (line 1628). “(...) [note: the community energy company] is a limited liability company – not a cooperative or any other “democratic” company” (line 1767). “It is difficult to speak of democratic in the context of a business enterprise” (line 2348). “does a BSA [note: community solar system] have anything to do with “democracy”? I don’t understand the question without discussion” (line 2460). “What does it have to do with democracy? But it makes sense” (line 2466).

Particulars of the parties involved are here: “Banks and founders have the upper hand” (line 653), “there are also alliances and networks/advocacy coalitions” (line 1010). “however, I think it is difficult to exercise control” (line 1343). “was only at the beginning” (line 133). “partly democratic” (line 1804, second citation line 2593, third citation line 2708). “The democratization is not yet complete” (line 2429).

Respondents’ statements here are: “If the EC is run sensibly and responsibly, it may not need to be democratic” (line 109). “Doesn’t need to be democratic” (line 1179). “I’m not in it to contribute. Employees are welcome to do that” (line 2471).

Respondents’ statements here are: (a: votes/meetings) “There are some areas / decisions that were not voted on, at these points the solar cooperative would not be democratic. Other issues were discussed and voted on, so it is (...) in some parts democratic and in other parts non-democratic (line 424)”. “Not aware of any meeting” (line 657), “not participated in any meeting so far” (line 682). “I haven’t found out about my voting rights, but think it’s a good important thing – if anyone wants to get involved. But I also think it’s good that you don’t HAVE to do this” (line 973). “No public meeting yet” (line 2095). “I haven’t thought about whether this co-op has democratic decision-making structures, and since I’m never at meetings, I can’t say anything about that” (line 2688). “Haven’t attended any meetings yet. New” (line 2728). – (b: co-determination) “Because limited partners have voting rights in the partners’ meeting” (line 1595). “No cooperative shares, so no voting rights either” (line 1722). “The owner of the roof also became a partner” (line 300). “Because no shareholder can represent more than 10% of the votes” (line 2156). – Definitions are also made here ex negativo: “The EC not actually not typically democratic, no practical co-determination” (line 110). “because of proportional voting rights” (line 2202). One member also considers the partially applied rule of excluding high participation amounts because of the danger of dominance precisely as a non-democratic principle (equal treatment): “No upper limit on voting shares, because that is undemocratic” (line 2537). – – c: committees/structure) “there is a supervisory board” (line 132), “advisory board” (line 577), “haven’t dealt with structure” (line 1549). “because the corporate law gives it” (line 2163). – (d: via club/association – community energy project as a spin-off) “Origin from and involvement of the association provide for a certain democratic effect” (line 1375). “Association in the background” (line 1290). “Don’t know much about (...) [note: the community energy project], but the origin from (...) [note: a large environmental protection association] creates trust” (line 1677).

Respondents’ statements here are: “I have only been involved financially so far. But the communication about the project leaves me with the impression that (...) [note: the energy cooperative] acts according to democratic principles” (line 407). “Because management is transparent” (line 469). “Independence” (line 1415). “Transparency” (line 1276, 2nd mention line 1415). “Open and transparent communication” (line 2349).

Respondents’ statements here are: “it seems to me that “democratic” = morally good is set here. If that is what is meant, “morally good” or just “good” should be asked directly” (line 414). “I don’t think this point is so important. More important to me is an ethical orientation” (line 1297). Similarly, “I haven’t cared about participation so far, but the organization is probably not anti-constitutional “(line 1466). “Democracy is basic attitude” (line 1541). “I trust the cooperative. I trust the board of directors. Every cooperative in our society is the reflection of our democracy” (line 2827).

Statements of the interviewee here are: “I don’t want it democratic at all, I want it successful” (line 1455). “I consider professional and competent action more important than ‘democracy’ in a company” (line 1380).

Statement of a respondent: “Because every participation is a contribution to the power supply in the country” (line 756). Another understanding suggests that a community energy project can be considered democratic through a wide variety of aspects: “because all points are probably possible” (line 2477). Another consideration is whether it is about the context of origin or processes in the organization, both are considered: “(...) the origin, the processes?” (line 2481).

Respondent statements here are: “No participation so far...” (line 310), “I’m too far away to be able to get involved in present events, so I don’t have the opportunity to participate democratically” (line 1186). “since I don’t participate myself, I can’t say anything about it” (line 1263). “Would like to participate personally, but too far away from me!” (line 1344). “No experience so far, having only been involved for a short time” (line 1532). “Assumptions, no experience of my own” (line 2184). “I haven’t thought about whether this cooperative has democratic decision-making structures. and since I never attend meetings, I can’t say anything about that” (line 2688). “Haven’t attended any meetings yet. New” (line 2728).

In the following, statements by participants are quoted on selected characteristics which are of particular relevance against the background of the focus of the study, e.g. lack of information, participation, activities, etc. The line references are taken from prepared MaxQDA documents.

This is confirmed in the study on climate protection cooperatives by von Blanckenburg. According to this study, cooperatives are hierarchically organized, and there is also “the power imbalance typical of participation processes (or also information imbalance, imbalance in decision-making authority, etc.), but the promotion of members reduces the potential for conflict that often arises from such inequalities” (von Blanckenburg 2014: 278), as participation takes place in a specific framework.

These assessments could also be found in the study on climate protection cooperatives by von Blanckenburg, in that direct channels of influence by members were problematized: “It is not the abandonment of direct democracy and the emergence of different ways of influencing decisions that requires explanation and classification, but conversely the direct and non-representative formation of opinion and influence is seen as a problem” (von Blanckenburg 2014: 269 f.). Furthermore, members’ scepticism towards participation could be found: “It is interesting that some members are even skeptical about an expansion of participation opportunities” (ibid.: 262).

In von Blanckenburg’s study of climate protection cooperatives, it was shown that professionalization efforts lead to a consolidation of hierarchical structures, and thus tend to push back participatory patterns and “grassroots democratic elements” (trade-off between professionalization and participation) (von Blanckenburg 2014: 270). Accordingly, the strong formation of hierarchies can hinder the direct participation of members and working groups and therefore tends to lead to conflict.

According to the findings of von Blanckenburg’s study on climate protection cooperatives, the existing understanding of participation by the management of cooperatives consists of “satisfying members”, which is judged to be dysfunctional, as the management itself speaks of “customer management” (von Blanckenburg 2014: 275). Nevertheless, the cooperative principle of member promotion is taken into account: “on the other hand, however, it becomes clear how much the principle of member promotion leads to an active effort on the part of the management to take up the opinions and suggestions of the members and to integrate them into plans” (ibid.).

Such tendencies could also be found in von Blanckenburg’s study on climate protection cooperatives. Nevertheless, an individual member can exert influence on the co-determination channels. However, this possibility is linked to personal competences and resources, which cannot be assumed for every member (von Blanckenburg 2014: 281). From this it can be concluded that the potential for active participation for the individual member is to be classified as rather low overall: “The individual member has hardly any chances to set his own topics. Working groups acting as a community, on the other hand, can articulate convictions and proposals perceptibly and thus influence the formation of opinion, even if they tend to be perceived as a disruptive factor as soon as they exceed the service function” (ibid.: 270). According to this, extended forms of participation can also lead to conflicts with formal bodies: “The independent working groups come into conflict with the board above all (...) through a grassroots democratic understanding of participation” (ibid.: 264).

This finding is consistent with the results of von Blanckenburg’s study of climate protection cooperatives. According to this, members have little interest in formal meetings, but a preference for informal meetings and exchange (von Blanckenburg 2014: 280 f.). This also corresponds to the individual understanding of participation found among cooperative members, which refers primarily to communal practices and discursive formats (see ibid.: 274): “Strongly represented, on the other hand, is the awareness that participation creates social cohesion. A social, community-creating function is recognized above all in participation in discursive formats” (ibid.: 277 f.).

The findings of von Blanckenburg’s study of climate protection cooperatives indicate that not only the goal of material benefit, but also a high level of interest “in an exchange with one another” is clearly discernible (von Blanckenburg 2014: 279). Cooperatives apparently offer in principle the possibility of establishing a discursive basis beyond the principle of economic activity: “Cooperatives in particular, in which ecological economic activity is not one of the defined purposes, could however specifically expand their participation repertoire to include discursive formats in order to also develop orientation knowledge (...). In this way, a discussion would be initiated that would expand the justifications for climate protection investments, which are based on purely economic advantages, to include value orientations” (ibid.: 279). Thus, cooperatives can promote public welfare-oriented topics such as climate protection in the discourse (ibid.: 270), which is “inconceivable in this way with other forms of enterprise” (ibid.: 281). Internal organizational structures are crucial for the unfolding of such overarching discourses: “However, (...) in reality it has been shown that the hierarchical organizational principle frames participation, and is thus much more important for the thematization of climate protection” (ibid.: 270).

Evaluations of this are only carried out here by way of example.

In Germany, there is one known case of an energy cooperative in which only women are eligible for membership.

These forms are represented in the study by small community energy cooperatives (or in the organizational form of a private company (GbR), association or similar), see information at the beginning of the chapter on the definition of the criterion.

These forms are represented in the study by large community energy limited liability companies (or joint-stock companies or cooperatives), see information at the beginning of the chapter for the definition of the criterion.