Congress theme

Theme of the Twentieth RIODD Conference

Navigating Conflicts and Convergences: Unraveling the Dynamics of Social Acceptability in Socio-Environmental Transitions

The Anthropocene age marks a tipping point in the Earth system, the beginning of the great acceleration leading to the exceeding of planetary boundaries. International scientific expertise - the IPCC for climate change and IPBES for biodiversity - warns of the need for profound changes in our ways of living, eating, moving, producing, consuming, and living in general. However, the most recent data indicate that we have exceeded the 1.5°C warming threshold, while the great collapse of biodiversity is confirmed. Most planetary boundaries are thus exceeded. What is blocking progress?

Despite a multiplicity of public policies, sometimes considered timid, insufficient, or ineffective, adherence to socio-environmental transitions is regularly tested to the point of confrontation, marking the antagonism of positions and the limits of deliberation. The mobilization of the yellow vests in 2018 and the mobilization of farmers in several European countries in 2024 - to cite just these two examples - express the rejection of certain political measures in favor of socio-environmental transitions. The ability of public and private actors to design and implement fair and effective socio-environmental policies is severely shaken. The credibility of policies guided by sustainable development objectives is then regularly questioned. And with it, anticipations are revised so that the commitment of many actors is weakened.

Understanding the barriers to socio-environmental transitions must thus be put on the research agenda, which requires questioning the notion of social acceptability. However, to avoid the frequent drifts of instrumentalization of the notion, social acceptability should be analyzed in light of power dynamics and conflictual relationships inherent in socio-environmental transition processes. By exploring its multidimensional, processual, and contextual character and its links with notions of environmental justice, trust, power, and democratic deliberation, considering socio-technical lock-ins, can shed light on understanding the factors leading to truly inclusive, equitable, and effectively impactful socio-environmental transitions.

The specialized literature points to the importance of environmental justice (i.e., an equitable distribution of benefits, risks, and costs of change, but also the processes and rules of deliberation and decision-making) as a condition for social acceptability. However, the role of organizations has so far been very little analyzed. How can organizations contribute to establishing the legitimacy of change and creating conditions for the adherence of concerned actors? Through trust, democratic procedures, principles of environmental justice, and/or through constraint and sanction...? Does the reference to general interest and the state of necessity impact acceptability and thus the adherence of different stakeholders? Do certain forms of governance have a propensity to produce stronger transformative effects than others?

How does the organizational fact combine with structural, economic, technical, social, ideological, political, cultural, and psychological factors to condition the social acceptability of socio-environmental transitions? How do political and media powers condition or not social acceptability? A priori, one might think that open and inclusive forms where the power of capital is under social control (such as social and solidarity economy organizations or mission-driven companies) have a greater propensity to act in this direction. But is this really the case?

This 20th RIODD congress will therefore focus on the description and analysis of organizational modes that facilitate or block socio-environmental transitions in order to identify levers for action, by questioning the notion of social acceptability. It invites participants to address these questions through a diversity of approaches (theoretical and conceptual approaches as well as qualitative and/or quantitative empirical work) and in a plurality of perspectives (from the angle of actors promoting changes as well as those opposing them) and scientific disciplines. Particular attention will be paid to ongoing experiments where involved actors put social acceptability to work and seek original and innovative ways of doing things.

This congress thus invites a broad approach to phenomena, also taking into account the evolution of the geopolitical context, the multiplication of armed conflicts, the questioning of the rule of law, the polarization of our societies, the growing vulnerability of certain populations, in short, what makes us collectively accept the unacceptable. While the subject is of great topicality in Europe, the examination of historical cases and international comparisons will provide valuable insights.

Bibliographic References:

Alcantara C., Charest F., Lavigne A. et Saglietto L. (Dir.). 2023. L’acceptabilité sociale. Enjeux de société et controverses scientifiques. Paris : Presses des Mines.

Barbier, R., Jobert, A. (2023). Acceptabilité. In G. Petit, L. Blondiaux, I. Casillo et al. (Éds.), Dictionnaire critique et interdisciplinaire de la Participation, DicoPart (2ème édition). GIS Démocratie et Participation. https://www.dicopart.fr/acceptabilite-2023, 2023. hal-04175845

Batellier, P. (2015). Acceptabilité sociale : cartographie d’une notion et de ses usages. Cahier de recherche. Montréal : Les Publications du Centr’ERE (Centre de recherche en éducation et formation relatives à l’environnement et à l’écocitoyenneté). Montréal : Université du Québec à Montréal.

Boissonade, J., Barbier, R., Bauler, T., Fortin, M.J., Fournis, Y., Lemarchand, F., Raufflet, E. (2016). « Mettre à l’épreuve l’acceptabilité sociale », VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [En ligne], Volume 16 Numéro 1 | mai 2016, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.17163

Bordenave, C. et Nicolas, R. (2022). Acceptabilité des nouvelles infrastructures de transition énergétique : transition subie, transition choisie ? Avis du Conseil économique, social et environnemental sur proposition de la Commission permanente de l’environnement. https://www.lecese.fr/travaux-publies/acceptabilite-des-nouvelles-infrastructures-de-transition-energetique-transition-subie-transition-choisie

Depraz, S. (2016.) Le temps de l’acceptance. Acceptation sociale et développement des territoires. Dans S. Depraz (dir.), Acceptation sociale et développement des territoires. ENS Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.enseditions.5777

Dubuisson-Quellier, S., Jouzel, J.  (2022). Chapitre 18. Les mobilisations face aux organisations. Dans Borraz, O.  (dir.), La société des organisations. (p.291-301). Presses de Sciences Po. https://doi.org/10.3917/scpo.borra.2022.01.0291.

Fortin M.-J., Fournis Y. (2014). Vers une définition ascendante de l’acceptabilité sociale : les dynamiques territoriales face aux projets énergétiques au Québec. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 22 (3) : 231-239.

Fressoz, J.B. (2024). Sans transition : une nouvelle histoire de l’énergie. Paris : Seuil.

Gendron C. (2014). Penser l’acceptabilité sociale : au-delà des intérêts, les valeurs. Communiquer. Revue de communication sociale et publique, 11 : 117-129.

Gendron, C. (2023). L’acceptabilité sociale de la transition écologique : au-delà de la résistance au changement. Revue RIDO, 6 : 117-125.

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. The American psychologist, 66(4), p. 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566.

Renault, M. (2017) « Penser et élaborer des compromis. Une approche pragmatique de la responsabilisation sociale des organisations », in Chanteau J.-P., Martin-Chenut K. & Capron M. (dir), Entreprise et responsabilité sociale en question, Paris : Garnier, pp.123-140.

Yates S., Gendron C., Friser A. et Arpin M.-C. (2023). Les fondements de l’acceptabilité sociale. Dans C. Alcantara, F. Charest, A. Lavigne et L. Saglietto (dirs.), L’Acceptabilité sociale. Enjeux de société et controverses scientifiques (p. 15-31). Paris : Presses des Mines.