The PESTEL framework and its variants for analysing the strategic environment: Evolution, limitations and adoption in energy policy research

This paper examines the evolution and critique of the PESTEL framework (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Ecological, Legal) and its variants for macro-environment analyses. Variants include DESTEP, ETPS, LoNGPESTLE, PEST, PESTE, PESTEC, PESTEL, PESTLE, PESTLED, PESTLEEG, PESTLIED, SLEPT, SPELIT, STEEP, STEEPLE, STEEPLED, STEEPV, STEEPVL, STEPE, STIRDEEPER, TEEPSE, TELOS and probably many more. Initially developed within the field of strategic management of firms, the framework has gained prominence due to its simplicity and pedagogical utility. The framework is often applied in combination with other frameworks, such as scenarios, SWOT analyses, horizon scanning, and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). The PESTEL framework has demonstrated its adaptability to different fields and scholarly communities, including foresight and energy policy analyses. However, despite its popularity, the PESTEL framework has been criticised in the field of strategic management for being a simplistic checklist that lacks rigorous analytical depth. Using a systematic literature review, the paper investigates what insights can be gained regarding the transfer and adaptation of the PESTEL framework – and its variants - from the field of strategic management to other fields of research and application, particularly policy-oriented research in the energy domain. The study reveals patterns in the use of acronyms and highlights how to address critiques and limitations of the framework raised within the strategic management literature. Finally, the paper draws implications for scholars using the framework in policy-oriented studies as well as for journal editors and manuscript reviewers.