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

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of the key features of the illustrative case study objects.

	Finland	France	Sweden
Repository construction licence	Granted in 2015	Application to be submitted	Decision pending approval
Project implementer	Posiva, a joint NWM company of the nuclear operators	Andra, a state agency for NWM	SKB, a joint NWM company of the nuclear operators
Independent technical oversight	None	National Review Board; Local Information and Oversight Committee (CLIS)	National Council for Nuclear Waste
Conflict/consensus concerning the repository project	Little opposition and conflict, either locally or nationally	Persistent conflict and controversy, especially at local level; complex state-local relationships	Minor, non-violent and ‘reasoned’ opposition, mainly by national NGOs; party-political manoeuvring at the final decision stage
Formal local approval for the project	Necessary, obtained in 2000	Not needed	Necessary, obtained in 2020
Nuclear energy policy	Fifth reactor to go on line in 2022, sixth planned; nuclear ∼35% of electricity	One reactor under construction Nuclear share of electricity to be brought down from 70% to 50% by 2035	No new-build underway or planned; nuclear ∼30% of electricity
Generalised and institutional trust	High-trust society	Society of mistrust	High-trust society
Historically constituted bases of democracy	Trust-based democracy	Mistrust-based (liberal) democracy	Trust-based democracy
Location of repository	Medium-sized municipality (9000 inhabitants), hosting a nuclear power plant	Very small, rural, and remote community	Medium-sized municipality (22 000 inhabitants) hosting a nuclear power plant
Characteristics of the host region/municipality	Prosperous, thanks to nuclear industry	Demographically and economically declining since the 1970s	Prosperous, thanks to nuclear industry