DP2015-02

Beyond Taxation: Discou rse around
Energy Policy in Japa nTakahiro EN DO
Yuki TSUBOYAMA
Yoritoshi HARA
Revised September 28, 2016

Beyond taxation: Discourse around energy policy in Japan 1

Takahiro Endo a , Yuki Tsuboyamab , Yoritoshi Harac

Abstract
Energy policy literature tends to emphasise the impact of taxation on energy
preference. However, the present case concerning extremely low acceptance ofdiesel cars in Japan could not be explained by taxation. As a possible factor, thepaper sheds light upon discourse around the energy policy. The policy aimed tocharacterise diesel technology as emitting particulate matter and nitrogen oxide1

We thank Peng Zhou and three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versionsof this article.

aCorresponding author, Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration, Kobe

University, 2-1 Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe, Japan Email: endo.takahrio@gmail.combGraduate School of Commerce and Management, Hitotsubashi University, Naka 2-1, Kunitachi,

Tokyo, Japan

Email: ytsuboyama@gmail.com

cSchool of Commerce, Meiji University, 1-1 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Email: hara@ meiji.ac.jp

(NOx). The paper contributes to extending the existing understanding of the role ofpublicpolicybyembracingthelinguistic

interactions

complementedbyvisualisation.

Key words: energy policy, taxation, discourse, diesel, interpretive policy analysis

1. Introduction
How does public policy condition people’s selection of energy source?
Public policy in relation to people’s preference of energy source tends to beunderstood in terms of taxation. Depending on the target of the policy such as the
reduction in carbon emission, weighted taxation is applied to different sources offuel that condition people’s reliance on different energy sources (Mayeres & Proost,
2013; Minjares et al., 2013; Nakata & Lamont, 2001; Plotkin, 2001; Sterner, 2007,2012). In brief, higher taxation tends to result in avoidance of that energy source andvice versa. It is, however, often overlooked that the public policy in relation toenergy source is not limited to the domain of taxation. In particular, this paperargues that it is necessary to seriously consider the implication of ‘linguistic turn’ insocial science by unpicking linguistic elements of the public policy that accord
meaning to energy sources.

This paper argues that extending the analytical focus beyond the issue oftaxation is particularly important. This is because the taxation itself cannot explain
the extremely low acceptance of diesel fuel for passenger cars in Japan, which has
not gathered adequate academic attention in the existing literature (Sterner, 2007,2012). That is, while lower taxation on diesel in major European countries has
contributed to the wider acceptance of diesel cars (Schipper & Fulton, 2013), Japan
has also held lower taxation on diesel fuel. However, the existing research has notaddressed this issue and instead focused upon the impact of taxation on gas fuels inJapan, but not diesel fuels (Sterner, 2007, 2012). This paper, therefore, as a possible
factor, explores the discursive process. For this purpose this study focuses on a
discourse, defined as a structured set of linguistic practice that gives meaning toentities including the production and dissemination of documents (Phillips & Hardy,2002). Importantly, discourse may be complemented by visualizing artefacts that
simplify key messages (Coopmans et al., 2014; Jasanoff, 2004; Latour, 1986). In fact,
discourses complemented by visualisation have provided insights into previously
overlooked processes concerning linguistic interactions that shape energy policy(Ocelik & Osička, 2014; Scrase & Ockwell, 2010).
In the present case, a central figure is the former governor of the Tokyo
Metropolitan Government (TMG) who held power between April 1999 and October2012. During his incumbency, the governor put primary emphasis on the relatively
high particulate matter emissions of diesel vehicles, which was enhanced by a PET
bottle filled with particulate matter, and deflected attention away from theirrelatively low carbon emissions (see Figure 1). This discourse was directly reflectedin the legislation that severely constrained the use of diesel vehicles (Hara et al.,2015). Importantly, the present case empirically extends Hara et al. (2015), whichshed light upon network orchestration concerning diesel vehicles in Japan. That is,
the present case embraces the role of visualizing artefacts (i.e. a PET bottle filledwith particulate matter as seen in Figure 1) that contributed to complementally
disseminating the key discourse. Furthermore, while Hara et al. (2015) dealt with theperiod between August, 1999 and April, 2001, the case of this paper extends theperiod by covering Ishihara’s entire incumbency, which was between August, 1999
and October, 2012. Therefore, the present case provides a more comprehensive
analysis.
The structure of this paper is as follows. The next section clarifies the angleof our research, which leverages the existing study mainly developed in sociologicalanalysis since the discipline has developed useful analytical perspectives fordiscursive elements. Then, the section explains the significance of concentrating on
the Japanese case that witnessed extremely low acceptance of diesel fuel. Moreover,we describe the approach to data collection, including data sources, and analysis
adopted for this paper. The following section presents the outcome of the data
analysis. Finally, we briefly summarise the argument and discuss the contributions of
this paper and provide our concluding remarks.

2. Angle: Stigmatisation, rhetoric and artefacts
The angle of the analysis is to regard the development of public policy as thediscrediting process, which involves the rejection of a certain category such as a
specific type of energy source or technology (e.g., diesel). We treat the discrediting
process as stigmatisation, which refers to a process used to create new arrangementsof legal, cultural and normative elements, whereby a particular discrediting
characteristic of actors or objects is emphasised as its core trait (Lutgen-Sandvik,
2008; Paetzold et al, 2008). In other words, stigmatisation focuses upon a particular
discrediting characteristic of a certain technology, suggesting that the characteristic
adequately represents it.
As the term “stigma” was originally presented in association with physical,
moral, and racial characteristics of individuals and groups (Goffman, 1963), theconcept of stigmatisation has been applied mainly at the individual and group levels.
Examples include HIV status (Fife & Wright, 2000; Parker & Aggleton, 2003),

mental illness (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2003), race (Storrs, 1999), andoccupation (Ashforth & Kreiner, 2014). Although the concept has been applied
primarily at these levels, it is reasonable to extend it to the analysis of social andcultural objects (Lopes, 2006) as well as technology and its related objects (Slovic etal., 2013). In relation to the focus of this paper, diesel fuel has various
characteristics, but stigmatisation makes a certain negative characteristic of it as itscore trait.
Stigmatisation

proceeds

throughtheintentional

production

anddissemination of a certain type of discourse, known as rhetoric, complemented byartefacts. Rhetoric, or the language of persuasion, is a specific type of discourse used
to exert influence on the status of acceptance of entities or objects (Erkama & Vaara,
2010). Therefore, by creating and disseminating rhetoric, actors can potentiallymanipulate a particular audience into accepting or rejecting certain activities orentities (Erkama & Vaara, 2010; Vaara & Tienari, 2011). Although these studies (i.e.,
Erkama & Vaara, 2010; Vaara & Tienari, 2011) have not explicitly utilised theconcept of rhetoric in analysing persuasion with regard to stigmatised objects, it isreasonable to assume that rhetoric is employed in stigmatisation.
To examine the usage of rhetoric in relation to stigmatisation, we employ theclassification of Vaara et al. (2006), which identifies various types of rhetoric,including

rationalisation,

moralisation,

normalisation,authorisation,andnarrativisation. Rationalisation emphasises that stigmatizing a certain object reflects
a rational judgment. Moralisation underlines the appropriateness of stigmatizing acertain object in terms of moral judgment. Normalisation emphasises thatstigmatizing certain objects or behaviours is normal rather than deviant.
Authorisation indicates that stigmatisation can stem from an authority figure. Finally,
narrativisation dramatically frames stigmatised objects, for example, in terms of ahero–enemy relationship.
Although Vaara et al. (2006) do not fully explore the link between rhetoricand artefact, it is reasonable to point out that artefacts may complement rhetoric.
Indeed, the importance of artefacts, in particular visualizing ones, has been
illustrated in the context of legitimation of the scientific knowledge, which
importantly includes technological ones. That is, visualisation through artefacts
could simplify complex relationships involving the key object(s) such as the cause
and effect relationships shown in mathematical formulae (Coopmans et al., 2014;
Jasanoff, 2004; Latour, 1986). Visualizing artefacts includes various images, be they
digital or analogue. Importantly, simplification through visualising artefacts
contributes to the legitimation of a certain scientific claim by convincing theaudience of the plausibility of the suggested relationship. Therefore, to better

understand stigmatisation, it may be useful to link this visualisation effect ofartefacts with rhetoric. In other words, actors draw upon both rhetoric andvisualizing artefacts when they stigmatise an object, including a certain technology.
In summary, this paper aims to examine the role of public policy in thediscrediting process of a certain fuel as well as technology. By adopting key terms,
the primary focus of this paper can be summarised as follows: through stigmatisation,
public policy produces and disseminates rhetoric and utilises artefacts in its favour.
Before using this analytical framework and explaining how diesel technology/fuelwas stigmatised in the Japanese automotive industry, the data collection and analysis
process will be shown in the next section.

3. Data collection and analysis

We have conducted a single case study with temporal variation (Type 1 case study)
that examines variation of a single analytical unit over time and infer a causal
relationship underlying the case (Gerring, 2004). Furthermore, the single case study
that focused upon TMG’s anti diesel car campaign represents a deviant case (Gerring,2006) since the existing assumption concerning the role of taxation cannot explain
the low acceptance of diesel cars in Japan.

In terms of ‘the possible impact of taxation and TMG’s campaign on
extremely low acceptance of diesel passenger vehicles in Japan’ (Table 1), we
examined macro level statistics of passenger car registration in Japan as well as in
EU 15 countries by examining statistics available from websites of Japan
Automobile Manufacturers Association and European Automotive Manufacturers
Association. Together with this, the impact of taxation was examined by taking suchdata into consideration (US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY website). In brief, it was
confirmed that the extremely low acceptance of diesel cars in Japan cannot be
explained by taxation. As a possible factor contributing to the low acceptance, we
examined the TMG’s stigmatisation campaign. We relied on data concerning thecirculation of newspapers (The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association,2015) and public opinion survey concerning the perception of diesel cars (METI
website), which implied the possible impact of the stigmatising campaign on low
acceptance of diesel cars. Furthermore, we examined car manufacturers’ websites(Mazda, Honda, Toyota, Suzuki, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes, Ford)
that operate in Japan and found that a couple of them mentioned TMG’s stigmatising
campaign as a major threat to their operation in the early 2000s; the majority of themtried to address the negative image of diesel cars by adopting the new term.

[ Table 1 here ]With respect to “Rhetoric adopted by TMG which was complemented by avisualizing artefact” (Table 1), we focused on the key moment of the stigmatisationof diesel vehicles. Firstly, in order to examine rhetoric adopted by the TMG, wecollected relevant materials that included three leaflets that had been distributed aswell as the official A4 40-page report evaluating the consequences of “Operation No
Diesel (Diesel-sha nō sakusen) (August 1999 – December 2000)” (available fromTMG Environmental Problem Portal website). The three leaflets were published inAugust, October, and December 1999, and the official report was published in
September 2003. By manually reading through these data, it was confirmed that the
TMG governor’s stigmatisation campaign effectively employed all of the types ofrhetoric classified by Vaara et al. (2006), including rationalisation, normalisation,
moralisation, authorisation and narrativisation. Under this set of rhetoric, wedeveloped sub-themes such as “Pollution level” “Particulate matter emissions”

“Inflation and diesel” under rationalisation rhetoric 2 . As Yin (2013) indicates, thisprocess was iterative between the existing knowledge (i.e., Vaara et al’sclassification of rhetoric) and data. Then, we manually categorised each excerpt into
these sub-themes, as seen in Table 2.

[ Table 2 here ]Additionally, in order to examine the role of a visualising artefact, we
performed a keyword search using the term “Operation No Diesel” in a database ofJapanese leading newspapers (Yomiuri shimbun, Asahi shimbun, Nikkei shimbun).
We limited our results to those published between April 1999 and October 2012, a
period during which Ishihara was in office. This enabled us to obtain articles related
to the TMG’s dissemination of rhetoric related to “Operation No Diesel.”2

Full list of sub-themes are as follows: “Pollution level” “Particulate matter emissions,” “Inflationand diesel” under rationalisation; “Nox and particulate matter emission” “Lower tax rate forlow-sulfur diesel” under normalisation; “constructed diesel economy” under moralisation; “harmful

diesel” under authorisation; “TMG as saviour” “Inadequate response by the central government”

under narrativisation.

Consequently, we were left with a total of 30 articles from Asahi shimbun, 64 from
Yomiuri shimbun, and 15 from Nikkei shimbun. As seen in Table 3, the majority of
the coverage concentrated on 1999 and 2000, which was the substantive part of“Operation No Diesel”.
[ Table 3 here ]Through examining newspaper articles, we confirmed that Ishihara frequently
carried a PET bottle containing diesel particulate matter, which acted as an artefact
connecting diesel vehicles with particulate matter. Although the Japanese Trucking
Association initially resisted the campaign, it later cooperated (Yomiuri shimbun,
October, 26, 2012). The Japanese Trucking Association’s rhetoric was disseminatedvia its own website (Tokyo Trucking Association website) and a newspaper and, thus,
was kept on a relatively small scale. In terms of leading Japanese newspapers(Yomiuri shimbun, Asahi shimbun, Nikkei shimbun), only one article positively
covered the Japanese Trucking Association’s resistance— Asahi shimbun on October30, 1999. In contrast, the TMG widely and continuously disseminated its rhetoric via
various media, not all of which have been covered in this analysis (e.g., television).
The following section presents our analysis.

4. The Stigmatisation of diesel technology in JapanIn 1999, the TMG launched “Operation No Diesel,” a campaign aimed at
implementing stricter measures regarding diesel vehicles. Consequently, thecampaign led to the stigmatisation of diesel vehicles in Japan. The following
sections provide an analysis of the impact of the campaign, the rhetoric adopted anddisseminated through the campaign and the role of a visualising artefact.

4.1 The impact of TMG’s campaign

A key contrast has been observed between Japan and Europe in terms of theacceptance of diesel technology. In contrast to EU 15 countries (i.e., Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), diesel passenger
vehicles in Japan have not sold well. In Japan, the diesel share of new passenger car
registrations has decreased since around 1990. In 2010, diesel vehicles accounted forless than 1 percent of new passenger car registrations in Japan compared to 40
percent in EU 15 countries (Figure 1, contrasting the diesel new passenger car
registration between Japan and EU 15 countries).

[ Figure 1 here ]As Schipper & Fulton (2013) indicate, lower taxation on diesel fuel, enhanced inparticular after the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in the late 1990s, has
contributed to the acceptance of diesel cars in EU 15 countries. This can be alsoinferred from Figure 2, which compares taxation on diesel and gasoline between EU
15 countries and Japan, and importantly illustrates the overall trend of higher
taxation on gasoline. However, importantly, Figure 2 also reports a similar trend inJapan. That is, similar to major European countries, Japan has witnessed higher
taxation on gasoline (i.e., lower taxation on diesel). Therefore, on the one hand, itwould be reasonable to argue that the issue of taxation may be useful to explain the
popularity of diesel fuel or diesel cars in EU 15 countries. On the other hand, thetaxation cannot be helpful in giving a reason to why diesel is avoided in Japan.

[ Figure 2 here ]In summary, since the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the reduction of carbon
emissionshas

becomeanimportantelement

inregulation

arrangements

internationally. Importantly, major European countries recognised that diesel
vehicles emit less carbon than gasoline vehicles (Ellerman et al., 2010) and held
lower taxation on diesel. In clear contrast, as discussed in more detail later in thepaper, Japanese public policy emphasised a negative aspect (i.e., the high particulatematter emissions and nitrogen oxide (NOx)) of diesel vehicles. Consequently, lower
taxation on diesel could not result in the acceptance of diesel in the country.
During this stigmatising campaign, automotive makers remained silent.
Although the Japanese Trucking Association expressed disagreement with thecampaign for a period of time (Tokyo Trucking Association website), it did not do so
widely and, thus, could not stop the TMG’s campaign. In fact, the campaign diffused
stigmatising images of diesel cars visualised by a PET bottle containing diesel PM. A
typical image can be found in Figure 3, which was used in a newspaper
advertisement in November, 2000.

[Figure 3 here]

These images were disseminated via various channels, including advertisements on
television and newspapers across the country during several months in 2000. While
the viewing rate of such images on television was not available, circulation of major

newspapers (Yomiuri shimbun, Asahi shimbun, Nikkei shimbun), which placed the
TMG’s stigmatising images, was. The total circulation of these was 21 million(Yomiuri shimbun 10 million, Asahi shimbun 8 million, Nikkei shimbun 3 million) in
2000 (The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association, 2015). The
population of the country around that time was approximately 120 million. Therefore,
it could be argued that around 17 percent of the population was possibly exposed tostigmatising images of diesel cars. The campaign’s potential impact on the Japanese
diesel car market could be inferred from the result of a public opinion survey
concerning the perception of diesel cars conducted by METI (Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry) in 2004. Since a similar sort of survey (i.e. examining theperception of diesel fuelled cars) was not conducted before the TMG’s campaign, theresult of this survey, conducted after the substantive part of the campaign (August
1999 – December 2000) cannot directly endorse the impact. Nonetheless, the result,at least, implies the potential impact of the campaign if we take the significantly
broad diffusion rate of stigmatising images into account. More than 80 percent of the
respondents (N=500) answered the perception of diesel cars, compared to gasoline
ones, was worse in terms of cleanliness of exhaust gas (multiple choice of ‘better’,‘worse’, ‘same’, ‘no idea’). More details of this survey can be found in the appendix(Table 5 and Table 6). Moreover, a couple of car manufacturers’ websites illustratingtheir involvement in diesel passenger cars (Isuzu website; Mazda website) indicatethat the image of diesel vehicles was significantly influenced by Ishihara’s display of
a PET bottle filled with diesel particulate matter. Moreover, in Japan, from around2010, car manufacturers started using the term “clean diesel” to promote diesel
passenger vehicles (Mazda, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, BMW, Ford,
Mercedes). The next section shows the analysis of the actual content of thecampaign.

4.2. Rhetoric utilised in the campaign

This section illustrates the analyses of the rhetoric concerning thestigmatisation of diesel fuels, which was observed in the TMG’s campaign in theform of the TMG’s leaflet as well as their official report. We classified the rhetoricas rationalisation (emphasising rational judgement), moralisation (illustrating
appropriateness), normalisation (stressing normality), authorisation (strengthening
the argument by relying on the authority), and/or narrativisation (framing the story
in a dramatic manner such as hero versus enemy) (Vaara et al., 2006). Table 2
provides a summary of this. In terms of rationalisation, both the leaflets and thereport include excerpts related to pollution level and particulate matter emission.

With regard to pollution level, the TMG argued that the NOx and particulate matter
levels in the air, predominantly emitted from diesel vehicles, had not changed for a
decade:Air pollution in Tokyo has not been improved for the past decade. The levelof NOx and particulate matter contained in the air has been stable (Leaflet
adopted for the campaign).

They also argued that diesel vehicles were the main cause of particulate matteremissions. Moreover, the leaflets also touched upon inflation and diesel. The TMG
introduced an estimate denying the allegation that replacing diesel vehicles withgasoline ones had led to inflation. TMG’s rhetoric concerning rationalisation, in
brief, emphasises the necessity to ‘stigmatise’ diesel fuel based on rational
judgement.
Regarding normalisation, NOx and particulate matter regulation is acommonly seen theme. The TMG argued that the increasing popularity of diesel
vehicles in European countries was due to Western countries adopting stricter
regulations on NOx and particulate emissions:In 1994, Japan first introduced regulations with respect to the maximum
emissions of particulate matter from diesel vehicles. However, the maximum
amount was generous compared to that used in regulations of Westerncountries. In terms of maximum amount of emissions, Japan is 10 years
behind Western countries (TMG’s official report, p. 2).

Furthermore, the report included the theme of a lower tax rate for low sulfur diesel,
indicating that EU countries were concerned with lower NOx and particulate
emissions and, thus, promoted less toxic diesel by applying a lower tax rate for low
sulfur diesel:

EU countries impose a lower tax on low-sulfur diesel in order to encourage
the diffusion of diesel vehicles. Japan does not have this measure (TMG’s
official report, p. 3).

In summary, by normalisation, the TMG’s primary attention has been paid to theregulatory framework and examples in the EU have been used to emphasise theaspects of the Japanese status quo that are considered to be ‘under-developed’.
In relation to moralisation, both the leaflets and the official report arecharacterised by the theme of a constructed diesel economy. That is, the TMG argued
that people commonly believe diesel vehicles were more energy efficient and, thus,
more economical than gasoline vehicles. However, according to their argument, thiswas not the case. Instead, they argued that this belief stemmed from the lower tax
rate for diesel in the country:

Diesel cars are said to be more energy efficient than gasoline cars. However,this is constructed value because the increased efficiency is mainly derived
from the different rates of tax imposed on gasoline and diesel (Leaflet
adopted for the campaign).

By drawing upon moralisation, the TMG cast doubt upon the benefit of diesel fuel.
Importantly, unlike other rhetoric, moralisation here did not necessarily stigmatise
diesel fuel. Rather, moralisation adopted by TMG aimed to remove the positive
characteristics of diesel fuel.
With respect to authorisation, the theme of harmful diesel was commonly
observed. By drawing upon scientific research conducted at authoritative research
institutions, the TMG aimed to illustrate a potential link between the exposure todiesel gas and diseases such as asthma, cancer, pollen allergies, fecundity, and mood

disorders.

Scientific research implies that diesel has a harmful impact on the humanbody. This research is conducted by the Japanese Ministry of Environment,
German Ministry of Environment, Harvard University in the United States,
Japanese National Institute for Environmental Studies, Dutch researchers,
and Prof. Ken Takeda at Tokyo University of Science (TMG’s official report,
p. 13).

With regard to narrativisation, we observed two themes: TMG as saviour andthe inadequate response by the central government. Importantly, both themescommonly regarded diesel fuel as sources of negative consequences, but weredifferent in terms of focus. The first theme, TMG as saviour, was observed in boththe leaflets and the official report. The TMG emphasised that it took pioneering
measures to save the citizens of Tokyo from air pollution caused by diesel vehicles.
The theme of inadequate response by the central government is related to the first
theme, but distinct in the sense that it directly criticises the measures taken by thecentral government:

Although the central government did not take appropriate measures toaddress the problems associated with diesel cars, the TMG has been apioneer in prohibiting the use of diesel cars that do not satisfy particulatematter emission levels since October 2003 (TMG’s official report, p. 15).

In a nutshell, by narrativisation, the TMG argued that the “lazy” central government
had not taken appropriate measures to improve Tokyo’s air quality. Therefore, theTMG intended to take measures to combat the environmental issues caused by diesel
vehicles.

4.3. Visualizing artefact: Say it with a PET bottle

Regarding rationalisation (rational decision behind the active campaign
targeting reduced particulate matter emissions) and narrativisation (framing the
campaign in terms of TMG as saviour and inadequate response by the central
government), a PET bottle containing diesel particulate matter played acomplementary role. Table 4 lists the newspaper coverage of the usage of a PET
bottle by the then-governor.

[ Table 4]

As Table 4 illustrates, the then governor, Ishihara carried a PET bottle containing
dark particulate matter on various occasions. These included press conferences,meetings

withrelevant

individuals/organisations,newspaper/television

advertisements, election campaigns, and international conferences. Illustrating
examples, identified in leading Japanese newspapers, are as follows:[PRESS CONFERENCE] Ishihara, the then-governor, asked, “Do you
know how many 500 ml bottles of particulate matter are emitted perday?” while carrying a PET bottle in his hand (August 27, 1999).

[MEETING WITH THEN PRIME MINISTER] Showing a PET bottle,
the then-governor said to the then-prime minister, “12,000 of these [=500 ml PET bottle] are emitted in Tokyo, in a single day,” illustrating
the necessity to develop stronger regulations (November 8, 2002).

[NEWSPAPER/TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT] Showing a PET
bottle,thethen-governor

illustrated

thenecessity

tocombatenvironmental problems caused by diesel vehicles (several months in2000).

[ELECTION CAMPAIGN] Showing a PET bottle, the then-governor
illustrated the necessity to further deal with environmental problems
caused by diesel vehicles (several times in April 2003).

[INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE] Showing a PET bottle at the
Asian Network of Major Cities 21

held in New Delhi, thethen-governor illustrated the necessity to combat particulate matterproblems caused by diesel vehicles (November 22, 2002).

As seen above, the rhetoric adopted here together with the visualising artefact can beclassified as rationalisation and narrativisation because the governor illustrated theobvious environmental issues caused by diesel vehicles and his role (and the TMG)
as “saviour” in combatting those environmental problems, which the TMG
associated with the inadequate measures of the central government.
In summary, thorough the campaign, the TMG devised a comprehensive
rhetoric that highlighted the negative effects of diesel vehicles, utilizing all of therhetoric types identified by Vaara et al. (2006). Furthermore, the then-governor
visualised the discrediting feature of diesel vehicles, namely dark coloured
particulate matter, as their core trait through the use of the PET bottle. This coverage
would have contributed to the negative meaning attached to diesel vehicles,
potentially explaining the low level of diesel vehicle consumption in Japan despite
the lower taxation on diesel.

Conclusions and implications

While lower taxation rate on diesel fuel would have contributed to thepositive perception of diesel fuel in major European countries (Schipper & Fulton,2013), the taxation on fuel sources could not provide a solution for the avoidance ofdiesel fuel in Japan. Therefore, the article has suggested the necessity to extend theanalytical focus beyond the issue of taxation. As a possible step, this paper exploredthe linguistic element of the energy policy. In the present case, the TMG and its
then-governor highlighted the discrediting characteristics of diesel vehicles. The
rhetoric was mainly disseminated by the then governor. Importantly, he visualised
the negative effects of diesel fuel by carrying a PET bottle filled with darkparticulate matter from diesel vehicles.

The findings of this study contribute to the existing knowledge in several
ways. First, the paper has extended the implication of ‘linguistic turn’ to the issue ofenergy policy. It has been well established that taxation on fuel sources plays animportant part in conditioning people’s preference of energy source (Dahl, 2012;
Mayeres & Proost, 2013; Minjares et al., 2013; Nakata & Lamont, 2001; Plotkin,2001; Sterner, 2007, 2012). Although it is a single case study and discursive factor
may not have played a decisive part, this article has demonstrated that the exclusive
attention to taxation is not enough and embracing linguistic practice could be usefulin reconsidering the role of energy policy.
In terms of practical implications, this article indicates the necessity to takethe notion of interpretive policy analysis more seriously, which indicates theimportance of actual meaning involving public policy that could be complementary
to quantitative evaluation of cost and benefits of public policy (Yanow, 1999). This
analysis suggests, for example, that using a new artefact to promote diesel energy in
the Japanese car market may have helped to offset the stigma surrounding diesel. As
a result of recent innovations, diesel engines now emit far less particulate matterthan they used to, as represented by Mazda (Mazda website). In addition, Ishihara
left his post as TMG governor in October 2012. Thus, automakers have increased
opportunities to sell diesel vehicles in the Japanese market. However, as shown inthis paper, diesel vehicles are typically seen in a negative light in Japan, associatedwith a PET bottle containing particulate matter. In order to eliminate this stigma, it
may be crucial to rely on a new artefact. First, this artefact should relate to thenecessity to further reduce carbon emissions in keeping with the Kyoto Protocol.
This would justify the choice of diesel vehicles, as seen in major European countries.
Second, and more importantly, the artefact needs to distinguish new diesel vehicles
from those of the past, which emitted a significant amount of particulate matter.
While the article has provided insights into the examination of linguistic
elements of energy policy, this article has a clear limitation. It should be noted thatthe article cannot claim causality between TMG’s rhetoric and poor sales of diesel
passenger vehicles due to the lacking of direct evidence regarding TMG’s campaign
on consumer behaviour. Furthermore, the dissemination process seen in this paper
includes only the discourse observable from newspapers. Other media, including
television news programs, also reported the governor’s usage of a PET bottle. In
order to enhance the validity of this research, it would be helpful for future studies toaddress this issue.

References
Angermeyer, M. C. & H. Matschinger (2003). The stigma of mental illness: Effects

of labelling on public attitudes towards people with mental disorder. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 108 (4), 304–309.
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2014). Dirty work and dirtier work: Differences incountering physical, social, and moral stigma. Management and Organisation
Review, 10(1), 81-108.
Coopmans, C., Vertesi, J., Lynch, M. E., & Woolgar, S. (2014). Representation inscientific practice revisited. MIT Press.
Ellerman, A. D., Convery, F. J., & De Perthuis, C. (2010). Pricing carbon: theEuropean Union emissions trading scheme. Cambridge University Press.
Erkama, N. & E. Vaara (2010). Struggles over legitimacy in global organisational
restructuring: A rhetorical perspective on legitimation strategies and dynamics
in a shutdown case, Organisation Studies, 31(7), 813–839.
Fife, B. L. & E. R. Wright (2000). The dimensionality of stigma: A comparison of its
impact on the self of persons with HIV/AIDS and cancer, Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, 41(1), 50–67.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American politicalscience review, 98(02), 341-354.
Gerring, J. (2006). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge
University Press.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity, Prentice
Hall.
Hara, Y., Endo, T., & Kobayashi, H. (2015). The hidden abode of networkorchestration: The case of de-legitimated diesel cars in Japan. Industrial
Marketing Management, 49, 15-21.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and thesocial order. Routledge.
Latour, B. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. Knowledge
and Society, 6(1), 1-40.
Lopes, P. (2006). Culture and stigma: Popular culture and the case of comic books.
Sociological Forum, 21(3), 387-414.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: Responses toworkplace bullying trauma and stigmatisation. Organisation, 15(1), 97-119.
Mayeres, I., & Proost, S. (2013). The taxation of diesel cars in Belgium–
revisited. Energy Policy, 54, 33-41.
Minjares, R., Blumberg, K., & Sanchez, F. P. (2013). Alignment of policies tomaximize the climate benefits of diesel vehicles through control of particulatematter and black carbon emissions. Energy policy, 54, 54-61.
Nakata, T., & Lamont, A. (2001). Analysis of the impacts of carbon taxes on energysystems in Japan. Energy Policy, 29(2), 159-166.
Ocelík, P., & Osička, J. (2014). The framing of unconventional natural gas resourcesin the foreign energy policy discourse of the Russian Federation. Energy
Policy, 72, 97-109.
Paetzold, R. L., Dipboye, R. L., & Elsbach, K. D. (2008). A new look at
stigmatisation in and of organisations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1),186-193.
Parker, R. & P. Aggleton (2003). HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: Aconceptual framework and implications for action, Social Science andMedicine, 57(1), 13–24.
Philips, N. & C. Hardy (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social
construction, Sage.
Philips, N., T. B. Lawrence, & C. Hardy (2004). Discourse and institutions, Academyof Management Review, 29(4), 635–652.
Plotkin, S. E. (2001). European and Japanese fuel economy initiatives: what they are,their prospects for success, their usefulness as a guide for US action. Energy
Policy, 29(13), 1073-1084.
Schipper, L., & Fulton, L. (2013). Dazzled by diesel? The impact on carbon dioxide
emissions of the shift to diesels in Europe through 2009. Energy Policy, 54(1),3-10.
Scrase, J. I., & Ockwell, D. G. (2010). The role of discourse and linguistic framing
effectsinsustaininghighcarbonenergypolicy—An

accessible

introduction. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2225-2233.
Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Kunreuther, H. (Eds.). (2013). Risk, media and stigma:
understanding

publicchallenges

tomodernscienceandtechnology.

Routledge.
Sterner, T. (2007). Fuel taxes: An important instrument for climate policy. Energy
Policy, 35(6), 3194-3202.
Sterner, T. (2012). Distributional effects of taxing transport fuel. Energy Policy, 41,
75-83.
Vaara, E. (2002) On the discursive construction of success/failure in narratives ofpost-merger integration, Organisation Studies, 23(2), pp. 211–248.
Vaara, E., J. Tienari, & J. Laurila (2006) Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive
legitimation of global industrial restructuring, Organisation Studies, 27(6),789–813.
Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2004). Critical discourse analysis as a methodology forinternational business studies. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods forinternational Business, 342-359.

Vaara, E. & J. Tienari (2008) A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in
multinational corporations, Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 985–993.
Yanow,

D. (1999). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Sage

Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.

(Primary Sources)
BMW http://www.bmw.co.jp/ja/topics/brand-and-technology/diesel.html (Accessedon February 20, 2015)
European Automobile Manufacturers Association(http://www.acea.be/statistics) (Accessed on February 20, 2015)
Ford http://www.ford.co.jp/nouse-suvs/explorer/eco-boost1137383614970 (Accessedon February 20, 2015)
Honda

http://www.honda.co.jp/ecolabo-kids/ondanka/index5.html(Accessedon

February 20, 2015)
Isuzu, http://www.isuzu.co.jp/cv/topics/newfwdelf_02.html. (Accessed on February
20, 2015)Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association(http://jama-english.jp/statistics/index.html) (Accessed on February 20, 2015)
Mazda,

http://www.mazda.co.jp/beadriver/skyactiv/cleandiesel/storyofdiesel/?link_id=
cdmmenu. (Accessed on February 20, 2015)
METI,
http://www.meti.go.jp/report/downloadfiles/g50418b01j.pdf(Accessedon

February, 20, 2015)
Mercedeshttp://www.mercedes-benz.co.jp/content/japan/mpc/mpc_japan_website/ja/ho
me_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/e-class/_s212/fascination/bluet
ec.html (Accessed on February 20, 2015)
Mitsubishi

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/delica_d5/special/cleandiesel/(Accessed on February 20, 2015)
Nissan http://history.nissan.co.jp/X-TRAILCD/T31/1312/index.html (Accessed on
February 20, 2015)
The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association (2015) Yearbook ofNewspaper [Shimbun Nenkan], Nihon Shimbun Kyokai.
TMG

Environmental

Problem

Portal.

https://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/vehicle/air_pollution/diesel/index.html.
(Accessed on January 13, 2015)
Tokyo

Trucking

Association.

http://www.totokyo.or.jp/service/datefile/2004/totokyo.html(Accessedon

December 20, 2015)
Toyota http://toyota.jp/technology/powerunit/diesel/ (Accessed on February 20,
2015)
US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/) (Accessed on
December 20, 2015)

Figure 1 Diesel new passenger car registrations in EU 15 countries and Japan
Source: Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, European Automobile Manufacturers Association

$4.50$4.00

Gasoline

Diesel

$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00

Figure 2 Taxation on Gasoline and Diesel in EU 15 countries and Japan in 2010 (dollar per gallon)
Source: US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Figure 3 Image used for newspaper advertisement
Source: Tokyo Metropolitan Government (東京都提供)

Table 1 Data source and analytical focus
Primary Data SourceMacrostatistics(JapanFocus
Automobile

Manufacturers

Association,

European

The possible impact of taxation and TMG’s campaign

Automotive Manufacturers Association, US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, METI,

on extremely low acceptance of diesel passenger

The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association, 2015)

vehicles in Japan

Websites of passenger car manufacturers operating in Japan (Mazda, Honda, Toyota,
Suzuki, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes, Ford)
Major newspaper (Yomiuri shimbun, Asahi shimbun, Nikkei shimbun) articles

Rhetoric adopted by TMG which was complemented

TMG’s website

by a visualizing artefact

Table 2 Key summary of rhetoric adopted in stigmatization of diesel vehicles
LeafletTMG official report<Pollution level> Air pollution in Tokyo has not<Pollution level> In terms of particulate matter and NOx
been improved for the past decade. The level of NOx
containment in the air, which is predominantly from diesel cars, noand particulate matter contained in the air has beensignificant changes have been seen for ages (p. ii).
stable.
Rationalisation<Particulate matter emissions> A diesel car emits<Particulate matter emissions> Diesel and gasoline cars are
three times more particulate matter than a gasoline
responsible for air pollution in Tokyo. Almost 100 percent ofcar of the same size does.
Tokyo’s particulate matter and 70 percent of NOx comes from them
<Inflation and diesel> They say replacing diesel cars
(p. 9)
with gasoline cars in the trucking industry causes

inflation, but our estimate shows that a 740 JPY
parcel delivery price becomes 744 JPY.
<NOx and particulate matter regulation> In 1994, Japan first
introduced regulations with respect to the maximum emissions of<NOx and particulatematter regulation> The
particulate matter from diesel vehicles. However, the maximum

increasing popularity of diesel cars insomeamount was generous compared to that used in regulations ofEuropean countries does not mean that diesel cars
Western countries. In terms of maximum amount of emissions, Japan

Normalisation
are good for human beings. The increase in diesel

is 10 years behind Western countries (p. 2).
car usage is parallel to stricter regulations of<Lower tax rate for low-sulfur diesel> EU countries impose a lower
particulate matter emissions.
tax on low-sulfur diesel in order to encourage the diffusion of diesel
vehicles. Japan does not have this measure (p. 3).
Moralisation<Constructed diesel economy> Diesel cars are said

<Constructed diesel economy> People believe diesel cars are more

to be more energy efficient than gasoline cars.

economical, but this belief stems from taxation. The tax imposed on

However, this is constructed value because thegasoline per litre is 53.8 JPY, whereas that on diesel is 32.1 JPY.

increased efficiency is mainly derived from theThis has led to the “constructed” diesel economy (p. 10).

different rates of tax imposed on gasoline and diesel.
<Harmful diesel> Scientific research implies that diesel has a<Harmful diesel> According to the Environmental

harmful impact on the human body. This research is conducted by

Agency’s report (issued in April 1997), air pollution

the Japanese Ministry of Environment, German Ministry of(caused by NOx and particulate matter) may cause

Environment, Harvard University in the United States, Japanese

asthma.

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Dutch researchers, andAuthorisation

Prof. Ken Takeda at Tokyo University of Science (p. 13).
<TMG as saviour> In order to improve air pollution<TMG as saviour> Per tradition, the TMG asked the central

in Tokyo and protect Tokyo citizen’s health, thegovernment to take certain measures. However, the TMG has

Narrativisation

TMG launched “Operation No Diesel” in Augustchanged its attitude and is now taking measures on its own, shifting1999.

its approach to the central government in Japan (p. i).
<Inadequate response by the central government> Although thecentral government did not take appropriate measures to address the
problems associated with diesel cars, the TMG has been a pioneer inprohibiting the use of diesel cars that do not satisfy particulatematter emission levels since October 2003 (p. 15).

Source: TMG leaflets and TMG official report (TMG Environmental Problem Portal website, 2015)

Table 3 Temporal variation of newspaper coverage (The number of articles followed bypercentage in bracket)

Year∖Name

Nikkei

Asahi

Yomiuri1999

2 (13%)

8(27%)

16 (25%)2000

8 (53%)

11(36%)

22 (34%)

2001

n/a

1(3%)

6 (9%)

2002

3 (20%)

5(16%)

11 (17%)2003

2 (13%)n/a

4 (6%)

2004

n/a

2(7%)

n/a

2005

n/a

n/a

1 (2%)

2006

n/a

1(3%)

n/a

2007

n/a

n/a

1 (2%)

2008

n/a

1(3%)

2 (3%)

2009

n/a

n/a

1 (2%)

2010

n/a

n/a

n/a

2011

n/a

n/a

n/a

2012

n/a

1(3%)

n/a

SUM

15

30

64

Table 4 The usage of a 500 ml PET bottle containing diesel particulate matter
Dissemination

Illustrative examples (date)
Ishihara, the then-governor, questioned, “Do you know how many 500
ml bottles of particulate matter are emitted per day?” while carrying a
PETbottle

in

his

hand

(August27,1999).

While carrying a PET bottle, Ishihara explained, “This is particulatematter. 120,000 bottles of particulate matter are emitted in Tokyo in a
Presssingleday”(February4,2000).

conferenceShowing a PET bottle, the then-governor criticized countrywide
regulatory policy regarding environmental problems (February 13,2002).
Showing a PET bottle, the then-governor criticized the inadequate
governmental regulations as related to a judgment made that day
regarding an environmental court case (November 28, 2006).
The then-governor brought a PET bottle and begged executives of car

Meetingwith manufacturers, “Please do not kill our Tokyo citizens” (November 30,

relevant actors

1999).
Showing a PET bottle, the then-governor said to the then-prime

minister, “12,000 of these [= 500 ml PET bottle] are emitted in Tokyo,
in a single day,” illustrating the necessity to develop stronger
regulations (November 8, 2002).
Showing a PET bottle, the then-governor illustrated the necessity to
Television
combat environmental problems caused by diesel vehicles (several
advertisingmonths in 2000).
Showing a PET bottle, the then-governor illustrated the necessity toElectionfurther deal with environmental problems caused by diesel vehicles
campaign(several times in April 2003).
Showing a PET bottle at the Asian Network of Major Cities 21 held in
New Delhi, the then-governor illustrated the necessity to combat
particulate matter problems caused by diesel vehicles (November 22,
International

2002).

conference

Responding to a question regarding the effective penetration ofenvironmental policy at the Cities Climate Leadership Group Summit
held in New York, the then-governor took a PET bottle and said,“Showing this is most effective” (April 16, 2007).

Source: Yomiuri shimbun, Asahi shimbun, Nikkei shimbun newspapers

APPENDIX
Table 5 Sample of opinion survey concerning the perception of diesel cars (compared togasoline cars)
GenderMales (275 people, 55%) and females (225 people, 45%)

Age

Age: 20-24 (15 people, 3%), 25-29 (48people, 9.6%), 30-34 (113people,
22.6%), 35-39 (113people, 22.6%), 40-44 (99people, 19.8%), 45-49 (62people,
12.4%), 50-54 (27people, 5.4%), 55-59 (9people, 1.8%), 60-64 (10people, 2%),65-69 (10people, 2%), Over 70 (1person, 0.2%)

Source: METI website

Table 6 Summary results of opinion survey concerning the perception of diesel cars
(compared to gasoline cars)
Question

Results‘better’ (259people, 51.8%)

‘same’ (65people, 13%)‘worse’ (116people, 23.2%)

‘no idea’ (60people, 12%)

‘better’ (12people, 2.4%)‘same’ (38people, 7.6%)

‘worse’ (417people, 83.4%)

‘no idea’ (33people, 6.6%)‘better’ (34people, 6.8%)

‘same’ (44people, 8.8%)‘worse’ (382people, 76.4%)

‘no idea’ (40people, 8%)‘better’ (13people, 2.6%)

‘same’ (42people, 8.4%)

‘worse’ (403people, 80.6%)

Energy efficiency (asked whether diesel cares are‘better’, ‘same’, ‘worse’ or ‘no idea’ compared withgasoline cars)

Cleanliness of exhaust gas (asked whether diesel caresare ‘better’, ‘same’, ‘worse’ or ‘no idea’ comparedwith gasoline cars)

Impact on global warming (asked whether diesel caresare ‘better’, ‘same’, ‘worse’ or ‘no idea’ comparedwith gasoline cars)

Noise (asked whether diesel cares are ‘better’, ‘same’,‘worse’ or ‘no idea’ compared with gasoline cars)

47


Source: METI website

48‘no idea’ (42people, 8.4%)