IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i10p1817-1827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability

Author

Listed:
  • Behnam Taebi

Abstract

New technology brings great benefits, but it can also create new and significant risks. When evaluating those risks in policymaking, there is a tendency to focus on social acceptance. By solely focusing on social acceptance, we could, however, overlook important ethical aspects of technological risk, particularly when we evaluate technologies with transnational and intergenerational risks. I argue that good governance of risky technology requires analyzing both social acceptance and ethical acceptability. Conceptually, these two notions are mostly complementary. Social acceptance studies are not capable of sufficiently capturing all the morally relevant features of risky technologies; ethical analyses do not typically include stakeholders’ opinions, and they therefore lack the relevant empirical input for a thorough ethical evaluation. Only when carried out in conjunction are these two types of analysis relevant to national and international governance of risky technology. I discuss the Rawlsian wide reflective equilibrium as a method for marrying social acceptance and ethical acceptability. Although the rationale of my argument is broadly applicable, I will examine the case of multinational nuclear waste repositories in particular. This example will show how ethical issues may be overlooked if we focus only on social acceptance, and will provide a test case for demonstrating how the wide reflective equilibrium can help to bridge the proverbial acceptance‐acceptability gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1817-1827, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:10:p:1817-1827
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12734
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12734?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. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    2. John S. Dryzek & Simon Niemeyer, 2006. "Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 634-649, July.
    3. Nick Pidgeon & Karen Parkhill & Adam Corner & Naomi Vaughan, 2013. "Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 451-457, May.
    4. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    5. Neelke Doorn, 2010. "Applying Rawlsian Approaches to Resolve Ethical Issues: Inventory and Setting of a Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 127-143, January.
    6. Ciupuliga, A.R. & Cuppen, E., 2013. "The role of dialogue in fostering acceptance of transmission lines: the case of a France–Spain interconnection project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 224-233.
    7. Claudia Basta, 2011. "Siting technological risks: cultural approaches and cross-cultural ethics," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(7), pages 799-817, August.
    8. Richard Cowell & Gill Bristow & Max Munday, 2011. "Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 539-557.
    9. Lennart Sjöberg, 2004. "Local Acceptance of a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 737-749, June.
    10. Sheila Jasanoff, 2004. "Science and citizenship: a new synergy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 90-94, April.
    11. Paavola, Jouni & Adger, W. Neil, 2006. "Fair adaptation to climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 594-609, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Otto Spijkers, 2018. "Intergenerational Equity and the Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, October.
    2. John Downer & M. V. Ramana, 2021. "Empires built on sand: On the fundamental implausibility of reactor safety assessments and the implications for nuclear regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1304-1325, October.
    3. Yuichiro Amekawa, 2023. "High-Level Radioactive Disposal Policy in Japan: A Sociological Appraisal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, May.
    4. Behnam Taebi & Jan H. Kwakkel & Céline Kermisch, 2020. "Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    5. Dupras, Charles & Birko, Stanislav & Affdal, Aliya O. & Haidar, Hazar & Lemoine, Marie-Eve & Ravitsky, Vardit, 2022. "Governing the futures of non-invasive prenatal testing: An exploration of social acceptability using the Delphi method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    6. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    7. Claudy, Marius C. & Parkinson, Mary & Aquino, Karl, 2024. "Why should innovators care about morality? Political ideology, moral foundations, and the acceptance of technological innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. Gauttier, Stéphanie, 2019. "‘I've got you under my skin’ – The role of ethical consideration in the (non-) acceptance of insideables in the workplace," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 93-108.

    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. Hyland, Marie & Bertsch, Valentin, 2018. "The Role of Community Involvement Mechanisms in Reducing Resistance to Energy Infrastructure Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 447-474.
    2. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    4. Claudy, Marius C. & Parkinson, Mary & Aquino, Karl, 2024. "Why should innovators care about morality? Political ideology, moral foundations, and the acceptance of technological innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    5. Yenneti, Komali & Day, Rosie, 2015. "Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 664-673.
    6. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    7. Kerr, Sandy & Johnson, Kate & Weir, Stephanie, 2017. "Understanding community benefit payments from renewable energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 202-211.
    8. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    9. Beau Warbroek & Thomas Hoppe, 2017. "Modes of Governing and Policy of Local and Regional Governments Supporting Local Low-Carbon Energy Initiatives; Exploring the Cases of the Dutch Regions of Overijssel and Fryslân," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-36, January.
    10. Lindvall, Daniel, 2023. "Why municipalities reject wind power: A study on municipal acceptance and rejection of wind power instalments in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    11. Lee, Min-Kyu & Nam, Jungho & Kim, Miju, 2023. "Valuing the public preference for offshore wind energy: The case study in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PB).
    12. Lagendijk, Arnoud & Kooij, Henk-Jan & Veenman, Sietske & Oteman, Marieke, 2021. "Noisy monsters or beacons of transition: The framing and social (un)acceptance of Dutch community renewable energy initiatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    14. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    15. Grashof, Katherina, 2019. "Are auctions likely to deter community wind projects? And would this be problematic?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 20-32.
    16. Bertsch, Valentin & Hyland, Marie & Mahony, Michael, 2017. "What drives people's opinions of electricity infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 472-497.
    17. Thomas, Heiko & Marian, Adela & Chervyakov, Alexander & Stückrad, Stefan & Salmieri, Delia & Rubbia, Carlo, 2016. "Superconducting transmission lines – Sustainable electric energy transfer with higher public acceptance?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 59-72.
    18. Rodrigo A. Estévez & Valeria Espinoza & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & Felipe Vásquez-Lavín & Stefan Gelcich, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Renewable Energies: Research Trends, Gaps and the Challenge of Improving Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Simón, Xavier & Copena, Damián & Montero, María, 2019. "Strong wind development with no community participation. The case of Galicia (1995–2009)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    20. Hoen, Ben & Darlow, Ryan & Haac, Ryan & Rand, Joseph & Kaliski, Ken, 2023. "Effects of land-based wind turbine upsizing on community sound levels and power and energy density," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:10:p:1817-1827. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.