Mitigating Social and Institutional Factors in the Implementation of Photovoltaic Projects in Ghana

Abstract

The Ghanaian energy transition is progressing slowly. Despite considerable potential for renewable energy (RE), the share of RE in the national energy mix continues to fall short of the established goals. Existing literature mainly focuses on technical and financial factors, while social and institutional factors remain underexplored. This research addresses that knowledge gap by empirically exploring which stakeholders are involved and which social and institutional factors influence the implementation of PV initiatives in Ghana. Additionally, this research seeks ways to overcome the constraining effects of these social and institutional factors.

The research combines a literature review with a qualitative single case study at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), where the size, geographical position and ongoing initiatives in the field of the energy transition offer an information rich case. Data was collected through 23 semi structured interviews with internal experts, external experts and end users, and supplemented by document analysis and site visits. The interviews were inductively coded and thematically analysed. The resulting factors were categorised into the circle of control, the circle of influence and the circle of concern, with the internal project team as the reference actor. This case is not representative of all Ghanaian PV initiatives, but does show in detail how social and institutional factors operate at the project level.

The stakeholder analysis shows a network of internal and external actors. Within KNUST, the University Council, the Directorate of Works and Physical Development and the Energy Consultant fulfil the most central roles, respectively determining the strategic direction, overseeing spatial integration and coordinating project implementation. The Procurement Office, Finance Office, internal experts, Maintenance Department and solar companies support the execution. At the national level, the Ministry of Energy, the Energy Commission, the EPA and the ECG determine the policy and infrastructural conditions.

The most frequently mentioned institutional barriers are bureaucratic procedures, cost prioritisation, unimplemented net metering, dependence on key actors and complex collaborations. These are counterbalanced by institutional enablers such as available project experience, internal expertise, centralised project governance, internal financing and supportive regulators. The most frequently mentioned social barriers are limited end user awareness, perceived limitations of PV, limited interest in sustainability, limited alignment with end user priorities and construction based nuisance. The main social enablers are perceived benefits of reliability, effective communication within the project team, institutional trust and perceived environmental benefits of PV.

The central analytical finding is that not all barriers should be treated in the same way. Factors in the circle of control are within the direct responsibility of the project team, factors in the circle of influence require indirect influencing through communication and collaboration, and factors in the circle of concern should be treated as external preconditions.