The roles of the state and social licence to operate? Lessons from nuclear waste management in Finland, France, and Sweden

Healthy mistrust or complacent confidence? Civic vigilance in the reporting by leading newspapers on nuclear waste disposal in Finland and France

“…Internationally, Finland is often portrayed as an exemplary case of democratic and consensual governance of nuclear waste (e.g., OECD‐NEA, 2003). Long‐term preparation, clear definition of responsibilities, solid regulatory framework, and consistent implementation of the RWM management laid out in government decisions in 1978 and 1983 have been highlighted among the key reasons for the easy and nearly conflict‐free advancement of the repository project (Lehtonen et al, 2020; Vira, 2017; Vuorinen, 2008). The repository is to become operational in the 2020s.…”

“…The general democratic virtues of mistrustful “civic vigilance” are well‐known (e.g., Rosanvallon, 2006; Warren, 1999). In RWM, such potentially constructive forms of mistrust include “civic regulation,” whereby civil society exerts pressure on project promoters and implementers, for example, through safety regulation (e.g., Litmanen et al, 2017) or processes of Social Licence to Operate (Litmanen et al, 2016; Lehtonen et al, 2020); as well as active monitoring and surveillance of repository projects by the host municipalities (e.g., Elam & Sundqvist, 2009; Kari et al, 2021).…”

A nuclear real-world experiment: Exploring the experimental mindsets of radioactive waste management organisations in France, Belgium and Canada

“…Procedures for siting nuclear waste repositories regularly face deadlocks resulting from endless conflicts due to strong local and national opposition and the polarized positions of the stakeholders [1] , [5] , [6] , [7] . Selecting a site is also closely connected to social, economic and environmental constraints [8] , [9] . Variables such as regulatory structures, legal frameworks, societal acceptance (or the lack thereof), or the type of management, for example “non-transparent top down approaches”, can the influence nuclear waste implementation processes [1] , [8] , [10] .…”

“…Selecting a site is also closely connected to social, economic and environmental constraints [8] , [9] . Variables such as regulatory structures, legal frameworks, societal acceptance (or the lack thereof), or the type of management, for example “non-transparent top down approaches”, can the influence nuclear waste implementation processes [1] , [8] , [10] .…”

Trust, mistrust and distrust as blind spots of Social Licence to Operate: illustration via three forerunner countries in nuclear waste management

“…Given the highly conflict-and value-laden nature of NWM, involving extremely long timescales, with risk and safety as pervasive concerns, the state plays a vital yet complex role in NWM governance and often has a vested interest in promoting an SLO for NWM projects (e.g. Lehtonen et al 2020). Institutionalised trust may in such conditions reflect highly asymmetric power relations rather than genuine approval and ownership by the local community.…”