IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v27y2022i2p504-524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘It Is a Tradition in the Nuclear Industry . . . Secrecy’: Political Opportunity Structures and Nuclear Knowledge Production in France

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Schweitzer

    (Oklahoma State University, USA)

  • Tamara L Mix

    (Oklahoma State University, USA)

Abstract

Employing the example of France’s civil nuclear program, we connect political opportunity structures (POSs) to mechanisms of knowledge production, identifying how opposing stakeholders generate knowledge about a controversial technology. A history of nuclear dependence in France creates a context that praises, normalizes, and rationalizes nuclear energy while stigmatizing attempts to question or contest the nuclear industry’s dominant position. Integrating Bond’s knowledge-shaping process with Coy and colleagues’ concept of oppositional knowledge, we consider how the broader social, political, and economic context influences opposing stakeholder assessments of nuclear energy. Employing qualitative semi-structured interviews, we offer unique insight into the French nuclear debate, discussing the role of POS in shaping knowledge production.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Schweitzer & Tamara L Mix, 2022. "‘It Is a Tradition in the Nuclear Industry . . . Secrecy’: Political Opportunity Structures and Nuclear Knowledge Production in France," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(2), pages 504-524, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:27:y:2022:i:2:p:504-524
    DOI: 10.1177/13607804211025052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13607804211025052
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/13607804211025052?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saliha Hadna, 2017. "The Nuclear Safety Authority in France: A Dogma of “Independence” and Institutional Fragility," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 119-144.
    2. Yannick Barthe, 2009. "Framing nuclear waste as a political issue in France," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(7-8), pages 941-954, December.
    3. Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee & Annabel‐Mauve Bonnefous, 2011. "Stakeholder management and sustainability strategies in the French nuclear industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 124-140, February.
    4. Patrick G. Coy & Lynne M. Woehrle & Gregory M. Maney, 2008. "A Typology of Oppositional Knowledge: Democracy and the U.S. Peace Movement," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 13(4), pages 82-96, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chin‐jung Luan & Chengli Tien & Pei‐hua Wu, 2013. "Strategizing Environmental Policy and Compliance for Firm Economic Sustainability: Evidence from Taiwanese Electronics Firms," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(8), pages 517-546, December.
    2. Catherine Le Roux & Marius Pretorius, 2016. "Conceptualizing the Limiting Issues Inhibiting Sustainability Embeddedness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    4. Ye Cai & Hoje Jo & Carrie Pan, 2012. "Doing Well While Doing Bad? CSR in Controversial Industry Sectors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 467-480, July.
    5. Pablo Gomez‐Carrasco & Giovanna Michelon, 2017. "The Power of Stakeholders' Voice: The Effects of Social Media Activism on Stock Markets," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 855-872, September.
    6. Jennifer Adolph & Markus Beckmann, 2024. "Corporate sustainability strategy: From definitional ambiguity toward conceptual clarification," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4708-4729, July.
    7. Domenico Morrone & Rosamartina Schena & Danilo Conte & Candida Bussoli & Angeloantonio Russo, 2022. "Between saying and doing, in the end there is the cost of capital: Evidence from the energy sector," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 390-402, January.
    8. Anette Hallin & Tina Karrbom‐Gustavsson & Peter Dobers, 2021. "Transition towards and of sustainability—Understanding sustainability as performative," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1948-1957, May.
    9. Howieson, W.B. & Burnes, B. & Summers, J.C., 2019. "Organisational leadership and/for sustainability: Future directions from John Dewey and social movements," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 687-693.
    10. Ajay Kumar & Jyotirani Gupta & Niladri Das, 2022. "Revisiting the influence of corporate sustainability practices on corporate financial performance: An evidence from the global energy sector," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3231-3253, November.
    11. Pasi Heikkurinen & Jukka Mäkinen, 2018. "Synthesising Corporate Responsibility on Organisational and Societal Levels of Analysis: An Integrative Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 589-607, May.
    12. Víctor Meseguer-Sánchez & Francisco Jesús Gálvez-Sánchez & Gabriel López-Martínez & Valentín Molina-Moreno, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability. A Bibliometric Analysis of Their Interrelations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Fabien Martinez & Ken Peattie & Diego Vazquez‐brust & Diego Vazquez-Brust, 2019. "Beyond win–win: A syncretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development," Post-Print hal-02887685, HAL.
    14. Gabriella D’Amore & Maria Testa & Luigi Lepore, 2023. "How Is the Utilities Sector Contributing to Building a Sustainable Future? A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainability Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, December.
    15. Theophilos P. Michailides & Michael G. Lipsett, 2013. "Surveying Employee Attitudes on Corporate Social Responsibility at the Frontline Level of an Energy Transportation Company," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 296-320, September.
    16. Saif Ullah & Ravi S. Mateti, 2021. "Do appearances deceive? The curious case of CSR activities and shunned companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 11-29, January.
    17. Grougiou, Vassiliki & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Leventis, Stergios, 2016. "Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and Organizational Stigma: The Case of “Sin” Industries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 905-914.
    18. Vinod Kumar & Zillur Rahman & A. A. Kazmi, 2016. "Assessing the Influence of Stakeholders on Sustainability Marketing Strategy of Indian Companies," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, September.
    19. Tiffany Cheng Han Leung & Robin Stanley Snell, 2017. "Attraction or Distraction? Corporate Social Responsibility in Macao’s Gambling Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 637-658, October.
    20. Anca Băndoi & Claudiu George Bocean & Mara Del Baldo & Lucian Mandache & Leonardo Geo Mănescu & Cătălina Soriana Sitnikov, 2021. "Including Sustainable Reporting Practices in Corporate Management Reports: Assessing the Impact of Transparency on Economic Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.

    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:sae:socres:v:27:y:2022:i:2:p:504-524. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.