IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v207y2025ics1364032124006865.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competing terms for complementary concepts? Acceptance and legitimacy

Author

Listed:
  • Alsheimer, Sven
  • Schnell, Tamara
  • Chlebna, Camilla
  • Rohe, Sebastian

Abstract

The large-scale deployment of low-carbon energy technologies – such as wind power plants, heat pumps, or battery storage – is crucial for reducing CO2 emissions and limiting climate change. The success of this transition depends on how these technologies are perceived by civil society and whether key societal stakeholders support or oppose their roll-out. Two major debates addressing this issue revolve around the concepts of acceptance and legitimacy. Acceptance literature examines the drivers and levels of support of novel technologies. Legitimacy literature captures how these technologies are aligned to their institutional environment. Thus far, there is little cross-fertilisation between the two debates. This contribution conducts a systematic literature review of the two research streams to gain a better understanding of how the social dynamics of low-carbon energy technology deployment are conceptualised. The review involved the analysis of 240 articles from SCOPUS that empirically studied the acceptance or legitimacy of low-carbon energy technologies. The findings suggest that the two literature strands are indeed rather disconnected – few articles use both concepts conjointly. They further illustrate that both have distinct research foci and intellectual roots. Acceptance studies tend to focus on individual perspectives towards specific technologies and relate these to the individuals’ backgrounds. In contrast, legitimacy studies tend to focus on the overall alignment of specific technologies or entire innovation systems with the institutional context. Based on its findings, this study proposes a framework to allow for a better understanding of the dynamic interplay between macro-level legitimacy evaluations and micro-level acceptance evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Alsheimer, Sven & Schnell, Tamara & Chlebna, Camilla & Rohe, Sebastian, 2025. "Competing terms for complementary concepts? Acceptance and legitimacy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:207:y:2025:i:c:s1364032124006865
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032124006865
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114960?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:207:y:2025:i:c:s1364032124006865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.