Marloes Dignum and Aad Correljé, Delft University of Technology, Department of Values, Technology and Innovation, The Netherlands

May 2014

Shale gas exploration and exploitation suffers from public acceptance issues in large parts of Europe. It is seen as a challenge to extract shale gas and to benefit from its economic potential while preserving responsible stewardship of the environment and public health (Gregory et al., 2012). The 2010 report of the International Energy Agency argued that industry needed to earn a social license to operate (IEA, 2010). 

Yet, public resistance in some European states has increased since the publication of this 2010 IEA report. This raises the question whether such public acceptance is possible to achieve. What should a license to operate incorporate? Is it possible to formulate conditions under which shale gas exploration becomes publically acceptable? Is industry able to live up to such requirements? Is the public trust of companies and governments sufficient that they can believe their conditions will be adhered to? All these questions should be addressed when discussing socially responsible shale gas exploration.

In our research we believe that public acceptance will originate from the differences in values that are important to different stakeholders (Correljé et al., 2015). In this approach the identification of values forms the key to addressing public acceptance and to engaging in socially responsible innovation.

In this approach the values of the different stakeholders need to be identified. The values of a specific stakeholder are important in determining the lens through which they view the world and developments in the world. Their values determine the norms of this stakeholder and what new world developments should entail. For example, discussion of a technological design that includes and respects the values of a stakeholder will provide input that can help to formulate more widely supported options (Van de Poel, 2013).

In order for such an approach to work, an open discussion between stakeholders is essential. To achieve such an environment it is important that public resistance is taken seriously. Public resistance is often seen as something to overcome; as a barrier that hinders a project from proceeding. When public resistance is approached in this way, however, the goal becomes to guide the perceptions and actions of stakeholders. At the same time emotions can form a manifestation of ethical insight and as such should be taken seriously (Roeser, 2011). 

In the search for choices, it is crucial to keep all options open. In this respect it is important not to pay attention solely to the technological possibilities, but also to include the views of all relevant stakeholders and the institutional design that accompanies a new technology. Each of these three aspects are essential for engagement in responsible innovation (Taebi et al, 2014).

Technological design can help to accommodate societal concerns. Sometimes such a solution can be clear and immediate. For example, the recycling of water from fracking fluid processing reduces the need for fresh water. Technical adaptations can also create trade-offs between different societal concerns. For example, the use of drinking water instead of surface water can eliminate the need for biocine in the fracking fluid to eliminate bacteria. Such a measure addresses the tension between two aspects that create societal concern: the use of large quantities of fresh water and the use of chemicals (BIO Intelligence Service, 2013).

The second issue is the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, including local citizens, municipalities, industry, and NGOs. It is important to gain understanding of the relevant social values and the value conflicts between stakeholders. For example, by analyzing arguments that are put forward in public discussion, insight can be gained into the values that are important to the different stakeholders (Correljé et al, forthcoming). 

It is also important to provide insight into the dynamics of the debate between the stakeholders, both in respect of the nature of the arguments put forward, as well as the (dis)appearance of arguments. Attention should be paid to how procedures for participation are put in place, ensuring they create an atmosphere that facilitates constructive dialogue. Ideally, such a dialogue should start early in the design process, before contestation has arisen and parties have become locked into their arguments. 

Such stakeholder dialog should be open to any outcome. Nevertheless, the interpretation of ‘facts’ and the scope of the dialog will differ among various stakeholders. One the one hand, it is preferable to reach agreement on such issues, for example through a procedure of joint fact-finding. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that agreement will always be reached, in which case, possibly, a trade-off can be achieved between different values and preferences.

The third issue is incorporating the relevant institutions into the design process. Institutions such as legal, standard, and regulatory bodies, as well as customs, traditional and routine institutions, are often geared towards the support of existing habits and practices. They should adapt to adequately accommodate the characteristics of innovation. To adequately cover new aspects of shale gas exploration, the relevant institutions should be (re)designed in accordance with the values of the stakeholders. These adapted institutions should also include procedural aspects such as reliability, transparency, and accountability. Obviously, stakeholders should be certain that these rules and regulations are executed with integrity.

Socially responsible innovation requires the participation of stakeholders and the accommodation of their values. In the participatory process, it is important not to consider public resistance as something to be overcome. The process should aim to create procedures, institutions and a technological design that generates societal support. An important starting point is to identify the values that matter.

References

BIO Intelligence Service (2013) Analysis and presentation of the results of the public consultation "Unconventional fossil fuels (e.g. shale gas) in Europe, Final report prepared for European Commission DG Environment; Accessed: February 27, 2014.

Correljé, A., Cuppen E., Dignum M., Pesch U., Taebi B. (2015) Responsible Innovation in Energy Projects: Values in the Design of Technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions. In Responsible Innovation. Volume II, edited by J. Van den Hoven, E. J. Koops, H. A. Romijn, T. E. Swierstra and I. Oosterlaken: Springer

Gregory K.B., Vidic R.D., Dzombak D.A. (2012) Water management options accociated with the production of shale gas by hydrolic frackturing, Shale Gas Information Platform; Accessed: February 27, 2014

IEA (2010) Golden Rules for a golden age of gas, World Energy Outlook- Special report on unconventional gas; Accessed: December 23, 2013

Roeser S. (2001) “Nuclear Energy, Risk, and Emotions”, Philosophy & Technology, 24:197-201.

Taebi B., Correljé, A., Cuppen E., Dignum M., Pesch U. (2014) Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: the need for interdisciplinary research, Journal of Responsible Innovation.

Van de Poel I. (2013) Translating values into design requirements, in Philosophy and Engineering: Reflections on Practice, Principles and Process, D. Mitchfelder, N. McCarty, and D.E. Goldberg, Editors. Springer: Dordrecht. pp 253-266