O'Neill, EoinEoinO'NeillDevitt, CatherineCatherineDevittLennon, MickMickLennonDuvall, PhoebePhoebeDuvallAstori, LauraLauraAstoriFord, RuaidhriRuaidhriFordHughes, CiaranCiaranHughes2019-05-092019-05-092018 Taylo2018-04-01Environmental Communication1752-4032http://hdl.handle.net/10197/10370Policy reform can be complex and fraught with contending arguments. Although much research has been conducted into the politics of coalition formation, less attention has been devoted to legitimating logics in policy reform. Drawing on the work of Boltanski and Thévenot, this exploratory study addresses this deficit by examining the influence of justifications deployed in policy debates. The paper analyses the role of shifting reasoning in contentious debates concerning attempts to reform water policy, including the introduction of domestic water charges in Ireland. Employing data from parliamentary deliberations, the paper traces the changing forms of justification used by those favouring and opposing the reforms. This examination suggests the importance of aligning an argument’s content with the shifting context into which it is introduced. The paper highlights the benefits of an investigative approach concerning policy justification for understanding policy reform dynamics at the intersection of politics and environmental communication.enThis is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Environmental Communications on 1 April 2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17524032.2018.1429478Policy reformEnvironmental communicationEnvironmental policyWater chargesPolicy justificationJournal Article12445146110.1080/17524032.2018.14294782018-10-30https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/