The West Burton Protest and Civil Society Dialogue

Report to EDF Energy Stakeholder Advisory Panel by Will Hutton, Tamara Ingram and Ingrid Simler QC

August 2013

Contents

Executive summary ...... 3 Background and context ...... 5 Protest at West Burton ...... 5 Legal action ...... 5 Settlement and sentencing ...... 5 The Civil Society Dialogue ...... 7 Summary of responses and key themes ...... 8 Considerations and recommendations ...... 11 Changing EDF Energy protocols to better manage protest situations ...... 11 Changing perceptions of EDF Energy’s position ...... 11 Facilitating better dialogue ...... 12 Facilitating safe and non-disruptive demonstrations ...... 13 Better utilising social media ...... 14 Appendix A – Examples of reaction to the lawsuit ...... 16 Appendix B – EDF Energy press release announcing settlement ...... 19 Appendix C – EDF Energy press release following sentencing ...... 21 Appendix D – Civil Society Dialogue Panel Members ...... 22 Appendix E – List of individuals and organisations that responded to the Civil Society Dialogue ... 23

1. Executive summary

In October 2012, a number of climate change protesters from the ‘No Dash For Gas’ environmental protest group breached the perimeter of EDF Energy’s new CCGT power station at West Burton. Considerable disruption was caused, and the plant was temporarily shut down for safety reasons. Following the arrest of the protestors, EDF Energy pursued legal action, including a civil claim for damages of £5 million. The decision caused considerable outcry – not just from environmental campaigners, but also from the wider public, customers and some of EDF Energy’s key stakeholders.

In light of this, EDF Energy asked us to lead a dialogue, the aim of which was to establish what protocols should guide EDF Energy’s response to such situations in the future. We also considered practical steps that could be taken to minimise the risk of disruptive or dangerous protest, including how EDF Energy can better develop an open and constructive dialogue with objectors. Following discussion with a number of stakeholders across industry, media and politics, as well as environmental campaign groups, this report sets out our recommendations.

First, EDF Energy can reasonably claim to be the most committed of the large energy producers to low carbon energy production and sustainability. That does not mean it cannot be a target for protest, but at the very least protestors should know more about the character of the company against which they are protesting. The responsibility for communicating EDF Energy’s commitment to sustainable energy production and ensuring it is understood by the wider public can only be EDF Energy’s. A clear vision of EDF Energy’s role in a sustainable future, and how it will get to this point, should be articulated more consistently. To support this, all EDF Energy staff must fully understand the company’s commitment and vision, and the company should do all it can to ensure their buy-in so that at crisis moments like West Burton there is a shared value system informing policy. In addition, improved internal communications will ensure that all views can be considered before responding to protest situations, and that a coherent message can be communicated once a decision is taken.

Second, EDF Energy should take steps not only to engage with environmental campaigners, but actively to facilitate discussion. Serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a forum for discussion between EDF Energy and the environmental movement. EDF Energy should take the lead in establishing this forum, and should facilitate it on an ongoing basis. Senior representatives of EDF Energy should be involved, to demonstrate that the company is serious about meaningful, open, dialogue. Although there are strong views on both sides of this debate, both sides should show willingness to listen to new information, evidence and argument and be prepared to move position in response, where appropriate.

Third, EDF Energy has both statutory and commercial obligations to provide electricity to the UK’s grid and to its customers. The West Burton protest meant that the development of of the plant was interrupted, with total losses to EDF Energy reaching an estimated £5 million. Nevertheless, the company also respects the right to lawful and peaceful protest. The twin objectives – of sustaining electricity supply and respecting the right to lawful protest – plainly give rise to tension. Many consumers would regard their right to 24/7 power as being challenged by protestors whose objectives they may not share, or certainly not to the point they are left without electricity. The best practical response the company can offer is to look at all options for ensuring that its sites are secure. Its position must be that in the event of unlawful protest it will take and support whatever steps are required to regain control of its property – not for the sake of ownership itself but because only thus can it supply electricity to those dependant on it. Furthermore, EDF Energy should ensure that it respects lawful protest, as well as encouraging constructive dialogue.

Finally, EDF Energy should consider a new set of guidelines and protocols on the use of social media in these situations. Social media is increasingly important, so EDF Energy should ensure that it is always properly engaging in social media, particularly during a crisis. The company’s position – whatever that may be – must be articulated to reach a wide audience, and more must be done to engage with the public online. Furthermore, these protocols should be reviewed and improved on an ongoing basis.

2. Background and context

2.1 Protest at West Burton

In October 2012, a number of climate change protesters from the ‘No Dash For Gas’ environmental protest group breached the perimeter of EDF Energy’s new CCGT power station at West Burton, Nottinghamshire, UK. The group established a ‘camp’ inside a chimney, and stated its intention to remain there for a week to highlight its opposition to the construction of further gas fired power stations in the UK.

The power station, whilst not fully operational at the time, was undergoing testing and supplying power to the National Grid. The station was temporarily shut down following the breaching of the site. Following the protest, which lasted for around a week, a number of protesters were arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass. In February 2013, 21 campaigners from ‘No Dash for Gas’ admitted aggravated trespass in court.

2.2 Legal Action

In February 2013, EDF Energy announced its intention to take legal action against the protestors. Damages and costs as a result of the protest were estimated to be in the region of £5 million, and EDF Energy launched a civil claim for this amount.

The decision to take legal action caused considerable controversy. ‘No Dash For Gas’ claimed that some of the protesters faced losing their homes as a result of the damages case, as well as bankruptcy. The group established a website to encourage energy users to switch to alternative suppliers, and to criticise EDF Energy for its “corporate power” and “rip off energy prices”.

Wider social media commentary was similarly critical. Many people who claimed to be EDF Energy customers tweeted angry reactions, and stated their intention to switch energy supplier because of the legal action. A Facebook page was set up, attracting considerable interest. Further protests – including at EDF Energy’s headquarters in London – were organised via social media.

An online petition criticising EDF Energy was signed by over 64,000 people. High profile support for the activists was given by prominent figures including Noam Chomsky and Richard Dawkins.

The decision also attracted significant amounts of national media coverage. The case was reported by major broadcast media, and attracted strong criticism from a number of commentators: George Monbiot, for example, described the lawsuit as “vengeful”, and “corporate and PR suicide” in his Guardian blog.

A selection of responses to the lawsuit from environmental groups, print and social media can be found at the end of this document – please see Appendix A.

2.3 Settlement and sentencing

In March 2013, following negotiations with the protestors’ lawyers, an offer was made to settle the civil case. EDF Energy announced that it would not pursue its civil damages claim (see Appendix B for EDF Energy’s press release in full). The protestors had already pleaded guilty in court to aggravated trespass; in return for EDF Energy dropping its civil damages claim they now agreed to accept a permanent injunction preventing them from entering multiple EDF Energy sites.

In June 2013, the protesters received community service orders or conditional discharges (see Appendix C for EDF Energy’s press release following sentencing).

3. The Civil Society Dialogue

EDF Energy has been clear that its aim throughout was to protect a vital infrastructure project from dangerous and costly disruption, whilst ensuring safety was maintained. The company also said that whilst it respected the right to hold differing viewpoints and to protest lawfully, in this instance the law was broken, safety was put at risk and hundreds of West Burton workers were forced off site.

However, EDF Energy is also aware that its response to the protest uncovered some important areas where the business’s practices and protocols could be improved. Whilst the protestors broke the law, caused significant disruption, and put themselves and site workers in danger, some may argue that the decision to sue was not helpful, and that alternative responses should have been considered.

There is a lot of common ground between EDF Energy and the protestors in terms of their commitment to tackling climate change. It is clear that many of the protestors and indeed the wider public are unaware of the fact that EDF Energy is a very significant investor in the UK’s low carbon future, and also has a robust sustainability programme. This is regrettable.

After the legal case and the criticism it had received the company decided that it needed to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and individuals to discuss two key challenges: how best to respond to future protests, and how to increase public awareness of its contribution to reducing UK carbon emissions.

Thus in March 2013, at the time of the settlement of the civil claim, EDF Energy announced a ‘Civil Society Dialogue’, through which representatives of civil society, including environmental campaigners, were invited to discuss how the company could best address the issues presented at West Burton, and develop protocols which would guide its response to such protests in future.

In April 2013 a number of stakeholders were contacted, inviting them to contribute their thoughts on the following questions:

What protocols should guide EDF Energy’s response to such situations in the future? Are there practical steps that can be taken that would help to minimise the risk of protest or that a protest is disruptive or dangerous? How can EDF Energy better develop an open dialogue with objectors? Are there actions or forms of communication that could ameliorate concerns or the likelihood of disruptive and dangerous protest? Even if conflict and protest are inevitable, are there rules that should inform or change EDF Energy’s responses? What actions would you recommend the company take?

The stakeholders invited to contribute included ministers and other elected representatives, industry bodies and competitors, the police, environmental campaign groups and charities, and representatives of EDF Energy.

The consultation period ended on 6 June 2013. The information gathered has underpinned our review during the past several weeks. The process was led by Will Hutton, Chairman of EDF Energy’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel, alongside fellow Panel member, Tamara Ingram. We have also been supported by Ingrid Simler QC, who has provided legal counsel. 4. Summary of responses and key themes

We are grateful to all of those who took the time to respond to the call for evidence. Information was received from Members of Parliament and Ministers, environmental campaign groups (including those associated with key EDF Energy sites – Hinkley Point and Sizewell), sustainability organisations and staff at West Burton. A response was also received from No Dash For Gas.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the responses differed greatly in their approach and suggested recommendations with some more enthusiastic about a constructive dialogue than others. However, a number of common themes emerged.

First, most consider that EDF Energy could do more to engage civil society in general. There is a perception amongst some that West Burton was ‘imposed’, without proper engagement with the public and interested stakeholders. In fact, there was considerable public consultation that preceded the building of West Burton, but this was focused on the local community as opposed to wider groups, including environmental campaigners. As one respondent stated:

“Stakeholder engagement must be a key ingredient guiding EDF Energy’s substantive strategic choices. The stakeholder engagement panel that Will Hutton is running is an important asset in developing and stress-testing any future vision for the company. It should be equipped to do more than respond to these challenges after they arise, and it perhaps needs a more challenging mix of stakeholders to engage in effective dialogue, so that EDF Energy can better understand its position relative to the wider society, and recognise in advance how a situation like West Burton might arise and plan appropriately.”

A proper dialogue is of course contingent on genuine participation and engagement by both sides of the argument. Although some respondents felt that EDF Energy was failing to engage, others felt that an unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion was a feature of both sides, including many protest groups. Whatever the reason, there was widespread agreement that dialogue was lacking.

To start with, both sides need to be realistic about what is achievable. No Dash for Gas rightly told us that “the first rule of dialogue is to listen to and understand the other side’s position”. However, the group went on to say that unless every aspect of its argument was accepted and acted upon – in other words, unless EDF Energy immediately stopped generating electricity using gas – then the dialogue was not meaningful and the company was not listening:

“[EDF Energy needs to] do a few sums, realise that new gas power stations are a terrible idea, and start decommissioning the plant immediately.”

No Dash for Gas genuinely believes gas fired power stations are a terrible idea. EDF Energy does not. In a democracy the only way to resolve diametrically opposite views is for both sides to put their argument and evidence to each other and to allow public opinion to adjudicate. No Dash for Gas’s position as presented is non-negotiable: hardly conducive to argument and dialogue. It would likely say the same of EDF Energy’s position – but at least EDF Energy can and does plead in mitigation that West Burton could only be built after extensive public consultation.

The position reflects a tension that is often found in politics: that intensely held views of a minority can conflict with the desires of a much larger but less vocal majority. Finding a balance between the two can be difficult: in this case it is clear that many people are not strongly opposed to gas, as are the protestors. Perhaps they would if exposed to the arguments, which is the purpose of dialogue; on the other hand EDF Energy might succeed in persuading the wider public that its position is the right one. Dialogue only works as a mechanism if both sides are willing to engage in listening to the other side – in evidence-based discussion, and reasoned debate. EDF Energy cannot speak for its interlocutors obviously. But it can signal that this is the spirit with which it is approaching dialogue.

Second, several respondents suggested that EDF Energy could have done more, specifically once the protest had happened and in its aftermath, to be open and transparent. The events that followed the protest at West Burton resulted in significant negative reaction from a range of stakeholders, particularly on social media. During this time, arguably for a number of perfectly understandable reasons, EDF Energy did not proactively engage – be that through public statements, press releases, engagement on social media and so on. This resulted in a perception that EDF Energy was not listening. According to one respondent:

“This is not protest on a personal level; it is against policy and is being taken by people who are frustrated that they are not listened to and are convinced that their arguments are the correct ones.”

The lack of comment from EDF Energy reinforced the view that the protestors, and their supporters and members of wider society to whom climate change is a hugely important issue, were not being listened to and were being ignored. As a result of its failure to talk openly and transparently about the protest and the consequential legal action, EDF Energy’s reputation suffered.

Third, EDF Energy should reflect on the fact that it appears that this protest was not really aimed at the company per se. Rather, the protest appears to have been aimed at highlighting a strongly held view that a new generation of gas-fired power stations will harm the environment, and as such represent bad policy.

On this issue, responses differed significantly. Whilst some of EDF Energy’s sustainability partners highlighted EDF Energy’s strong commitment to sustainability and decarbonisation, other respondents entirely ignored the company’s wider track record in terms of the low carbon agenda.

As such, it was clear from the evidence we took that EDF Energy’s credentials as a low carbon generator have not necessarily been communicated as well as they could have been to some audiences. It was felt by some that EDF Energy has not let wider society know how it envisages its role in a sustainable future, or its vision as a forward looking, sustainable, company. According to one respondent:

“Rather than looking at ‘how the company can best address these issues and develop protocols’ there should be a discussion about how the company can better understand its operating context now and going in to the future. We would always recommend that a business asks what is its contribution to a sustainable future? For EDF Energy the key question is how does the strategy reflect the needs of society and the huge environmental challenges we currently face? How is this communicated? What caused the protest in the first place and what might that mean for the future of the company? Developing protocols is an implementation task, there is need to articulate a long-term strategic vision and ambition first.”

The articulation of EDF Energy’s vision, and how it guides day-to-day decisions, was raised by another respondent:

“At the moment, whilst the company has many challenging goals and commitments, it is not clear how they guide decision-making and strategy, nor what sort of future those goals and commitments are working to build.”

The reality is that EDF Energy has a strong sustainability strategy, is a significant investor in low carbon generation – including renewables – and is proactively developing programmes to help consumers manage and reduce their energy use. However our commentators felt that even if this has been articulated throughout the company it is not clear that it has become embedded amongst all of EDF Energy’s staff. One respondent commented:

“There is also the danger that the sustainability strategy is not embedded throughout the organisation and managers on the front line struggle to balance longer term goals with immediate challenges. With a changing operating context EDF Energy might find fractures developing within the organisation if this is not addressed.”

In short, there can be no doubt that some fundamental changes should be made to the way in which EDF Energy acts and behaves, to avoid being the subject of criticism and demonstrations, to engage all sides of debates about its activities in meaningful dialogue, and to manage protest situations in future. We hope that this Civil Society Dialogue will prove to be a key part of the learning process.

5. Considerations and recommendations

5.1 Changing EDF Energy protocols to better manage protest situations

The protest at West Burton demonstrated some notable flaws in the way EDF Energy responds to a protest situation, both internally and publicly. One aspect of this was a failure to utilise social media and other communication channels effectively during and immediately after the protest to keep the public informed about what was happening, and the company’s position. Section 5.5 addresses this challenge in depth.

However the period following the protest also demonstrated some disconnect between the different functions and decision-makers in the business, which led to protestors being sued for £5 million. Ensuring the company is as joined up as possible in these scenarios can help to prevent lasting damage to its reputation and its relations with civil society.

Therefore, steps need to be taken to review how the company responds internally and externally in the event of a site protest. This should include scenario planning, clearer sign-off processes, improved negotiation work with protestors, and/or the establishment of a dedicated ‘protest response’ team, including company representatives from all key departments, including from operations, legal and communications.

5.2 Changing perceptions of EDF Energy’s position

To the protestors at West Burton, and indeed to many of those who criticised EDF Energy following the decision to take legal action, the fact that EDF Energy is a low carbon generator was broadly overlooked in this instance.

Gas generation makes up only a small percentage of EDF Energy’s portfolio, with the majority of generation being low carbon nuclear and renewables. The company has ambitious plans to expand its low carbon portfolio – including a new generation of nuclear power stations. Likewise it has invested heavily in renewable energy projects, particularly wind power. This summer saw the opening of Fallago Rig wind farm in the Scottish Borders – a project of considerable scale. EDF Energy also has significant investments in planned new offshore wind capacity.

Furthermore, West Burton was built using cutting edge technology and as such is carbon efficient, particularly relative to other gas-fired power stations.

EDF Energy’s position on emissions, sustainability and low carbon generation is strong. It is the UK’s leading low carbon generator. It has a strong sustainability strategy. Indeed, in Business in the Community’s Corporate Responsibility Index, EDF Energy is consistently placed as a sector leader.

However it is clear that this message has not necessarily been communicated as well as it could have been amongst some stakeholders.

EDF Energy should take renewed steps to ensure that its position and messaging on emissions, on a balanced energy mix, and on decarbonising our electricity sector are better understood by all of its respective stakeholders. EDF Energy has a clear and well-developed vision of its role in a sustainable future, and how it will get to this point; this needs to be more vigorously articulated.

For this vision to be communicated clearly, it will be crucial for everyone within EDF Energy to tell the same story. EDF Energy has a coherent message, but all staff – throughout all parts of the business – must understand the importance of explaining its position whenever possible. EDF Energy’s internal communications on sustainability are strong, but ensuring that the company’s sustainability vision is communicated more widely, and whenever possible, is paramount.

Having said that, the West Burton example perhaps demonstrates certain weaknesses in internal communications. Different teams within EDF Energy seem to have been operating independently without a shared understanding of the company’s position and approach. In order to prevent situations like that at West Burton from arising again, there should be better levels of liaison between operations and communications functions.

Protocols should be established to ensure that all relevant parts of the business are kept fully appraised in situations such as that at West Burton. Better internal communications will ensure that all views can be considered rapidly before responding to protest situations, and that coherent messages can be communicated once a decision is taken.

5.3 Facilitating better dialogue

EDF Energy has been clear throughout that it respects the right to lawful protest. However on key issues such as climate change, very strong views exist, which has at times led to illegal protest – including at West Burton.

There is a passionate climate change debate, and that is a positive thing. EDF Energy should continue to make a contribution to this debate and it should not do anything to stifle it. Instead, it must consider what measures can be put in place to encourage and facilitate this debate in a peaceful, lawful setting.

It is clear that there is an insufficient dialogue between those at different extremes of the spectrum. The challenge is to bridge the gap between these views in a meaningful and constructive way.

The response that we received from ‘No Dash For Gas’ made clear that the group felt strongly that EDF Energy was not listening to its views. That criticism is not just aimed at EDF Energy – the group also feels the same way about the Government. Nonetheless EDF Energy is a key player in the debate, and can do more to ensure that its role is a constructive one.

With this in mind, EDF Energy should give careful consideration to establishing an ongoing, regular dialogue where it can with all environmental groups, including ‘No Dash For Gas’, and also those groups opposed to EDF Energy’s nuclear operations. These could include national environmental groups, but also local groups around key sites – such as Shut Down Sizewell, and Stop Hinkley.

This could take the form of an open forum, hosted regularly (perhaps quarterly), at which EDF Energy actively engages in a meaningful dialogue with the environmental movement.

EDF Energy should take the lead in establishing and then in facilitating this forum. Crucially, should such a forum be created, senior representatives of EDF Energy should commit to being involved. The environmental movement feels that its arguments are not being listened to (by EDF Energy and others) – so a clear signal must be sent that the company is serious about dialogue, at senior levels.

EDF Energy should take steps not only to engage with environmental campaigners, but actively to facilitate discussion. Serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a forum for discussion between EDF Energy and the environmental movement. EDF Energy should take the lead in establishing this forum, and should facilitate it on an ongoing basis. Senior representatives of EDF Energy should be involved, to demonstrate that the company is serious about meaningful, open, dialogue.

5.4 Facilitating safe and non-disruptive demonstrations

Peaceful, lawful protest is a crucial part of any democratic society. It has a long history in the UK, and is cherished by civil society.

However the protest at West Burton was not safe – despite claims to the contrary by the protestors. It also caused a significant amount of disruption – the plant was shut down for several days, electricity to the grid was halted, and workers were sent home. Whilst the right to protest is an important part of an open and democratic society, utility companies also have a duty to deliver power to customers. Disruptions are damaging to the public interest, as much as the business.

To better manage this balance of rights and obligations, EDF Energy should review the arrangements that it has in place to facilitate safe and non-disruptive protest. There is likely more that can be done – and if disruptive protest is to be avoided wherever possible, careful consideration should be given to all options.

On a very practical level, this could involve creating more secure perimeters around EDF Energy sites. West Burton and other gas-fired power stations are not afforded the same level of protection as nuclear sites, which are protected by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. However West Burton demonstrates that such sites are vulnerable to disruption – so a review of site security (across all EDF Energy sites) should be conducted to identify practical measures that could be taken to strengthen perimeters.

Where perimeters are breached, the law will come into play. It is not in any way realistic for EDF Energy or any site owner, let alone the police, to “leave the protestors well alone and let them get on with it”, as No Dash for Gas demand. Entering private property without permission is trespass, and on legal, business and safety grounds any landowner affected is bound to take action.

Trespass is not by itself a criminal offence, but a civil wrong which entitles the person in possession of the land to have the trespasser removed. The police will usually take steps to encourage trespassers to leave voluntarily, though if necessary arrests could be justified if there are grounds to consider that the continuing presence of the trespasser might lead to a breach of the peace.

Likewise, a breach of the peace is not by itself a criminal offence, but the police have a power of arrest where there are reasonable grounds to believe a breach of the peace is taking place or is imminent.

Trespass on private land by those involved in protests can be criminal in a small number of cases, and the Secretary of State has powers to ‘designate’, in the interests of national security, certain sites.

Ultimately, it is possible that EDF Energy sites, which are of strategic national security importance, could be designated as protected so that all areas within the designation would give rise to strict liability trespass offences. The offence is that of entering or being on any designated site as a trespasser. There is no need for any damage or other unlawful action to occur.

Such a measure is potentially extreme, in most instances not necessary, and should only be used as a last resort. However, EDF Energy needs to be clear that in the event of unlawful protests including trespass it will take or support all legal steps required to regain control of its property.

Simultaneously, the company should do all it can to facilitate safe, non-disruptive protest. As an example EDF Energy should give consideration to identifying channels through which it can communicate openly with protestors or potential protestors, including potentially liaison points in the vicinity of each of its sites.

Such liaison points should if possible be selected in collaboration with, not independently of, environmental protest groups. An ongoing dialogue with these groups via such points and other channels should help to reduce danger and disruption associated with demonstrations.

EDF Energy should look at all practical options to ensure that its sites are secure, and where unlawful protest takes place it is clear that the company should support the police in the actions they take. However, as well as discouraging unlawful protest, the goal of EDF Energy should be to respect lawful protest, whilst encouraging dialogue; more thought must be given to this latter point.

5.5 Better utilising social media

The decision to take legal action against the West Burton protestors was covered widely in national media – both print and broadcast (see Appendix A for examples). However the majority of the fallout occurred on social media:

‘No Dash For Gas’, which was very publicly claiming that some of the protesters faced losing their homes as a result of the damages case, established a website to encourage energy users to switch to alternative suppliers, and to criticise EDF Energy for its “corporate power” and “rip off energy prices” Wider social media commentary was similarly critical. Many people who claimed to be EDF Energy customers tweeted angry reactions, and stated their intention to switch energy supplier as a result of the legal action A Facebook page was set up, attracting considerable interest An online petition condemning the decision was signed by over 64,000 people High profile support for the activists was given by prominent figures including Noam Chomsky and Richard Dawkins via Twitter Further protests – including at EDF Energy’s headquarters in London – have been organised via social media

21 February 2013 was the key day in the development of this story. The previous day, news broke on Channel 4 about the lawsuit against the West Burton protesters. That morning, several letters appeared in The Guardian defending the protesters and criticising EDF Energy for bringing the civil action against them. EDF Energy’s digital monitoring registered over 2,800 mentions online over the period of 21 and 22 February – with the bulk of those (over 92%) on Twitter. 90% of the conversation on Twitter was negative towards EDF Energy at this time.

There was an opportunity for EDF Energy to engage via social media. Responses for both Facebook and Twitter were drafted by EDF Energy by lunchtime on the day the letters appeared in The Guardian, but neither was used as talks with the defendants were ongoing and as a result there was some uncertainty about how to progress. The conversation and chatter around this topic was therefore mainly being generated by No Dash for Gas, Greenpeace and others opposed to EDF Energy.

There was an understandable rationale behind this – EDF Energy was in negotiations with the protestors’ lawyers, and the civil case was ongoing. However, a statement, video, FAQ on the website or response on Facebook/Twitter or another channel could have informed people of EDF Energy’s stance, and provided a place in which to discuss the issues. Creating a release valve – an official place where people can post comments and ask questions – is a good way to track sentiment, influence the character of the conversation and allow people to hear EDF Energy’s side of the story. Yet EDF Energy did not engage with social media during this time.

Meanwhile, a negative PR storm continued unabated, damaging EDF Energy’s reputation, with no rebuttal or statement from the company. Research suggests that social media engagement works. In research produced by Maritz and Evolve24, only 29% of people who had complained about a company reported receiving a reply. However of those, 83% liked or loved the fact that they received a reply. Furthermore, 22% of those who received a reply from a company they were complaining about reported posting a positive comment about that company as a result of having their complaint or query dealt with.

Based on this research, it is reasonable to assume that had EDF Energy answered some of the queries being posed via social media, the fallout would have been less significant. EDF Energy should consider a new set of guidelines and protocols on the use of social media in these situations.

On a basic level, EDF Energy should put in place advance plans for crisis situations; work to establish a clear set of codified plans, to ensure that it is prepared; and constantly keep its procedures under review. It needs to know when to react through appropriate media; acknowledge that it is listening and, crucially, provide a medium through which people can engage with the company – for example through creating an online ‘release valve’.

Throughout, all EDF Energy staff should be kept in the loop and be familiar with the company’s position. It’s critical to ensure that staff know what’s happening so that they feel that they have the company’s support. This way, they will understand what they can, cannot and should not say in the event of their being contacted by an interested party during a crisis situation.

Appendix A – examples of reaction to the lawsuit

George Monbiot’s Blog, The Guardian, 28 February 2013

Channel 4 News, 20 February 2013

Change.org petition

No Dash For Gas, Facebook page

Appendix B – EDF Energy press release announcing settlement

Statement on the West Burton protestors

13 March 2013

Following an offer we received from the protestors’ lawyers to settle the civil case, EDF Energy has been working to agree a compromise agreement acceptable to both parties.

The protestors, who have all pleaded guilty in court to aggravated trespass, have agreed in principle to accept a permanent injunction which prevents them from entering multiple sites operated by EDF Energy. As a result of this, EDF Energy is dropping its claim for civil damages against them and believes that this is a fair and reasonable solution.

Our aim was always to protect a vital infrastructure project - which forms part of a massive investment in the UK’s energy supply - from dangerous and costly disruption. We have held discussions with a wide range of stakeholders and listened carefully to the debate around this issue, including conversations on social media.

EDF Energy respects people’s right to hold differing viewpoints and to protest lawfully. Campaigners have staged peaceful and lawful protests outside some of our power station sites for many years. However, the group of protestors who broke into our West Burton site last year put their lives at risk and forced hundreds of workers off site.

The protestors are right to highlight that the challenge of keeping the lights on in Britain represents one of the most important issues facing the country. We will continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and individuals to explain our role in meeting the country’s future energy needs.

In that light, EDF Energy will invite relevant representatives of civil society – including environmental campaigners - to discuss how the company can best address these issues and develop protocols which will guide its response to such demonstrations in future. This will be led by Will Hutton, Chairman of EDF Energy’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel, alongside Panel member, Tamara Ingram. They will also be supported by an independent legal adviser. An advisory report will be presented to the independent Panel and the findings will be published in due course.

EDF Energy’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel was established in 2006, to engage with independent experts from relevant disciplines. The Panel provides a healthy challenge to our executive team and a strong voice for our stakeholders, helping to shape our business strategy.

We share the protestors’ commitment to tackling climate change. That’s why we have committed to reducing the intensity of CO2 emissions from our electricity production by 60% by 2020, and cutting the proportion of CO2 arising from our customers' energy consumption by 15% by 2020.

We are Britain’s largest generator of low carbon electricity and our plans to build four new nuclear reactors could generate enough low carbon electricity for about 40% of Britain’s homes. Last year, our nuclear stations avoided the emission of almost 41 million tonnes of CO2 which would have been produced if the same amount of electricity had been generated by fossil fuels. This is equivalent to removing 60% of all UK passenger cars off the roads.

We also strongly support renewable energy and have outlined plans for further investment in wind farms over the coming years. However, in order to keep the lights on in Britain, a mixture of energy sources is needed to provide reliable low carbon energy.

ENDS

Appendix C – EDF Energy press release following sentencing

Statement on the sentencing of the West Burton protestors

6 June 2013

Protestors who broke into the West Burton gas power station last October were arrested by Nottinghamshire Police and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. Today’s sentencing was solely a matter for the Magistrates’ Court.

EDF Energy’s civil case against the protestors was settled in March after they agreed to accept a permanent injunction preventing them from entering multiple EDF Energy sites. Following this agreement, the company dropped its claim for civil damages against the protestors.

EDF Energy has invited a range of groups and individuals – including No Dash For Gas - to discuss the company’s response to such demonstrations in future. This is being led by Will Hutton, Chairman of EDF Energy’s independent Stakeholder Advisory Panel, alongside panel member, Tamara Ingram. They will also be supported by an independent legal adviser. An advisory report will be presented to the Panel and the findings will be published in due course.

We share the protestors’ commitment to tackling climate change. That’s why we have committed to reducing the intensity of CO2 emissions from our electricity production by 60% by 2020, and cutting the proportion of CO2 arising from our customers' energy consumption by 15% by 2020. We are Britain’s largest generator of low carbon electricity and our plans to build four new nuclear reactors could generate enough low carbon electricity for about 40% of Britain’s homes.

ENDS

Appendix D – Civil Society Dialogue panel members

Will Hutton

Will Hutton is Principal of Hertford College, Oxford and is Chair of the Big Innovation Centre at the Work Foundation. Will Hutton is also a former Editor of The Observer and one of the UK’s leading commentators on social and political affairs.

Tamara Ingram OBE

Tamara is Group EVP and Executive Managing Director of Grey Global Group, as well as President of Team P&G. She has previously worked at Saatchi & Saatchi, becoming CEO in 1995, McCann-Erickson and Kantar. Tamara was previously chairman of Visit London. She was awarded an OBE in 2011 for her services to tourism.

Ingrid Simler QC

Ingrid Simler QC is a leading silk, recognised for her expertise across a range of areas including Employment Law, Tax Litigation, Public and Administrative Law, and Human Rights. She is named as one of The Lawyer’s Hot 100 2013, and in June 2012 was honoured with the award for ‘Outstanding Achievement for services to the law’.

Appendix E – list of individuals and organisations that responded to the Civil Society Dialogue

Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP, Minister for Energy, Department of Energy and Climate Change John Mann MP, Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw (MP for the West Burton site) Theo Simon, Stop Hinkley Peter Lanyon, Shut Down Sizewell No Dash For Gas Graeme Bellingham, Director of CCGT Construction, EDF Energy Les Dodds, HS&E Manager West Burton, EDF Energy Polly Courtice LVO, Director, Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership Hugh Knowles, Principal Sustainability Advisor, Forum For The Future